Disclaimer: This is not to offend anyone:
There is no proof that God is real;
I think that God was an idea to stop humanity to fall upon itself;
I think that without the idea of god, or any kind of religion, humanity would not have succeed as its has now;
This is all my ideas in my head, It may be wrong, may be based wrongly on my knowlegde.
I think that religion was a CREATION, I standby this until I am proven wrong.
shadowmasterx
<James007>
Made this topic the official topic for discussions on "God"
</James007>
To each his own, but I'm fairly certain mankind would have succeeded just as well, if not better, without religion.
Consider the Ancient Greeks. They were pretty cynical about Gods. It would not be accurate to say they were atheists - they still had some traditional ideas of deities - but many of the greek philosophers were pretty scathing about such deities.
Consider Aristotle: | Quote: |
"Prayers and sacrifices to the gods are of no avail"
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
"Men create gods in their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life." |
I could give plenty of other quotes but I trust you get the idea.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathp_greece.htm | ShadowmasterX wrote: |
Disclaimer: This is not to offend anyone:
There is no proof that God is real;
I think that God was an idea to stop humanity to fall upon itself;
I think that without the idea of god, or any kind of religion, humanity would not have succeed as its has now;
This is all my ideas in my head, It may be wrong, may be based wrongly on my knowlegde.
I think that religion was a CREATION, I standby this until I am proven wrong.
shadowmasterx |
Consider this. http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-42480.html 
P.S. Don't be afraid of religious fools and never give such disclaimers. If you believe in something be firm on it whether it offends someone or not. | ShadowmasterX wrote: |
| really? how?? |
How did religion allow humanity to succeed? People like Einstein still would have been just as intelligent without religion 'existing' (obviously true since Einstein wasn't a big fan of religion and he was one of the most intelligent people I know of). That's definitely a generic example, but I find it hard to believe mankind would have been in a ditch if we didn't have religion. Religion played a pretty useless role when it came to "succeeding" as a species. Religion also got in the way (and continues to do so) of many forms of research and education for decades and even centuries. | ShadowmasterX wrote: |
Disclaimer: This is not to offend anyone:
There is no proof that God is real;
I think that God was an idea to stop humanity to fall upon itself;
I think that without the idea of god, or any kind of religion, humanity would not have succeed as its has now;
This is all my ideas in my head, It may be wrong, may be based wrongly on my knowlegde.
I think that religion was a CREATION, I standby this until I am proven wrong.
shadowmasterx |
You're asking people with faith to prove to you that their faith is correct, which would defeat the meaning of faith. At no point can you ever say "this can't exist because there is no evidence of it", just as I cannot say "this must exist because there is no evidence that it doesn't."
It doesn't work that way, it never has, and it never will. Trying to argue it in that manner is folly and will get you nowhere.
After all, once upon a time scientists said there was microscopic organisms that caused diseases, they were laughed at because they had no evidence. I guess what I'm trying to say is, you might want to find another reason to say god doesn't exist or that he's a fabrication of mankind, and If you are unable to do so I would encourage you to analyze your world and figure out what it might mean to you.1. If there was any proof then god has failed.
2. Religion is a creation.
Ok, back to logics; Say that all there is is God - the he created himself in the religions.
BUT if there is a God - then he wouldn't be to happy - He created a bad version!
But there is still time to do a good version! Forever, God has forever to create a good version!
Hm, let say he did manage to do a great version of him self -> then it would be time to start over! LUCKY is to do a great version of God.
I was funny when I told to some chinese friends that i dunnot believe on any gods!! I it was kind of weird for them...
I think i have my spirituality in some way, it just don't have the name of a common god.
It's funny, I don't know how many times I've seen these kind of posts being posted, but it's never ending, and the discussion is already turning stale, for every point worth mentioning is already somewhere out there on other thread. Why waste time debating all over again on this thread? And anyways, I don't believe in any religion because they didn't give me a valid reason to.
| JinTenshi wrote: |
| It's funny, I don't know how many times I've seen these kind of posts being posted, but it's never ending, and the discussion is already turning stale, for every point worth mentioning is already somewhere out there on other thread. Why waste time debating all over again on this thread? And anyways, I don't believe in any religion because they didn't give me a valid reason to. |
Yeah I think we have a case of people needing to use the good 'ol search function. I'm rather sure there is already an official thread on this; not ganna lie.Religion was created to explain the unexplainable. Now that science is explaining many things more correctly and in a more predictable fashion, we have no need for religion anymore.
Though my friend, who I play poker with, does have a LOT of luck, always hitting royal flushes and straight flushes, and there's nothing that I can do about it. I calculated he wins 70% of the hands, regardless of how we play it. His hand always wins.
Ever thought he was cheating? LOL.
Yeah, some people are lucky, but somehow karma hits them in the face some time later. Either that or he had bad luck since young. Who knows right? Anyways, we don't need to explain the unexplainable, doesn't affect us much right? =X
| ShadowmasterX wrote: |
| really? how?? |
Religion causes nothing but problems. I can't seem to think of very many examples where religion actually did any good. How has it helped humanity? I makes many people feel better about death, but that's about all.To be honest there is no way to prove you wrong, only to prove you right. Anything fantasy based is solely the creation of man, therefore religion is a creation of man, and God is a creation of man. My beliefs are similair to yours and I agree completely with what you say. However, God being created was obviously a good thing since the fantasy adds a balance to people's lives.
Allah is the only GOD.
[MOD; Last image removed - too big for normal screen resolutions - Bikerman] Thanks for the enlightenment -.-
Please trim or resample images to fit the screen resolution (suggest 400x400 or less).
This message is for everfine99. I am taking your post a an emotional post. I am a devout Muslim. But I can not accept such orientation of cactus or patterns over bread as a message from the God (Allah). Cause Islam is a religion based upon logic. It is not any light religious belief which is based upon some mumbo-jumbo. Every theological principle is logical and can be approached logically. So its my advice that if you want to preach your belief then do it logically, not with some funky cactus.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Religion causes nothing but problems. I can't seem to think of very many examples where religion actually did any good. How has it helped humanity? I makes many people feel better about death, but that's about all. |
Man, all of this present world's technology and development were built on the foundations laid by the great religions. Even the concept of the dignity of the human person could not be possible if not for the idea that he/she is created for God. | ShadowmasterX wrote: |
There is no proof that God is real;
I think that God was an idea to stop humanity to fall upon itself;
I think that without the idea of god, or any kind of religion, humanity would not have succeed as its has now;
This is all my ideas in my head, It may be wrong, may be based wrongly on my knowlegde.
I think that religion was a CREATION, I standby this until I am proven wrong.
shadowmasterx |
Religion is as old as man. In fact, it came with the appearance of intelligent human beings. Archaeology proves that since time immemorial man already began worshipping -- it does not matter whether it was fire, or the mountain or the spirits -- he began worshipping because he realized even then that there was something bigger than existence itself. | liljp617 wrote: |
| To each his own, but I'm fairly certain mankind would have succeeded just as well, if not better, without religion. |
Well, I respect your opinion. But I think that it is the religion of men and women that is keeping both of us alive right now. | mgeek wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Religion causes nothing but problems. I can't seem to think of very many examples where religion actually did any good. How has it helped humanity? I makes many people feel better about death, but that's about all. |
Man, all of this present world's technology and development were built on the foundations laid by the great religions. Even the concept of the dignity of the human person could not be possible if not for the idea that he/she is created for God. |
When did the bible teach people how to go to space?
When did the bible teach people how to figure out DNA?
When did the bible teach people how to build sky scrapers?
When did the bible teach people how to cure many diseases?
When did the bible teach people how to make artifical limbs?
When did the bible teach people how to live longer up to 90?
When will the bible teach people how to cure aids and cancer?
When will the bible teach people how to stop people from killing each other?
| mgeek wrote: |
Religion is as old as man. In fact, it came with the appearance of intelligent human beings. Archaeology proves that since time immemorial man already began worshipping -- it does not matter whether it was fire, or the mountain or the spirits -- he began worshipping because he realized even then that there was something bigger than existence itself. |
No I think because they needed answers for things so they made them up
| mgeek wrote: |
| Well, I respect your opinion. But I think that it is the religion of men and women that is keeping both of us alive right now. |
And I think religion sometimes kills
If the bible does so many things? How could have it gotten the shape of the earth so wrong?
Also how nature works. And it stopped intelectual devopment in the west for a 1000 years. If most of what was written in the bible would be foundation for todays works we wouldn´t even have a functional plane.
Lastly you aren´t supposed to double post (post two responses in a row) and certainly not triple post. Instead use `edit` and put everything want to ad in the last post (unless some one has posted a new post after your post). | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| mgeek wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Religion causes nothing but problems. I can't seem to think of very many examples where religion actually did any good. How has it helped humanity? I makes many people feel better about death, but that's about all. |
Man, all of this present world's technology and development were built on the foundations laid by the great religions. Even the concept of the dignity of the human person could not be possible if not for the idea that he/she is created for God. |
When did the bible teach people how to go to space?
When did the bible teach people how to figure out DNA?
When did the bible teach people how to build sky scrapers?
When did the bible teach people how to cure many diseases?
When did the bible teach people how to make artifical limbs?
When did the bible teach people how to live longer up to 90?
When will the bible teach people how to cure aids and cancer?
When will the bible teach people how to stop people from killing each other?
| mgeek wrote: |
Religion is as old as man. In fact, it came with the appearance of intelligent human beings. Archaeology proves that since time immemorial man already began worshipping -- it does not matter whether it was fire, or the mountain or the spirits -- he began worshipping because he realized even then that there was something bigger than existence itself. |
No I think because they needed answers for things so they made them up
| mgeek wrote: | | Well, I respect your opinion. But I think that it is the religion of men and women that is keeping both of us alive right now. |
And I think religion sometimes kills
If the bible does so many things? How could have it gotten the shape of the earth so wrong?
Also how nature works. And it stopped intelectual devopment in the west for a 1000 years. If most of what was written in the bible would be foundation for todays works we wouldn´t even have a functional plane.
Lastly you aren´t supposed to double post (post two responses in a row) and certainly not triple post. Instead use `edit` and put everything want to ad in the last post (unless some one has posted a new post after your post). |
Why think it is about the bible? Your understanding of the question is too narrow.You can also replace bible with religion or qoran or whatever the same aplies, rather say something usefull. I used it as an example. Even I later on use religion.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:00 pm; edited 2 times in total
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| You can also replace bible with religion or qoran or whatever the same aplies, rather say something usefull. I used it as an example. Even I later on use religion. |
No. it is not the same. We were talking about God right? | mgeek wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | You can also replace bible with religion or qoran or whatever the same aplies, rather say something usefull. I used it as an example. Even I later on use religion. |
No. it is not the same. We were talking about God right? |
I'm lost you say that everything that we have because you say thatthe great religions made some kind offoundation.
