About time someone noticed the irony.Originally Posted by Cone
Yes, I do. I just appreciate the lyrics of that song, as well as the intelligence of Bad Religion.
Oh, whoops. I forgot to cite that quote in the sig. Will fix.
About time someone noticed the irony.
Yes, I do. I just appreciate the lyrics of that song, as well as the intelligence of Bad Religion.
Oh, whoops. I forgot to cite that quote in the sig. Will fix.
Yeah.. it's OK if he goes by pure faith, but that's not for everyone. I like to have a reason to believe in something.
No. Not at all. Why would you say that? Don't you know that the vast majority believes in God? lol.
"Yeah.. it's OK if he goes by pure faith, but that's not for everyone. I like to have a reason to believe in something."
This trait has actually been shown to be a genetic one.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
No, I think it is okay for everyone. That's part of the design. Making it okay for you involves confronting your weaknesses.Yeah.. it's OK if he goes by pure faith, but that's not for everyone. I like to have a reason to believe in something.
Just because a vast majority believes in it doesn't make it true. He meant that the pure faith part was like all those dead religons.No. Not at all. Why would you say that? Don't you know that the vast majority believes in God? lol.
I wouldn't say VAST majority; only a bit more than 1/2 of the world believes in the Abrahamic god.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
@Rocky: But it's a bad point, because Christianity is faith-based, and very popular.
So were all the other dead mythologies.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
That's not the point. Look at how long Christianity has lasted. Look at how strong is has always been. The "faith-based" correlation, while being the basis of the belief in each system, can't be the determining factor of the strength of the religion, because Christianity has outlived those others, yet shares the same faith basis, and shows no sign of potential collapse.
The difference is in the pudding.
there are so many wrong ideas here that i son't even know where to begin...Yeah.. it's OK if he goes by pure faith, but that's not for everyone. I like to have a reason to believe in something.
Credo
The title says it all, "Credo". It is Latin for "I believe". You cannot have faith unless you believe. By trying to prove everything, you're just digging the hole deeper (the hole that leads eventually to your break with reality). Humans need a higher purpose, this is evident everywhere. Without a higher purpose, we're lost amidst a sea of illogicality and desperation to understand. This is what you're currently going through, the lack of understanding. Thus, you ask questions, as you want to understand, but don't want to believe.
Also, Joy was correct in the majority of her statements. The Bible was written for another culture, where certain things were seen purely as traits of dubious people. As such, it was forbidden to emulate these dubious people, by placing simple restrictions on their external facade. It has nothing to do with the actual emulation, but more with the fact that emulation is only one step away from becomming that person. It was seen as too great a risk to allow emulation, so it was banned.
Further, keep in mind that current dubious people act in different manners. If a new form of Judeo-Christain-Islamic religion (yes, Islam is directly related to Judeo-Christian beliefs, Muhammad even says so) were formed today, short-shorts, low-cut shirts, and the rest of items associated with lodbs would be banned. Further, there'd be provisions about the Internet and computer use. Realize that what has been revealed to us in the past does not necessarily translate into the present.
The basis of religion is to lead a good, moral life. By loving your neighbor as you would yourself, treating all with kindness and compassion, you've fulfilled this goal, regardless of whether or not you believe in the religion. It is true, God does forgive all people. Hell is an abstraction, a symbolic metaphor for your own shame and lack of His presance in yourself. Shame is the greatest punishment that can be conceived, as you're harder on yourself for failing the one who would love you anyway. You're forgiven the moment you are ashamed of your behaviour and ask his forgiveness from the bottom of your heart. If there's the slightest bit of you who takes pride in your actions, you won't be forgiven, because you'll simply repeat the offense again.
God can be comparable to a group of scientists, and we're the experiment. Imagine we're the final test in Artificial Intelligence, on another plane. Our universe would theoretically exist in a lab, and our actions would be monitored for the entirety of time (as long as the experiment lasted). As such, we're sent to live our lives and to prove that AI is not only possible, but it is logical and purposeful. Our reward for succeeding in the experiment is to be relieved of our temporal punishments, to be "lifted out of the cage" and to walk among our creator(s) (the metaphor establishes that it's a team of scientists).
