|
Post by Tyual on Jul 7, 2006 2:28:03 GMT -5
Yes, most monothiestic religions really do worship the same God, with a different name and slightly different views on him, but overall the same God. The major difference is how we choose to worship, and he details of our worship style and beliefs about the same God.
|
|
|
Post by moogman on Jul 7, 2006 2:30:05 GMT -5
so therefore only one set of them can go to heaven i assume? because only one set will be Worshipping him properley? i mean there is the possabiltie that if god does exist and he doesnt bother with us because hes off doing fun things that amuse him that nobody is going to go anywere when they die, just the big black void of beyond??
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 7, 2006 2:36:51 GMT -5
Well even presuming that's the case, when he gains interest in us again would infact be the Apocalypse (spelling? It's 330 am, brain is dead.)
As for that, I'm unsure really.Because we are all infact worshiping him, I don't see how our personal manner of doing so matters. However, if you ask anyone in the church, it does. Personally, I don't think so, but I'm not omnipotent so I don't know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by seffy on Jul 7, 2006 4:57:38 GMT -5
I have read those books Ty, I've also read Holy Blood, Holy Grail which The Da Vinci Code was based upon/around. The reason I mentioned those books was in case you thought I was refering to them and I didn't want you thinking that. I was leaning more towards the fact of things like Gallileo spending the last part of his life under permanant house arrest or Bruni (I think that was his name) being burned at the stake as a heretic, simply because they were men of science who found themselves at odds with the church, a church that was afraid of what they were finding and stamped down on them. I think it was Moog who made a good point when he made the point about the differant religions and what happens when they die. I would like to make a similar point. If all these religions are all worshiping the same god, how can that all loving and all powerful gos allow some of the terrible things done in his name? Now, I know you said that he allows us to make our own mistakes, fair enough. Allowing someone such as myself not to believe in him is alright, I'm hurting no one but myself. But some of the things that happen in the world, where two sperate religions meet, are nothing short of barbaric. We all know of the things that happen in the West Bank in Israel and in Jerusalem, where the battle between Judaism and Islam are fought every day. Muslims and Christians have waged war with each other through-out history. That's bad enough. But what about Christian against Christian. The best example I can use is the one I know the most about, sectarian Northern Ireland. A woman, taking her children to Primary school (Kindergarten (I think)) will have stones thrown at her 'and her children' if she's a Catholic walking down a Prodestant street, and vice versa. And I'm not talking 'way back when', or 'back in the day'. This happens now, today. This is pure religious bigotry and hatred (the other examples, West Bank and Garzza Strip, Jerusalem, Beiruit, they were also Political as well as religious, so don't really count to the point I'm trying to make). It isn't even restricted to inividuals, we're talking entire communitys. Being allowed to make mistakes is one thing, but this?
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 7, 2006 13:02:27 GMT -5
I don't know why it happens. All I can say is that it is human stupidity. We as a society should be more advanced and civilized than that. Apparently we are not. However, the wars are waged over the insignficant technicalities. I pray with my head down, you pray on all 4s, you pray standing, stupid BS like that. It doesn't matter. What those wars are really fought over is human pride and bigotry but claimed in the name of God, when infact, it's just our superiority complex and need to say "I'm right and better than you" Which is stupid in itself, but it exists, and we see the results.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 7, 2006 13:12:10 GMT -5
Listen. Okay. You guys need to read what you writing. Because, while you all are making amazing, well thought out, intelligent responses... there is a continuing thread that keeps coming up.
Everyone asks "Why does God let terrible things happen?" This question has been answered 4 different ways, and if those answers aren't going to satisfy you, then it is probably best to realize that you just dont believe and never will believe God could let terrible things happen. Reasking the question wont change your mind.
Why does God have to stop terrible things from happening? First of all, they are terrible and should be stopped... but they happen and it is in our nature for them to happen. Its high time we accept that, because once we accept it we can start to change it rather than whining about it. Second, PLUS all the other points that were made, what if God is practicing a bit of "tough love", what if he is there watching and crying and forgiving us, but he knows that ESPECIALLY in this day and age, even if God himself sent down a message from the heavens... few people would listen and most would be sceptical. Maybe he is trying to get us to learn from our mistakes and we are just to thick to realize it.
This debate is amazing, and Im glad to be apart of it.. but it seems that everyone already knows their views and aren't likely to change. What i love about debates is that I am willing to change my views... thats what they are meant for, to open your eyes or open someone elses eyes. So maybe we can agree that terrible things happen, but we are experiencing those terrible things and we do little to stop it ( ie. Genocides in Africa that no one is helping) we dont get involved, we are selfish and we say "it doesn't directly effect me, so im not doing crap!" and then we whine our behinds off about it. SO what exactly is the motivation for God to stop everything if we dont seem that interested in stoping such things ourselves? (minus a very few people)
So what I am wondering, is why do we blame everything on God? If he does exist that doesn't mean that he deserves all this blame we are shifting to him. Why are we sitting around asking "blah, there cant be a God, he lets baaaad things happen" When WE are the ones creating the bad things. EVERY bad thing, save for maybe a tsunami and an earthquake (which, some, are indirectly being proven to also be our fault) IS OUR FAULT. Human beings are the reason for MOST things bad in this world. We kill, we steal, we cheat, we lie, and we hurt other people just to save ourselves. SO maybe you can just say "God creatteedd us this way, its not MY fault" but i think that it is. It very much is our fault DESPITE if there is a God or NOT.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 7, 2006 15:14:48 GMT -5
Hmm, Lisi basically summed up what I've been arguing. We blame God, but infact it's the acts of man that cause these bad things. Why should he have to pick up behind us?
