|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:32 am
PrometheanSet Yes, it is true that you cannot objectively prove or disprove the existence of any god. However, if we want to examine the truth that is in religions, we might want to look at religions in a way which doesn't talk exclusively about their beliefs. Emile Durkheim, one of the earliest sociologists and anthropologists discusses the social phenomenon of religion in a society. While I won't go as far as my professor in interpreting Durkeim as calling religion "a society's symbolic worship of itself", I will mention that his definition of religion involved a group of people who followed it, and a set of applicable Symbols (including deities) which frame much of the context for people's experiences. Why call them "symbols"? These stories, myths, gods, and other characters hold a lot of meaning in them. Since we can't talk about literal truth, we can talk about their effect on the society. Durkheim, like Comte before him was an a** (and indeed certainly not an anthropologist). Your professor (ordinarius I presume?) is quite right in his interpretation of Durkheim's philosophy, that the man was obsessed blindly with the idea of self-propagating society. Gladly though positivism is a dead science, as indeed Durkheim should have realised. At that time the greatest intellectual output was indeed German, most notably from the pens of the likes of Weber, Simel, Freud and my dear Adler to name but the chiefest human scientists. I don't really know why Durkheim is still taught- I can only imagine it to be that Parsons hated Simel who, too, is harder to teach.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:16 am
CH1YO brainnsoup CH1YO Zslone2 @ CH1YO like wtf are you trying to say cause I dont get any idea wtf your attempting to say. Like if I can't prove "God" exists can you prove that my gods don't exist? Plus Figuring out if "God" exists doesn't mean locating him it's determining if He/She/They are even remotely real and not fictional. I assert that to prove the existence of GOD one must simply visit wherever He happens to be sat and to allow observation to suffice for the rest. No one can ever, under any real circumstance, prove a negative. Proof is far removed from merely figuring out. To locate Him is to prove Him, that- at present- He is a particularly real fiction does not at all factor into our affairs.
But I do think what you're saying is impossible, even if I believed that there was a God.
Even from a religious POV, most popular religions don't place God on earth.
I mean, if I saw God standing in line at Starbucks or reading the paper at a bus stop, going about daily life like the rest of us, you wouldn't need to prove His existence, there would be no question.
But he is intangible, an idea, and even if He does exits, he does not mingle with us on earth.
So to say that we just have to find God and we'll have our answer is like saying we should simply walk up to Him and ask Him ourselves if He existed, no?
And even if you did find Him, and not in the way that inmates on death row find Him, how would you prove that He was God?
It's not like we have a machine to measure holiness.
No, I think the way to prove that He exists is through blind faith.*I'm not ignoring your previous post but much of it's content is of course shared or answered by this one- sorry if I missed anything* Surely though if you believed in GOD you would happily accept that should He want to be so known He could and thus would? Then we must look elsewhere. Indeed so and most religious indeed do not belabour such searches, content as they are in their proof. A large number of Christians and the movie Dogma would disagree with that claim. In essence, yes- although here is a more pragmatic answer. Surely if He is found He wishes to be known, if He is known then it is proved- what authority is higher than divine mandate? Certainly not an external device, granted. Blind faith refuses any proof- the mechanism is by open eyed faith.
Like I said earlier, assuming that He does exist and did create us then He gave us logic and free will.
But if you use logic, it makes no sense for us to assume that He exists.
Not only does he never give us any proof of his existence, but He is also not even known in many parts of the world until people introduce His foreign religion.
But if God does not want to be found, what makes you so confident that you can find Him?
I'm not sure what you believe, but assuming that He created everything and is all-powerful, if He does not want to be found, what makes you think you can find Him?
And which claim? The claim that God does not walk the earth with us?
It's been a few years since I've seen Dogma, but the idea was that God was walking around as a man and then was trapped on earth by Satan, right?
Well there are quite a few people on Earth, even if that theory was correct, how would you find God?
XD I mean I guess you could walk into a crowded room and yell "TheAlmightySaysWhat!"
But I feel like He would see through that.
I'm sorry, I don't see how it's practical at all. If you find God then you have your proof.