This metaphor actually make sense, as in the Old Testament, God is vengeful, then all of a sudden, he's peaceful and kind. Would not this be comparable to the head researcher being replaced? If the supervisor of the project felt that the head researcher was tormenting and ruining the experiment, he'd replace the HR immediately. Also, for Him to walk among us, he'd have to create an AI that was controled by Him (Jesus as the vessel, God as the controller). Would not humans do the same when we create the first AI program? I'd certainly think so, as it follows logic that the AI cannot be physically accessed, as they'd exist as a computer program, then later be placed into robotic beings. As such, our metaphor explains that when we die, our program is uploaded into a robot and we walk among our creators.
Realize just how adept this metaphor is, and perhaps it will be a school of thought some day. Religious factions always reflect the current state of the world, so I wouldn't be surprised if another Luthor arised in this modern age to say similar statements to what I've said here (no, I'm not the Luthor that I spoke of. I have no desire to lead a religion on the basis of modern technological concepts. I appoint Mr. Cone to lead such a religion. He'd like it as it shares many ideas with his current thoughts and ideas).
Also, God is a supernatural being, so don't try to tether Him to our physical limitations. We know time as linear, but to the one who created it, why should he follow it? Refering to the metaphor, he could easily rewind and fast forward the program at will. There, he could realize where humanity would need that little "nudge" and "kick" us in the right direction. Without His guidance, humanity could still be living among the twig huts we created. Even if you follow Darwinism and the concept of intelligent humanity, surely you'd realize that without Providence, humanity probably would have been savage and evil.
Surely, one could debate that religion is the by-product of civilization, that we created it to control the elite who could harm us all. Perhaps this is true, however even if it were true, would it change anything? Other than removing the ideas behind it, things would be the same. Civilized people are superior over the savage, despite the power savagetry would have over civilization. The army can easily topple the standalone, so we would have been brought to the same conclusion. However, with divine inspriation, humanity has brought itself to a new level. Without a desire to be like a god, humanity would be content to plowing fields all day. Aside from medical advances, which would prolong life, much of what we have accomplished cannot be seen as the product of pure human ingenuity. When we're in a state that is acceptable, why should we strive for more?
Of course, when you're in a state that is acceptable, you want more. You want to be more comfortable, more secure, better off. Even without divine inspiration, humanity would want more. However, without such inspiration, we'd have stopped at the Roman era, as that was the most comfortable place for humanity for many years.
Of course, we realize that God interviened at that time. He noted that humanity had more to offer, and wanted us to strive for it. If He didn't tell us to be better, we would have stopped, and we'd all be running around in togas (well, actually 80% of the world would be the slaves of the elite). He realized that although we were comforatable there, we were there by brutality and mistreatment. Without His intervention, we'd be a brutal and evil people.
Also, Rocky, there is nothing one can do to reason a religion. Credo is the best explination, you must believe to understand. Religion is what you make of it, no one can tell you what to believe except for yourself. All we can do is explain why we believe, and hope that you understand from our explanations. It is possibly the longest long-shot one could imagine, however you asked for it, so we shall tell. There is no purpose to questioning what we all state as our beliefs, as to truely believe means you understand completely the ideas and systems behind your religion, and why you prefer this one over another religion. It is not called belief if you simply perform physical functions. So, anyone who you can try to "convert" would be someone who wouldn't believe anyway. So, all you're doing is transferring with whom they agree with, but only on a superficial level. This isn't to say that you're doing this, however to many it does seem like this.
I'll have to get Mr. Wizard on this, he loves a good debate on religion. He's also twice as good as I am at explaining the precepts behind it. Perhaps when he's done, you'll understand where I'm coming from.
Mr. Cone's family scares me.
If I only had a brain...
Voted "most cryptic" and "Most likely to become his/her country's next president/prime minister"
I'd like to thank all of you who voted for me. When I take office, I'll remember those who didn't vote for me...
ENTJ
Warning: can be long-winded when writing. Allow for a minimum of 20 minutes to read each individual post of mine
Your assertion hurts me.there are so many wrong ideas here that i son't even know where to begin...Yeah.. it's OK if he goes by pure faith, but that's not for everyone. I like to have a reason to believe in something.
My goal when I created this topic was to discuss the "common Judeo-Christian view of God"; I don't even know what the topic's about anymore.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Earl, I always thought it was "crado," lol. Most of what you said is good. I will respond in-depth later, as I have to leave the house for a bit to run errands.