As for the natural disasters, some of them have been the result of humans, the things we put into the environment reacting with things that naturally occur there, and it creates things that shouldn't happen, thus we get natural disasters (I've heard of this in the case of causing a volcano to erupt, wish I remembered it's name.)
But yes, I think Lisi summed up what I've been trying to say nicely. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by seffy on Jul 7, 2006 18:41:58 GMT -5
Wow, I'm almost afraid to say anything.
Very well, I'll make my point bluntly. Religion is fundamentally flawed. The religious leaders preach about peace and good will to all men, they preach forgiveness and tolerance, and all in the name of a benevolant, all knowing, all loving god. Then they wage war, torture, butcher and persecute anyone who doesn't conform to their particular way of thinking. And I'm not just talking about one religion, it's the same for all of them, whether it's a Catholic or a prodestant throwing stones at someone from the next street, or a Muslim strapping a bomb to his chest before getting on a bus. Even the Bhuddhists have Warrior Monks. These same religious leaders can't even decide which history to follow, apparently swapping and changing dates at the drop of a hat as soon as they integrate a new people, just so they can make a smooth transition from their old religion into the new one. There is even a book for the religions to follow, a book that tells the history of the world as handed down by god. Yet this book makes no mention of things such as Dinosaurs. Why? Because the Bible was finished being written hundreds of years 'before' the first Dinosaur bones were discovered. Yet god had given man a full and complete history of the world. Religion has got the biology wrong, the physics wrong, the history wrong, the timeline wrong. What else has it got wrong? I'm not even gonna ask why god allows it.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 7, 2006 20:38:46 GMT -5
Okay. I think you, seffy, are missing my point as much as you think I am missing yours.
I am not saying religion is not flawed. Im saying that you are laying the blame at the wrong pair of feet. Listen, lets say there is a God, but he is different from what all of the religions say he is. Then, is it his fault that we have painted him as this pristine picture?
What I am saying is that, you need to stop attacking God and, if you so choose, attack the PEOPLE who made the religions. For that is what you have issue with. You have issue with the hypocritical nature of religion and how they say and do different things. You have issue with the people who preach about God, and who created the Bible. But that does not mean you should have issue with God. Because you are right, if he was like the Christians said he was, exactly, then he would not let these things happen. But we dont know that he IS exactly as the preists and bibles say.
So the point I make is that it isn't God that is flawed, or rather it isn't Gods job NOT to be flawed, but the people who potentially made him.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 7, 2006 21:28:19 GMT -5
I talked to you personally Mistress, but i wanted to clarify I was talking to Seffy when i refered to missing points, and we just happened to post at the same time.
I also want to say right now, that if I am coming off as if I am attacking anyone, I really wish to apologize. I get a little invested in these topics and can completley understand that I may come off as attacking or harsh or any such thing. And i want everyone to know, especially seffy and ty since ive had several debates with them, that i respect you very highly... and your opinions. You are both amazing at stating your points and are extremely logical and eloquent. My hats off to you. And apologize for any offence or any thought that i may not respect you greatly!
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 7, 2006 23:02:29 GMT -5
Sis, lock the thread and we're getting into it when I get home. We're not getting touchy or personal by any means. This is still a calm debate.
Seffy, those things are the work of Man, not of God. It's not his fault that we screw stuff up. We have free will and the ability to make those decisions.
I've already addressed wars in his name: It's human pride, egos, and bigotry. They just use religion as a half-decent excuse to do what they do. Just because they disagree. Why? Because they're simple and egotistical, and fanatical, and believe that only their way can be the right way.
I've already addressed that for me personally, even with my religion, I highly disagree with the church on many issues because of this. It's why I hardly go anymore.
So war over religion is really just a half decent excuse for man to express his ego and need for superiority over another man.
|
|
|
Post by seffy on Jul 8, 2006 12:57:24 GMT -5
Very well, I'll make my point bluntly. Religion is fundamentally flawed. The religious leaders preach about peace and good will to all men, they preach forgiveness and tolerance, and all in the name of a benevolant, all knowing, all loving god. These same religious leaders can't even decide which history to follow, I'm not even gonna ask why god allows it. I didn't lay anything at god's feet this time guys. Fine, I understand that the flaws in religion are down to man. What else has man got wrong where his religion is concerned? And how can people have faith in that religion when they know it is so flawed? More to the point, why? It can't even be truly said that religion is a good thing anymore, not when you see all the terrible things that happen in the world because of it. As time goes by, more and more of the structure of religious thought is found to be wrong. You can dig down as deep as you like, but you won't find hell. Go out into the stars and spend a thousand lifetimes travelling in the one direction, you'll never find heaven. The bible says god drew Adam and Eve in the clay and then breathed life into them, yet science has traced man's evolution back to the Primates of 3 million years ago. I've already mentioned the bible and the Dinosaurs, so I won't go over that again. Now, I'm not stating these as reasons why you who believe in religion shouldn't, but rather why I don't believe. To my way of thinking, I can see, and touch, all the things that science says is the reason that religion is wrong. They are there, they are real. It doesn't require faith because they are there, physical and real. There is nothing to say that religion is real, nothing physical, except a book containing facts that have already been proven wrong. This is why I don't believe. Missy, why would you want to lock this thread? It's not as though we're getting personal about anything here. There's no name calling or abuse being thrown around, so I don't understand why you want to lock it.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 8, 2006 14:17:14 GMT -5
Hm. I think the best thing for this thread is that everyone calm down a bit. Ty, Im sure if we are just a bit more curteous with expressing our views your sister will leave it open... but if we in turn get mad at her... then we really are getting "touchy" aren't we?
