quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: The Christians who burned witches in Salem?
As a tiny nitpick, I'm pretty sure no one was burned at Salem. Most of the victims were hung, although at least one guy was killed by having stones piled on top of his chest.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been reading this thread since it started, I can definitely say it's brought me some comfort and understanding. I've been "on the fence" about God for a few years now, and I've definitely rejected most interpretations of him. Now, when I think of things that are sacred, holy, or divine, I think of the relationships we have with other people here on earth. The interconnected-ness of all living things is what God is. The magic of "life" and the underlying energy in all things beautiful. Those are things that can't be explained by science.
Is there some religion that fits this interpretation of God?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some aspects of Taoism, to some degree, seem to agree with you. Not all, by any means.
In general, I'd have to say that the more murdering of members of other religions that is done in the name of a particular religion, the more full of bull it is. Generally speaking, of course. What goes around, comes around, to some degree. Also, I'd say that the more the members of a particular religion tend to willfully violate the spirit of the law for solely religious purposes, the more full of bull it is.
Of course you can tell, I have little patience with theocracy. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I call this life, this interconnectedness, this incomprehensible idea, Father, Mother, Creator, God. I am in relationship with this idea through Jesus Christ, who I believe was an incarnation of this idea. And through the Holy Spirit, who is this spark of this idea that is present in all of us.
Now, as we have clearly seen, the trappings of religion, can often hinder rather than help that relationship. I think that people, though, are better in communion with one another. Whether organized religion can serve this person depends on the person and the community.
Also, you might want to take a look at Buddhism.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the great things I've found about Atheism is that you can take all the good things you learned in Sunday School, throw out all the bad things which so many Christians practice, and incorporate the good from other belief systems without "turning your back on God" or believing heretical ideas.
There's also no incentive to see people of other faiths as a different tribe to do battle with. Beliefs are just beliefs to an atheist. They don't have to be defining group characteristics intended to set you apart from your neighbors.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that too often religion is used to separate us from our neighbors. I don't believe that it has to be this way. At it's best, religion reminds us that we are all neighbors, family.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the basic teaching of many religions is that followers are radically different from non-believers. The idea of God's chosen people against the world filled with darkness and sin. This leads to all sorts of nasty ideas like killing off your enemies, setting up your own rules as requirements for all people, feeling sorry for those poor people who don't believe what you do, preventing those of different beliefs from coming into power, judging the group before the individual and so on.
The reminders that we're all friends and family I would include in the good things that can be taken from religion, absolutely.
I think the very foundation of most organized religion includes a strong us vs. them mentality which is awesome for warring tribes fighting for fertile land, but terrible for a highly connected and crowded modern world.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is a basic teaching of religion; I think it is a part of human nature. The easiest way to establish our own identity is to determine who we are not. Just look at any group of teenagers. We do this with all sorts of characteristics as well as religion. Geography, income, beauty, education, language, race, age, social class.
We look for people to whom we can feel superior. "I may be poor, but at least I'm not black, gay, Catholic, fat... We claim ourselves as "in" by deciding someone else is "out".
And when people are insecure, when life isn't great, this tendency gets more pronounced.
This brings me back to what I was saying in the Dawkins thread. Religion, when it is healthy, is concerned with how we act toward each other - especially those we consider as "not us". (See Good Samaritan). Religion that is concerned with who believes what is religion that is on the wrong path. That has been co-opted by our own worse natures. And it is a powerful tool when used this way. But, I believe, religious strife is rarely purely about religion. The conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, is about class and privilege and economy and generations of hatred and revenge. It isn't about the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
This brings me back to what I was saying in the Dawkins thread. Religion, when it is healthy, is concerned with how we act toward each other - especially those we consider as "not us". (See Good Samaritan). Religion that is concerned with who believes what is religion that is on the wrong path. That has been co-opted by our own worse natures. And it is a powerful tool when used this way. But, I believe, religious strife is rarely purely about religion. The conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, is about class and privilege and economy and generations of hatred and revenge. It isn't about the doctrine of transubstantiation.
I'm not sure it's purely about religion either. However, there's always that "us and them" mentality that gets woven into passages pertaining to a particular group, and until we recognize our universal human nature, we're always going to put people in little boxes.
I think we are a "God-fearing nation". And it's making us attack each other like children who're trying to win a parents' approval at any cost. And usually it's another kid's sense of self worth, which in turn causes more dysfunction that ripples out...
I dunno, I'm just starting to see a pattern emerge that directly relates to fear of something; the unknown, the other, fear of divine punishment. And all in in all, it (any wrathful diety) seems more like a human created system of control than a loving diety's manual for living.
If I've offended anybody, I'm sorry. I'm speaking from my heart. I don't have all the answers, but I've got some correlative data.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if we are looking at scripture, we need to remember that, while inspired, it is written by humans. It is a human record of our relationship with the Divine. We see through a human lens.
You certainly haven't offended me.