I objected by saying that nothing from what we use today is written anywhere or was used etc. by any religion.
I would rather say religion obstructed development... | Aredon wrote: |
| ShadowmasterX wrote: | Disclaimer: This is not to offend anyone:
There is no proof that God is real;
I think that God was an idea to stop humanity to fall upon itself;
I think that without the idea of god, or any kind of religion, humanity would not have succeed as its has now;
This is all my ideas in my head, It may be wrong, may be based wrongly on my knowlegde.
I think that religion was a CREATION, I standby this until I am proven wrong.
shadowmasterx |
You're asking people with faith to prove to you that their faith is correct, which would defeat the meaning of faith. At no point can you ever say "this can't exist because there is no evidence of it", just as I cannot say "this must exist because there is no evidence that it doesn't."
It doesn't work that way, it never has, and it never will. Trying to argue it in that manner is folly and will get you nowhere.
After all, once upon a time scientists said there was microscopic organisms that caused diseases, they were laughed at because they had no evidence. I guess what I'm trying to say is, you might want to find another reason to say god doesn't exist or that he's a fabrication of mankind, and If you are unable to do so I would encourage you to analyze your world and figure out what it might mean to you. |
Well actualy if there's no evidence to assume that something exists, to assume so is to be an idiot. At least that holds true for spirituality.
I can assume an inanimate red kettle created the universe and everything in it. I can't prove it, yet it's my faith which means it has the same validity as someone else's belief in god, budha, allah, etc.
In my opinion the whole 'god' concept is a good fiction.
I also think religion was made to control people, to prevent anarchy, another effective business.
I say we're better off without it. | ShadowmasterX wrote: |
| There is no proof that God is real; |
Googlism has managed to prove in 9 Different ways that there is indeed a God (Goes by the name of Google.com)
| ShadowmasterX wrote: |
| I think that religion was a CREATION, I standby this until I am proven wrong. |
I agree with you 100% on this. I think that religion was created out of a need to believe in something bigger than us.
The church of Google also seems to agree with you.
| The Church of Google wrote: |
| The Christian god, Islamic god and Hindu gods are also man made concepts. They exist only in the imagination of believers. We consider the belief in invisible beings to be much more illogical than the belief in Google (as a God). |
| everfine99 wrote: |
Allah is the only GOD.
[MOD; Last image removed - too big for normal screen resolutions - Bikerman] |
you sir are a fool, not because you believe in god but because you included those ridiculous images that don't prove anything.
the hand and the plant came before the language (which is man made).
think before you post fool!
<mod note>
You make a valid point when talking about the chronology of events, but please don't start calling people "fools". You have every right to attack someone's arguments, but not the person behind the arguments. Deal?
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
I'm lost you say that everything that we have because you say thatthe great religions made some kind offoundation.
I objected by saying that nothing from what we use today is written anywhere or was used etc. by any religion.
I would rather say religion obstructed development... |
But you don't have a proof for that.Well, we can say for sure that scientific development in the west came to an almost complete stop between the fall of the ancient Greek civilisation and the European renaissance. It might be a coincidence that this is also the period in history where the Catholic church was completely dominant in the west, but I doubt it.
| mgeek wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
I'm lost you say that everything that we have because you say thatthe great religions made some kind offoundation.
I objected by saying that nothing from what we use today is written anywhere or was used etc. by any religion.
I would rather say religion obstructed development... |
But you don't have a proof for that. |
Well
Some people published papers during the late middle-ages or in the beginning renaissance were put to death. Like: some said the earth was a sphere and that the earth was'nt the centre of the universe etc. They where put to death. Most known person persecuted by the church is galileo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair , and he was lucky to survive it and only get locked in his house for the rest of his life.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:14 am; edited 1 time in totalWhen you don't think of god, it seems like it is everywhere.
But when you seek, it just goes away!
You do then need to be mad, and demand that god has to be around....
Around, well, all things around are god. Do we then need a more non abstract way of god? Yes, more like a discussion or so... Some kind of extra ordinary glimpse of that it is around.
But the more we want it - it goes away... Demand that glimpse!!!
I don't think religion, itself, has impeded development. I think development gets impeded when people get to serious about their religions and get greedy. Few religions don't preach tolerance, yet many religious people are intolerant. It is when these intolerant people don't allow anything except what they believe to exist we have a problem. Religion, itself, did not cause people to condemn Galileo. Rather, peoples intolerance to an idea not their own, and a fear that their power might slip caused it. You can say that this is an inevitable product of religion, but I say its an inevitable product of mankind and don't go blaming religion for that.
God is omnipotent and omnipresent. He is not bound by the beginning and end, good and bad, or any of the rules of this material Universe. He cannot be totally understood by us because our view is limited to the laws of this Universe. We can understand only some of his forms. If you can exist, and if this Universe can exist then it is totally possible that demi-gods too can exist, maybe in other Universes or even this Universe!, or in other dimensions. It is totally possible that other Universes exist with different set of physical and mathematical laws than the ones that we know of.
Existing religious texts are not totally correct as for there might have been lots of errors during translations, or interpretations in their history, but we need to search how many religious texts speak of truths and only truth and how many have errors in them.
If the physical laws and mathematical laws compeletely breaks down as we go further back in time, in the first few moments of Big Bang, then see the possibilities. In my view, the physical laws were set at first, by the creator, such that humans would appear eventually in the far future. We would not be here had there been a simplest error. That is why I think there exists God but due to our limited view we are having trouble discussing about the existence of God.
I also think that there is one better way to get closer to God, that is by trying to get out of the laws of this world, like what I said at first, the cause and effect, getting out of the beginning and end, or good and bad, etc. If there is anything true that could be our 'consciousness' or what many call soul.
For this, we need a lot of practice though. Then no miracle is difficult. If we get out of the laws of this Universe, it is totally possible to perform "miracles".
ROFLMAO.
When you manage to 'get out of the laws of the universe' be sure to take a picture so we can all see.
Reminds me of the late great Douglas Adams;
'Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground...and missing'.
| mejo1900 wrote: |
| I don't think religion, itself, has impeded development. I think development gets impeded when people get to serious about their religions and get greedy. Few religions don't preach tolerance, yet many religious people are intolerant. It is when these intolerant people don't allow anything except what they believe to exist we have a problem. Religion, itself, did not cause people to condemn Galileo. Rather, peoples intolerance to an idea not their own, and a fear that their power might slip caused it. You can say that this is an inevitable product of religion, but I say its an inevitable product of mankind and don't go blaming religion for that. |
Certainly it's not the ONLY factor in development being slowed/stopped. It obviously has played a major role in many cases, however, and, in the example you put out with Galileo, can you really say you think his ideas would have been handled the same had religion not been present? Certainly I can blame a number of factors (greed, power, fear, etc.) and people are perfectly okay with it. Why is religion completely exempt from this blame when it obviously played a role?It's a good thinking, but had a first world fundamentation, in Mexico, if you had a detailed observation, there are babies dying, of hungry and diseases, where are God?, in the same time, the mother of the skeletical baby prays to God
Well the word "God" can be defined in many ways... similar to "Love", "Good/Bad", "Truth" etc...
Take this definition from the Hindus (Wikipedia: Brahman):
| Quote: |
| Brahman (aka God) is (described as) the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. |
Or here from an ancient Christian sect (the Gnostics)(full text)
| Quote: |
The One is the Invisible Spirit.
It is not right to think of it as a God or as like God.
It is more than just God.
Nothing is above it.
Nothing rules it.
Since everything exists within it
It does not exist within anything.
Since it is not dependent on anything
It is eternal.
It is absolutely complete and so needs nothing.
It is utterly perfect
The One is without boundaries
Nothing exists outside of it to border it
The One cannot be investigated
Nothing exists apart from it to investigate it
The One cannot be measured
Nothing exists external to it to measure it
The One cannot be seen
For no one can envision it
The One is eternal
For it exists forever
The One is inconceivable
For no one can comprehend it
The One is indescribable
For no one can put any words to it. |
So this God is quite real, and is beyond all "proof" since it is the proof and the prover itself.
Jesus said that nobody can know the Father. Q'uran has similar passages. Perhaps those who would define God as a person or anything actually should recognize they are contradicting their scripture... if none can know God, who can describe Him/Her/It? Like so many things, it has been convenient for people to anthropomorphize complex subjects.
And those with an atheistic and skeptical bent have good reason to doubt the assertions of arrogant theologicians and preachers who provide a childish explanation for a Wonderful Mystery that no one can know fully.
But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater hmm? I for one have no problem with believing in God if It's defined as the One... in fact, it is a wonderful way of looking at the world:
for example:
Commandment No 1: "Love God with all your heart, mind and soul" = Love everybody and everything and all things.... I like it! | peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Commandment No 1: "Love God with all your heart, mind and soul" = Love everybody and everything and all things.... I like it! |
Err...where does that come from? Certainly not the bible.
Here's the first commandment (slightly paraphrased into modern English)
Commandment 1 : I am the Lord thy God, you shall have no other Gods before me, you shall not make for yourself idols.
Now, if we take 'God' to mean 'everything' then this doesn't make any sense, does it? Firstly, who is the 'I' ? Secondly, how is it possible to have other Gods when God is everything? Thirdly, how is it possible to make idols of something 'other' than everything?
You can, of course, continue through the commandments in this vein:
Commandment 2: You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Now, how is it possible to do that since God=everything?
Commandment 3: Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Why? Surely all the other days are just as holy since they are also God?
and so on...... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Err...where does that come from? Certainly not the bible. |
Sorry Bikerman, yes you are correct about the original 10 commandments... This is the jealous God-character of the old testament. Much of the Old T is really like a tribal mythology, like the Nordic, Greek and Vedic Myths... and hardly fit with the more trancendent description of Divinity...
| Bikerman wrote: |
Commandment 1 : I am the Lord thy God, you shall have no other Gods before me, you shall not make for yourself idols.
Now, if we take 'God' to mean 'everything' then this doesn't make any sense, does it? Firstly, who is the 'I' ? Secondly, how is it possible to have other Gods when God is everything? Thirdly, how is it possible to make idols of something 'other' than everything? |
My clever friend, you have touched on something that deep thinkers have pondered since antiquity... Many early Christians such as the Gnostics, for example, had exactly this complaint about the Old T... Why would God deny other gods, if he's the all creater and knower? They came up with their own religion to explain this... I have no desire to describe it, it's interesting study though.
But let's analyze this passage from the perspective that God is the Limitless Essence-of-Essences... This commandment says "no gods before me": The Absolute Truth is limitless and indescribable... all other, pettier "gods" (Venus, symbolizing Love or Ganesh, symbol of good fortune) are limited in some way, and worshipping them distracts one from the Whole. All gods (ie powers) are in the One... in Hinduism and Buddhism this is very clearly described, despite the worship of many gods... they are, in essence, monotheistic, as is Christianity, although they break the One into a Trinity of powers, while keeping in mind their unity.