And seffy... now that we have that all cleared up, let me just say that most of the time i agree. I despise how corrupt religion is, thats why no matter if at times i do feel there is a god or not, i have not believed in organized religion for years.. It is hypocritical, corrupt, and ridiculously stuck in its own ways.. example Galileo and the fact he wasn't apologized to until many many many years after the fact. So i agree. Organized religion is despicable most of the time. Now religion and faith, and dont believe always is. I think it has tremendous powers for the human psyche and just to bring people together for a common good. In my anthro class we talk about religion and how people feel like they belong and thus commit less suicide and so on. I mean yes.. the main religions have caused many terrible events.. but we forget about all the small tribe religions and so on, or the Native American religion.. that havn't caused anything but good for the people in their society.
As much as it is terrible, there is a lot of proof that it is necessary for most people to go on psychologically. Also, i dont think that one must only believe in things that are scientifically proven. I saw What the bleep do we know... and i loved it. Except for one part. The part where they stated that emotions are just chemicals. Now.. i can believe that for some emotions. But when they said that LOVE is just a chemical addiction... i dont care how much scientific proof you put in front of me, i simply can not believe that. At all. And that is a case of something that doesn't need scientific backing.
So i agree with most of what you say seffy, but definitly not all. I think in some cases, faith (whether it be religious or not) is extremely important.
................
Okay completely different subject, thought about it while reading the mysterious beast post.
What I have never understood is why I will get made fun of if I am superstitious or believe in Astrology or in Luck and all of that, because it is deemed "silly" and there is tons of scientifical (know its not a word) backing to prove it wrong... but then people who believe that the earth was created in 7 days still have their religion without being told they are silly in the same way? True they too are challenged about their beliefs, but if i believe in some superstitions Im judged too naive and silly to even be given the time to challenge me. Do you know what I mean? Or am I just not explaining well...?
Like what would make my belief in say... Big Foot differ from a belief in Angels? I could believe in it just as strongly..
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 8, 2006 15:42:13 GMT -5
Mistress: 1) That wasn't a threat, I don't think you've heard me get hostile in a long time if you thought it was. Also, I've talked to you since, and we understand that I was Irate anyways because of my brother bugging me and the problems I'm having with my laptop.
That aside, trying to throw the rule book around, that's just unnecessary. It's not like it was some super serious statement. And I didn't talk to you like you were 2. That's how I talk to my brother, and that's nothing like I talk to you. If it seemed that way, I'm sorry.
That aside, I'm sorry anyways. Shouldn't have taken my being irate out on you.
Seffy, saying that religion is flawed, well I won't say you're wrong. But I'm saying, religion is flawed because of people, because people are flawed. However, we are not perfect and cannot expect to be perfect, therefore we accept that mistakes are made and just try to make the best out of it.
Just because a religion teaches something, and someone claims to follow it, doesn't mean they truely do or that they follow it as it's taught. I feel that point hasn't been made clearly and should be. Just because someone claims to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslism, a whatever religion, doesn't mean they truely are. It means that's what they associate most with. It does not mean they practice the religion flawlessly. If we did, then we wouldn't have egos, or psychological needs for superiority, which leads to wars of religion.
As for fundamentally flawed, to me that's saying that God is flawed. Which is not the case. What is flawed is man's perspective and how man acts. Such as I mentioned above with what leads to the religious wars. (Ego and superiority complexes)
You also misunderstand faith. Faith, Seffy, is not in religion. Intelligent people know that religion is flawed. Our faith is in God. Not in religion. Religion is nothing more than the means by which we choose to worship, and some details about history that we believe this one over the other (mainly talking about the last prophet here. Jews think Jesus was just another man, not the Messiah, and Islamics belive that he was just a prophet, not the messiah, while Christians believe that Muhhammad...however you spell it...was just a prophet, and Jesus as the messiah. Although I'm sure you knew that, it's the point I was referring to most directly) When you come down to the main monotheistic religions in the world today, that's the only difference.
Something for me, even though I am Christian, and I believe Jesus was the messiah, I really don't claim a sect of Christianity. Prodestant or Catholic. Why? Because I have disagreeances with them on how they choose to worship and their superiority complex that makes them want to push Christianity onto other people. Granted, if I go to church, I will generally go to a Baptist church, because thats what I was raised in, but tht doesn't mean I agree with them on everything. I even have tried to take principles taught in Buddhism to my life. Why? Because they're good mentality practices that help make me a better person. Does that make me some kind of blaspheming heretic? No, it just means that I'm smart enough to see good principles to make me a better person and try to use them. It doesn't mean I no longer worship God, or no longer believe in Jesus. So no, I don't claim any true sect of religion, other than Christianity in general, because I do believe that Jesus was the messiah.
As for heaven in the stars and hell being dug up in the ground? Horrible but very popular misconception. I do not believe that if I dig to the center of the earth I will find hell. That is a metaphorical reference. Same with heaven and the stars. Metaphorical, not literal.