One thing I want to make clear. When I speak of religion, I am trying to bring clarity to others, in order to help them. I am not trying to "prove them wrong" or make them look stupid (and I'm not saying I succeed at that either). This is where I may offend people. I insist that everyone who does not follow the code of moral living is in desperate need of assistance, and the utmost urgency should go into helping them. I deny any allegation of self-righteousness; this not me sanctifying "myself" -- rather, I am only using myself as a means of conveyance.
It's about how to believe in God, and why you should.
I just noticed you never really responded to my rebuttle of your remarks.
Here they are again:
"A "perfect" world without suffering would be pointless. In my view the entire point of human existence is to suffer so that we can see what Good really is. In this "perfect world" there would be no suffering or evil, and nothing Good either. You may say that in a perfect world we could learn about suffering without ourselves having to suffer, but I do not think this is true. I believe we essentially ARE learning about good and evil now, and that when we are done we go to the perfect world. "
Why would it be pointless? Are you simply assuming our purpose or is that the "common Judeo-Christian view" of our existence in relation to our supposed meaningfulness?
"And you'd be correct. The problem is that for us to have free will we need to learn about goodness and evilness ourselves; We need to suffer first to get there. "
Why is free-will a neccessity?
"Assuming he IS omnipresent, you must already know all there is to know. Or maybe his "presence everywhere simultaneously" needs interpretation in a different way. His "being everywhere" can mean many things. Does it mean everything there is to know about him is in every point in space? That doesn't make any sense. It probably means that he is aware of everything, and in complete control of everything. That infinite perception of all is probably the best way to think of God's omnipresence. "
So you're equating perception with presence, now? I think omnipresence means what it says; he is present everywhere. Then again, I guess that could be interpreted as "being in complete control of everything", as that would mean his influence, and hence presence, pervades all of reality.
"Simple. He sees all time as one thing. He does not travel through it linearly, as you put it. (unless he wants to, I guess) Instead he is aware of all time as one event. He knows what you will do because he saw you make the decision with your own free will. That in no way irradicates free will."
But God is depicted linearly, so how can you call him atemporal without asserting a non-Biblical notion? Am I unaware of a certain passage? Perhaps this is merely rooted in the Newtonian, mechanistic perspective of the world, that to have knowledge of something means that it is predetermined.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
i'm sorry. twas not my intention. i just think you are shooting yourself in the foot needlessly.
yeah me either. it's hard to have an intelligible conversation about God, too much eisegesis
Really? I always thought the ancient faith/reason dichotomy correlated to Fe/Ti, the Hebrews being Fe and the Greeks being Ti.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Not that I'm saying that I wouldn't believe, but even if people said some "mystical" stuff that can't be explained than I might entertain the idea. Like I said before, something tangible that I could sink my teeth into. I at least want some convincing stories if you don't have actully proof!
I'm like Rocky when it comes to faith and facts. I always say I believe in god not God. I do not see the Cosmic Conscienceness as a personal being. Not saying He isn't, but I believe that is where people get all boogered up. They want to bend God to their will and when he doesn't bend they can't accept and the questions and doubts arise.
If anyone truly want's answers to these questions from a Christian standpoint please read The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. Stobel interviews a lot of Christian clerics and gives their answers to FAQ's. I got these books from a local United Methodist pastor. Perhaps they could be borrowed from a church library or a regular library. (Actually Sonic, if you want these books I will mail them to you if you pm your address.)
"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." Buddha
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
Why would it be pointless? Are you simply assuming our purpose or is that the "common Judeo-Christian view" of our existence in relation to our supposed meaningfulness?"A "perfect" world without suffering would be pointless. In my view the entire point of human existence is to suffer so that we can see what Good really is. In this "perfect world" there would be no suffering or evil, and nothing Good either. You may say that in a perfect world we could learn about suffering without ourselves having to suffer, but I do not think this is true. I believe we essentially ARE learning about good and evil now, and that when we are done we go to the perfect world. "
Okay, God wanted us to have free will, so that we would be able to choose our own actions, and thus freely follow him, and exist with him (as equals, I think). In a world without suffering, we do not have the necessary information to freely choose to do anything other than how we're going to spend our leisure time. So instead of doing something stupid like brainwashing us with propaganda, he allowed to see the potential harshness of reality, so that we have fair choice.