To me it's like saying "To prove God, we must simply prove God."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:25 pm
brainnsoup CH1YO brainnsoup CH1YO Zslone2 @ CH1YO like wtf are you trying to say cause I dont get any idea wtf your attempting to say. Like if I can't prove "God" exists can you prove that my gods don't exist? Plus Figuring out if "God" exists doesn't mean locating him it's determining if He/She/They are even remotely real and not fictional. I assert that to prove the existence of GOD one must simply visit wherever He happens to be sat and to allow observation to suffice for the rest. No one can ever, under any real circumstance, prove a negative. Proof is far removed from merely figuring out. To locate Him is to prove Him, that- at present- He is a particularly real fiction does not at all factor into our affairs.
But I do think what you're saying is impossible, even if I believed that there was a God.
Even from a religious POV, most popular religions don't place God on earth.
I mean, if I saw God standing in line at Starbucks or reading the paper at a bus stop, going about daily life like the rest of us, you wouldn't need to prove His existence, there would be no question.
But he is intangible, an idea, and even if He does exits, he does not mingle with us on earth.
So to say that we just have to find God and we'll have our answer is like saying we should simply walk up to Him and ask Him ourselves if He existed, no?
And even if you did find Him, and not in the way that inmates on death row find Him, how would you prove that He was God?
It's not like we have a machine to measure holiness.
No, I think the way to prove that He exists is through blind faith.*I'm not ignoring your previous post but much of it's content is of course shared or answered by this one- sorry if I missed anything* Surely though if you believed in GOD you would happily accept that should He want to be so known He could and thus would? Then we must look elsewhere. Indeed so and most religious indeed do not belabour such searches, content as they are in their proof. A large number of Christians and the movie Dogma would disagree with that claim. In essence, yes- although here is a more pragmatic answer. Surely if He is found He wishes to be known, if He is known then it is proved- what authority is higher than divine mandate? Certainly not an external device, granted. Blind faith refuses any proof- the mechanism is by open eyed faith.
Like I said earlier, assuming that He does exist and did create us then He gave us logic and free will.
But if you use logic, it makes no sense for us to assume that He exists.
Not only does he never give us any proof of his existence, but He is also not even known in many parts of the world until people introduce His foreign religion.
But if God does not want to be found, what makes you so confident that you can find Him?
I'm not sure what you believe, but assuming that He created everything and is all-powerful, if He does not want to be found, what makes you think you can find Him?
And which claim? The claim that God does not walk the earth with us?
It's been a few years since I've seen Dogma, but the idea was that God was walking around as a man and then was trapped on earth by Satan, right?
Well there are quite a few people on Earth, even if that theory was correct, how would you find God?
XD I mean I guess you could walk into a crowded room and yell "TheAlmightySaysWhat!"
But I feel like He would see through that.
I'm sorry, I don't see how it's practical at all. If you find God then you have your proof.
To me it's like saying "To prove God, we must simply prove God."There are many who presume to know Him and O how they rejoice. There are those who would disagree with that but not I. Of course not. Much of that depends upon liberality of doctrine. I'm not at all confident- merely that it is the simplest way to proof. I see it more as being not that He wants not to be found but rather that there must be challenge inherent. That's the one. Essentially that was the premise, although it was Azrael, yes. Certainly not by process of elimination and consequence seems implausible- so I must assume design. I must remark that it is courting disaster to challenge the Lord. Quite so- He might find it sufficiently amusing to reward His child though. That is ultimately the practicality of it. I suppose it could be recognised as the same- rather though it is that to establish the presence of [GOD] we must positively identify [Him].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:06 pm
CH1YO PrometheanSet Yes, it is true that you cannot objectively prove or disprove the existence of any god. However, if we want to examine the truth that is in religions, we might want to look at religions in a way which doesn't talk exclusively about their beliefs. Emile Durkheim, one of the earliest sociologists and anthropologists discusses the social phenomenon of religion in a society. While I won't go as far as my professor in interpreting Durkeim as calling religion "a society's symbolic worship of itself", I will mention that his definition of religion involved a group of people who followed it, and a set of applicable Symbols (including deities) which frame much of the context for people's experiences. Why call them "symbols"? These stories, myths, gods, and other characters hold a lot of meaning in them. Since we can't talk about literal truth, we can talk about their effect on the society. Durkheim, like Comte before him was an a** (and indeed certainly not an anthropologist). Your professor (ordinarius I presume?) is quite right in his interpretation of Durkheim's philosophy, that the man was obsessed blindly with the idea of self-propagating society. Gladly though positivism is a dead science, as indeed Durkheim should have realised. At that time the greatest intellectual output was indeed German, most notably from the pens of the likes of Weber, Simel, Freud and my dear Adler to name but the chiefest human scientists. I don't really know why Durkheim is still taught- I can only imagine it to be that Parsons hated Simel who, too, is harder to teach. It's sort of a history of the field course. Either way, it illustrates the point that faith need not be studied as "falsehood" or literal "truth", which this discussion has entirely missed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:08 pm