"yet science has traced man's evolution back to the Primates of 3 million years ago."
You can show me similarities all you want, but unless you take a frickin monkey and turn him into a man infront of me, I refuse to believe that I came from a monkey. I do believe in evolution amongst species, like a human to a higher level of human, but not of one species to another (fish to bird, monkey to human, etc)
As for dinosaurs, there is debate to rather they are referenced. Because in the old testament there are areas that speak of great giants, and many people believe that to be a reference to the dinosaurs.
"There is nothing to say that religion is real, nothing physical, except a book containing facts that have already been proven wrong." Ther is real, when you believe. There's a feeling inside you that I can't begin to explain, and when you have that feeling, there is no doubt to you at all that it is real. I can't explain, it's something that you have to feel personally, and I think anyone else who knows it would agree with me (this being Mistress or Wile, as the rest of you are against religion apparently.)
"To my way of thinking, I can see, and touch, all the things that science says is the reason that religion is wrong"
For me, seeing isn't believing. Your senses can play tricks on you. Mine have, more than once. So I don't believe everything I see. Also, science has not PROVEN religion wrong in anyway that I'm aware of. They have THEORIES, which are just that, THEORIES, or IDEAS, that disagree, but that is not PROOF. In fact, for me science is just an understanding of how God's creations work. That's why I like science. I like to understand how complex the things God made are.
Because if you can look at an atom, look at this or that, and tell me that it all exists just by chance, then how do you make it through the day, believing in nothing? Because I can't understand that. Even the big bang, the things that came together to cause it.They had to come from somewhere. Where did the first subatomic particles come from? Something had to make them exist. That's how I look at it at least.
"It doesn't require faith because they are there, physical and real."
It still requires faith. You have faith because your senses tell you that it's real. Faith in God is different because you have to believe without physically seeing him. However, if a rock is here, then suddenly disappears, are you going to believe that the rock just suddenly stopped existing because you can't see it anymore? How do you know what really happened to it? But that rock was just there, just phyiscally existed, but went poof so now it doesn't? That's not logical. If I knew it was there, three seconds ago, because I saw it with my eyes, that makes it a real existing thing and I have faith that it exists. Somewhere, even if it's not where it was 3 seconds ago.
Based on what you're telling me, just because you can't see the rock anymore, you would stop believing it existed at all. Where as, 3 seconds before you would've believed with everything in your heart that it existed because you saw it. That seems very odd to me, can't say I quite understand it.
Lisi: I already said, I was irritable, not meaning to be touchy or personal with her.
"I think it has tremendous powers for the human psyche and just to bring people together for a common good." Yes, it does. However, as you said modern religion is generally corrupt and hypocritical, and that is the fault of people. Not God. Just felt I had to point that out....again....
"As much as it is terrible, there is a lot of proof that it is necessary for most people to go on psychologically. "
Rather you wanted that to be an insult or not, I'm not sure but it came out as one. To me that said "People are weak minded and need some higher power to believe in to continue going on with their day to day life." ...for some people this might be true, but the concept of there not being a God, although foreign and strange would not stop me from going on with my daily life. I by no means think I'm defined as weak minded, although that seemed to imply that religious people are.
As for emotions: Science has explained what happens to the body when they occur, but I have yet to see them explain WHY emotions occur. So WHY love occurs, I've yet to see, however what it does to the body, they can prove that to be chemical reactions and such.
As for your thing about astrology and luck, there are a lot of people who truely do believe in those. Although it's not popular, I believe Wiccans believe in both of them. So it's not that unheard of. I disagree with it. I believe in cause and effect generally, although I've seen a few exceptions that make me believe even more strongly in my religion, but I don't believe in luck. Coincidence, yes.
See although I believe God has a plan for people, I believe it is our choice to fulfill that plan or not. Such as intitled in free will. So although we may end start at point A and end at point B, how we get there is based on cause/effect relationshps. Thus coincidence is possible and not conflicted by religion. The thing about destiny/fate is that people who believe in those tend to believe that every single thing that happens is what God planned to happen. I disagree, because of free will. If he truely made everything happen, then we wouldn't have free will, and religion would also contradict itself in that would mean God makes bad things happen. So no, I don't believe in destiny or fate. I believe that God has a plan, but rather or not we fulfill his plan for us, is entirely up to us and our actions.
I'm no superstition expert so I don't know why they are deemed so silly. I believe people can believe whatever they want to, rather it be in Big Foot or Angels. So I'm not going to call someone simple or stupid or silly for believing in it. They can believe that if they want, doesn't mean I agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 8, 2006 16:00:56 GMT -5
"...and that is the fault of people. Not God. Just felt I had to point that out....again...." Do you not remember my post that said that I do not think it is Gods fault? I agree that it is the fault of the people. So there is no need to point it out to me.
Second. I dont really believe in Astrology that strongly or any superstitions, but just as some people say they just have this.. unexplainable feeling that God exsists, such is my feeling for some superstitions and for Fate. I do believe that every little thing happens for a reason, and I believe that we have free will. Do those look like they contradict? Yes. But that doesn't matter to me because it is truely what i believe. Without any doubt. I dont need to explain it.
What i was trying to say about Religion and superstition, is that isn't it interestinig that two that have almost the same amount of scientific theory against them are held with such differing levels of respect?
And lastly "Rather you wanted that to be an insult or not, I'm not sure but it came out as one." While i didn't mean that to be an insult, as in.. im not trying to insult anyone that has religious beliefs, I do mean it.