Why is free-will a neccessity?"And you'd be correct. The problem is that for us to have free will we need to learn about goodness and evilness ourselves; We need to suffer first to get there. "
See above.
So you're equating perception with presence, now? I think omnipresence means what it says; he is present everywhere. Then again, I guess that could be interpreted as "being in complete control of everything", as that would mean his influence, and hence presence, pervades all of reality."Assuming he IS omnipresent, you must already know all there is to know. Or maybe his "presence everywhere simultaneously" needs interpretation in a different way. His "being everywhere" can mean many things. Does it mean everything there is to know about him is in every point in space? That doesn't make any sense. It probably means that he is aware of everything, and in complete control of everything. That infinite perception of all is probably the best way to think of God's omnipresence. "
Exactly.
But God is depicted linearly, so how can you call him atemporal without asserting a non-Biblical notion? Am I unaware of a certain passage? Perhaps this is merely rooted in the Newtonian, mechanistic perspective of the world, that to have knowledge of something means that it is predetermined."Simple. He sees all time as one thing. He does not travel through it linearly, as you put it. (unless he wants to, I guess) Instead he is aware of all time as one event. He knows what you will do because he saw you make the decision with your own free will. That in no way irradicates free will."
The Bible is vague about the nature of God. It just asserts that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and loves everyone, basically. We're left to ourselves to figure out the theoretical means through which his claims hold true. Being atemporal is the only explanation that makes sense if you believe in free will and God's pre-knowledge of the Universe. However, C.S. Lewis once theorized that reality is like an onion, and as you go deeper and further in, the layers get pulled away one by one, and you begin to see things anew. I agree with this. God's existence and creation probably extend to a place we cannot even try to comprehend, because we wouldn't know where to start, with our pathetic human minds.
Discojoe said: "God's existence and creation probably extend to a place we cannot even try to comprehend, because we wouldn't know where to start, with our pathetic human minds."
I think that says it all. Thank you, DJ. Faith is the only answer. I admire people who have the strength to have faith.
The Bible says that God laughed in the heavens at man's attempts to understand and figure Him out. It also says our minds were turned inward on purpose by God so we could not know what he knows.
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
Cone said: "In that case, why even have religion? Throw out your bibles, because all we need is common sense."
That is the basis of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. Great book.
You know you have heard me say this, Cone (and I am not directing this statement to you. I respect your beliefs because they are yours come to by your own conclusions): God gave me a brain. He expects me to use it! Look at my sig statement also.
And this from a letter I wrote to some people who were boogered about my Wiccan beliefs: I never believed a book was the Word of God.
"Once you write something down it becomes fixed. It becomes dogma. People argue about it, they become authoritative, they refer to the texts, they produce new manuscripts, they argue more and soon they are putting each other to death."
A revelation by religion terms means God spoke to someone. If that person tells another, it becomes hearsay. God reveals all in nature. Man studies the laws of nature and uses them as God intended. All that is revealed to us is for our use and knowledge. Otherwise it is in vain. The sciences we live by come from God.
It is only in the Creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a Word of God can unite. The Creation speaks a universal language. It is an ever-existing original which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be altered, it cannot be suppressed. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God. This is I believe from Thomas Paine. Well, at least it's his idea.
"The gospel is meant to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
Man has taken a beautiful thing and turned it into a means to control . . . control . . . control . . . control . . .
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity." my man . . . Thomas Paine
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
Sorry for all the posts. Just one more.
The original Ultimate Deity or Prime Mover is a deity beyond our comprehension. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore philosophers have long realized that a given etheric god-force has no direct power in our lives. The only effect it seems to have is to affect our minds.
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
"Okay, God wanted us to have free will, so that we would be able to choose our own actions, and thus freely follow him, and exist with him (as equals, I think). In a world without suffering, we do not have the necessary information to freely choose to do anything other than how we're going to spend our leisure time. So instead of doing something stupid like brainwashing us with propaganda, he allowed to see the potential harshness of reality, so that we have fair choice. "
"Brainwashing us with propaganda" seems to me to be the most effective way of rooting out evil in the world, and I fail to see why God refuses act in such a manner despite his proported benevolence.