Again, I am concerned that this thread has taken a turn that the OP may not like, if you want it "back", I'll back off.
I also want to make clear that I don't have any interest in "converting" anyone. I would like to clarify what I think about religion and what I think it should and can be, but I know that it too often isn't this and that it isn't right for everyone.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, if we are looking at scripture, we need to remember that, while inspired, it is written by humans. It is a human record of our relationship with the Divine. We see through a human lens.
You certainly haven't offended me.
Again, I am concerned that this thread has taken a turn that the OP may not like, if you want it "back", I'll back off.
I also want to make clear that I don't have any interest in "converting" anyone. I would like to clarify what I think about religion and what I think it should and can be, but I know that it too often isn't this and that it isn't right for everyone.
It's wonderful to hear you say that. Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I am aware of the divinity of every person I encounter; when I am reminded that I am a beloved child of God; most of all, when I remember to be grateful.
Do you treat people better, believing them to be divine children of God, than you would if you believed that they were human?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is the difference?
But yes, when I recall that God loves them and that I should, I treat them better.
My own interpretation is that if someone has a soul- something that exists beyond the mortal- then an act of kindness or hostility directed towards that person has an existence that goes beyond my body's death or their body's death, or even the persistence of record of our acts- the fading of the page, the demagnetization of the magnetic media, or what have you.
I somewhat fear that without the possibility of that soul, there is a part of me that would clamor to be heard saying "Well, if a hundred years from now, no one is going to know the difference... Why shouldn't I make *this* particular lump of clay as happy as possible by whatever means are available before I return to meaningless carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and iron, and never mind the 'feelings' of others?"
Arguably, the existence of a soul does not of necessity mean the existence of God, of course.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry if my post is a bit long and covers some ground from a while back. I just got to read this whole thread.
quote:Megabyte said:
quote:I threw out every single other supernatural belief as the obvious bunk it was (psychic phenomena, ghosts, vampires, UFOs, all of it) it was only a matter of time before I finally allowed myself to look at religion in the same manner.
I just want to note that not believing in god doesn't mean you have to throw out the possibility of any "supernatural" events occurring. I'm not sticking up for any particular supernatural belief or saying supernatural things occur, what I want to say is that if something "supernatural" exists, whether it be esp or telekinesis or whatever, it wouldn't in fact be supernatural or mystical but something based on physical principles that we just don't understand yet, that can conceivably be explained and understood by science.
quote:Alcon said:
quote:Is the belief, in part, faith based? Yeah, I have to admit it is. I have faith that the universe has natural laws, and that we can discover said laws through science. And, just as with people who have faith in one god or another, that just feels true to me.
I think there are two different kind of faiths that people talk about. One being the religious kind. The other definition I look at as closer to "trust". Nothing is ever 100%. And I have faith in many things. Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. Faith that a certain television program will be on at certain time. Faith in a friend of mine. But these faiths aren't given without regard for reason. They are not "belief without evidence". I have faith based on past experience and logical reasoning. It's still faith in that I don't know, but I wouldn't equate it to what is meant by religious faith. Because while there are religious people whose faith in god and religion can be explained similarly to must "trust" definition, the faith of many religious people is closer to "belief in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary". willful ignorance at times.
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Atheists get to have the most entertaining answers to metaphysical questions:
Only the humorous atheists. Dawkins and Harris don't have many entertaining answers, though Dawkins does like to quote Adams.
Depends on your individual sense of humor, too.
Seriously, I happen to find Dawkins extremely funny. It's one of the things I love about reading his books. I'm fascinated by what I'm learning and yet I'm entertained and amused at the same time.
quote:Tom said:
quote:That said, the idea of oblivion after death scares me. But it scares me. And part of the point of oblivion is that there's not going to be any of me left to mind not being around; at the very point at which I'd encounter the horror of nothingness, I'd be unable to experience stuff. So I try not to worry about it, since it's almost definitionally irrelevant.
Agreed. When you realize that you won't be around to be all worked up about your death, it also makes you realize that to spend time worrying about it now is almost insane. I think when you truly understand that, it makes it much easier to deal with. Death doesn't scare me, now torture....torture scares me.
quote:Ikemook said:
quote:When faced with the reality of the lack of intrinsic meaning and purpose to life, I had a choice. I could approach my life positively, imbuing it with meaning. Or I could approach it negatively, and not. The key here is that either option is a choice that I make. Thus, to see my life as purposeless is not so much to see it "as it is," but to choose to not imbue it with meaning. In other words, if my life is meaningless, it is because I chose (albeit without realizing it ^_~) to see it as meaningless.
For me, this was a very profound observation. If I desired for my life to have meaning, I needed to first change my perspective. To begin to interpret my life in a way that imbued it with meaning.