I think that there is merit for the theory that a big part of why people believe in God and partake in Religion is a psychological need. That it is just how our brains work to believe in something that gives us comfort like that. I am not saying we are weak minded and I am not saying it is wrong. Nor am I saying that this is true for EVERYONE who believes in a Religion... but I do believe it is true. You wouldn't know any different anyways. For all we know everything that we believe to be real could be created by our mind becuase it truely is that powerful. We categorize things in ways that change our perception of everything. There is an entire world out there that NO ONE will EVER be able to even fathom because it is so outside of what we are able to believe.
Thats all Im saying
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 8, 2006 16:19:49 GMT -5
I wasn't pointing that out to you specifically, just in general, to make the statement. sorry if it seemed at you.
As for theory against them, it's just that, theory, not proof. I've yet to see anyone prove to me that I have 7 years bad luck for breaking a mirror, just the same as they can say I came from a monkey because we're similar, but unless they show me that I get my 7 years bad luck or show me a human coming from a monkey, I don't believe it.
I didn't think you meant it as an insult, and I didn't take it as one personally, but I addressed it as one, because that seemed the best way to address it.
A world that we cant' fathom...I'm sure we can fathom it, doesn't mean we do so correctly. As you said, the human mind truely is powerful, so I'm sure we can fathom whatever that world is.
I take it you're taking about the world after death. And although we can't be sure what will happen until we die, we can make guesses and try to figure it out, we can believe what will happen, but no we cannot prove it, until we die. So in that sense, we can't fathom it, except in or own ideas. But the reality of it, that we can't fathom because we have no base to fathom it on, excet or ideas. Which are that, ideas, not realities.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 9, 2006 0:41:09 GMT -5
Actually, I wasn't talking about the afterlife. Im sure we can fathom the afterlife. I was talking about reality now. And i dissagree. Completely. I do not believe our minds are able to understand or comprehend certain things in the world, and thus i think we overlook them. Our brains work only a certain way and i believe that they constrict us in many ways.
And how do you know what we can fathom or not? For if we can not fathom it.. then.. you wouldn't know about it would you?
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 9, 2006 15:34:13 GMT -5
I believe the power of the human mind to grasp things presented to it is next to limitless. Although we may be ignorant of it (not stupid, ignorant as in the sense of having no concept of it) doesn't mean we couldn't understand it if it were presented to us.
I believe also the limit of the mind is set by each person. If we continually try to expand our mind, then we will do so and it's capabilities are next to limitless, that's what I believe. Our only limiting factor is that which we have no concept of (which as I said, if someone discovers it and presents it to us, I believe we can understand it if we want to.) and our self confidence in our ability to learn.
Although, we are limited from....crap how do you spell it...omniscience? I think. Or being all-knowing. Why? Because we will never learn everything. There isn't enough time in one person's life to possibly learn -everything-. That and the fact that there is so much that is not understood or explained. Also, things that can't be explained by science.
However, for the things that are avaliable to us, and our own ability to make conceptions based on what we have avaliable to us, then I believe the mind's potiential with that information and hte ideas and theories and such and so forth that it can bring are next to limitless..
And sorry to get off topic...we need to get back to religion. I assumed you were speaking of the afterlife, because this is the religious area. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 9, 2006 19:06:25 GMT -5
Where do we talk about this then, becuase i still disagree and dont think you quite understand what Im saying.
But I went to church today, and i wasn't in the service, but i was just thinking.. even tho i dont believe in the christian religion, church can be a really nice community. And that is a good thing that religion provides.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 9, 2006 19:27:54 GMT -5
Yes, unless you have a church like the one I had to go to this morning where they're all fake hypocrits! Then it's not so nice. However, generally, I agree that churchs provide a nice safe community type setting. I went because I had to, because I really don't like their church. =( As for where to discuss that...either the unexplained thread or philosophy not sure which...could be either...
|
|
|
Post by seffy on Jul 9, 2006 20:13:53 GMT -5
It's really late over here right now (it's 2am), so I'm not going to get into a deep post this time. So, I would like to ask a question of Ty, Lisi and Missy (I hope you won't consider this too personal and, if it is, feel free to decline to answer). I've read posts by you all, even spoken directly to one of you on msn. You're all very intelligent, logical and interlectual people. So why are you all so willing to believe in the fantastical? I hope that doesn't sound insulting, please believe me when I say I don't mean it to be. I just want to understand how someone can believe so willingly in a deity that, to put it bluntly, can't logically exist? Religion says that god has no beginning and has no end. He must have a beginning, or he can't exist, it's logical. Religion says he is everywhere and everything. For this to be true he would have to be the universe, yet he's supposed to have created the universe, it's not logical. Logically, he can't exist, yet you believe. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 10, 2006 1:15:51 GMT -5
No beginning and no end? Ah but in the Bible itself it says he is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Therefore, he is time itself. So as for the beginning I can't understand it completely. However I believe it has something to do with the realm he exists in compared to the physical real we live in. To say, I believe he lives in the spiritual realm, if you want to call it that. And though he created our realm as we know it, and can interfer in it, and knows everything about it, it is not true existance. It is only temporary.
So no beginning and no end, that cannot be conceived logically, because we don't know anything about the spiritual realm, if you will let me call it that, and therefore we can't understand how it functions as we understand the physical world, and so the laws we know here, apply not to it.