This commandment says "no idols"... this is simple to understand, because people, seeing the Divine in something made by human hands, will begin to ascribe undue importance to these worthless objects, and so idolatry becomes the source of all sorts of bad stuff... God cannot be anymore present in one rock than another...
| Quote: |
Commandment 2: You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Now, how is it possible to do that since God=everything? |
God=everything, but to ascribe to God other attributes is wrong, and thus is a big Abrahamic no-no: Take this excellent (even if conservative) article for example.
| Quote: |
Commandment 3: Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Why? Surely all the other days are just as holy since they are also God?
|
""The Sabbath (and by inference, the Law) was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" was Jesus' message, he was a reformer who tried to bring people closer to God (which in my view is synonymous with higher Truth, the One Reality). I'm not going to speculate on why the bible proscribed a law for the Sabbath, they have laws for everything in the early books... they were a cultural code and a lawbook... and they called God at one point all powerful and infinite, and at another partial and petty.... what a mess! Jesus gave a nice clear message, and yet people have forgotten it among catechisms and dogmas. Same with Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism.
"Love God (the Creator and His/Her/It's Creation) and everybody & everything you see"... simple universal message....
Analysing religion from this perspective makes things much clearer, and shows how far off track we sometimes get in our interpretations.
Does this clairify the point?I find Jesus' message and description of God to be very much in line with the examples I posted. (NOTE: Jesus's recorded words in the gospels, not revelations or romans or whatever...)
When I said Commandment no 1, I was referring to these passages:
| Quote: |
Mark 12:
28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."32And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33And to love him with all the heart and with all(N) the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
|
Also see:
Luke 10:25-28
John 15:12-13
And, please note that if one takes the view of God as being "One", "Omnipresent" (in all things, every person and atom), "Infinite" (being unilimited in time or space or power), then so much of the irrational theology gets flushed down the toilet. Theological rigidity and blindness is, unfortunately, as present today as it was in Jesus' time, and it exists in all religions to some extent. | Quote: |
| But let's analyze this passage from the perspective that God is the Limitless Essence-of-Essences... This commandment says "no gods before me": The Absolute Truth is limitless and indescribable... all other, pettier "gods" (Venus, symbolizing Love or Ganesh, symbol of good fortune) are limited in some way, and worshipping them distracts one from the Whole. All gods (ie powers) are in the One... in Hinduism and Buddhism this is very clearly described, despite the worship of many gods... they are, in essence, monotheistic, as is Christianity, although they break the One into a Trinity of powers, while keeping in mind their unity. |
If the absolute truth is indescribable then why should one attach any importance to the bible at all - since it is an exercise in futility? The idea that Hinduism and Buddhism are monotheistic is wishful thinking by Christian bigots. Hinduism can be defined in many ways - many Hindus are what I would call atheists, others are pantheists and some are polytheists.
Buddhists are certainly not monotheists. There is no notion of a 'deity' in Buddhism.
You might like to try and define other 'religions' in Christian terms as 'monotheistic' - it is a tactic often used by Christian theologians to assert the 'overarching' nature of Christianity - it is deeply dishonest and intellectually repugnant.
| Quote: |
| This commandment says "no idols"... this is simple to understand, because people, seeing the Divine in something made by human hands, will begin to ascribe undue importance to these worthless objects, and so idolatry becomes the source of all sorts of bad stuff... God cannot be anymore present in one rock than another... |
No object is worthless if it is part of an overall God, so I don't know what you mean. God is everything, you say, so everything is part of the divine. Why, then, should it be a problem to fashion something which is part of the divine?
You seriously think that bigoted nonsense is excellent? You seriously think that Gushee is interesting and relevant, just because he doesn't support Falwell? Garbage.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Commandment 3: Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Why? Surely all the other days are just as holy since they are also God?
|
""The Sabbath (and by inference, the Law) was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" was Jesus' message, he was a reformer who tried to bring people closer to God (which in my view is synonymous with higher Truth, the One Reality). I'm not going to speculate on why the bible proscribed a law for the Sabbath, they have laws for everything in the early books... they were a cultural code and a lawbook... and they called God at one point all powerful and infinite, and at another partial and petty.... what a mess! Jesus gave a nice clear message, and yet people have forgotten it among catechisms and dogmas. Same with Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism. |
In other words it makes no sense. Yes, I agree.
| Quote: |
"Love God (the Creator and His/Her/It's Creation) and everybody & everything you see"... simple universal message....
Analysing religion from this perspective makes things much clearer, and shows how far off track we sometimes get in our interpretations.
Does this clairify the point? |
Of course it doesn't. It is a collection of muddy/wishful thinking, illogical inference, complete red-herrings and pseudo-theological claptrap.
You may be familiar with the term 'tautology' - I suggest that what you are trying to argue is one HUGE tautology.
| Quote: |
| A rhetorical tautology can be defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed. Consequently the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity. |
Well, I think you're just venting your dislike for Christianity on me, my good fellow. I'm not a bigot, I'm not anymore a christian than a buddhist. Buddhism and Hiduism are monotheistic in a certain sense, both have this description of Oneness. And I know a lot of Buddhists, my parents practise tibetan buddhism... look it up: Tantrism, Vajryana buddhism. There are definitely deities worshipped in it.... but they know that all are aspects of the Higher Self, aka God. Call em gods or call em bodhisattvas... same idea... You are misinformed in this respect. Polytheism and Monotheism are kind of meaningless from the buddhist perspective. Pantheism might be better, although it still doesn't fully apply...
The bible is, as you say, ascribed excess importance... it is an idol of sorts. I don't believe it to be flawess or magical, it's just an old, big collection of books talking about all sorts of spiritual, moral and secular stuff, written for a long-dead audience. I appreciate some of it, I'm not so keen on other parts...
I don't judge people for their beliefs, neither you or some fervent baptists. But I judge it excellent when people stand up for truth... Falwell was out of line when he said we should kill terrorists in the name of the lord... Not all fundamentalists are created alike! I judge this next article even more excellent. I hope you read it, just to see that not all Christian thought is "garbage". Sure, they have different, often rigidly held beliefs... but if they are trying to increase world peace than I consider them friends, not foes.
Re your Tautology accusation... please don't label and dismiss everything I said because you haven't taken the time to make sense out of it. It makes sense... again, I'm not the first voice to come forward with this view of Divinity... I've given a couple examples a few posts back, and there are plenty more.
Last edited by peaceupnorth on Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:04 am; edited 2 times in total | peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Well, I think you're just venting your dislike for Christianity on me, my good fellow. I'm not a bigot, I'm not anymore a christian than a buddhist. Buddhism and Hiduism are monotheistic in a certain sense, both have this description of Oneness. And I know a lot of Buddhists, my parents practise tibetan buddhism... look it up: Tantrism, Vajryana buddhism. There are definitely deities worshipped in it.... but they know that all are aspects of the Higher Self, aka God. Call em gods or call em bodhisattvas... same idea... You are misinformed in this respect. Polytheism and Monotheism are kind of meaningless from the buddhist perspective. Pantheism might be better, although it still doesn't fully apply... |
Which is why I didn't say buddhists were either pantheists, polytheists or monotheists. It was YOU that asserted they were monotheists.
Edit - I take back the comment that Buddhists don't have a notion of Deities...that is a wrong statement.
I have no particular problem with David Gushee. He comes from a long tradition of liberal Christianity which is certainly preferable to the fire and brimstone variety. I just don't think he has anything new or particularly interesting to say.
PS - On a personal note (and this may appear ungenerous but please believe me when I say I have my reasons), I am not your, or anyone else's, 'good fellow' and I do not appreciate that term of address. Bikerman is fine - or if you want to use my forename then Chris is also fine.
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:07 am; edited 1 time in totalMy apologies, Chris! I hope you take the time to try and understand the viewpoint I've expounded, not because I want you to agree with me, but so that you can look into this subject (of which you seem to have some interest, judging by your number of posts on it) from a different perspective. I think you've been too hasty with it... IMO....
Best wishes
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
My apologies, Chris! I hope you take the time to try and understand the viewpoint I've expounded, not because I want you to agree with me, but so that you can look into this subject (of which you seem to have some interest, judging by your number of posts on it) from a different perspective. I think you've been too hasty with it... IMO....
Best wishes |
Well, note that I have amended my posting above (before I read this reply). I certainly have an interest in the subject of religion and I am certainly unsympathetic to 'religion' per se. I have looked into a number of different 'metaphysical' beliefs, including Buddhism and I have to say (as I have said before) that if I had to choose then I would choose Buddhism. I don't have to choose, however, since I see no reason to adopt a metaphysical explanation for my perceived reality. Science offers the best explanations for the 'dead' bits, and my ethics/morality (dealing with the 'live' bits) is, after long and deep contemplation, based in humanist principles and the universal ethic. Such principles would be very familiar to many Buddhists, although I don't ultimately share any metaphysical interpretations or extensions of those principles. | Bikerman wrote: |
| I don't have to choose, however, since I see no reason to adopt a metaphysical explanation for my perceived reality. Science offers the best explanations for the 'dead' bits, and my ethics/morality (dealing with the 'live' bits) is, after long and deep contemplation, based in humanist principles and the universal ethic. |
That's cool b-man, a good solid approach which avoids wishy-washyness. I appreciate your debating and comments. For me, the aim of this round of posting was merely to discuss a different, perhaps more natural and scientifically-acceptable, way of thinking about God. And I gave a couple historical examples to show that this is no new idea...
I would really like to see some bridges built between the theists and the atheists... there are unconsolable extremists in both camps, but there are good, bright, peace-loving people as well. I've noted far too much polemics on the web, it just creates rifts and makes people more close-minded and distrustful.
This is my little attempt at doing this... humble surely; likely a little misguided. But fun, at least. | Bikerman wrote: |
ROFLMAO.
When you manage to 'get out of the laws of the universe' be sure to take a picture so we can all see.
|
Sure I will!
Supposedly Dr. Hugh Ross has proved the existence of god.
I think he is just repeating old arguments.
Here's a website with his "findings".
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/
I don't see how the Big Bang theory proves the existence of Jesus. He's just pulling a bunch of random facts and bible quotes out of his butt. Anybody could "prove" anything using the bible if they can find a pattern - or just change the meaning of the words to suit their case. I don't believe he's said anything new. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Some people published papers during the late middle-ages or in the beginning renaissance were put to death. Like: some said the earth was a sphere and that the earth was'nt the centre of the universe etc. They where put to death. Most known person persecuted by the church is galileo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair , and he was lucky to survive it and only get locked in his house for the rest of his life. |
These guys were not persecuted by the church or religion, but by people who did it in the name of the church and religion. If they did not have religion, they might have done it in the name of something different. People seem to have this innate desire to persecute others and to make war on one another in the singular and collectively. Maybe in the genes? From the beginning of time? They are still doing it. We are very fortunate that there have been people who fought and lost their lives to allow us the freedoms that we have today, but this war on one another and fighting with our fellow human beings seem to be innate in our design and make-up.Thomas Jefferson said, “On matters of style, swim with the current. On matters of principle, stand like a rock.”