This wasn't necessarily any easier to accept, at least at first. But I found that it helped me realize that I was responsible for the meaning in my life, and that any lack of meaning or purpose must be addressed by myself. If I want my life to have meaning, I need to do things and view things in a manner that gives my life meaning.
echo
Though I must say, and sorry bring up a totally unrelated topic into this thread, as I've learned more about consciousness and neuroscience and have come to understand the concepts of identity and free will differently, it's become very hard to mesh that idea of choice and purpose with how I've come to understand us. How do you do it Tom(i'm singling you out because you're the only person in this thread that I know views those concepts similarly to me)? I know it comes down to looking at it one way scientifically, but treating it a different way practically in our day to day life, but it's baffling sometimes. What does choice even mean if you're just along for the ride(yes, there isn't a "you" that's along for the ride, but there's definitely a subjective experience of "me" that I can't seem to shake!)? I don't know what to think of the difference between "unconscious choices" and "conscious thought that leads to a purposeful choice being made". The influence of conscious thought on your day to day actions. I can start a whole new thread on this, so I won't continue. But needless to say, I've had many a circular train of thought trying to be at peace with this dichotomy.
quote:JohnnyNotSoBravo said:
quote:It's funny that you mentioned Carl Sagan and his tools for rationalism, because I don't think he was an atheist, and he talks about that in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He was a skeptic, though, and not a strong believer in conventional religion.
here's some text from wikipedia about Carl Sagan's religious beliefs:
quote:Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about many conventional conceptualizations of God. Sagan once stated, for instance, that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
From what I know of him I think atheist is probably the best description of his beliefs. His "god" doesn't seem to be any different than Einstien's "god", which they really just meant as "nature" or "the laws that tie the universe together". It was more about a connection with the universe, not any belief in a deity or creator.
quote:Soap said:
quote:It's in your best interest to believe in God because a) If there is a God you win and b) If there isn't a God, you didn't really lose.
This has been pretty well covered. Any god petty enough to punish a good person who didn't believe in him, and reward a non-believer who just pretended to believe just in case isn't worth of me or my time.
quote:Launchywiggin said:
quote:Now, when I think of things that are sacred, holy, or divine, I think of the relationships we have with other people here on earth. The interconnected-ness of all living things is what God is. The magic of "life" and the underlying energy in all things beautiful. Those are things that can't be explained by science.
I'll agree that you might want to look into Buddhism. But i'm going to question why those things can't be explained by science. Science, now and more in the future, can and will explain why being good to other people is something to be desired. Why people desire and benefit from a feeling of connectedness to the universe. That everything is connected, that we are all(people and things) one and the same. Take a look at this quote:
quote:A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.
Great eastern philosopher? Buddhist inspired thoughts? No, Einstein speaking about knowledge gained through a scientific understanding of the universe. But change a few words around and you do have a religious/mystical sounding statement.
quote:Sterling said:
quote: I somewhat fear that without the possibility of that soul, there is a part of me that would clamor to be heard saying "Well, if a hundred years from now, no one is going to know the difference... Why shouldn't I make *this* particular lump of clay as happy as possible by whatever means are available before I return to meaningless carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and iron, and never mind the 'feelings' of others?"
well, I think because it's about understanding that to be truly happy you have to take into account how you treat other people. The happiness you spread as well as the happiness you have. And when you understand that other people have the same feelings and desires and experiences of being alive that you do, you can't ignore that anymore. The seed is there, and we can't remain ignorant of it. And I'm glad for that.
kmbboots, you would call yourself a christian right? I think I'm recalling correctly. I have a good idea of your religious views, which seem far from your average christian, but you still associate yourself with the christian faith right? I kind of don't understand why. Why haven't you converted to something like Buddhism? Or why have A religion at all? Your ideas seem to mesh with the new agey spiritual crowd. I'm curious. It seems weird to me that you'd retain that bond with christianity. Retain is an assumption though to, you might have discovered a connection to it, which would baffle me even more. That said, if everyone in the world had to be religious, I'd wish they shared your religious world view.
quote:I somewhat fear that without the possibility of that soul, there is a part of me that would clamor to be heard saying "Well, if a hundred years from now, no one is going to know the difference... Why shouldn't I make *this* particular lump of clay as happy as possible by whatever means are available before I return to meaningless carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and iron, and never mind the 'feelings' of others?"
There's already that part of you. You just use your belief in the soul as just another reason to reject it.
----------
quote:How do you do it Tom(i'm singling you out because you're the only person in this thread that I know views those concepts similarly to me)? I know it comes down to looking at it one way scientifically, but treating it a different way practically in our day to day life, but it's baffling sometimes. What does choice even mean if you're just along for the ride(yes, there isn't a "you" that's along for the ride, but there's definitely a subjective experience of "me" that I can't seem to shake!)?
We are biologically programmed to believe in choice.
That flip answer aside, I think (as I've said elsewhere) that it boils down to context: the "self" is enough of a gestalt that free will is not merely an illusion; in fact, I would argue that the fiction of free will is a necessary component of the fiction of the self, and since the fiction of the self is a necessary prerequisite for a self-image, it is necessary for us to believe in free will in order to think of ourselves as sentient beings.
And as Descartes pointed out, it's pretty hard not to think of yourself as a sentient being.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Question is:
What evidence is there for a soul?
And when does it enter the human body? How could you tell?
Once again, I believe there are scientists working on this. I personally don't think there is a 'soul', in the context that we all know it.
However, the best way to prove it would probably be to show that consciousness can exist independent of the body. I have no idea how one would go about showing that, though. At least not scientifically.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: kmbboots, you would call yourself a christian right? I think I'm recalling correctly. I have a good idea of your religious views, which seem far from your average christian, but you still associate yourself with the christian faith right? I kind of don't understand why. Why haven't you converted to something like Buddhism? Or why have A religion at all? Your ideas seem to mesh with the new agey spiritual crowd. I'm curious. It seems weird to me that you'd retain that bond with christianity. Retain is an assumption though to, you might have discovered a connection to it, which would baffle me even more. That said, if everyone in the world had to be religious, I'd wish they shared your religious world view.
Thanks, Strider. That's very sweet. And I know that sometimes I do seem to have more in common with your average Buddhist than with your average Baptist.
However, I do believe that, for our sake, God became incarnate in this world in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe that we can have a personal relationship with God. That the example and teachings of Jesus are a darn good path to be in relationship with God and with each other.
I am Catholic because I believe in the concept of sacramentality. I believe that GOd is present in all creation and that all creation is a conduit for God's grace and that we are to share that grace with each other. That we are to do God's work in bringing about the kingdom of heaven by working for peace and social justice, being charitable, loving our neighbors. I believe that we are "saved" communally and that in order to be in communion with God we should be in communion with each other.
This is not particularly remarkable. I am hardly unique in my religious ideas. Even for a Catholic.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have had at least one say it was a great relief to give up on God, because it made life simpler, and at least one say it was a great relief to believe in Him, because it made life simpler.
But what really makes life simpler is to give up on the principle of noncontradiction. Ever since I realized that I can accept opposite statements as both true, there are no more complicated religious problems (or any other kind). No more being upset by agreement or lack of agreement between ancient sources; I believe the ones I want, and be damned to the consequences.
No more needing to convince other people their beliefs aren't rational; I can believe I'm superior simply because I choose to!
It makes me lonely, because not everybody is as cool as I am, but I'm used to it now.
Qaz1
[ August 20, 2007, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sounds interesting, Qaz, but I found a way that makes me feel even freer. I stopped spinning the way I spoke of other people's beliefs in my mind.
For example, I no longer needed to frame the war in Iraq as "Dubya murdering US soldiers" to disagree with it; I could just say it was wrong.
If two ancient peoples (say, Jews and Greeks, or early Christians and Buddhists, or what have you) agreed on things, I didn't need to spin this as a refutation of those beliefs (why would having more people believe something make it untrue?) or as confirmation of those beliefs (if everybody believes something, it can still be wrong). All it means is they agreed on something.
This has been explored by others who have a little more to say. One source is the book Radical Honesty, largely about personal relationships, but also about not believing the stories we tell ourselves about others (such as that atheists, or theists, are pitiful because they don't agree with me). Another is Nonviolent Communication, which actually *honors* the people one has conflict with. But probably the best source is dear old logic itself. I could spin others' beliefs as much as I want, but it's irrelevant; the beliefs are still there, no more false than they were before I started spinning them.
It doesn't actually make me feel any more comfortable, but it does free me from a lot of effort convincing myself of things.
posted
You just had to go and make things all complicated, didn't you?
I feel much freer now that I spin people's beliefs any way I want. It makes the world a *lot* simpler if I tell myself there's no grain of truth in belief systems that make me uncomfortable.
posted
Straw man: making up an easily refuted or ridiculed position (in your case, "talking to yourself to spin a straw man"), conflating it with actual positions people have taken, then attacking it in lieu of those positions. Some books consider that to be unsound.
[ August 20, 2007, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I somewhat fear that without the possibility of that soul, there is a part of me that would clamor to be heard saying "Well, if a hundred years from now, no one is going to know the difference... Why shouldn't I make *this* particular lump of clay as happy as possible by whatever means are available before I return to meaningless carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and iron, and never mind the 'feelings' of others?"
There's already that part of you. You just use your belief in the soul as just another reason to reject it.
Of course. Although I fear that it may be a necessary reason, at least in my case.
quote:Originally posted by Strider: well, I think because it's about understanding that to be truly happy you have to take into account how you treat other people. The happiness you spread as well as the happiness you have. And when you understand that other people have the same feelings and desires and experiences of being alive that you do, you can't ignore that anymore. The seed is there, and we can't remain ignorant of it. And I'm glad for that.
Arguably the notion that we must take others' happiness into account to be happy ourselves is also a statement of faith (which is not, I hasten to clarify, a denigration of said statement.)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I say anything else, let me apologize for posting in the first place. I realize now that it was quite rude to post in a thread for the discussion of the happiness and joy that has come from atheism.