So logic as we know it is invalid when applied to the spiritual realm. Because the very laws of its existance are different than our own.
As for him being everywhere and everything, that is mainly a metaphorical reference I believe. Taken the most literally, it would mean that he is in the esence of everything created in the phyiscal realm we know, because it is all of him. Of his creation. Without him it would not exist, it is like an extention of his will for it to exist, and so as a result of that, he is everything, and he is in everything.
Why do I believe in it? Partially, because I was raised to. Partially, because there is a feeling inside me that says there -must- be something. Partially, because I've seen sh** that science cannot explain, or that if science was applied to, would mean that they shouldn't have happened. Partially, because I've seen the good things God can do for people and in their lives. Partially, because I expand my mind to think outside of the physical world. I don't limit my ability to think simply that which is defined by our world. I expand my mind to think of what the spiritual realm could be like, how our references to things such as time and location and such may not be the same as that of the spiritual. And given that the Old Testament is the word of God, I'm sure that the way things are documented would have been as he said it. So although he said it took 6 days to make the world and he rested on the 7th, his measure of a day may be far far different from our own. If we think in the terms of man, then yes it would be harder to believe in God. However, if I find the ability to expand my mind and think outside of the box, it's not that hard to conceive and therein, to believe.
And if you can believe in a God that can create the universe as we know it and more, then it's not hard to conceive that he could have given Jesus the gifts he did, or Moses, or David, or the wisdom to Solomon. Or whatever prophet was given whatever based on your religion.
So does that help explain why I believe what I do?
.....and when I'm posting this, it's 2am for me as well. =) Thankfully it's shorter than my one in over in the atheist thread I believe....
|
|
|
Post by moogman on Jul 10, 2006 2:56:31 GMT -5
just a lil question to keep myself ticking over, once again i feel like im attacking a little because i always seem to ask questions around similar basis, but Im quite happy to accept that there may be a god, i dont beleive it but that doesnt stop me from beleiving that it is an option for explaining the universe. A bit like saying that when i breath all scientific evidence points to me inhaling oxygen to live but u never now there may be something completley different and we may just be wrong, if i can accept that do people who beleive in god accept that there may just be no God? Religion may have been made up to keep the massess at bay years ago and religion is simply an ancient tool of political control? do u see it as a possabilitie or just reject it as an impossible?
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 10, 2006 3:08:58 GMT -5
A political control divice? You -do- know that they're basically doing everything they can to remove religion from the United States. I'd say that's not using it for political control. More like eradicating it for political control. Church and secular politics are enemies. The only politics that work well with the church are the politics of the church itself. Religion when trying to be ruled also by a secular government, will clash with it. So the only way for religion to work as a way to control the masses would be for the laws of the religion to be the laws of the whole nation. The laws they live by. It's obvious thats not the case often enough. Thus secular politics and religions clash rather frequently.
I'll entertain the idea that their could possibly not be a God, for the sake of understanding. However, will I accept the possibility, as in truely believe, that there may not be a God? No, because I truely believe that there is one. And to say otherwise would be to turn away from my beliefs, and I've yet to find anything to prove my beliefs wrong. However I will entertain the idea for the sake of understanding some things, but that doesn't mean that I believe the idea I'm entertaining. Such as with scientific theories. Just because I hear a theory doesn't mean I agree with it. I may agree with this other theory on the other side of the room. ...such as with beliefs of religion/non religion. I'll listen to the arguement on one side, but I believe in the one on the other side.
However in primative times it is very possible that some leaders manipulated religions, or created early religions (I'm mainly referring to the early polytheistic religions) as a means of gaining and maintaining control over a people, yes. In modern times, no it doesn't work. Otherwise the US wouldn't be trying to eradicate religion from the public, it woudl encourage it and use it to suppress it's people. Is that not what many arabic nations do? They use their muslim laws as their nation laws and govern the people by it and keep them surpressed by it? So in some instances it may still exist, but in the higher nations, the USA, England, Russia, Australia, France, Germany, Spain, such and so forth, not he religion is not used to dominate the people.
However, I admit this Moog: There is always the possibility of being wrong. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, we could both be wrong. We won't know anything as 100% truth until we die. All we can do is decide what we believe based on what we have presented to us, and believe it so strongly that as far as we're psychologically concerned, we are right in what we believe, for whatever reasons we choose to believe what we do.
|
|
|
Post by moogman on Jul 10, 2006 3:42:03 GMT -5
LAST BIT,
well said here here and all that lol
Thanks for your answer Tyual It just gets me a little more in the zone with how you think thats all. Its sometimes hard to understand people unless you know were there coming from.
|
|
|
Post by seffy on Jul 10, 2006 11:06:44 GMT -5
Ty, you're Hypothosising. You're hypothosising that a spirit realm exists and that god lives in it. Just as you say I can't possibly know, 100% without a shadow of a doubt, that the Big Bang event happened, you can't possibly know, 100% without a shadow of a doubt, that your spirit realm exists. You say that god is everything, that god is time itself? Then it stands to reason that he gave us the abillity to perceive time as he sees it. Therefore, when the old testament states that it took six days to create everything, it literally means six days, which science has already proven to be wrong. I also feel, referring to Moogs question about political control, that religion has always used political control over it's followers. They do so by saying "Follow the path, keep the faith and you shall be rewarded with heaven. God will take you to his bosom." From the moment someone decides he likes the sound of that, the church is in control. The church can then say what they want, safe in the knowledge that the guy who wants to go to heaven is going to take it all in, no questions asked. This is why religion depends so heavilly on faith and the belief in that faith. If that guy says "Well, hang on a minute, how do we know that god is out there?" his Preist just has to turn around and say "Have faith and you shall see." This is why I asked you why you believed the way you do. And yes, you did answer my question Ty. It can sometimes be a dodgy thing when asking someone about why they believe the way they do, I'm glad you took it the way you did and wasn't offended like some people have been in the past. You're belief in your religion is akin to mine in science. You will defend your religion as vehemently as I will defend my science. Good call dude.