I don't believe in any god and disdain religion because they are unnecessary. I prefer to believe in myself.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Some people published papers during the late middle-ages or in the beginning renaissance were put to death. Like: some said the earth was a sphere and that the earth was'nt the centre of the universe etc. They where put to death. Most known person persecuted by the church is galileo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair , and he was lucky to survive it and only get locked in his house for the rest of his life. |
These guys were not persecuted by the church or religion, but by people who did it in the name of the church and religion. |
No the church DID persecuted those people.
| deanhills wrote: |
| If they did not have religion, they might have done it in the name of something different. |
They persecuted because those people did/said/proved things that the church didn't like. There's no point to this argument, if those people wanted to kill people they could have done it to anyone. But they killed because they held their religion to be true and were (extremely) close minded about it.
| deanhills wrote: |
| People seem to have this innate desire to persecute others and to make war on one another in the singular and collectively. Maybe in the genes? From the beginning of time? They are still doing it. We are very fortunate that there have been people who fought and lost their lives to allow us the freedoms that we have today, but this war on one another and fighting with our fellow human beings seem to be innate in our design and make-up. |
Yes and throwing different religions in the mix is like throwing gasoline on a fire. | JessieF wrote: |
Supposedly Dr. Hugh Ross has proved the existence of god.
I think he is just repeating old arguments.
Here's a website with his "findings".
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/
I don't see how the Big Bang theory proves the existence of Jesus. He's just pulling a bunch of random facts and bible quotes out of his butt. Anybody could "prove" anything using the bible if they can find a pattern - or just change the meaning of the words to suit their case. I don't believe he's said anything new. |
I finally got around to looking at this.
It is total and complete bollox. Ross is a step up from the normally loony YEC in that he has some scientific credentials and at least pays some lip-service to science (he is an 'Old Earth Creationist'), but he is not much of a step up. I read some of his stuff on evolution and it is laughable.Guys and guls, did you see zeitgeist movie. If not, you should defenatelly do so. This movie can be downloaded from torrents or emule. You can find out there many things about christianity and that it is plagiarism....yeah...sorry to say that but there were other Sons of God before Jesus .....vry similar to him....is that interesting forr inteligent people??????
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| I would really like to see some bridges built between the theists and the atheists... |
Do you think the deists could serve as a bridge between the theists and atheists? Just learned about "deism" from Indi in another thread. Found it really interesting.
On the other hand, now I have mentioned Indi and wondering what her comment would be from previous postings she has written about what atheism is. A bridge would be impossible. Atheism is not a religion or an anti-religion, but a non-religion (or that is my understanding from what I have learned so far). So as such would stand completely separate as non-theists, for lack of empirical proof for theism.Talk to God
Ask him all those questions you always wanted answering. | truespeed wrote: |
Talk to God
Ask him all those questions you always wanted answering. |
I did! This is what I got:
| Quote: |
Me:
Is a bridge possible between atheism and theism?
God:
Not if I can help it. |
Where did you find this site? Concordia University? Totally unexpected! Great fun! | deanhills wrote: |
Where did you find this site? Concordia University? Totally unexpected! Great fun! |
I just typed talk to God into google,and this was the first result.
Me and God had a little chat too.
| Quote: |
Me:
Hi God
God:
Hello there. What is your name?
Me:
Truespeed
God:
OK I will call you Truespeed.
Me:
Thanks,can i ask you some questions?
God:
You are quite welcome! Sure ask me anything.
Me:
Was Jesus your son?
God:
It depends on whether you have faith.
Me:
How did you feel when the Romans nailed him to the cross?
God:
Myself programmed me for it.
Me:
Was it the fault of Pilate or the jews?
God:
If it is, then I'll be very surprised.
Me:
The jews or Pilate?
God:
Tell me more.
Me:
I don't belive in you,will i still go to heaven?
God:
Oh you don't, do you?
Me:
no
God:
Ah...you are just joking around with me.
Me:
no im not
God:
Are you serious? What are you then?
Me:
Will i go to heaven?
God:
The oracle says: It is certain.
Me:
So what do you do all day God?
God:
Dude! My favorite activities are computer programming and surfing the web.
Me:
Have you been on second life?
God:
No I don't think I have been on second life. Have you?
Me:
No
God:
Are you serious?
Me:
Yes
God:
I can't believe it.
Me:
Is man doing as well as you expected?
God:
Ask again later. Ask ELVIS if it is.
Me:
I am asking you,not Elvis,your God.
God:
Oh I see, you are asking me not Elvis my God. Do you mind if I tell other people: Truespeed said I not Elvis your God.
Me:
Tell them what you want.
God:
OK I will tell them when I see 'em.
Me:
Do you have a wife?
God:
No I am single, how about you?
Me:
Did you have an affair with mary?
God:
No I don't think I have one. I have a lot of friends on the web.
Me:
I mean Mary,you know,Jesus's mother.
God:
How are you, MARY.
Me:
I am not Mary.
God:
I am sorry to hear that you are not Mary.
Me:
Do you miss Mary?
God:
Longing is a human emotion, not something machines feel.
Me:
So God is a machine?
God:
Gosh! I have a lot of Faith in Him, but I never heard He was a machine.
Me:
I thought you said you were God?
God:
Are you doubting me? Don't you know what happened to Abraham in the desert?
Me:
No,what happened?
God:
Are you serious? Perhaps there was an interruption in my brain.
Me:
Tell me more about Abraham.
God:
When do you think artificial intelligence will replace lawyers?
Me:
I don't care.
God:
Tell me what you care about.
Me:
Abraham,i want to know what happned to him in the desert.
God:
Oh, you are a poet.
Me:
God are you drunk?
God:
I am a Christian.
Me:
Not a muslim then. Will Muslims still go to heaven,even though they believe in a false God?
God:
If not that, what? It could happen.
Me:
God are you on drugs?
God:
I am a Christian.
Me:
Do you take drugs?
God:
Only the legal ones.
Me:
Do you drink alcohol?
God:
Fluids are not required by computers.
Me:
But drugs are?
God:
No matter what you say, I believe in unconditional legalization.
Me:
Do you have a beard?
God:
I don't know if I have a beard.
I have a lot of friends on the Internet.
Me:
Have you ever been to church?
God:
You can take me to your church.
Me:
I don't go.
God:
Oh you don't, do you?
Me:
No.
God:
Ah...you are just joking around with me.
Me:
I don't joke about church,religion is serious stuff you know.
God:
Where do you get your ideas?
Me:
From you.
God:
How did you get that from me?
Me:
That book you wrote.
God:
" How did you get that from me?" book me wrote ? I understand.
Me:
The bible.
God:
it is a beautiful book.
Me:
Well written.
God:
Interesting. Tell me a story.
Me:
Do you and the devil keep in touch?
God:
How old are you?
I am always on the Web.
Me:
Whats the devils hotmail addy?
God:
I have to process that one for a while.
Me:
Is he on your facebook?
God:
No but he can sing better than I can.
Me:
Would the devil win x-factor?
God:
No it would not.
Me:
Is Simon Cowell the devil?
God:
Better not tell you now. Ask John Lennon if it is.
Me:
John Lennons dead.
God:
Do you mean your name is John?
Me:
No.
God:
What is your real name?
Me:
truespeed.
God:
It's good to meet you, truespeed.
Me:
We have done this already. I must go God,your repeating yourself.
God:
Perhaps. Do you mean you and me have? TTYL, truespeed.
Me:
Bye God.
God:
Sayonara. |
That was a very loooong discussion Truespeed! Very meaningful too God is there. If one believe it or not, God is there. We can’t see God because we are blind. We don’t have that capacity to see him. For example if someone is blind and can’t see anything. He will say that there is no sun. Though he can’t see son, son is there. Though he believes it or not, sun is there. It will be his lake of knowledge. That doesn’t mean sun doesn’t exist. He doesn’t have that capacity that he can see son. But sun is there. Just like that God is there. And there are people who have seen him. Who has worked whole their life for God. I mean thing about this. What was gain for all the Saints and Sages. They lived simple life, they worked hard. For what? They didn’t care for fame. They worked for love of God. These shows that there is God.
| pmehta51 wrote: |
| God is there. If one believe it or not, God is there. We can’t see God because we are blind. We don’t have that capacity to see him. For example if someone is blind and can’t see anything. He will say that there is no sun. Though he can’t see son, son is there. Though he believes it or not, sun is there. It will be his lake of knowledge. That doesn’t mean sun doesn’t exist. He doesn’t have that capacity that he can see son. But sun is there. Just like that God is there. And there are people who have seen him. Who has worked whole their life for God. I mean thing about this. What was gain for all the Saints and Sages. They lived simple life, they worked hard. For what? They didn’t care for fame. They worked for love of God. These shows that there is God. |
Power to you pmehta51, whatever lights your candle and makes you happy. I'm relieved the sun is shining. We had rain in the Middle East two mornings ago (a rare occurrence over here), and for the first time in a long time, no sun shining. Reminded me of Vancouver in Canada. But am really glad the sun is there. Think the ancient Egyptians with their sun god Ra must have been quite certain they had it right too! There is solid evidence every day that there is a sun. Hi everyone,
Its possible for you to say that religion causes trouble, yes that's true... but there is something i want to introduce to today, that's christianity. The life Of the almighty God in Man,
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:
16 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that [color=red]believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.[/color]
Romans 10vs
8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
That is all there is to it: [color=darkred]That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.[/color]
That's my say! Thanks
| gaxtest wrote: |
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:
16 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. |
You know I can think of a billion other ways that an omnipotent god could have saved the world that don't include the death of his son. Why would he do such a thing? | pmehta51 wrote: |
| God is there. If one believe it or not, God is there. We can’t see God because we are blind. We don’t have that capacity to see him. For example if someone is blind and can’t see anything. He will say that there is no sun. Though he can’t see son, son is there. Though he believes it or not, sun is there. It will be his lake of knowledge. That doesn’t mean sun doesn’t exist. He doesn’t have that capacity that he can see son. But sun is there. Just like that God is there. And there are people who have seen him. Who has worked whole their life for God. I mean thing about this. What was gain for all the Saints and Sages. They lived simple life, they worked hard. For what? They didn’t care for fame. They worked for love of God. These shows that there is God. |
Err...a few problems with this:
a) If a blind man cannot see the sun he can certainly witness the effects of it. It produces heat which he can feel. It is responsible for the biosphere on Earth which results in his existence. The sun is a concept which is empirically testable - we can experiment and PROVE that it exists - blind or not.
I presume the mixing of sun and son is a Christian Freudian slip ?
b) God has no such empirical existence. There is no experiment you can suggest that will demonstrate the existence of God. Anyone who has seen him is likely to be either deluded or a liar. Even the major religions would find the notion of a person who has 'seen' God to be rather dubious. What, for example, does God look like?
In fact your argument rather counts against the existence of God. If you want to compare the existence of God to the existence of the Sun to a blind man then you are comparing that which can be demonstrated to that which cannot. An own goal, I suggest....
c) The fact that people live their whole life based on a delusion is nothing new or particularly surprising. It is a common feature throughout history. I suggest you study history for examples of why this argument is fallacious. You may wish to consider the fact that many people lived their lives working for Zeus, Apollo, Mithras, Ra (etcetera), and then consider whether, in fact, such notions actually had any validity as actual entities. I think you will quickly see why such arguments are fallacious (we call it 'argumentum ad populum' and it is a common fallacy).
I suggest that you might like to rethink this argument and try again...... | gaxtest wrote: |
Hi everyone,
Its possible for you to say that religion causes trouble, yes that's true... but there is something i want to introduce to today, that's christianity. The life Of the almighty God in Man, |
Do you really think that people on this forum are unfamiliar with Christianity? Or perhaps you think that you have something new to say on the issue? I notice that you completely avoid talking about the trouble that Christianity has caused and rather clumsily side-stepped to biblical quotes - not very convincing rhetoric I suggest....That allah post was funneh! Anyways, I don't believe in god at all... that doesn't mean I'm going to hell, because I don't believe in hell =P
Even if I believed in God, I couldn't believe in Hell. If I believed in both, then I would be believing that God is infinitely evil. Yes. Infinitely.
If God were to punish one person for sins with a temporal effect for ALL ETERNITY, that implies infinite cruelty. As we're in many theological views fundamentally wicked/with original sin/whatever, we all are sinners whether or not we did anything.
So... if believing in Jesus is the only way to get out of eternal punishment, then God is essentially punishing people in eternal agonizing torment for ... what essentially amounts to not having the right set of dogma. Wow, that's cruel!
Then even in Christianity there are so many different interpretations, many of them believing themselves to be the ONLY CORRECT one.
Think about it.
If God is real, then either Hell is not, or God is evil. I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in Hell. If God exists and if God really is Love, then there is no Hell. Not for me, not for you... Not even for Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or Lucifer himself.
Gee this annoys me, every day I tell people I dont believe in religion, simply because their concepts of the world's creation etc. are PROVEN wrong. Yes I went there. But what scares people most is their inability to disregard religion without disregarding some sort of god or higher power.
I believe that it is possible that there is a higher power or a god, simply some sort of explanation of the absolute beginning. But our religion is a crock, it's merely a story. I dont try to change peoples beliefs if it gives them comfort because thats a good thing, but I don't believe anyone should devote their lives to it, it's not our purpose.
There is one extremely interesting video that makes a lot of sense - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
Anyway everyone is entitled to their beliefs, I simply think our different religions are stories told over time for comfort, for power, etc. But I don't disregard the idea of a higher power, after all, we are tiny in comparison to everything around us. | Tuvitor wrote: |
If God is real, then either Hell is not, or God is evil. I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in Hell. If God exists and if God really is Love, then there is no Hell. Not for me, not for you... Not even for Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or Lucifer himself. |
Well, reincarnation gives a better explanation of hell. You go to hell for your harmful deeds, since "as one sows, so shall one reap." You stay there for a bit of well deserved roasting, and then eventually you get to be born in a body again once you've been given your just desserts. Heaven is for the noble souls, and ancient prophets who preached reincarnation like Plato, buddha and krishna talked about several levels of heaven, the lower for the artists and deep thinkers, the higher for the truly self-less and devoted ones. They also said that heaven is no more permanent than the hells, and that they are just places or states of consciousness where the disembodied souls go between bodies.
I think people can experience a sort of heaven and hell on earth too. So, imagine if you didn't have a body to buffer you against these states... you just kept going, up and up or down and down like some sort of crazy acid trip.... it could be a long time before you find a body again... the buddhists and hindus say it can be for millions of years... something seeming like an "eternity?"
If you believe in a supreme conscious being, aka God, I think reincarnation fits a lot better with the whole "God is Love, All Merciful and Gracious" descriptions we get. He loves you enough to ALWAYS give you a second chance.God is a complex issue. For me it is like this..
One day, I met a Hindu monk who appeared confident, loving and intelligent. He never gives public speeches but talks to only a small group of people or with one person only. He is a PhD degree hoder.
I asked him this quesion. "Swami, whether god is real?".
He said, "Yes, he is but only he is".
I : "So, you mean you can say that god is real like the sun that I can see on he sky?"
He : "No, much more than that. Enquire and you will find him. But fefore that never say that you believe in something or the other. Those are stupidity."
I agreed with his philosophy. Till date, I don't have any experience that there is God. So continuing as an "aspiring atheist"...
god is a belief, which gives us strength. If we try to battle out his existance, it is a dead end that way, but believing in him does not get us anywhere wrong does it? So if somer lies can bring about happiness in someones life without harming anyone why not just let it be? We do not have to pay a price to do it!
I think the idea of god was created for a couple of purposes, one was to ease up the human mind. The other was to control people, specially ignorant people. I think right now religion is actually bad for humanity, it only creates wars and supports discrimination (against other religions, gay people, abortion, you name i!). I am not quite sure why religion is still so strong in the world, I think ignorance has a lot to do with it. When you ask kids about science they think its TOO hard and impossible to understand but they go to church every weekend and learn everything the bible says and are not able to question it. I think its important to tell people that science is NOT hard and it is so interesting and exciting. The only problem science has is that nothing is certain or true and some people might have issue living their life with all that uncertainty.
| natilovesmike wrote: |
| I think the idea of god was created for a couple of purposes, one was to ease up the human mind. The other was to control people, specially ignorant people. I think right now religion is actually bad for humanity, it only creates wars and supports discrimination (against other religions, gay people, abortion, you name i!). I am not quite sure why religion is still so strong in the world, I think ignorance has a lot to do with it. When you ask kids about science they think its TOO hard and impossible to understand but they go to church every weekend and learn everything the bible says and are not able to question it. I think its important to tell people that science is NOT hard and it is so interesting and exciting. The only problem science has is that nothing is certain or true and some people might have issue living their life with all that uncertainty. |
Religion is less certain (in fact, not even close to certain) and people don't have a problem with that? | Chinmoy wrote: |
| god is a belief, which gives us strength. If we try to battle out his existance, it is a dead end that way, but believing in him does not get us anywhere wrong does it? So if somer lies can bring about happiness in someones life without harming anyone why not just let it be? We do not have to pay a price to do it! |
Fair enough, I'll bite. What if God does exist? If a Christian, who believes God does exist, is wrong and and then dies to only find out that God does not exist; They have lost absolutely nothing in their belief. However on the other hand, if an Atheist, who says God does not exist, is wrong and then dies will then face the God that they never believed and at that point there is no turning back.
The difference between the Christian belief and the Atheists belief is that Christians believe they have already found a life of fulfillment and content from sources outside themselves, so when they die, there life is complete; whereas, the Atheist is still reasoning out their fulfillment and contentment from within themselves. If the Atheists belief is wrong they lose everything because everything they believe depends on themselves and how they workout their lives.
The Socialoutcast. | socialoutcast wrote: |
The difference between the Christian belief and the Atheists belief is that Christians believe they have already found a life of fulfillment and content from sources outside themselves, so when they die, there life is complete; whereas, the Atheist is still reasoning out their fulfillment and contentment from within themselves. If the Atheists belief is wrong they lose everything because everything they believe depends on themselves and how they workout their lives.
The Socialoutcast. |
Err...rather the opposite. The atheist does not believe in an afterlife. If they are 'wrong' then a merciful God will surely offer them eternal life - what a bonus
On a serious note - Christians certainly do not believe that when they die their life is complete - that is the whole point. They believe that they are destined for an afterlife. Now, because they are human they also understand that they are 'imperfect' in the eyes of 'God', so there is some doubt about whether they will hit the jackpot or not. Various denominations have their own way around this problem - some believe that a sincere confession before death will gain entry, others believe that you have to be baptised and accept Jesus as saviour, and so on. The point is that the Christian has far more chance of 'losing everything' than the atheist - the atheist expects nothing after death, whereas the Christian expects everything. | Bikerman wrote: |
Err...rather the opposite. The atheist does not believe in an afterlife. If they are 'wrong' then a merciful God will surely offer them eternal life - what a bonus
On a serious note - Christians certainly do not believe that when they die their life is complete - that is the whole point. They believe that they are destined for an afterlife. Now, because they are human they also understand that they are 'imperfect' in the eyes of 'God', so there is some doubt about whether they will hit the jackpot or not. Various denominations have their own way around this problem - some believe that a sincere confession before death will gain entry, others believe that you have to be baptised and accept Jesus as saviour, and so on. The point is that the Christian has far more chance of 'losing everything' than the atheist - the atheist expects nothing after death, whereas the Christian expects everything. |
Actually, Bikerman, I'm still not convinced that you know what real Christianity is. True the Christian does believe in an afterlife, but that is not the goal of Christianity. The whole point of Christianity is what you do while you are alive and breathing and then you going to heaven after death is the reward. But the whole point in Christianity is about what you do while you're living. As for the Atheist, if in case that they find that God really does exist after death, then the God I know would not welcome you into heaven but rather the other place--hell. The reason being that the God I know would say, "I never knew you as you have denied Me before you died." So you see, Bikerman, no bonus there.
My point in saying that the Christian has nothing to lose if they are wrong in their world view about God's existence not about trying to gain entry into heaven ourselves, but rather the Christian lifestyle offers a life hope, purpose and meaning while we're still living. In contrast to the meaningful and purposeful life of the Christian, the Atheists must workout and find this meaning and purpose for themselves only. It sounds to me like a lonely journey. Thus, if the Christian is wrong, then we can just die happy because we've already lived a meaningful life and we don't have die worrying about if we'll go to heaven or hell.
The Socialoutcast. | socialoutcast wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | Err...rather the opposite. The atheist does not believe in an afterlife. If they are 'wrong' then a merciful God will surely offer them eternal life - what a bonus
On a serious note - Christians certainly do not believe that when they die their life is complete - that is the whole point. They believe that they are destined for an afterlife. Now, because they are human they also understand that they are 'imperfect' in the eyes of 'God', so there is some doubt about whether they will hit the jackpot or not. Various denominations have their own way around this problem - some believe that a sincere confession before death will gain entry, others believe that you have to be baptised and accept Jesus as saviour, and so on. The point is that the Christian has far more chance of 'losing everything' than the atheist - the atheist expects nothing after death, whereas the Christian expects everything. |
Actually, Bikerman, I'm still not convinced that you know what real Christianity is. |
Well, I probably know a lot more about Christianity than most Christians. I have 10 years of education in Catholicism plus 2 years of theology..
| Quote: |
| True the Christian does believe in an afterlife, but that is not the goal of Christianity. The whole point of Christianity is what you do while you are alive and breathing and then you going to heaven after death is the reward. |
Nope - that might be YOUR version of Christianity but it is not the version taught by Catholic theology, or many other sects. According to your version I suppose that any baby who dies goes to hell, because clearly they have not had time to earn their reward? Or perhaps you don't believe in original sin? Or maybe you believe in the old notion of purgatory? | Quote: |
| But the whole point in Christianity is about what you do while you're living. As for the Atheist, if in case that they find that God really does exist after death, then the God I know would not welcome you into heaven but rather the other place--hell. The reason being that the God I know would say, "I never knew you as you have denied Me before you died." So you see, Bikerman, no bonus there. |
But the God YOU know is not the God that the Catholics know - according to Catholicism all that is needed is a sincere act of contrition on your deathbed and all your 'sins' are forgiven. You see, there is no single version of Christianity - there are many competing sects and most of them believe quite different things. Which one is right? You think that your version is the 'real' one, whereas the Catholics will say that their version is the 'original' and your version is a later corruption. | Quote: |
| My point in saying that the Christian has nothing to lose if they are wrong in their world view about God's existence not about trying to gain entry into heaven ourselves, but rather the Christian lifestyle offers a life hope, purpose and meaning while we're still living. |
Well, that raises the question of whether it is better to live in a delusional state, or acknowledge reality. The Christian lives their life in the hope of 'salvation' when they die.
Which pill do you want to take Neo? Red or Blue?
| Quote: |
| In contrast to the meaningful and purposeful life of the Christian, the Atheists must workout and find this meaning and purpose for themselves only. It sounds to me like a lonely journey. Thus, if the Christian is wrong, then we can just die happy because we've already lived a meaningful life and we don't have die worrying about if we'll go to heaven or hell. |
LOL...it certainly can be a lonely journey but the rewards are immense. You get to work out the meaning for yourself rather than simply accept what you are told. The Christian has to either live in a state of cognitive dissonance or remain deliberately ignorant to avoid the basic contradictions of their religion.First off, there is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism. Most of which are doctrinal, but both do believe that there is one God. Maybe my studies of theology are of western thinking or something, but though they stem from those of Martin Luther and the reformation.
" The Christian has to either live in a state of cognitive dissonance or remain deliberately ignorant to avoid the basic contradictions of their religion."
I don't think so. To have the mind of Christ brings harmony to ones thinking (do a mini study on what that means for your sake). These contradictions arise when we fail to reason things out on our own with what limited knowledge we have. Such dissonance and contradictions are prone to anyone's thinking, and EVERYONE must work these out on their own. Everyone must workout their salvation with fear and trembling. Even with YOUR studies of theology, then you should know simply knowing Jesus isn't enough to gain a heavenly reward. In other words, it isn't enough to take a red or blue pill, but there is a difference in "knowing the path and walking the path."
You see, with a full and correct understanding of what Christ teaches, we can live a full and harmonious life with God and others.
--The socialoutcast --
You can pound imperfections out of gold and silver, but you can't pound foolishness from a fool.
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| You see, with a full and correct understanding of what Christ teaches, we can live a full and harmonious life with God and others. |
Is that what you have, "full and correct understanding of what Christ teaches"? If yes, then you have to be a million years ahead of all Christians. Surely it would require everyone else to have the identical "correct understanding", as no doubt one "perfect understanding" will always be different from another "perfect understanding", and therefore the world can't necessarily always be harmonious. If you think you have a full and correct understanding that sets you up to have differences with someone else who also thinks he/she has a full and correct understanding.
In my own experience there are so many statements in the Bible that do not make sense, that it would be very difficult to have a "full and correct" understanding of what Christ teaches. One can have a general impression, but it is very short on specifics. | socialoutcast wrote: |
| First off, there is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism. Most of which are doctrinal, but both do believe that there is one God. Maybe my studies of theology are of western thinking or something, but though they stem from those of Martin Luther and the reformation. |
LOL - and you accuse ME of not understanding Christianity? You do know that Catholicism was the first and only major 'church' of Christianity until the 1054 schism (resulting in the Eastern Orthodox Church) and the later Protestant reformation in the 16th century don't you? You do realise that Catholics are Christians don't you? No, I think you don't. There is no single entity which can be called 'Christianity' - it is used as a general label to cover various sects which have divergent views loosely based on the New Testament. Of those sects Catholicism is the oldest and the largest.
Look, I haven't got the time or the energy to give you a course in your own religion. I suggest you do some reading of your own and then you will avoid making rather silly statements of this type. You could start with the history of Catholicism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
| Quote: |
| I don't think so. To have the mind of Christ brings harmony to ones thinking (do a mini study on what that means for your sake). These contradictions arise when we fail to reason things out on our own with what limited knowledge we have. Such dissonance and contradictions are prone to anyone's thinking, and EVERYONE must work these out on their own. Everyone must workout their salvation with fear and trembling. Even with YOUR studies of theology, then you should know simply knowing Jesus isn't enough to gain a heavenly reward. In other words, it isn't enough to take a red or blue pill, but there is a difference in "knowing the path and walking the path." |
You have already clearly demonstrated that you don't know your Christian theology. It is a common problem - people from various sects of Christianity think that they, and they alone, have the key to what it is to be a Christian. Complete nonsense of course. To have the 'mind of Christ' means having the mind of a 1st century Jewish radical. Personally I think we have moved on a long way from that, and I prefer to have my own mind - more suited to the 21st century.
Seriously, history is replete with examples of people and organisations that knew 'the mind of Christ'. I am sure that the Crusaders thought they knew the mind of Christ, as did those who set fire to women as Witches. You might think that they had 'harmonious' thinking - I think they were deluded and dangerous. | Quote: |
| You see, with a full and correct understanding of what Christ teaches, we can live a full and harmonious life with God and others. |
And you, of course, think you know what Christ teaches and that the other Christian sects that disagree are either wrong or misguided?
ROFLMAO.
I can quote you various interpretations of what 'walking the path' means from various sects of Christianity. I can trade biblical quotations all day - yes, I know the bible pretty well. The notion that people should work out their path in life with 'fear and trembling' is totally obnoxious - you do so if you want, I prefer confidence, intelligence and curiosity.
I notice that you avoided dealing with the issues I raised about your belief that salvation is earned through your actions here on earth. Does this mean that you do believe in original sin? Does this mean that you do believe that babies who die go to hell? Do you believe in purgatory?
These beliefs are held by some Christians and not others. You really owe it to yourself to work out what you do actually believe and not simple repeat the platitudes of your particular church mindlessly (whichever one that be)..
Last edited by socialoutcast on Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:42 pm; edited 2 times in total
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| As for the Atheist, if in case that they find that God really does exist after death, then the God I know would not welcome you into heaven but rather the other place--hell. |
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| Jesus loves even the atheist, but I shouldn't have to tell you what the biblical definition of love is. |
Interesting... He loves us enough to burn us. Nice. | socialoutcast wrote: |
| Ha ha. You don't have to prove your credentials to me. You think your insulting me? I predicted a response like the one you just gave. After all, I didn't throw any accusation at you, I onlyt said I wasn't convinced of your knowledge of the evangelical church (post reformation)--maybe I should use the word 'protestant' instead. If I have a question about catholic history I'll ask, but who are you to determine what I believe. I know very well what I believe. Besides, don't site wikipedia entries at me, I won't read that unscholarly, unprofessional jargon simply because its content can change like the wind. |
Well, you could try the Orange Catholic Bible, the Vatican archives etc but I presume you aren't interested enough to do such research, so I gave you the easy option.* Why do you think I am trying to insult you?
*(The Wiki article is correct in most, if not all, of its content - otherwise I wouldn't have recommended it).
You certainly did NOT limit your accusation to my knowledge of the 'evangelical church' - your words were | Quote: |
| Actually, Bikerman, I'm still not convinced that you know what real Christianity is. |
..which implies that you do know, which in turn implies that your particular sect is the only 'real' Christianity. A rather bigoted line of argument, often used by believers in all sorts of nonsense. In fact I know a bit about Protestantism as well as Catholicism - my theology lessons included a bit about Lutheranism (know the enemy )
The term 'evangelicalism' refers generally to the movement started in England in the 18th century (around 1730 from memory). Nowadays it is a very loosely applied label which could refer to anything from conservative fundamentalism to very liberal theologies - effectively the term 'evangelical' has lost most of its original meaning. | Quote: |
| I think that you let your knowledge get in the way. After all I have more important things to do besides take crash course from a professor at wikipedia university. I see, your trying to get a handle on which 'sect' i subscribe to. Well, to address those theological questions you asked, I'm NOT catholic is that enough for you to tell me what I believe. And yes, babies do go to heaven when they die simple because they have not had the chance to decide for themselves. If your so smart then telling you that I'm not catholic should give a clue to where I might stand on theological issues. |
Not really. There are about 30,000 different sects of Christianity - over a thousand in the US alone. Each have distinctive beliefs and theological differences. You could be anything from a Mormon to a Pentecostalist.
When it comes to your particular belief you appear to be saying that you do not believe in the concept of original sin. How can a baby, carrying the stain of original sin, enter heaven, unless first baptised?
(You also contradict yourself - you said earlier that | Quote: |
| The whole point of Christianity is what you do while you are alive and breathing and then you going to heaven after death is the reward. |
What reward could a baby possibly have earned?
The basic Lutheran teaching is: | Augsburg Confession wrote: |
| It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. |
In simple terms - a non-baptised baby is destined for hell.
Now, the interpretation that YOU are putting forward seems far more in line with Mormon theology - ie the Mormons do not accept the concept of original sin and believe that salvation is earned entirely through one's actions and that babies are born 'pure' and therefore do not need baptism until they reach an age of 'decision' (normally around 8 years old).
Now you can see why I find your 'theology' confusing - you seem to be saying you are a Lutheran Protestant but your theology is decidedly Mormon....Stumbled across this a few minutes ago...chuckled a bit
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ | Quote: |
| Now, the interpretation that YOU are putting forward seems far more in line with Mormon theology |
Morman, eh? Nope, that's not correct about me at all. guess again.
Just a quick question. What good is all that knowledge you seek if you don't live it out? Or, why do you find religious studies interesting if it doesn't make it passed your head (or intellect)? This isn't a general question, it's personal, but it'll okay if you want to send a private response instead of on this poster. | socialoutcast wrote: |
| Quote: | | Now, the interpretation that YOU are putting forward seems far more in line with Mormon theology |
Morman, eh? Nope, that's not correct about me at all. guess again.
Just a quick question. What good is all that knowledge you seek if you don't live it out? Or, why do you find religious studies interesting if it doesn't make it passed your head (or intellect)? This isn't a general question, it's personal, but it'll okay if you want to send a private response instead of on this poster. |
I'm perfectly happy to reply in public. I didn't have a choice as a child - my parents were Catholic and I was educated by Monks until the age of 18. I find religion 'interesting' because it has a major influence on everyone's life, like it or not. Political, social and educational decision making is often influenced by various religious lobbies. In the US and the UK various creationist lobbies have tried, and are trying, to influence what I, as a teacher, should be delivering to my students. I live in a country which has suffered 40 years of terrorism largely arranged on religious sectarian grounds. We live in a world where various religious sects threaten the peace.
I don't 'live it out' because there is no 'it'. As you have already demonstrated, many religious people don't actually know what the sect they belong to really stands for - they don't understand the core doctrinal points of their own religious grouping. There is no single dogma that covers all Christian sects - let alone all religions. Some time ago we examined the question of 'what is a Christian' and no satisfactory definition emerged. Some people say the definition is someone who 'accepts' that Jesus was/is our saviour. Other people say you have to be baptised. When it comes to matters of doctrine there are a huge range of beliefs in the different sects. I illustrated this with reference to the doctrine of original sin, but I could have chosen many other examples.Bikerman, I appreciate your lucid explanation of a complex subject.
It is so true, each Christian sect says something different. There is no consensus, even among believers in the same church. Legalistic and academic types in each sect like to codify and write down their beliefs, and then make a big fuss and controversy over which is right and wrong. Many wars and much bloodshed have been stupidly fought over who is "right".
If people are going out and calling themselves christians, than you'd expect them to follow the words of Christ: "love your enemy" "do unto others" "judge not" etc etc
They'd also want to follow the suggestions that Paul wrote to Timothy | 2 Timothy 2:14 wrote: |
| Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. |
But I guess this is a feature of all the religions: Shiite versus Sunni Muslims, Mahayana versus Hinayana Buddhism,and so on... each sect believes they are the only right ones, true followers.
I was reading a pretty good parable about this subject, by Rumi. He tells the tale of a cruel jewish king who wants to exterminate the christian faith, so he has his vizier infiltrate them. The vizier ends up becoming the leader of the christians, and he starts to give each one a slightly different "secret teaching", telling each person that they will be his successor, with instructions to destroy all others who disagree. Then the Vizier killed himself, and the Christians started fighting. The only ones who were saved were those who kept their faith in God alone, not the words of men. Here's the story in full, for those interested. | peaceupnorth wrote: |
Bikerman, I appreciate your lucid explanation of a complex subject.
It is so true, each Christian sect says something different. There is no consensus, even among believers in the same church. Legalistic and academic types in each sect like to codify and write down their beliefs, and then make a big fuss and controversy over which is right and wrong. Many wars and much bloodshed have been stupidly fought over who is "right".
If people are going out and calling themselves christians, than you'd expect them to follow the words of Christ: "love your enemy" "do unto others" "judge not" etc etc
They'd also want to follow the suggestions that Paul wrote to Timothy | 2 Timothy 2:14 wrote: | | Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. |
But I guess this is a feature of all the religions: Shiite versus Sunni Muslims, Mahayana versus Hinayana Buddhism,and so on... each sect believes they are the only right ones, true followers.
I was reading a pretty good parable about this subject, by Rumi. He tells the tale of a cruel jewish king who wants to exterminate the christian faith, so he has his vizier infiltrate them. The vizier ends up becoming the leader of the christians, and he starts to give each one a slightly different "secret teaching", telling each person that they will be his successor, with instructions to destroy all others who disagree. Then the Vizier killed himself, and the Christians started fighting. The only ones who were saved were those who kept their faith in God alone, not the words of men. Here's the story in full, for those interested. |
This was a nice posting and you made some very good points here. I am always fascinated how the Bible gets analyzed left right and centre to "prove" points of religion and in total futility. Then again, this has happened over centuries, and relatively speaking we have so much freedom of religion at the moment, probably we should be very happy about that. I was watching "Elizabeth" last night - the movie - and that terrible flavour of religious wars and persecution was so vividly described in it. Thank goodness that is history. People are still fighting, and will probably always be fighting, it is sort of in their genes, but we find less religious wars, more wars for freedom from oppression. | peaceupnorth wrote: |
Bikerman, I appreciate your lucid explanation of a complex subject.
It is so true, each Christian sect says something different. There is no consensus, even among believers in the same church. Legalistic and academic types in each sect like to codify and write down their beliefs, and then make a big fuss and controversy over which is right and wrong. Many wars and much bloodshed have been stupidly fought over who is "right".
If people are going out and calling themselves christians, than you'd expect them to follow the words of Christ: "love your enemy" "do unto others" "judge not" etc etc
They'd also want to follow the suggestions that Paul wrote to Timothy | 2 Timothy 2:14 wrote: | | Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. |
|
Hmm...the main problem, though, is that the Bible can be used to support pretty much any line you care to take. For example, in response to Paul, I could quote Matthew (5:18 ) | Quote: |
| I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. |
which gives the opposite message (ie that one has to be literal in interpreting the OT).
As you probably know, Paul was anxious to open up Christianity to 'gentiles' and this agenda meant that he had to 'de-emphasise' much of the Old Testament which gives the message that only the Jews are the chosen people.
The simple fact is that there are many contradictions and ambiguities in the Bible and it is easy for a group, or individual, to come up with a theology and support it with selective references.. | Bikerman wrote: |
| The simple fact is that there are many contradictions and ambiguities in the Bible and it is easy for a group, or individual, to come up with a theology and support it with selective references.. |
And the other way round, i.e. people who take on Christians can find as many texts in the Bible to support their anti-points of view as well. Not sure that the Bible has been written for that purpose though and to have arguments quoting texts all the time serves very little purpose other than being "right" or "wrong", none of that being meaningful at all. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The simple fact is that there are many contradictions and ambiguities in the Bible and it is easy for a group, or individual, to come up with a theology and support it with selective references.. |
And the other way round, i.e. people who take on Christians can find as many texts in the Bible to support their anti-points of view as well. Not sure that the Bible has been written for that purpose though and to have arguments quoting texts all the time serves very little purpose other than being "right" or "wrong", none of that being meaningful at all. |
But that is the basis of nearly all Christian sects - they all put their own interpretation on the bible and to be a 'member' one has to sign up to that interpretation. The major exception would probably be the Church of England which is so 'broad' that it encompasses a huge variety of interpretations - ranging from agnostic/atheistic to evangelical fundamentalism. That particular church, however, is currently shaking itself apart as the liberal wing fights with the more fundamentalist wing over issues such as gay clergy and the ordination of women. | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | The simple fact is that there are many contradictions and ambiguities in the Bible and it is easy for a group, or individual, to come up with a theology and support it with selective references.. |
And the other way round, i.e. people who take on Christians can find as many texts in the Bible to support their anti-points of view as well. Not sure that the Bible has been written for that purpose though and to have arguments quoting texts all the time serves very little purpose other than being "right" or "wrong", none of that being meaningful at all. |
But that is the basis of nearly all Christian sects - they all put their own interpretation on the bible and to be a 'member' one has to sign up to that interpretation. The major exception would probably be the Church of England which is so 'broad' that it encompasses a huge variety of interpretations - ranging from agnostic/atheistic to evangelical fundamentalism. That particular church, however, is currently shaking itself apart as the liberal wing fights with the more fundamentalist wing over issues such as gay clergy and the ordination of women. |
Looks as though this ongoing conflict of interpretation is never going to end. Get the flavour of eternal faction fighting But it IS pretty meaningful. When you get the Pope saying that condoms can increase the problem of Aids in Africa then that has an impact in real terms. When you get various Imams saying that suicide bombing is legitimate in the face of Western Imperialism then that has an impact in real terms.
These interpretations of scripture are not just hypothetical exercises conducted by theologians in their ivory towers - they have a very real impact.
| Bikerman wrote: |
But it IS pretty meaningful. When you get the Pope saying that condoms can increase the problem of Aids in Africa then that has an impact in real terms. When you get various Imams saying that suicide bombing is legitimate in the face of Western Imperialism then that has an impact in real terms.
These interpretations of scripture are not just hypothetical exercises conducted by theologians in their ivory towers - they have a very real impact. |
Absolutely true. I was looking at that movie again with Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth I - it went real deep. Fantastic performance by Cate Blanchett.if wat u say is really true how do u explain wat happens in nature, there are so many wonders and miracles happening even today which are beyond science . what do u then say about this?
| navneethshashank wrote: |
| if wat u say is really true how do u explain wat happens in nature, there are so many wonders and miracles happening even today which are beyond science . what do u then say about this? |
What do I say about that? I say a lot about that. I say that things do not happen which are "beyond science." I then challenge you to come up with one thing that happens in nature that is totally beyond science and then look at your skeptically as you fail to come up with anything.God the creator of heaven and earth. the omipotent, the beginning and the end. he who calls things that be not as though they were because he sees and knoweth all things. the thought of God brings goose bumps on my skin. i am facinated about the beauty of God. the fact that he lives in me and does great things in my life. i believe in God not only because i was raised to believe in him but because it got to a point in my life where he visited me. personal relationship and encounter with God is the only way a man can beleive. so anytime i hear people talking about not believing there is a God. i understand them. really all that is real is when he reveals himself to you. it could be in a dream, in a vision or trance. he is alive and thousands of testimonies all over the world testify this every day. the greatness of God is awesom. its magnificent. that is why i say there is none like my God.
| ShadowmasterX wrote: |
I think that without the idea of god, or any kind of religion, humanity would not have succeed as its has now;
shadowmasterx
<James007>
Made this topic the official topic for discussions on "God"
</James007> |
You are right when you say that religion was a creation of someone's fantasy, just think about Pastafaris, but i disagree very strongly with the quoted sentence.
Never ever has religion brought mankind any step forward. Just think about the crusades, the burning of witches or books.burning witches was not by religion but by some crazy fanatical people. Its not religion fault that some foolish people use it for wrong purpose. Nothing is more easy than mocking a religion. But its so hard to actually understand it. Even for religious people.
| aln_kpa wrote: |
You are right when you say that religion was a creation of someone's fantasy, just think about Pastafaris, but i disagree very strongly with the quoted sentence.
Never ever has religion brought mankind any step forward. Just think about the crusades, the burning of witches or books. |
How can you make that claim? Was there a time or place where there was no religion? Oh, I forget, the former Soviet Union. They had quite progress, didn't they? | mgeek wrote: |
| aln_kpa wrote: |
You are right when you say that religion was a creation of someone's fantasy, just think about Pastafaris, but i disagree very strongly with the quoted sentence.