PrometheanSet CH1YO PrometheanSet Yes, it is true that you cannot objectively prove or disprove the existence of any god. However, if we want to examine the truth that is in religions, we might want to look at religions in a way which doesn't talk exclusively about their beliefs. Emile Durkheim, one of the earliest sociologists and anthropologists discusses the social phenomenon of religion in a society. While I won't go as far as my professor in interpreting Durkeim as calling religion "a society's symbolic worship of itself", I will mention that his definition of religion involved a group of people who followed it, and a set of applicable Symbols (including deities) which frame much of the context for people's experiences. Why call them "symbols"? These stories, myths, gods, and other characters hold a lot of meaning in them. Since we can't talk about literal truth, we can talk about their effect on the society. Durkheim, like Comte before him was an a** (and indeed certainly not an anthropologist). Your professor (ordinarius I presume?) is quite right in his interpretation of Durkheim's philosophy, that the man was obsessed blindly with the idea of self-propagating society. Gladly though positivism is a dead science, as indeed Durkheim should have realised. At that time the greatest intellectual output was indeed German, most notably from the pens of the likes of Weber, Simel, Freud and my dear Adler to name but the chiefest human scientists. I don't really know why Durkheim is still taught- I can only imagine it to be that Parsons hated Simel who, too, is harder to teach. It's sort of a history of the field course. Either way, it illustrates the point that faith need not be studied as "falsehood" or literal "truth", which this discussion has entirely missed. That was the point of my and the first reply. And Germans did it better. (^_^)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:44 pm
brainnsoup xxEternallyBluexx brainnsoup xxEternallyBluexx @Zslone: Sorry, I'm really trying not to. It's hard to post your (religious) opinion sometimes without sounding preachy. xp And, my point was if you can't prove He doesn't exist, it's a little illogical to assert that He doesn't. If you have an inner conviction (which comes with loving Him. How can you accept the denial of the existance of someone you love who means the world to you? Some do, but personally it'd tear me up inside not to at least assert He exists. Do athiests have that same emotional attachment to their disbelief? Would you die to deny Him or any other God?) that He does exist then it would be silly of you to deny it. @dio: I'm trying to come from a place where thing make sense, not where my opinion means more then yours. What makes sense to me is that in Christianity there's a powerful evil being who can cause lies to take people away from the truth. If you come from a place that makes more sense then that, please share it, and I'll think about to see if it makes any more sense, okay? @Raven: Thanks, and I see what you mean. Just wondering (I'm trying not to offend anyone, but I really do wonder), do you have a jealous god who wants to be loved and loves people or a villian who would cause false miracles to lead people away from that god? @brainn: That's what Christians assert, that ours is the only true religion. That makes sense to me in that, if the supernatural is real, then there's rules governing it, so only one religion dealing withe supernatural could be correct. There's miracles, like my mom and the bee (anyone want me to go over the story again?) and the woman who couldn't walk, and a visiting pastor who didn't know her says run bacuse of the Holy Ghost, and she RUNS. Those things still happen. But inner conviction is all some people need too. It does depend. Not always, and everything requires a reason. If the miracle is based around faith (as with my mom and the bee), if prayer is involved, if you feel the Holy Ghost, all the above the reasons are good reasons to think it might be the Lord. And honestly, how many other religions have Satans, or jealous gods who truly care for people. As much as the Greek gods interest me, they're too human to be gods. My God is the model we were shaped after, but He's GOD, and He CARES. If you can name god like that, I'll look into it, okay? But why do you care if you believe He doesn't? I'm emotionally invested, you aren't (are you?). To me, should the athiest be right, and thiests really are delusional, well it's a bit like telling a kid there's no Santa Claus, except that all a kid has invested in Santa Claus is presents and a holiday. My life is invested in my religion. Do you see? Besides that, all it takes for there to be be a god is for one of the many, many people who experienced any greater power to be right. All it takes for it to be the Christian God, is any one of the millions who have experienced the Holy Ghost to be right. And I apologize if I was preachy sweatdrop . I'll try and keep that to a minimum if I can help it.
That's what religion does. It explains what we can't yet.
And if you wish to believe that the reason for something is God's will, then that's fine and I will respect that, but there really isn't any evidence unless you believe in God, and even then you can't say for sure, so you really can't expect us to believe that those are miracles of God.
Or even for people who believe in God but aren't Christian, it could be any God.
And I know that both of those stories have some link to Christ, but hey, maybe God has a sense of humor.
My point is, you're free to believe whatever you wish but you have to see things from a neutral perspective if you want to make sense to those of us who aren't Christian.
And to say that your religion is correct because your religion says its correct is circular logic and doesn't really prove anything unless you first decide that Christianity is correct, which is often what we're debating.
And yes, everything requires a reason.
But why automatically assume that it's God?
And you're biased as to how God should be, because that's the perception that you were raised with.
As someone who wasn't really taught too much about the details of Christianity until later in life, the fact that He had no problem with killing off his creations when he didn't like how they turned out, kicking us out of Eden into a world of suffering, damning us to hell for not worshiping him concerns me.
A lot of religions don't even have a hell.
In fact, the worst hell I think I've ever heard of is the one depicted in the bible.
Why do I care? Well first of all, knowing the consequences, I'd better be pretty sure that I'm right. So I think about this stuff a lot.
But also I love learning about different religions and trying to understand people's faith.
It offers an amazing window into what drives other people.
For example, it's pretty clear that we don't agree on religion very much, right?
But I can always follow your logic and understand how you see the world and why, even if I don't agree with it.
And I understand that you are devoted to your religion. And I'm not trying to change that.
I want to be very clear here.
I'm not intentionally trying to tear down people's beliefs or spread atheism.
In fact, in real life when people ask me why I'm an atheist, I usually don't tell them because it's probably contrary to what they believe and I don't want to offend them.
The only reason I do so here is because this is a debate guild and I assume that people who approach me with questions can handle having them answered, even if it's contrary to everything they believe.
I try not to be condescending or insulting.
And I'm not trying to get you to turn your back on your religion either.
I'm just giving my point of view.
And just because millions of people believe something doesn't make it right.True, religion does explain the unexplainable, and that is one facet of Christianity. Christianity's main purpose is to give Man a way back to God. There's God's promises in the Bible, and what is seen and felt. It's kinda how you tell a kid to put a plate of shallow water to demonstrate evaporation. You go by faith, and you always get an answer. Sure there are prayers where He doesn't us give what we want, but that just means the answer is no, or it's not the right time. That's making God human. I think He has a sense of humor (He made the platypus, didn't He? There's a lot of animals with strange features, that must have seen pretty hilarious in the making) but I doubt He plays with people. And I would go from a neutral perspective if I could (I actually want to), but I can't. I'm too used to seeing things through the Christian POV. Sorry. sweatdrop I wasn't trying to debate a point with that statement, just state that Christianity does say that there isn't another true religion. It's more like stating a fact about the religion then making a point. Why assume it's not when no other reason presents itself? You could wonder about it, but when the evidence points one way, and that's then shouldn't you assume it's that unless or until another option presents itself? You refer to the child who survived the accident. There's a lot of miracles that don't make sense that way, like a person has a brain tumor, it's confirmed more then once, and that person goes to the church and gets prayer. Should said tumor be found to be gone, then it makes sense that it'd be God, because science doesn't work that way, but God does. I am biased, I freely admit that. It's one of the results of being raised Christian. But most people have biased opinions. We absorb them from our society and our home, and they follow us no matter what we do. Besides that, as long as I'm not biased to think Christians are better then non-Christians (and I'm not) then who better to discuss from a Christian perspective then a biased Christian? If He's the Creator, He can do whatever He likes. An artist can destroy his paintings, and a musician can burn his music. As it is, He hasn't gone that far, and He's actually been rather good to us. He gave us a planet (which we gave to Satan) and He made us like Him. And then when we walked away from Him by eating the fruit, He sent His Son to die for us. Yes, He's killed people, but who could judge man but man's Creator? He kicked us out so we wouldn't live forever in a fallen state, and because by eating that fruit we chose to leave His Presence. We still had the entire planet! It's not like He doomed us to Mars or the moon or even Hell. And as for Hell: Good comes from God. Evil is what results from leaving Him. God can use evil for good (that's probrably why bad things happen to good people) but in the end good and evil must be seperated. Jesus had to die so the price could be paid, and sin nature could be washed away from those who wanted it. Then those people could go on to Heaven after death because they aren't evil anymore; they can be in His Presence. He wants us back and He's made it simple, all we have to do is choose Him. That's really cool. I mean, there's a lot of people who don't even think about this stuff, so the fact you do is admirable. And as for making sure you're right, that's great too. If you want any help with that, you might read CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. He's great with the logic of Christianity, and He explains things far better then I'm able to. It does. I have Asperger's Syndrome, so I read a lot to understand people, because I don't have the natural understanding most do. It's also why I sometimes have a hard time going from another perspective. I really respect that. If I didn't come from a place that said people need Jesus, that's exactly where I'd want to come from, and you aren't condescending or insulting in the least. You're actually are really good at presenting your view without being offensive. No, it doesn't, but if millions feel, see and/or experience something that seems to point at something, then wouldn't that make it at least a possibility?
I'd rather have no answers than to have to blindly believe something.
You should try questioning things some of the time or trying to see the world through a not-necessarily-Christian perspective once in a while. You don't have to believe those thoughts, but it's a lot of fun and it lets you see the world through someone else's eyes.
Maybe I'm playing the part of the serpent in Eden, and maybe you're not comfortable with it.
But when I was agnostic, before I ruled out Christianity in my mind, I believed that even if Christianity was the one true religion, then that would mean that we were given free will and this amazing ability to use logic and reason and to question by God. Why would He punish me for using it?
If you really truly believe that Christianity is the one way to heaven than you'll keep returning to that.
At least that's my opinion.
And other religions do present themselves. You just refuse to see them. How else can you explain other people being just as sure of their religion as yours?
Christianity doesn't even present itself at all in a lot of parts of the world until people come marching in with bibles.
And do you remember the thread made in the Islamic subforum in this guild a while back? I use this as an example because, whether you acknowledge it or not, you both make very similar points, just for different religions.
And for the man with the brain tumor, it doesn't make sense to assume that he was saved through prayer. Like I said before, statistically things like this are bound to happen every once in a while.
But to say that he had a tumor, went to church, and was better and therefore was saved by prayer, by that logic anything that happened in between his sick test and his cured test could have fixed him.
Like, if he ate a salad for lunch, he must have been cured by ranch dressing.
Even if it is a possibility, there's much too many possibilities.
Or what is the same man had prayed with his family, but they weren't Christian, and weren't even praying to your god?
Is it logical to assume that that God/s saved him?
And again, what of the millions of people who pray and don't get better?
How do they not outweigh the one person who got better?
Is it alright for a mother to kill her child when she tires of it?
According to Christianity, He had no problem killing everyone (well, almost everyone) in a flood.
I wouldn't be too cool with it if someone wanted to drown me in a flood...
How can God say that human life is important when he's killed more than any one person ever could?
And then claim that those were the actions of a loving god?
And I don't think I could ever agree that Hell, or at least Christian Hell, is justifyable.
If someone goes out and murders five people, but then says he is truly sorry and prays before he dies, he goes to Heaven.
But one of his victims happened to be Jewish and did not believe in Jesus, he doesn't get in, and gets to spend eternity, eternity in Hell?
I'm not sure if you believe that people who don't accept Jesus go to Hell, but that idea is so messed up to me.
Most of the nicest, most selfless people I know are not Christian.
I would not want to be part of heaven if they were not welcome.
And thank you! (: I really love studying people and the way they think. We're pretty fascinating creatures. XD
Actually I only got really interested in religion since becoming stronger in my atheism, I think because it allows me to look into religions without feeling like I'm doing something wrong. XD
And I might look into that book too. I love having my own perception of the world shaken.
And I don't know too much about Asperger's, but I do know what's it's like to not know how to act the way people expect you to, so I know how frustrating that can be sometimes.
I got better by watching my peers and how they interacted with eachother and building from that.
That probably doesn't help much though. :/ Sorry.
And thanks! That means a lot.
I try really hard to find a ballance between being respectful of religion without tiptoeing around it.
And it's possible.
But it's just as possible for the people of countless other religions all feeling the same thing to be correct too. (:Would you? I'd rather have a reason. And it's not blind belief. I do question my views, but usually I find an answer to whatever's bugging me, it just takes a little searching. To me there's more evidence for the supernatural world, then discrepencies against it. And I doubt He's punish us for it. I think He'd punish us for questioning in a sarcastic sort of way though. As for coming from a neutral, asking me to do so when I've never been neutral is a bit like asking you to come form an experienced Christian's sort of view. Both ways it would the effectiveness of our arguments. They do, but many times they don't have good reasons for miracles. Their gods don't care and/or there's no villain to cause false miracles in other religions and/or there is no god to the religion. If a religion could pass all three of those tests, I'd give serious thought to that religion. As for marching in with Bibles, they do it because they care. You should've heard my brother talk about Jamaica. You could ask him if you want. His name's hiimjon or something like that, and you could tell him I sent you if you want to see what being a missionary's like. The dude with the question? I remember him, and I acknowledge the similarities. There's differences between Christianity and Islam however. Christ had prophecies surrounding His coming, Muhammed did not. Christ came to fulfill a religion, while Muhammed discredits two.And there's a reference to Abraham's other son in the Bible that makes it seem like that other son fathered the Islamic race eventually. I could do more, but I'll leave it at that. Tumors randomly disappear statistically? That seems a little strange, if you don't mind my saying so. I see it now. From a perspective where God doesn't exist, a miracle (to prove God's existance) is worthless because prayer doesn't seem worth it. From the thiest perspective, we're asking God for something with that prayer, and if that something improbrably happens, He did it. It's hardly like eating a salad or doing any of the mundane things people normally do. Maybe it was Satan (see need for a villain to cause false miracles. After all, every religion can't be right) or it could be God anyway because it's just not that man's time to die yet. And you're not treating God like a person. Do people always give you what you ask for? If God's real, wouldn't He be similar. And perhaps whatever miracle is being asked for either 1)interferes with His Plan, 2)is not good for that person, or 3)is not good for the majority of people. We can't know until we come face to face with Him. You're looking at it as if Christianity views people to be as important as God. It doesn't. We're sheep, we're dirt with a breath of life. He's well, in charge. He can do whatever He likes. One of the great mysteries of Christianity is that He didn't choose to scrap us, but chose instead to let His Son be killed so that we might become like Him. And God isn't all love. You wouldn't expect a person to be constantly loving wolkd you? Same with God. He has two sides, the Lion and the Lamb. It's not that they aren't welcome, it's that they'd need to be forgiven of their sins, and that's very simple, only a few words and the knowledge of what they're doing. And Hell takes some depth to go into to, but there's a few different views. One view is it doesn't exist, another is Catholism and Limbo (which I'm not qualified to explain), then there's the we sinned and that's why we need God in order to get to Heaven, and the third that I know of is the one I read in The Great Divorce. That book is somewhat entertaining, and it also provides a different view on Heaven and Hell. If you try Mere Christianity and enjoy it, try the Great Divorce, and the Screwtape Letters too. They're strange, but I really think you'd enjoy them. ^_^ We are. It's part of the reason I believe in God. I don't think we would have randomly become this way. That makes sense, I think. And CS Lewis's books will differently shake you're perception, especially of Christianity. Besides that he can go far more in depth then I'm currently able to, and he was also an athiest so he knows how to present Christianity to nonthiests (at least from what I can see). It's okay. I am getting better though (and science says I shouldn't be! I love cheating science that way.), so that's something. It's kinda my own personal miracle. You're a master at it! Some people make it hard not to get defensive, but you don't attack people or give the impression of attacking people at all. Not really. You have to look at much sense the religion makes. And sorry it took me so long to reply. sweatdrop It kept getting rid of my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:12 pm
Zslone2 xxEternallyBluexx @Zslone: Sorry, I'm really trying not to. It's hard to post your (religious) opinion sometimes without sounding preachy. xp And, my point was if you can't prove He doesn't exist, it's a little illogical to assert that He doesn't. If you have an inner conviction (which comes with loving Him. How can you accept the denial of the existance of someone you love, someone who means the world to you? Some do, but personally it'd tear me up inside not to at least assert He exists. Do athiests have that same emotional attachment to their disbelief? Would you die to deny Him or any other god?) that He does exist then it would be silly of you to deny it. It's all good Blue I know your not trying to sound preachy your just telling me your views. Lol don't worry I aint made just it's something I had to point out. I understand what your saying though but you have to realize I don't know much about other religions aside from my own and some things about Christianity that other people seem not to know. It's kinda funny but sad when I correct someone who is christian and I get a good laugh outta that. But to the main point What you call the "Holy Ghost" I could call Amon-Re or Poseidon or any number of the gods I believe in. That's good. biggrin I really hate to offend people. And to your point about the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost loves us for some inexplicable reason and has a reason to contact us. Poseidon does not. Just wondering, but do any of your gods have a reason to contact humanity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:44 pm
xxEternallyBluexx @Raven: Thanks, and I see what you mean. Just wondering (I'm trying not to offend anyone, but I really do wonder), do you have a jealous god who wants to be loved and loves people or a villian who would cause false miracles to lead people away from that god? I have multiple Gods so obviously, not all that jealous. They don't always get along with one another and there are some dangerous and dark forces but there is no ultimate adversary. I don't believe any such thing is neccessary. I believe that humans are responsible for thier own actions, both good and bad. I have no need of some malevolent outside force to blame my bad decisions on. As to my Gods loving and desiering love in return, not exactly. In general, honor and loyalty are returned in kind and there are those for wich there is a genuine loving relationship with a particular God, but they don't demand our love and devotion. And they certainly have an interest in humanity as (in the cosmology of my religion at least) they created both men and the world we live in. They created us and gave us the ability to think and imagine and then let us work things out for ourseves without telling us what to believe or setting ridiculous rules for behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:06 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Would you? I'd rather have a reason. And it's not blind belief. I do question my views, but usually I find an answer to whatever's bugging me, it just takes a little searching. To me there's more evidence for the supernatural world, then discrepencies against it. And I doubt He's punish us for it. I think He'd punish us for questioning in a sarcastic sort of way though. As for coming from a neutral, asking me to do so when I've never been neutral is a bit like asking you to come form an experienced Christian's sort of view. Both ways it would the effectiveness of our arguments. They do, but many times they don't have good reasons for miracles. Their gods don't care and/or there's no villain to cause false miracles in other religions and/or there is no god to the religion. If a religion could pass all three of those tests, I'd give serious thought to that religion. As for marching in with Bibles, they do it because they care. You should've heard my brother talk about Jamaica. You could ask him if you want. His name's hiimjon or something like that, and you could tell him I sent you if you want to see what being a missionary's like. The dude with the question? I remember him, and I acknowledge the similarities. There's differences between Christianity and Islam however. Christ had prophecies surrounding His coming, Muhammed did not. Christ came to fulfill a religion, while Muhammed discredits two.And there's a reference to Abraham's other son in the Bible that makes it seem like that other son fathered the Islamic race eventually. I could do more, but I'll leave it at that. Tumors randomly disappear statistically? That seems a little strange, if you don't mind my saying so. I see it now. From a perspective where God doesn't exist, a miracle (to prove God's existance) is worthless because prayer doesn't seem worth it. From the thiest perspective, we're asking God for something with that prayer, and if that something improbrably happens, He did it. It's hardly like eating a salad or doing any of the mundane things people normally do. Maybe it was Satan (see need for a villain to cause false miracles. After all, every religion can't be right) or it could be God anyway because it's just not that man's time to die yet. And you're not treating God like a person. Do people always give you what you ask for? If God's real, wouldn't He be similar. And perhaps whatever miracle is being asked for either 1)interferes with His Plan, 2)is not good for that person, or 3)is not good for the majority of people. We can't know until we come face to face with Him. You're looking at it as if Christianity views people to be as important as God. It doesn't. We're sheep, we're dirt with a breath of life. He's well, in charge. He can do whatever He likes. One of the great mysteries of Christianity is that He didn't choose to scrap us, but chose instead to let His Son be killed so that we might become like Him. And God isn't all love. You wouldn't expect a person to be constantly loving wolkd you? Same with God. He has two sides, the Lion and the Lamb. It's not that they aren't welcome, it's that they'd need to be forgiven of their sins, and that's very simple, only a few words and the knowledge of what they're doing. And Hell takes some depth to go into to, but there's a few different views. One view is it doesn't exist, another is Catholism and Limbo (which I'm not qualified to explain), then there's the we sinned and that's why we need God in order to get to Heaven, and the third that I know of is the one I read in The Great Divorce. That book is somewhat entertaining, and it also provides a different view on Heaven and Hell. If you try Mere Christianity and enjoy it, try the Great Divorce, and the Screwtape Letters too. They're strange, but I really think you'd enjoy them. ^_^ We are. It's part of the reason I believe in God. I don't think we would have randomly become this way. That makes sense, I think. And CS Lewis's books will differently shake you're perception, especially of Christianity. Besides that he can go far more in depth then I'm currently able to, and he was also an athiest so he knows how to present Christianity to nonthiests (at least from what I can see). It's okay. I am getting better though (and science says I shouldn't be! I love cheating science that way.), so that's something. It's kinda my own personal miracle. You're a master at it! Some people make it hard not to get defensive, but you don't attack people or give the impression of attacking people at all. Not really. You have to look at much sense the religion makes. And sorry it took me so long to reply. sweatdrop It kept getting rid of my post.
Forgive me if I take things out of context. I have the entire thing open in another window though so it should be fine.
And I really would. I want reasoning that I can question and study and therefore trust.
Unless I know that I can believe that it's true, a reason is useless to me.
And besides, if we accept a reason for something too quickly without making sure that we are correct then we close the door to all other reasoning, even if the correct answer is waiting to be discovered with just a little bit of thought.
It's like how in the 1600's Catholicism said that the sun revolves around the Earth because we assumed that God would place us at the center of the universe.
My point has nothing to do with disproving God, it's that because people had tied that idea to God, it was blasphemy to even question it and very dangerous.
And actually my dad's side of the family is very Christian and I was technically raised Christian so though I don't agree with it I completely understand the thought process and logic.
And I suppose it is a little unfair to ask you to think of things from a nuetral POV because that would mean that you would have to change your logic a lot more than I would because I have a nuetral POV already for the most part...
I guess then the most I can do is ask you to realize that any proof or ideas from Christianity ultimately means nothing to me.
Miracles from other religions are just as consistent and possible as those from Christianity. Yours are just familiar to you. Of course they'll make sense to you.
It's like anything else in your culture. Like it's not offensive in a lot of cultures to give someone the finger. Can you explain why it's offensive? Or swear words. They have no power in another language.
But you know that they're wrong. You feel something when someone does one of those things.
Maybe that's not the best example...
But my point is that it's burned into your head by your culture.
It's just like that same Muslim boy (man? I apologise, I don't know how old everyone is here yet.) He felt the same thing about another religion with different miracles. Neither of you can really explain those feelings to a nonbeliever. But you both feel it. You just know that you're right.
And I can't think of one religion off the top of my head that doesn't have any kind of creature or thing associated with evil. In some faiths the lines are a lot less black and white...
Again, if you approach other religions from a Christian POV, of course YHWH will be the most loving and fair God.
A lot of Pagan religions don't comdemn people to Hell!
Or like, let's assume that you're right about other religions being the trickery of Satan trying to drag people away from God and to Hell.
That's over half the world going to Hell! Millions of innocent people flooding Hell and God doesn't send them a sign or anything?
He just lets it happen?
And for the tumor, it won't magically dissappear, but statistically some will shrink without doctors knowing why.
And I understand the logic, I just don't think it's right.
It's like, I was baking cupcakes yesterday, but it was a new recipe and I wasn't sure of the badder so when I slipped them into the oven I said a quick prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to make them delicious and shapely.
And when they came out, they were delicious and smooth.
Did He bless my cupcakes?
It's far more likely that they would have turned out lovely with or without my prayer.
Correlation does not equal causation. Even for God.
And no, every religion can't be right. But you're assuming yours is. Maybe one of the several Pagan religions pre-dating Christianity was right and the Christian man was saved by, if a God at all, a Pagan god who took mercy on him despite his religion. Or by a god of trickery who thinks it's funny to mess with Christians.
And again, what about the families who pray, and he still dies? They are certainly far more common. If he lives, it's God's will, but if he dies, that was God's plan as well?
So no matter what happens, it's proof of God?
And if God is infalible, then He isn't flawed like a person.
He is all-knowing and perfect, right?
So he shouldn't be judged by the same standards as a person.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how I could believe Hell as a fair consequence for not giving your life to a loving God who leaves no proof of Himself.
And I see it the other way around. XD
That the fact that people create such intricate religions to be proof that people are complicated, fascinating creatures. XD
It's a huge part of why I love to study it so much.
And from my perspective, each religion makes just about the same ammount of sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