|
|
|
Post by 2bfoundwanting on Jul 10, 2006 16:29:40 GMT -5
Well I would like to reiterate that I dont always believe in God. I am always debating it. But, I dont think that a supernatural being is necessarily illogical. (though i do believe Virgin Mary and some miracles that were supposed to have happened are illogical)
However, your question on begining and end.. well that is just a constriction put on you due to both A) our human minds and how they are constructed and B) our language. There are several languages that dont have the concept of something that is created necessarily having a creator. This is hard to understand, becuase it is imbedded in our culture and even our language, but you must understand that it is learned, for some people dont understand the concept of created meaning a creator.
Second. You agree in logical peoples thinking, correct? Well Kant was a famous philosopher and he explained our minds as something that has a need to categorize. We create time, we have put numbers and figures to something that we have made up. Where is time in nature? It doesn't exist. Just because WE need to understand the world in terms of time does not mean that it is reality. Just because we get older and things change doesn't mean they do so over "time" for we have created that concept. Kant believed that there was the natural, which we know and know we dont know, and there is the supernatural which our brains, being categorized in the way that it is, is unable to even know that we dont know. It is unfathomable.
So therefore, I believe that logic, tho very useful, is something created by man and isn't necessary in the absolute reality of things. Thus questions such as God existing forever or whatever else do not apply to logic, because it deals in the supernatural, or the things we can not fathom.
And logic isn't everything. I am taking a logic course and you can make a logical claim that is perfectly VALID that is completely untrue. Therefore, can you really trust logic? For example, now this is a very extreme example, but if someone is to accept my first premise of the following argument, then the conclusion is necessary. All humans are lightbulbs. All Bostonians are human. Therefore all Bostonians are lightbulbs.
THis argument is very obviously FALSE. However, it is very much logically VALID. So can you see how one can be tricked into something through logic just by accepting one statement?
And finally, I dont think there is any proof against God or any supernatural creature. There just isnt proof FOR it. Nothing disproves him/her/it. And as we have learned in my critical thinking/logic course, that is commiting the falacy of ad ignorantium. Or the arugment of ignorance which states, "When it is argued that a proposition is true on the ground that it has not been proved false, or when it is argued that a proposition is false because it has not been proved true. " It is not a reasonable inference to suppose that because something has not been proven true it is automatically false.
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 11, 2006 1:54:52 GMT -5
Seffy: Hypothesising, I suppose so. However, we believe that something happens to us after death, and I believe everyone has agreed on that. And it's been implied that we agree it doesn't happen in the same world we live in, unless you believe in reincarnation. So, although my thoughts on how it works may be my own hypothesis, I think we all commonly agreed that something of the sort would have to exist. No matter what you choose to call it. So, how I believe it to work is my thing, yes, but for me, it is a hypothesis that I believe contains possible answers to questions such as the ones about time and the location of Eden, etc. I've tried to put a lot of thought into it to make it as probable as I can, with my limited understanding.
As for perceiving time, if I can perceive the idea that we have it wrong, and I'm just a simple boy, 17 years old from the middle of nowhere Arkansas, then I'm sure it's not that hard to perceive the idea, yes? I mean I'm no genius or any such. There are tons of people who are smarter than me who could perceive it, and I'm sure plenty who may not be as academically gifted who can.
"I also feel, referring to Moogs question about political control, that religion has always used political control over it's followers. They do so by saying "Follow the path, keep the faith and you shall be rewarded with heaven. God will take you to his bosom." From the moment someone decides he likes the sound of that, the church is in control. "
I diagree. Religion and secular politics clash. That's why they try to keep them separate, hard as that seems to be. Why? The laws of your religion tell you to do one thing, and the laws of the world another, and so the laws, both trying to govern man, clash and cause problems with eachother. How can rules that clash be used to rule people? The church being used to rule people, I believe, would mean that the secular laws would have to become the religious laws. That away the laws no longer clashed with one another and people weren't foced to choose which ones to live by. Because, I believe peopl will go with seculars laws out of fear. Fear of having to pay fines, fear of jail, fear of their life wasting in a prison, fear of being put to death, etc. Fear would cause people to go to the here and now and thus the secular laws which pertain to the here and now. Religious law generally pertains to what will happen after our life on earth if we do not follow them while we're alive, and I don't think most people consider that when they decide on actions. They consider the laws of the physical world, because that is what is most present to them. They are more in touch with it. Because of it's physical properties as opposed to the spiritual properties religion is based on.
As for the liking the sound of heaven and thus the church being in control? I disagree. I like the sound of it, but the church in no way controls me. I've already stated that I'm not particularly fond of the corrupt, hypocritical crap that goes on in the church. Also, I didn't accept it without question. And again on this, I'm just a 17 year old teenager, so if I don't accept the BS of the church and don't take religion without questioning it at all, then I'm betting others don't either. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say that the only ones who really do are the children, fanatics, desperate, and severely simple minded.