"See above. "
When God neccessitates something that is in contradiction with something neccessitated by a property of his being, which in this case would be the property of benevolence, then we can only assume that God either desires free-will and is not benevolent, or he is benevolent and _does not_ desire free-will, though this would lead to issue of omnipotency and his lack of ability to create said conditions.
"The Bible is vague about the nature of God. It just asserts that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and loves everyone, basically. We're left to ourselves to figure out the theoretical means through which his claims hold true. Being atemporal is the only explanation that makes sense if you believe in free will and God's pre-knowledge of the Universe. However, C.S. Lewis once theorized that reality is like an onion, and as you go deeper and further in, the layers get pulled away one by one, and you begin to see things anew. I agree with this. God's existence and creation probably extend to a place we cannot even try to comprehend, because we wouldn't know where to start, with our pathetic human minds. Very Happy"
This would render all talk of God senseless and create the undesirable effect upon theology of justifying any possible notion of God without any notion being more justified than the other.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Mystic, I look at it all this way . . . Man wrote the Bible.
I used to beat myself up over your same questions and lots more. I am not a Chrisitan but I could answer you questions from that standpoint as I am very educated in the hows and whys of said faith. I simply cannot accept it as the truth . . . not to say it is not. I would never say such a thing . . . only that it is not the truth for me.
I do not see God as a personal deity and in not doing so then I am able to cope and understand. I am not trying to make you see things my way. I hurt that you are at this point in your life, but happy (for lack of a better word) that you are questioning as your conclusions and reasonings will guide you to a better understanding of yourself and your world . . . whatever that may be. And may they grant you peace.
I've got a great adventure ahead of me. The search for what God is . . . what I am . . . the meaning of my life. That should take a lifetime. The searching will be enough. -- Artemis
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
i have trouble understanding this, T that I am i guess.
But yes i can accept that in areas we don't/can't know about.
But one thing i wanted to bring up is that just because we don't know everything about something, we don't have license to believe whatever we wish.
We can't prove faith but neither does that mean that some theories/beliefs aren't more likely to be true than others.
bah
and of course you are free to believe whatever you wish, but the statement assumes you will have problems with being inconsistent, which you would have a high probability of being.
this discussion kinda assumes you're being considerate of being logical though
@Ms. Kensington:
I feel you are saying what Earl said that God can be turned away from but he is always there and does exist. In my mind god exists but God does not. I believe whatever you give faith to or have faith in becomes your truth as their is no absolute truth . . . so I guess I have to say that their is no God . . . and I mean God not god.
GOD, SAVE ME FROM YOUR PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
"I feel you are saying what Earl said that God can be turned away from but he is always there and does exist. In my mind god exists but God does not. I believe whatever you give faith to or have faith in becomes your truth as their is no absolute truth "
sorry, i have to go read what earl said
what do you mean by your truth though?
and whats to be saved from?
I mean that whatever deity we chose to believe in (if we chose a deity) that we give said deity power to act or not act in our lives by our belief. In other words, deities are figments of our imagination. Death is the unknown and people have to have something to hold on to to make sense out of it . . . hence religion and/or faith in something.
And that other statement was a joke in reference to all the well meaning Christian assholes I know.
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
Artemis: oh, it sounded as if you had a less subjective view. I have more questions but they really aren't exactly on topic. like: what is it that resonates or leaves you cold about different religions?
kay, i read earl's long post
erm, yeah i just wanted to warn people in general about any sort of deduction they do.
like, don't call a duck a duck if its not a duck. lame metaphor but you get what i mean. It's just easier to be really sloppy with it, so it bears repeating.
its just i think most people would take less liberty in what they allow themselves to believe up until they have to take a "leap of faith".. like, i dont think that all the "reasoning" that is done beforehand is useless, per se.
You can redirect people from false direction, even if they do not take a step closer to truth, yeah.
even if you aren't proving the ultimate reality, you are "fighting the good fight" maybe?
wow is this Ti and Fi or what? or not?
With earl, i don't think that there are several intuitions that people can belong to or not. If we believe something on a strong intuition, i don't think there are several, i think it'd be universal. so i dont think that there is a question of someone not being able to choose from one faith to another because they wouldn't have understood or believed them anyway, because to understand is to have faith, anyway. its just a matter of whether you'd make the leap, to which the reasoning IS beneficial as long as its not touching the actual leap.
sorry if this has already been said.