That being said, I *do* want to follow through and elaborate.
So. If you'd rather forget everything I said, and forget that I'd ever posted my rude post, I'd advise you to skip over the following.
For those of you who are eagerly awaiting my explanations, you may read.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creation is the proof that there is God. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you really *are* happy, then I'm delighted for you, if not a tad bit worried that you've doomed yourself to eternal damnation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such bold statements really do demand elaboration. Please please explain how you can justify this kind of judgment.
The basis for the first statement is from Romans 1:19-20 (They know everything there is to know about God, because God has shown it all to them. God's eternal power and character cannot be seen. But from the beginning of creation, God has shown what these are like by all he has made. That's why those people don't have any excuse).
It's the first verse in the Romans road, a rather popular one; one that I asssumed virtually everybody knew, and once quoted, everybody would recognize. Guess not. Sorry.
I'm just saying, in the off-chance that there is a God, and that that God is the Christian God, according to the Bible, you already instinctively knew that there was a God, and are without excuse. (Not only that, but, arguably, God will always send a Peter to a Cornelius.)
As for the second statement... Good grief, what do I have to do, put these statements italics? It was humor, based on hyberbole and connotation. People associate the word 'Damnation' with hellfire, lake of fire, ect. The kind every 'christian' quotes in order to inspire fear in the 'non-believers'.
It's the same humor I use at my youth group's bake sales ("Buy a cookie, or go to hell" I yell at innocent passerbys).
It's just irreverant. I still find it funny. Others don't. It was rude, and I'm sorry.
A more straight-faced way of saying it would have been 'I'm happy that you're contented, but I'm sad because I think you've made a big mistake'.
From now on, these things go in italics. (Unless of course I forget.)
quote:Sometimes it does.
Other times they speak of killing you, or at least gloating at the thought that you will suffer eternal torment after you die.
Can you really tell me that they're less Christian?
Are they less Christian than the Christians who burned down the Great Library of Alexandria?
The Christians who burned witches in Salem?
Perhaps they're a different kind of Christian than you, but who am I or you to disagree with them with their self-labeling?
I believe you forgot the Spanish Inquisition. I thought for sure that would be coming.
Whoops, too broad. I meant political beliefs limited to current American Politics... liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat, that sort of thing. I wasn't clear. Sorry. I don't believe that Liberals or Democrats are, as general groups, kinder to Athiests than Conservatives or Republicans or Libertarians or Independants or... The other ones.
quote: "Or perhaps I'm totally reading into this too much, and have just made a completely unecessariliy offensive comment"
Don't worry about it, I forgive you.
Thanks.
quote: posted August 19, 2007 06:06 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know you haven't met me, so that means that, at the very most, every religious person minus one feels that way."
Forgive me for being nitpicky, but as I said, "many refuse to see it."
That's many, not all. That's many, not even necessarily the majority.
quote:The thing about religion, everyone recognizes how silly other peoples' beliefs are. However, when it comes to theirs, even if they're just as silly, many refuse to see it. When you hear about some random tribe's beliefs in witches that have extra organs in their bodies which fly out and wreak havoc at night, it's hard not to smile. For a Christian, hearing, say, that a literally fatherless man, who also happens to be his own father, floated up into heaven bodily... a Christian won't look at that as odd at all. But any other religion would.
Emphasis mine.
While you did say that many refuse to see their beliefs as silly, you did say that everyone sees how silly other beliefs systems are. I can think of several belief systems that I respect and don't think of as silly. So, not to be nitpicky, but that would still be everyone minus one, at most. You are also assuming that any other religion views Christianity as silly, and while I can't speak for them, I'd assume that there had to be at least one out there somewhere that didn't see it that way.
quote:Christian interpretation aside, the early Jews interpreted the words meant for them rather differently than you do.
True, however, your quoting of that particular passage was, I assume, to represent the 'competing moralities' in the Bible, which make it impossible to use. With my explanation, you can realize that it is possible that they were not competing moralities. One was not to kill, true, but the first commandment was to love the Lord your God above all things, and I believe that took priority. If God told the Jews to go take the land, than they did it. Since neither one of us have met any of the Jews from that time period, I'd say both of our theories regarding their interpretation of that scripture have equal merit (Which is to say, not much).
So, it comes down to a difference of opinion, caused by two different, yet equally possible, views, presented by different people. I'm sure there are many more views regarding the Old-Testament Jews' interpretation of the Torah than just those two, also, each equally valid.
quote:Or did you even know that the two creation stories are two stylistically different stories, written at different times during the history of the Jewish faith? That Joshua and Judges represent two nearly contradictory descriptions of the period of Hebrew history that both of them cover?
How about the very fascinating differences in the Gospels, the purposes of Mark, the first Gospel writer, and of Matthew and Luke, the other Synoptic writers, and the very huge differences between theirs and John's accounts?
Such bold statements really do demand some elaboration.
I have no idea which two 'creation' stories you're referring to, and, excuse me if I take the text too literally, but, Joshua took place while Joshua was alive, and Judges took place after. To only possible overlapping I see would be that period before the judges, and after Joshua died. Like, Judges says he was buried in so-and-so place, and Joshua says that he was buried in another so-and-so place. That kind of thing; the kind of thing upon much doctrinal importance is placed, I'm sure
Perhaps you meant Kings and Chronicles? Asa's reign?
The gospels... hmmm. I'm still going to need some elaboration. What was the big conflict? Matthew gave the geneology of Joseph, and Luke gave Mary's? Or that they all had different inscriptions written on Jesus's cross (Here is Jesus; here is Jesus, King of the jews; Here is Jesus of the Nazarine, King of the jews)
Perhaps it was when Luke specified that it was that poor soldier's left ear... Or was it the right ear?
Matthew quoted Hebrew scriptures for the Jewish community, Luke didn't... John emphasized God's being 100% man, Mark's emphasized his being 100% God. True, all four gospel emphasized different things, however, I've never seen a real conflict...
Oh yeah... How many fish and loaves did the boy really bring? How many people were there present? Where were the beattitudes given? Because it's impossible that Jesus would do or say the same thing more than once.
quote: The intruiging differences between the descriptions of Paul's conversion in Paul's letters, that is, the genuine ones of his written by him, and the late-written Acts of the Apostles by Luke, which shows a very different story?
Yeah... Umm, I think those differences were also in the book of Acts, just by itself... You know, the soldier's heard the voice of God, the soldier's didn't hear the voice of God.
Perhaps you could elaborate on which one of the epistles said something different?
The one I think you're talking about (Because everybody always brings this one up) is the difference between Acts 9:7 (The men stood there speechless. They had heard the voice, but they had not seen anyone) and Acts 22:9 (The men traveling with me saw the light, but did not hear the voice.)
It's cleared up in Acts 26:14 (We all fell to the ground. Then I heard a voice say to me, in Hebrew "Saul, Saul, why are you so cruel to me? It's foolish to fight against me.")
We are told that the men saw a light (22:9) but not a person (9:7), and they all fell to the ground (26:14) and stood speechless... Wait a minute... Stood? Well, lets look up the greek word. Ah. Histemi. Most commonly meaning 'stood', also meaning establishing, laying (Or is it lie), and continuing. So, although the Bible could be contradictory (They fell and stood), it could also be consistent (They fell and layed, they fell and continued to be speechless)
Now. The voice. That word, from the greek (according to Strongs) is Akouo. Meaning hear, understand, comprehend.
So. Since we know God spoke in Hebrew (26:14), and we know it's likely that Saul was the only person among the group that spoke Hebrew, since he quoted heavily from the Old Testament in his epistles, and this was before the Septuagint was out, we can assume he knew Hebrew, and the others in the group were gentiles, which we know because Saul was the only 'traitor', and it was very rare for a gentile to know Hebrew.
So it's entirely possible that The men heard a voice (9:7), but didn't understand it (22:9), because it spoke in Hebrew, or Aramaic (26:14)
It could be contradictory, and it also could make perfect sense. However, since the people believing in the consistency of the Bible have a mandate from heaven on their side, I think they're arguments hold more weight.
I'm sure many Christians are in a panic now. The idea the greek words can mean more than one thing is shocking! Knowing that all this time that people in the Bible that they thought were standing were actually laying down. I've immediately started poring over the greek texts, trying to remedy this gross error. The crippled man by the fountain... Was he really laying down? Or was he standing?
As you can imagine, my faith is quite shaken.
quote: Paul's description of certain events which, in his account, were not at all harmonious, but which in Acts was spoken of as a wonderful pleasant get together?
How about a hundred other things, all of which I could go into in vastly more detail than I am here and now?
Such bold statments would be better without elaboration, as a hundred other things would take up quite a lot of time.
Besides, I'm sure a crash course in the apologetics could lower that number to fifty. Maybe even more.
quote: Yet in this world there is no evidence of a god of any sort, neither Thor nor Zeus nor Yahweh.
You dare use the words 'Zeus' and 'Yahweh' in the same sentence? How dare you? I must now spin around and spit three times... And then do it again, because in my acusing you of using 'Zeus' and 'Yahweh' in the same sentence, I used 'Zeus and 'Yahweh' in the same sentence... Crap! Two more times. I can't believe I used 'Zeus' and 'Yahweh' in the same sentence twice that time... Crap!
Anyway...
Again, I apologize for posting in the first place. And a second time. And what will probably be a third time.
I'm really not trying to convert people (Obviously. I'd be much nicer if I were.)
posted
I want to believe in God, and most of the time, I do.
But I am not very happy with him right now. I don't understand how I can beg and plead and cry out for his help, intervention, or even just comfort and be met with silence every time. I don't understand how I can scream for relief from pain, emotional and physical, for myself and loved ones, and things not only don't get better, but get much worse--as if there IS a God, but he's more malevolent than benevolent.
But the wicked continually prosper, and I'm starting to wonder that the Christian adage that people will get their just reward after death really was created to placate the masses. Ignore wrong-doing and injustice in this life, because it will all be sorted out in the next.
It really bothers me that I'm starting to lose my faith. I *want* to believe, but dare I say it, I think he owes me an explanation.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain, I'm so sorry that you and your family are going through such a difficult time. Is there anything I can do to help? Please feel free to email me (my user name at hotmail).
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain: As kmbboots said, I too would be only too happy to listen and help if you need it. You can email me through the forums. I know what it's like to think, if God is listening why doesn't he do anything I need him to.
Don't give in to depression, you must'nt, there are answers out there.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can’t really say that I want to believe in God. I just want to know one way or the other whether he actually exists or not. I want to be convinced of my beliefs, not constantly doubting them or having to question them because of inconsistencies.
I just don’t understand why a God that wants people to know and learn about him makes himself so hard to find and understand. To begin with, it’s very convenient for all of the different gods in the universe to be invisible. And why does he only speak through prophets or some elite class of people when he could just as easily simultaneously speak the same message to everyone in the world and avoid the whole problem of misinterpretation? Why is his word always so cryptic and symbolic and in need of interpretation when a simple, clear message would be so much more effective? Why does he make you figure out for yourself how he answers prayers instead of making it obvious that he and not some other completely rational explanation is behind it? Paul needed to see the resurrected Jesus before he believed, why can’t I get the same kind of miraculous proof?
If I had some unknown father that was trying to make contact with me, I’m sure he wouldn’t be sending cryptic messages, declining attempts to meet each other, and refusing to provide evidence of his claim. I’d be more likely to get a restraining order than I would be to start devoting myself to him and worshipping him. The search for God has turned into an elaborate Where’s Waldo but without knowing what Waldo looks like or whether he’s even in the picture at all. You decide what you want or expect him to be, and then when you find something that matches your expectations, you figure you must have found something. It’s hardly convincing, and I honestly can’t see what impact a God who refuses to make himself known to me would have on my life.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just want to know one way or the other whether he actually exists or not. I want to be convinced of my beliefs, not constantly doubting them or having to question them because of inconsistencies.
I can totally relate. That's no fun at all. I've got my own answers for all of your questions, and I'm sure you can imagine what those answers are. Religious people will have different answers and, again, I suspect you can anticipate those as well.
Whichever side you end up falling on, good luck.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: But I am not very happy with him right now. I don't understand how I can beg and plead and cry out for his help, intervention, or even just comfort and be met with silence every time.
There is a simple explanation for this, which fits all the known facts and requires no special pleading. Conceivably, your life would be easier if you didn't constantly have to quarrel with an entity that is, at best, ignoring you. Moreover, as you must know, "wanting to believe" is not a good reason for actually doing so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: But I am not very happy with him right now. I don't understand how I can beg and plead and cry out for his help, intervention, or even just comfort and be met with silence every time.
There is a simple explanation for this, which fits all the known facts and requires no special pleading. Conceivably, your life would be easier if you didn't constantly have to quarrel with an entity that is, at best, ignoring you. Moreover, as you must know, "wanting to believe" is not a good reason for actually doing so.
Whether there is a God or not, I know that not believing in him isn't going to change my life for the better--the things that suck are still going to suck.
kmbboots and BlackBlade, thank you for the offers, and I just may take you up on it. Not now, though, thinking too much makes me want to cry, and I hate to cry at work. Ick.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:kmbboots and BlackBlade, thank you for the offers, and I just may take you up on it. Not now, though, thinking too much makes me want to cry, and I hate to cry at work. Ick.
NP, whenever it suits you, I'm there for you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether there is a God or not, I know that not believing in him isn't going to change my life for the better--the things that suck are still going to suck.
And believing in him isn't necessarily going to make them not suck either, though it's possible that an assurance that there is more and better to come may decrease how negatively those things affect you emotionally. Antidepressants may have a similar effect.
But trust me, sucky stuff still sucks whether you believe in God or not. I couldn't be less of a believer and my wife couldn't be more devout, but both of us are really having a heck of a time dealing with some sucky stuff that's going on in our lives (not between us - external stuff) right now. We're doing our best to suck it up and deal with it the best that we can, and we know we'll get past it, but it still sucks for now.
In either case, the stuff that sucks which you have control over, you'll have to do something about and that stuff that you don't have control over you'll have to just let go.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Whether there is a God or not, I know that not believing in him isn't going to change my life for the better--the things that suck are still going to suck.
But one of the things you mentioned as sucking was that when you ask for help from your god, it doesn't reply. Clearly, you can make that part stop hurting.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
"While you did say that many refuse to see their beliefs as silly, you did say that everyone sees how silly other beliefs systems are. I can think of several belief systems that I respect and don't think of as silly. So, not to be nitpicky, but that would still be everyone minus one, at most. You are also assuming that any other religion views Christianity as silly, and while I can't speak for them, I'd assume that there had to be at least one out there somewhere that didn't see it that way."