Lisi:
I disagree with Kant in some things, and agree in others. I agree that we try to categorize. I do it constantly. If you ever look at my computer, I think everything is catagorized into this maze of folders, but all have a purpose and hold a specific thing or another. It's categorized. So yes we do that....however we have to considered some people are completley DISorganized. They have no sense of categorizing things. So what explains them?
I disagree on the concept you said about time and logic. As applied to our physical world, that which our minds know to be real and understand, it is very real and very correct. However, for the things we are uncertain of and know not of, then yes, our concepts of time and logic are very possibly useless.
Note that I didn't say unfathomable, because I believe that anything is fathomable. The human mind is extremely powerful, I understand this more and more on a daily basis....especially when I'm here in TN and as I watch my baby brother. At two and a half, it's amazing to me what his mind can do. So if the mind can do that at 2, then what can it do when it's fully developed? More than I know.
"Where is time in nature? It doesn't exist. Just because WE need to understand the world in terms of time does not mean that it is reality. Just because we get older and things change doesn't mean they do so over "time" for we have created that concept."
As I said, I believe that to be wrong. Nature as we define the word, does have time. It progresses forward, started at point A and will end at point whatever when the world ends. As for the words we use, yes we could've called them anything. That's just what we chose to call them. (Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, and so on) However, their purpose would be the same. So as we understand and know our world, our concept of time and counting is very correct. However, for things we do not fully understand, then yes, it is possible that in those things, 2+2 could equal 5. Gravity could push things away. However, that is those things, and for the world as we know it, then we know that 2+2=4 and Gravity pulls objects together.
As for your agruement, providing that they were true statements, then yes, it would be correct. However, you cannot make a logical statement with falsities. That negates the logic of it. A false statement makes it illogical. (Wow, I guess I did pay attention in Geometry...although why we studied logic in Geometry is still kind of strange....doesn't seem like the right class, lol...but that's besides the point.)
"It is not a reasonable inference to suppose that because something has not been proven true it is automatically false."
....That's another way of saying the American justice system is broke, hahaha. I dunno, that just struck out at me, as the American courts are supposed to work under "Innocent until proven guilty." or "Acctuasions false until proven true." (slightly off topic, sorry, but I thought worth the note..)
Although, I've never seen it presented as you stated it, the way your class taught, but actually, I agree with it. Just because I can't prove we didn't come from apes doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, since they can't prove that we did, that means also that it may not have happened.....I like that. I'll keep it in mind for future reference, it would help me better discribe things sometimes. Instead of trying to explain it being all wordy and such.
So yay for Lisi giving me a new way to explain things. =)
Wow that took a long time to type and I so didn't plan on doing it tonight, but oh well...
|
|
|
Post by moogman on Jul 11, 2006 2:40:02 GMT -5
my god (no pun intended) that was long! phew there goes my morning not doing any actual work!!! oky doky time to pick at the bits that hit me, Ok religion as a political tool, i see what ur saying tyual. that Polotics today as in our goverments do not tend to use religion, I completley agree they try and steer well clear of it. but that is not what i was referring to when i said it, what i meant is that the church itself is almost a political power infact theres no almost about it, it is a political power! it has more money and more say with the people then most goverments ever will. one out of line comment from the church and the world would be in uproar. I mean come on these people had the power to ban a movie (life of Brian) for quite some time when it was released?? it was a movie for goodenss sake!
Secondly I do not beleive in an after life coporial or non coporial? hmm is that the right word to use? anyways i beleive that when we die that is it? i mean do you remember life before you were created? nope nada nothing and i beleive that will be the same when we die nada nothing finito. I tend to have a rather reicarnation belief with a twist, i beleive we die, we decompose we get eaten by the plants through soil we in turn can be eaten by lots of animals who get eaten by humans blah blah and so on and so on, u getthe idea, back to my beleif of Earth being a living organism and we are all part of its cycle of life. energy reused and reprocessed to continue life.
that make sense? it is very earley still
|
|
|
Post by Tyual on Jul 11, 2006 2:57:20 GMT -5
Yes it does. And my bad for misunderstanding Moog. In earlier things I took some things you said to imply that you believed in an afterlife.
As for our physical bodies, I agree that is what will happen. However, I believe the essence of a person, their soul, goes elsewhere. However being nonreligious, I suppose you don't believe in souls do you...so that makes sense...
The church used to be THE political power in Eurpoe. Ove the years it's been losing influence in power, especially compared to the middle ages. Although it still has great influences of the choices of people's personal lives (For those who are catholic and follow the church. Remember that other religions and other sects of christianity do not follow the catholic church.), it does not have the political influence. It does not tell the government how to run it's country, or do it for them. It just says things like "We don't like this movie." and so people who follow the church don't go watch it. or the people stop the movie from being put out and try to make the church happy so that the large catholic audience will go see it and make them money. So it does still have a lot of influence, but with the number of catholics decreased(pecentage wise I believe it has fallen.), and the increase in secular governments, it's losing power all the time. Although the money, I doubt it'll ever run out. It has been getting money for longer than I care to count, from rather wealthy sources, and apparently has some dang good accountants, lol.
Personally, although my personal religious beliefs govern my life more than anything, I'm glad the church has lost some of it's influence. It means people are thinking for themselves, and those who do choose religion do so of their own concious thought, not because the religion is the government.
|
|