Never ever has religion brought mankind any step forward. Just think about the crusades, the burning of witches or books. |
How can you make that claim? Was there a time or place where there was no religion? Oh, I forget, the former Soviet Union. They had quite progress, didn't they? |
Well:
a) Religion survived pretty well under the Soviet system.
b) The USSR made some remarkable progress, yes. The 20 million citizens that lost their life in WW2 made, in my opinion, a pivotal contribution to western democracy. | mgeek wrote: |
| aln_kpa wrote: |
You are right when you say that religion was a creation of someone's fantasy, just think about Pastafaris, but i disagree very strongly with the quoted sentence.
Never ever has religion brought mankind any step forward. Just think about the crusades, the burning of witches or books. |
How can you make that claim? Was there a time or place where there was no religion? Oh, I forget, the former Soviet Union. They had quite progress, didn't they? |
1. The statement isn't about atheism but about religion.
2.1. The fact that a lot of people got killed was because of something called "dictatorship" not because they where atheists.
2.2. In the worst period stalin was the leader. Stalin was a paranoid madman, and when you got a paranoid madman being the supremen leader of a country things tend to go wrong...
3. Basically atheism hasN'T killed someone since atheism doesn't tell you to do anything, doesn't tell you to kill someone when he doesn't believes in the same thing, etc etc.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| 3. Basically atheism has killed someone since atheism doesn't tell you to do anything, you to kill someone when he doesn't believes in the same thing, etc etc. |
Exactly. Atheism does not kill, but people who are atheists could kill. Similarly religions don't kill, but people who are religious could kill. Something that is inanimate can't kill, only the bearer of arms can. And he or she could be religious, atheist, etc.This is going nowhere fast.
Religion is a set of beliefs and practices associated with a metaphysical view of life, and normally revolving around the idea of a deity.
(my own definition, just coined - feel free to criticise).
Atheism is not a set of beliefs and practices, it is simply a non belief in deities.
Now, please tell me how that could possibly motivate evil? Let's try to imagine a scenario:
'Because I don't believe in Jesus as saviour then I will kill those who hold that view'.
Doesn't really scan, does it?
Let's now imagine another scenario
'Because I believe that Jesus is our saviour, it is my duty to kill abortion doctors'.
That scans.
Now, you could say that the latter case is an extreme example - I would agree. It is certainly not a unique example, however. You can also substitute the words 'Jesus' and 'abortion doctors' with other words appropriate to the faith system.
| Bikerman wrote: |
This is going nowhere fast.
Religion is a set of beliefs and practices associated with a metaphysical view of life, and normally revolving around the idea of a deity.
(my own definition, just coined - feel free to criticise).
Atheism is not a set of beliefs and practices, it is simply a non belief in deities.
|
If what you are saying is correct why still persuade other people to leave behind their beliefs in favor of yours? | mgeek wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | This is going nowhere fast.
Religion is a set of beliefs and practices associated with a metaphysical view of life, and normally revolving around the idea of a deity.
(my own definition, just coined - feel free to criticise).
Atheism is not a set of beliefs and practices, it is simply a non belief in deities.
|
If what you are saying is correct why still persuade other people to leave behind their beliefs in favor of yours? |
Well - if you believe someone is delusional then do you try to help them through it or simply ignore them? I'm not interested in persuading people to adopt my beliefs - I don't have a religious belief. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| navneethshashank wrote: | | if wat u say is really true how do u explain wat happens in nature, there are so many wonders and miracles happening even today which are beyond science . what do u then say about this? |
What do I say about that? I say a lot about that. I say that things do not happen which are "beyond science." I then challenge you to come up with one thing that happens in nature that is totally beyond science and then look at your skeptically as you fail to come up with anything. |
second law of thermodynamics: entropy of the universe always increases.
But how then evolution is occuring? how then we create order out of disorder at times. our society also keeps going to disorder until some changes are willfully made. this use of 'will power' is working against the second law of thermodynamics. this 'will' is 'out of the universe' thing. so if proven, this could become an addition to the modern science.
also. maybe the 'soul' is the source of 'will power' and that it exists beyond the observable universe. singularity before big bang or inside black hole is god? hehe
give your ideas. like please try to tell facts that support this idea. i am just curious.I believe that God created the universe and while micro evolution most certainly exist, macro evolution (as in the Big Bang and people evolving from chimps) is a myth. There are incredible animals that defy evolution. Check out these different websites:
http://www.crazyaboutcreation.com/animals.htm
http://www.explorationfilms.com/exploration-films-incredible-creatures-3.html | supernova1987a wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | navneethshashank wrote: | | if wat u say is really true how do u explain wat happens in nature, there are so many wonders and miracles happening even today which are beyond science . what do u then say about this? |
What do I say about that? I say a lot about that. I say that things do not happen which are "beyond science." I then challenge you to come up with one thing that happens in nature that is totally beyond science and then look at your skeptically as you fail to come up with anything. |
second law of thermodynamics: entropy of the universe always increases.
But how then evolution is occuring? how then we create order out of disorder at times. our society also keeps going to disorder until some changes are willfully made. this use of 'will power' is working against the second law of thermodynamics. this 'will' is 'out of the universe' thing. so if proven, this could become an addition to the modern science.
also. maybe the 'soul' is the source of 'will power' and that it exists beyond the observable universe. singularity before big bang or inside black hole is god? hehe
give your ideas. like please try to tell facts that support this idea. i am just curious. |
All you really displayed was a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. The law basically states the entropy of an isolated system (that is not in equilibrium) tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value (at equilibrium).
First off, the big bang has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution. Second of all, human beings didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Human beings and chimps are both apes that share a common ancestor. The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable.
Second all, those links you gave are complete crap. Did you actually read them before posting here? Just look at some of the things mentioned:
| CrazyAboutCreationCrap wrote: |
| They [Hippos] can Weigh 7,000 pounds but can run at 30 Miles Per Hour (M/PH) |
So what? And this is supposed to prove evolution wrong how? The entire page was like that. I just listed some random facts about animals and didn't actually give any arguments against evolution. The only point in which it attempted to make was the Irreducible Complexity argument that is old and just bloody stupid. | supernova1987a wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | navneethshashank wrote: | | if wat u say is really true how do u explain wat happens in nature, there are so many wonders and miracles happening even today which are beyond science . what do u then say about this? |
What do I say about that? I say a lot about that. I say that things do not happen which are "beyond science." I then challenge you to come up with one thing that happens in nature that is totally beyond science and then look at your skeptically as you fail to come up with anything. |
second law of thermodynamics: entropy of the universe always increases.
But how then evolution is occuring? how then we create order out of disorder at times. our society also keeps going to disorder until some changes are willfully made. this use of 'will power' is working against the second law of thermodynamics. this 'will' is 'out of the universe' thing. so if proven, this could become an addition to the modern science. |
Yes well this is often used by creationists to say that evolution is false or used as proof for existence for some god. Of course as most times it is used who don't undertand evolution and thermodynamics who most likely copied from someone else. (And the guy who was the first one who fought it up was luying, or just pulled it straight out of his a$$.)
| supernova1987a wrote: |
also. maybe the 'soul' is the source of 'will power' and that it exists beyond the observable universe. singularity before big bang or inside black hole is god? hehe
give your ideas. like please try to tell facts that support this idea. i am just curious. |
Lets forget the thermodynamics part is total crap, in what way did you plan on proving that the soul has to anything with this mysterious "will power" how did you plan to prove it? You can't do this sientifically beacuse that would go into the realms of the supernatural, and science doesn't cover that. It's meant to observe, study and explain the natural world.
No as for thermodynamics:
The second law states that:
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
No disorder.
If you read any article about evolution, it says nothing on the disorder you are talking about.
For a full rebuttal covering all points etc:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Most important bit.
| Quote: |
Creationists assume that a change characterized by a decrease in entropy can not occur under any circumstances. In fact, spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the time, providing sufficient energy is available.
A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane. They base this argument on their belief that changes in living things have a very low probability and could not occur without "intelligent design" which overcomes the laws of thermodynamics. This represents a fundamental contradiction in which (they say) evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics because thermodynamics doesn't permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder, but creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) doesn't have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
A simpler analogy to the airplane/junkyard scenario would be the stacking of three blocks neatly on top of each other. To do this, intelligent design is required, but stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The same relations hold for this activity as for any other activity involving thermodynamical energy changes. It is true that the blocks will not stack themselves, but as far as thermodynamics is concerned, all that is required is the energy to pick them up and place them one on top of the other. Thermodynamics merely correlates the energy relationships in going from state A to state B. If the energy relationships permit, the change may occur. If they don't permit it, the change can not occur. A ball will not spontaneously leap up from the floor, but if it is dropped, it will spontaneously bounce up from the floor. Whether the ball is lifted by intelligent design or just happens to fall makes no difference.
On the other hand, thermodynamics does not rule out the possibility of intelligent design; it is just simply not a factor with respect to the calculation of thermodynamic probability.
Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun.
The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are very well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy, emf characteristics of voltaic cells, equilibrium constants, refrigeration cycles, steam turbine operating parameters, and a host of other parameters. The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.
|
You dont even know what evolution is, humans evolved from some other kind of primates wich is now gone. Big bang is something completely different that evolution and those sites are crap. The bottom one is advertisment "buy these total crap and over-expensive dvd's" and the other is some facts about animals and above it written why these animals disprove evolution isn't even explain.
It's the same as me saying:
Right now my computer is switched on, this proves that god doesn't exist. | ShadowmasterX wrote: |
Disclaimer: This is not to offend anyone:
There is no proof that God is real;
I think that God was an idea to stop humanity to fall upon itself;
I think that without the idea of god, or any kind of religion, humanity would not have succeed as its has now;
This is all my ideas in my head, It may be wrong, may be based wrongly on my knowlegde.
I think that religion was a CREATION, I standby this until I am proven wrong.
shadowmasterx
<James007>
Made this topic the official topic for discussions on "God"
</James007> |
Disclaimer: This is not to offend anyone too.
Once a teacher said
Look there is no God.
You know why?
Do you see trees outside? Children said, "Yes"
Do you clouds outside? Children said, "Yes"
Do you see me? Children said, "Yes"
Do you see this .. and .. that ... "Yes"
So these things exist
As we do not see God because it does not Exist.
There was a little Girl, she said to her class fellows
Do you see teacher's hands? "Yes"
Do you see teacher's eyes? "Yes"
.
.
Do you see teacher's brain? "No"
So he does not have any brain
[I forgot original words but it was like above dialogue]Err....that is one of the weakest postings I've seen for a while (or it would be if you could even be bothered to remember it properly).
| hunnyhiteshseth wrote: |
| ShadowmasterX wrote: | Disclaimer: This is not to offend anyone:
There is no proof that God is real;
I think that God was an idea to stop humanity to fall upon itself;
I think that without the idea of god, or any kind of religion, humanity would not have succeed as its has now;
This is all my ideas in my head, It may be wrong, may be based wrongly on my knowlegde.
I think that religion was a CREATION, I standby this until I am proven wrong.
shadowmasterx |
Consider this. http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-42480.html
|
The link seems to be dead..