Ms Kensington said: understand is to have faith
I sure don't think we are on the same page in understanding one another here.
Not understanding is where faith comes in. Isn't that why they call it a leap of faith?
"Religion is the human response to being alive and having to die." That doesn't make it a truth or reality. I say to each his own. Whatever satisfies one's heart, mind, and soul is what is truth.
"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." - J.S. Mill
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
"I sure don't think we are on the same page in understanding one another here.
Not understanding is where faith comes in. Isn't that why they call it a leap of faith? "
i was drawing from this quote from Earl:
"..there is nothing one can do to reason a religion. Credo is the best explination, you must believe to understand. Religion is what you make of it, no one can tell you what to believe except for yourself. All we can do is explain why we believe, and hope that you understand from our explanations. It is possibly the longest long-shot one could imagine, however you asked for it, so we shall tell. There is no purpose to questioning what we all state as our beliefs, as to truely believe means you understand completely the ideas and systems behind your religion, and why you prefer this one over another religion. It is not called belief if you simply perform physical functions. So, anyone who you can try to "convert" would be someone who wouldn't believe anyway. So, all you're doing is transferring with whom they agree with, but only on a superficial level. This isn't to say that you're doing this, however to many it does seem like this. "
I quoted the whole thing, even if all of it doesn't pertain to our convo. Bold is mine.
""Religion is the human response to being alive and having to die." That doesn't make it a truth or reality. I say to each his own. Whatever satisfies one's heart, mind, and soul is what is truth. "
that was your quote. And yeah, i was just amking sure that you were saying it was what is satisfying to a heart , nothing more.
"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." - J.S. Mill[/quote]
and another quote of you quoting Mill. And yeah, same thing here-- everyone and anyone is entitled to freedom of behavior. thought is something i think is restricted by other things you think
I think she meant that for information to be transferred a real is necessitated and since we cannnot prove it we are inherently stuck in a faith position.
many many people disagree with kirekegaard and they have convincing reasons for it. i think you are misunderstanding the concept of "leap of faith" and faith as espoused in the bible.
@Ms K: Yes, I misunderstood and took what you said out of context.I think she meant that for information to be transferred a real is necessitated and since we cannnot prove it we are inherently stuck in a faith position.
many many people disagree with kirekegaard and they have convincing reasons for it. i think you are misunderstanding the concept of "leap of faith" and faith as espoused in the bible.
@Pedro: Same as above. I do understand the Christian faith and leap of faith to be two separate and distinct concepts. Sorry I didn't put it across that way. I was really trying to say as little as possible as I am so afraid of stepping on toes. My biggest problem with most people is that they do not understand what it is they believe in. Yes, I do understand that you, Ms K, as saying that you have to have an understanding of what it is you believe before faith is possible. So glad we got that settled.
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
ah... my mistake
No, God WANTS us to suffer, BECAUSE he is loving and benevolent. Come on. Without suffering we could not learn to stand on our own two feet.When God neccessitates something that is in contradiction with something neccessitated by a property of his being, which in this case would be the property of benevolence, then we can only assume that God either desires free-will and is not benevolent, or he is benevolent and _does not_ desire free-will, though this would lead to issue of omnipotency and his lack of ability to create said conditions.
No. Having subjective notions about the physical nature of God does not harm anything. As long as those notions in question presuppose the known factors, it is perfectly justified, and in my view, healthy and beneficial.This would render all talk of God senseless and create the undesirable effect upon theology of justifying any possible notion of God without any notion being more justified than the other.
"No, God WANTS us to suffer, BECAUSE he is loving and benevolent. Come on. Without suffering we could not learn to stand on our own two feet."
Why would we need to learn to stand on our own two feet in order to reach the constant objective of all such willings of the self, namely a state of maximal bliss, when God could provide us a path so much smipler?
"No. Having subjective notions about the physical nature of God does not harm anything. As long as those notions in question presuppose the known factors, it is perfectly justified, and in my view, healthy and beneficial."
Asserting that there may be more than one interpretation of the nature of God would be to undermine the entire discussion as one cannot show one notion to be more true than the other AND hold the notion that one is free to speculate upon the nature of God as one wills, with all that being said assuming I understand your statement in the first place.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote