or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ReligiousOutsider
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ReligiousOutsider - Page 4

post #121 of 198
the problem with astrology, is that while undoubetdly life has evolved in sync with natural phenomena and cycles, the kind of astrology we see today is utter comercialized sensationalist bullshit.

I think it's a bit like medicine, before science, people were far more in tune with nature, and only now are we going back to nature and natural remedies to cure illness. And then the science will catch up and understand why these natural things work. I suspect there are many traits in life that could be explained in kind of astrological terms that we don't fully understand, before science catches up and explains why it is so.
post #122 of 198
God does not exists
I'm The Boss... This Is Champaign...
Merry Christmas !
Reply
I'm The Boss... This Is Champaign...
Merry Christmas !
Reply
post #123 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by pierr_alex
God does not exists

Whew. Good. That's settled. Now we can close the thread.
post #124 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
Whew. Good. That's settled. Now we can close the thread.

If we didn't close it when you said otherwise (a couple of times), there's no need to close it when he said the opposite of what you said.

Take it easy. God exists. In the Bible.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #125 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
You've been insulting for pages.

That is patently false -- accusing me of using arcane terminology is false as well. Nevermind.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #126 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

dmz, greet your red-robed overlord.

Yes, but is there a Zakah or pilgrimages?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #127 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
If we didn't close it when you said otherwise (a couple of times)

I did? You better double-check that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
there's no need to close it when he said the opposite of what you said

I was being facetious. Perhaps you've heard of this?


Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
God exists.

I know.
post #128 of 198
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That is patently false

Actually you are right, I apologize, you've not been overtly insulting. You've been very reasonable considering the topic and our stances.

My being insulted and your being insulting are indeed two different things.

But I'm not sure what the "arcane terminology" thing comes from? I don't think I said that?
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #129 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
I did? You better double-check that.

No need to double-check anything Mr. Cuilla.



Quote:
I was being facetious. Perhaps you've heard of this?

Then you did a very bad job of being facetious. And I was being ironic. Ever heard of that?



Quote:
I know.


I know you know. You've stated it several times before [but negated this in the first quote of your last post]. Inconsistency, I guess. Guess you need to read up on The Book.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #130 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
No need to double-check anything Mr. Cuilla.

First, yes you do. I never said any such thing in this thread. Two...what is the "Mr. Cuilla" stuff? You and MarcUK are saying this.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I know you know. You've stated it several times before [but negated this in the first quote of your last post]. Inconsistency, I guess. Guess you need to read up on The Book.

Not being inconsistent at all.
post #131 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
First, yes you do.

Er, no I don't.

Quote:
I never said any such thing in this thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
God exists.

Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
I know.

Yup. You never did.


Quote:
Two...what is the "Mr. Cuilla" stuff? You and MarcUK are saying this.

Anyyyyyway



Quote:
Not being inconsistent at all.


Nope, not at all. Read above.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #132 of 198
I see. Now you are playing dishonest games. You say that "You've stated it several times before" and that I said it "a couple of times"...but at that point in the thread I had not. That is a plain fact.

I am not sure what you are assuming about me and "Mr. Cuilla" and I have no idea why you have any reason believe there is any connection between me an "Mr. Cuilla". You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want (whether or not it is based on reality and truth.)
post #133 of 198
Thread Starter 
Ok, let's play...

Here (St.) Augustine (in AD 413-426 or so) does just what modern Christians loathe when it's done to them: namely, when people trot out the tired old "If God exists, why does He allow suffering and catastrophes" argument.

Augustine, blames the fall of Rome for the iniquities of its inhabitants, says Christianity had nothing to do with it's decline. He omits any details of the various other religions so as to denounce them.

Mithraism, one of the preferred religions of the actual Roman soldiers, in fact, had its own internal hierarchy, morality, baptism and theology. And Isis worship, the other Legion religion had it's own ascetic practices. (This paragraph a paraphrase from "The Civilization of Rome" - Pierre Grimal)

Yet no mention of the details by Augustine, to better demonize the non-Christians, of course.

Quote:
Augustine, City of God II
Chapter 22. That the Roman Gods Never Took Any
Steps to Prevent the Republic from Being Ruined by
Immorality.


But what is relevant to the present question is
this, that however admirable our adversaries say
the republic was or is, it is certain that by the
testimony of their own most learned writers it had
become, long before the coming of Christ, utterly
wicked and dissolute, and indeed had no existence,
but had been destroyed by profligacy. To prevent
this, surely these guardian gods ought to have
given precepts of morals and a rule of life to the
people by whom they were worshipped in so many
temples, with so great a variety of priests and
sacrifices, with such numberless and diverse
rites, so many festal solemnities, so many
celebrations of magnificent games. But in all
this the demons only looked after their own
interest, and cared not at all how their
worshippers lived, or rather were at pains to
induce them to lead an abandoned life, so long as
they paid these tributes to their honor, and
regarded them with fear. If any one denies this,
let him produce, let him point to, let him read
the laws which the gods had given against
sedition, and which the Gracchi transgressed when
they threw everything into confusion; or those
Marius, and Cinna, and Carbo broke when they
involved their country in civil wars, most
iniquitous and unjustifiable in their causes,
cruelly conducted, and yet more cruelly
terminated; or those which Sylla scorned, whose
life, character, and deeds, as described by
Sallust and other historians, are the abhorrence
of all mankind. Who will deny that at that time
the republic had become extinct?

Possibly they will be bold enough to suggest in
defence of the gods, that they abandoned the city
on account of the profligacy of the citizens,
according to the lines of Virgil:

"Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine, Are
those who made this realm divine."

But, firstly, if it be so, then they cannot
complain against the Christian religion, as if it
were that which gave offence to the gods and
caused them to abandon Rome, since the Roman
immorality had long ago driven from the altars of
the city a cloud of little gods, like as many
flies. And yet where was this host of divinities,
when, long before the corruption of the primitive
morality, Rome was taken and burnt by the Gauls?
Perhaps they were present, but asleep? For at
that time the whole city fell into the hands of
the enemy, with the single exception of the
Capitoline hill; and this too would have been
taken, had notthe watchful geese aroused the
sleeping gods! And this gave occasion to the
festival of the goose, in which Rome sank nearly
to the superstition of the Egyptians, who worship
beasts and birds. But of these adventitious evils
which are inflicted by hostile armies or by some
disaster, and which attach rather to the body than
the soul, I am not meanwhile disputing. At
present I speak of the decay of morality, which at
first almost imperceptibly lost its brilliant hue,
but afterwards was wholly obliterated, was swept
away as by a torrent, and involved the republic in
such disastrous ruin, that though the houses and
walls remained standing the leading writers do not
scruple to say that the republic was destroyed.
Now, the departure of the gods "from each fane,
each sacred shrine," and their abandonment of the
city to destruction, was an act of justice, if
their laws inculcating justice and a moral life
had been held in contempt by that city. But what
kind of gods were these, pray, who declined to
live with a people who worshipped them, and whose
corrupt life they had done nothing to
reform?

Such religious bigotry. Essentially "Your god/s are worthless if they don't prevent your suffering". Is it then fair to ask where was Jesus on 9/11? of course not. The argument is dishonest. It reduces religion to mere talisman, the very thing the "better" religions are supposed to be "above".

How at odds with the beautiful (downright American) Edict of Milan of AD 313:

Quote:
When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I Licinius Augustus fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought -, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts, may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.

So after Christians get their proverbial inch, 100 years later or so, they started taking their mile...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #134 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Actually you are right, I apologize, you've not been overtly insulting. You've been very reasonable considering the topic and our stances.

My being insulted and your being insulting are indeed two different things.

But I'm not sure what the "arcane terminology" thing comes from? I don't think I said that?

Well, if I'm being a DICK I apologize.

It is just that when I hold up the Christian metaphysic I have to do it in terms of popular western philosophy (which is natually critical of it.) There is a fairly clear lineage of thought that has given popular western philosophy is qualities of the years, so when you look at the common questions and problems that western thought has encountered you discover that there are 'rules' to the game -- I try to speak in terms of commonly accepted principles --- not Christian principles --- but Western Post Modernism principles.

Most of what I've been prattling on about has been what I think is the basic flaw in that system of thinking -- and in all reality it is what every single important figure in western thought has wrestled with -- the question of the mind of man, reason, going beyond reason, bla, bla, bla.

But

I really believe you are shooting from the hip on this and I also think you are throwing terms around that don't really fit the culprits (religion) and don't take into account that you must come from a certian prespective when you are critical, and that you may be treading on ground that was abandoned long ago becuase it a position that is inconsistent. It is frustrating for me to aruge my case when I don't believe you are being consistent in your presuppositons, or aren't willing to question or name them.

Anyway enough is enough, I have bad penchant for being contentious -- and it takes up too much of my time on these forums. Peace.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #135 of 198
I guess one has to admire the evangelical spirit. . . on both sides of this argument. But the ultimate problem is that by science God can neither be proven to exist or not to exist, so it's entirely the case that atheists are a part of a very similar belief system as are religious folk. In fact, the parallel is stronger than strong: aside from the lack of a deity, atheism is fully and utterly a religion.

Last I checked, no one ever converted someone from one religion to another on a message board. From staring at this thread all day you blokes probably don't realize that no one has gotten anywhere with any argument, for the simple reason that the foundations here are based on two beliefs. You can't disprove a belief, no matter how hard you try. If your goal is to deride the classically religious and call them stupid, you're certainly welcome to do that, but in the end it just makes you look like an idiot.

No, it's really not very clever. Aside from the actual arguments in this thread, don't waste everyone's time with stupid one-line quips about how you're a genius and everyone else is a fool.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #136 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Ok, let's play...

Here (St.) Augustine (in AD 413-426 or so) does just what modern Christians loathe when it's done to them: namely, when people trot out the tired old "If God exists, why does He allow suffering and catastrophes" argument.

Augustine, blames the fall of Rome for the iniquities of its inhabitants, says Christianity had nothing to do with it's decline. He omits any details of the various other religions so as to denounce them.

Mithraism, one of the preferred religions of the actual Roman soldiers, in fact, had its own internal hierarchy, morality, baptism and theology. And Isis worship, the other Legion religion had it's own ascetic practices. (This paragraph a paraphrase from "The Civilization of Rome" - Pierre Grimal)

Yet no mention of the details by Augustine, to better demonize the non-Christians, of course.



Such religious bigotry. Essentially "Your god/s are worthless if they don't prevent your suffering". Is it then fair to ask where was Jesus on 9/11? of course not. The argument is dishonest. It reduces religion to mere talisman, the very thing the "better" religions are supposed to be "above".

How at odds with the beautiful (downright American) Edict of Milan of AD 313:



So after Christians get their proverbial inch, 100 years later or so, they started taking their mile...

You leapfrogged me!!


I don't know, if there is a God with a purpose, I would assume he would work it out in a variety of ways. I'm sure he judges some nations, raises some up and tears others down. What we all 'deserve' is much less than any of us get IMHO. Also, I'm sure this is what Augustine he in mind, but don't forget, he wasn't exaclty Martin Luther or John Calvin --- the Christian faith went through a maturing process, so there significant part of Augustine that is fuzzy. The same goes for Constantine, but even more so.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #137 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
so it's entirely the case that atheists are a part of a very similar belief system as are religious folk. In fact, the parallel is stronger than strong: aside from the lack of a deity, atheism is fully and utterly a religion.

Oooh...them's fightin' words. You'll get a lot of atheists riled up over that statement!

Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You can't disprove a belief, no matter how hard you try.

This is certainly true, however one can make arguments that address the basis of the beliefs.

( all the rest you said is right...these boards are basically just soap boxes for all of us to shout from...and, unfortunately, sometimes it even gets personal and nasty )
post #138 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Take astrology. It's bullsh*t.

How dare you criticize that which you don't understand, that which you haven't bothered to study?

As a textbook Scorpio I take EXCEPTION to that.
(although I now understand why Hassan i Sabbah frequently 'has my number'.)


BTW, Shetline have you ever planted by the moonsign?

Quote:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--From Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #139 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
dmz, where the fuck are these documents? they do not exist. There is not a single contemporary historical document that references Jesus. Even Josephus wasn't forged until the 4th century.

Then there is the problem that Martyr had to write an apologetic in the 2nd century pleading for Christianity to be accepted BECAUSE it was no different from the astrotheologies that preceeded it.

MARTYRS OWN WORDS...

"we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter"


....are you saying Josephus was forged? I've looked at a chunck of his writing that appears to be tampered, but not much more than that.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #140 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I guess one has to admire the evangelical spirit. . . on both sides of this argument. But the ultimate problem is that by science God can neither be proven to exist or not to exist, so it's entirely the case that atheists are a part of a very similar belief system as are religious folk. In fact, the parallel is stronger than strong: aside from the lack of a deity, atheism is fully and utterly a religion.

Well, no, actually, atheism's nothing like a religion at all, having no priests, ritual, prophets, places of worship or myth.

And if I can prove that religion, or the sense of the divine that produces it, has served an evolutionary purpose and there's a physical mechanism for producing 'faith' and 'a sense of the divine', then it's adios deus. Buh bye god.

There may very well be an angry unicorn on the far side of the moon but we'll be under no more obligation to prove its existence than we will any god.
post #141 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well, no, actually, atheism's nothing like a religion at all, having no priests, ritual, prophets, places of worship or myth.

And if I can prove that religion, or the sense of the divine that produces it, has served an evolutionary purpose and there's a physical mechanism for producing 'faith' and 'a sense of the divine', then it's adios deus. Buh bye god.

There may very well be an angry unicorn on the far side of the moon but we'll be under no more obligation to prove its existence than we will any god.

c'mon Hassan i Sabbah, it's not much more than a shell game, ultimatley final arbitration has to come from somewhere.


Quote:
Unless all that we take to be knowledge is illusion, we must hold that in thinking we are not reading rationality into an irrational universe but responding to a rationality with which the universe has always been saturated.
--C. S. Lewis, "De Futilitate," in Christian Reflections

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #142 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
There may very well be an angry unicorn on the far side of the moon but we'll be under no more obligation to prove its existence than we will any god.

Christians look at any way of thinking in a religious framework. That means, to them, everyone is religioius, simply because nothing else exists in their minds.

So to say "there is no God" is a leap of faith, not a conclusion drawn from available facts. Because, to the Christian, there is really no such thing as logic based on facts.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #143 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well, no, actually, atheism's nothing like a religion at all

Well, perhaps "religion" is the wrong word. Let's go with "faith-based worldview" or "faith-based paradigm" then.
post #144 of 198
I think where athiests get themselves in trouble, is they begin to make universal statements as to what God can't be.

As soon as they do that, they are making faith-based metaphysical statements.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #145 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
As soon as they do that, they are making faith-based metaphysical statements.

I don't call myself an atheist, but that isn't necessarily true.

An atheist saying that God cannot exist can easily explain this by saying there is absolutely no evidence of such a being as god. That would be 100% reasonable and 100% faithless.

The new cool thing is to be an apathetic agnostic.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #146 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
by saying there is absolutely no evidence of such a being as god.

Except that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

A second point would be deciding what is "evidence" and furthermore how it should be interpreted.

Many people would argue that our mere existence is evidence of a "god" of some kind. This is also a perfectly reasonable statement.
post #147 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
Except that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure it is.

Quote:
A second point would be deciding what is "evidence" and furthermore how it should be interpreted.

True enough. We know of things even though we haven't truly observed them, subatomic particles, for instance, because of overwhelming indirect evidence. But there is no evidence of god, direct or indirect.

There is only faith.

Quote:
Many people would argue that our mere existence is evidence of a "god" of some kind. This is also a perfectly reasonable statement.

No it is not. The statement that existence is proof of God is textbook circular logic.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #148 of 198
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
Many people would argue that our mere existence is evidence of a "god" of some kind. This is also a perfectly reasonable statement.

No, it's not. You're presupposing 'a "god" of some kind' is existent as a viable option.

God in that context really means "process that I cannot comprehend".

Our mere existence is evidence of a "process of some kind that I cannot comprehend" but even that is inexact of course. Anyway, this "a watch implies a watchmaker" stuff is all well and good but only goes so far.

One's own existence implies many things but those things differ wildy from culture or even personal experience.

Personification of the unknown processes (or just "unknown") at work around us is nothing more than a primitive, childish instinct from ancient times when we WERE limited in to "just" our senses. Today, it's insane, but even a layperson can get a "pretty good idea" of how the universe formed and how life "might" have started just by turning on PBS and listening. And that's without all this anthropomorphism nonsense, which, if anything, is supremely arrogant for us to continue with. Hell, we can barely make aliens look not human in our fiction. Enough!

If "our mere existence is evidence of a "god" of some kind" is a "perfectly reasonable statement", then you then leave it open to make up whatever god/gods/godess/etc, narratives, rites, frameworks you like and then any and all beliefs are arguably valid. (Which leads to me finding them all equally arbitrary as I did in the first post when I said "Ganesh, a cow, Jesus...one is no more or less arbitrary to me").

Christians want to play these metaphysical games only up until they start to contradict or compete with their own beliefs, then suddenly the "rightness" of their own system is presumed over all others and they close up shop in the metaphysical marketplace.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #149 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

The new cool thing is to be an apathetic agnostic.


A friend of mine came up with a better term for that. Apatheistic.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #150 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The new cool thing is to be an apathetic agnostic.

I think that may be where most people are.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #151 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Sure it is.

Better be careful there.
post #152 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
No, it's not. You're presupposing 'a "god" of some kind' is existent as a viable option.

Yes, that is correct. This is a viable option.

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Anyway, this "a watch implies a watchmaker" stuff is all well and good but only goes so far.

Agreed. However, one should note that this exactly the same kind of thinking that naturalistic evolution thinkers apply. Basically..."because we are" is evidence that we have evolved.

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Personification of the unknown processes (or just "unknown") at work around us is nothing more than a primitive, childish instinct from ancient times when we WERE limited in to "just" our senses.

In your opinion. And so we're not limited by just our senses today? What else do we have at our disposal?

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Today, it's insane, but even a layperson can get a "pretty good idea" of how the universe formed and how life "might" have started just by turning on PBS and listening.

The operative word here is "might". The proposals offered through PBS and the Discovery Channel of how life started are as speculative and faith-based as someone saying "God did it".

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
If "our mere existence is evidence of a "god" of some kind" is a "perfectly reasonable statement", then you then leave it open to make up whatever god/gods/godess/etc, narratives, rites, frameworks you like and then any and all beliefs are arguably valid.

This is true. All are arguably possible or valid. But not all can be valid and true at the same time...for the simple fact that many simply contradict one another.
post #153 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
This is true. All are arguably possible or valid. But not all can be valid and true at the same time...for the simple fact that many simply contradict one another.

I have been raised Hindu by my family and yet spent 12 years of my life being educated in an Episcopal prep school. There is no contradiction. Both could be paths to the same destination: harmony and oneness with the universe. It is the mindset of fanatical religions such as evangelical christianity or the breed of Islam pushed by Bin Laden and company, that makes it impossible for all to be valid.
post #154 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Kishan
I have been raised Hindu by my family and yet spent 12 years of my life being educated in an Episcopal prep school. There is no contradiction. Both could be paths to the same destination: harmony and oneness with the universe. It is the mindset of fanatical religions such as evangelical christianity or the breed of Islam pushed by Bin Laden and company, that makes it impossible for all to be valid.

I'm afraid that is not true. A very simple, single example is the issue of Jesus the Christ. Christians say that (based on the Bible) the ONLY path to God/heaven/salvation is through an acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. Other faiths (like Islam for example) at best acknowledge his as a teacher or prophet. Those two positions are in conflict with one another. They cannot BOTH be true...that is...He cannot ONLY be a teacher/prophet AND be a lord/savior/god. There are other examples where different faith systems conflict and cannot be reconciled without one or the other giving something up. Anotehr would be one which relies upon works/actions to obtain forgiveness vs. relying upon "pure grace".
post #155 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
I'm afraid that is not true. A very simple, single example is the issue of Jesus the Christ. Christians say that (based on the Bible) the ONLY path to God/heaven/salvation is through an acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. Other faiths (like Islam for example) at best acknowledge his as a teacher or prophet. Those two positions are in conflict with one another. They cannot BOTH be true...that is...He cannot ONLY be a teacher/prophet AND be a lord/savior/god. There are other examples where different faith systems conflict and cannot be reconciled without one or the other giving something up. Anotehr would be one which relies upon works/actions to obtain forgiveness vs. relying upon "pure grace".

With respect, I disagree. The Holy Trinity implies that embracing Jesus and embracing God are essentially the same thing. The Holy trinity of father, son and holy spirit allows Christians to get around the commandment that says there is only one God. I have no problem with calling Jesus an incarnation of God as other religions abound with this concept. Embracing God, regardless of the religious label you apply to yourself or which incarnation of God you choose to follow, is the path to salvation/nirvana/paradise. I would restate my previous assertion that it is a limitation or inflexibility of spiritual vision that prevents religions from coexisting in the minds of some. There are a lot of roads to travel to get from New York to Los Angeles. One is no more or less correct than the other. Similarly, God gave us spirituality as a map to guide us through existence on this Earth. So long as you follow some road to God, the end result is the same.
post #156 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Kishan
With respect, I disagree. The Holy Trinity implies that embracing Jesus and embracing God are essentially the same thing. The Holy trinity of father, son and holy spirit allows Christians to get around the commandment that says there is only one God. I have no problem with calling Jesus an incarnation of God as other religions abound with this concept. Embracing God, regardless of the religious label you apply to yourself or which incarnation of God you choose to follow, is the path to salvation/nirvana/paradise. I would restate my previous assertion that it is a limitation or inflexibility of spiritual vision that prevents religions from coexisting in the minds of some. There are a lot of roads to travel to get from New York to Los Angeles. One is no more or less correct than the other. Similarly, God gave us spirituality as a map to guide us through existence on this Earth. So long as you follow some road to God, the end result is the same.

Okay...so we'll disagree...but let me address some of what you've said and perhaps clarify some of what I have said. First I think the roads to Los Angeles analogy doesn't really work or apply here.

What I am saying is that Christians hold that there was a person by the name of Jesus that was a human incarnation of God (the non-physical deity). And, further, that only acknowledging him as such is the way to achieve salvation...that there is no other way. This is mutually exclusive with the belief that there are multiple paths. Agreed that the multiple paths belief is more inclusive, but they are not the same belief.

What I'm trying to point out is that a) there are different beliefs, and b) that they are not ALL compatible or reconcilable with one another...and in fact are sometimes mutually exclusive to one another.
post #157 of 198
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kishan
I have been raised Hindu by my family and yet spent 12 years of my life being educated in an Episcopal prep school. There is no contradiction. Both could be paths to the same destination: harmony and oneness with the universe. It is the mindset of fanatical religions such as evangelical christianity or the breed of Islam pushed by Bin Laden and company, that makes it impossible for all to be valid.

Right. I think some people are irked by my use of the word arbitrary, as if it means "unimportant" or "inferior". I'm not making judgments on particular religions, I am setting them aside altogether, whatever there merits might be and asking what common things do all of us humans share, and how much of that has been co-opted by those religions for there exclusive use?

Christianity is such a target usually because of it's insistence on making others join it. Hard not to criticize the tactic, particularly when it interferes with society at large/politics and science.

Christianity unfortunately is (has always been?) at war with science, while most other religions have treated science as a useful, important tool, to be left alone, not as a competing world view.

But the "mindset of fanatical religions such as evangelical christianity" disregards the long history. It is quite clear that after getting their newfound freedoms, Christianity went on an uninterrupted rampage, tearing down other religions' symbols, destroying their writings, deeming what science they provided as magic or pagan arts...it's endless.

I make no real distinction between the Christianity of 391 and evangelical Christianity of 2005, in how it wants to sweep away science or other religious views.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #158 of 198
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kishan
There are a lot of roads to travel to get from New York to Los Angeles. One is no more or less correct than the other. Similarly, God gave us spirituality as a map to guide us through existence on this Earth. So long as you follow some road to God, the end result is the same.

The more one learns about both science and other religions, the better off we all are. Question everything and believe nothing 100%.

The second you are told not to question or told to believe 100% you'll find you are in a cult, a police state or both.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #159 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Christianity is such a target usually because of it's insistence on making others join it.

I think it moer about the fact that the Christian faith is very restrictive in its faith system. For example it doesn't allow for "multiple paths" to God...only ONE. This is very exclusionary and unappetizing to many.

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Christianity unfortunately is (has always been?) at war with science,

This really isn't true. In fact early scientific though and investigation emerged from people attempting to better understand what (they felt) God had created (world, universe, nature, etc.) It is true that they often battled with "the church" (by this I mean the Roman Catholic church)...but "the church" doesn't hold a monopoly on Christian thought or faith. Arguably, the Roman Catholic church has done more damage to true Christian faith than any other single entity in human history. (I know I just pissed off the Catholics...but I am referring to the corporate infrastructure and entity that is the Roman Catholic church.)

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
not as a competing world view.

The problem here is that modern science has, in fact, become a "competing world view". It explicitly requires the denial of any God (because we cannot observe him). This is a world view. It is not simply a methodical process of discovery.

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
It is quite clear that after getting their newfound freedoms, Christianity went on an uninterrupted rampage, tearing down other religions' symbols, destroying their writings, deeming what science they provided as magic or pagan arts...it's endless.

We need to be careful to separate the actions of some people operating in the name of Christianity (and God) and the ideas of the faith itself. The two are not one and the same.
post #160 of 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Kishan
With respect, I disagree. The Holy Trinity implies that embracing Jesus and embracing God are essentially the same thing.......Similarly, God gave us spirituality as a map to guide us through existence on this Earth. So long as you follow some road to God, the end result is the same.


I think you are missing the mark here. With God as self-contained and not participating in the same 'being' as us or the universe, the issue with Christ's statement "No one comes to the Father except through Me" becomes critical.

The Incarnation is absolutely unique in this.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ReligiousOutsider