You can think of several, you say. While I cannot read your mind, would it be too far off to say that you do NOT think EVERY other possible religious faith that some people in the world hold are respectable?
Perhaps silly was the wrong word: You think them wrong, or at least some of them wrong.
"Such bold statements really do demand some elaboration."
Perhaps it does. This is going to be the part to take awhile, surely.
"I have no idea which two 'creation' stories you're referring to,"
Eh? Really? Forgive my surprise, but while I'm not a particularly learned scholar, this is the basics.
Let me explain:
First of all, the Book of Genesis is a collection of a bunch of different separate stories, which were not all written at the same time, naturally.
Further, the main theory I've been studying with, the documentary hypothesis, suggests that there are four main sources of words from the Old Testament, the Priestly sources, which focus on the legalistic and ritual aspects of the Israelite religion, along with genealogies, dates, and a rather precise style, the Yahwist sources, which are the works that utilize the name Yahweh for God, give Him an anthropomorphic portrayal, and is probably the majority of the storyline aspect of the Old Testament (since the Yahwists were the portion of the Hebrews who ended up becoming the Jews, and weren't annihilated outright by Assyria earlier on)
Then there are the Elohist sources, which tend to use Elohim as God's name. They're less anthropomorphic depiction of God is evident. Then there were the Deuteronomist texts, which focus on the nature of the Mosaic Covenant, and tends to interpret historical events in the light of God's will (we won because Yahweh was pleased, we lost because we sinned, etc). A large chunk, from Joshua - 2 Kings, is figured to have at least been primarily done or influenced by this source.
This isn't, as far as I know, a completely perfect theory yet or anything like that, but it is quite useful, and explains a lot of things about the text.
Anyway, back to Genesis!
The two Genesis creation stories, are, back to back, Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a, then Genesis 2:4b - onward.
The first one is believed to have been from a Priestly source, but the fact is, even reading it shows a particularly different style than what is to come later.
The God portrayed in this first story is transcendent, beyond the world, full of grandeur and greatness, who can create everything with a word, and seems to lack physical form. This is the "And God said let there be light" version of creation.
You've read it, I'm sure, so I won't go into thourough detail. But a key point is the creation of humanity, which, if you read the words as they are, state that God made mankind, without any hint about separation or fall, and made them BOTH in the image and likeness of God.
Not, as in the next story, mind, Male first, then female later at a different time, in the likeness of the man which God fashioned.
Further, the justification of the Sabbath given here, that on the seventh day God rested, is... a significantly different justification than the one given in Deuteronomy, where it gives it as a reason to remember Israel's escape from Egypt ( Deut. 5:12 - 15)
Now on the to second Creation story!
This second one, remember, from Genesis 2:4b onward, was a Yahwist story, and shows a much more anthropomorphic God, which goes down to the Earth seemingly personally (from the text as written) and seemingly works with his very hands to fashion, for example, the clay of Adam, the first man (who was created, in this passage, not simultaneously with Eve but before her) or God giving his literal breath to Adam to bring him to life. Further, the order of creation is different, with mankind, not the culmination of life, but with Adam being created before the animals, which God then fashioned, with a rather limited forsight, as an attempt, in the text, to be a partner for Adam.
Only after Adam names them all and finds himself still lonely does God get the great idea of creating a second human, which he does from Adam's rib, supposedly.
This is a radically different story, and the God is a completely different character with utterly different characteristics, much more in line with the sorts of gods other cultures possessed in their stories. (Read Gilgamesh near the same time you read this Genesis story and many later ones. You'll notice the similarities in the nature of the entities!)
Then the story goes on, with the serpent, leaving Eden, Cain and Abel (who mysteriously have a bunch of people inferred to be aroudn them, as when Cain complains that his mark will cause everyone to hurt him, essentially)
These, anyway, are different stories, written by different people, probably at different times, with different ideas of what God is. This order and whatnot is an editing job, pure and simple, and from what I've read, most likely done by the exiled Jews in Babylon before they were sent back home by Persia.
If you forgive me a tangent a moment, let me point out some other interesting tidbits that you should be interested in:
Genesis includes two different variations of Jacob's encounter with God, the one where his name is changed to Israel. The first is the famous one where he wrestles with a figure, either God or an angel, and wins (Gen 32:22-32) and the second one, which is said to take place in a different location, God calls himself a different name, El Shaddai, and announces, presumably for the first time, that Jacob will be called Israel. (Gen. 35:9-15) Note that this story is done as if the previous story didn't exist. More editing work.
More interestingly, there are essentially three repititons of one particular story in Genesis about Abraham:
Basically, the kind of story where Abraham and his wife, while wandering, go to some kingdom, and Abraham worries the king of whichever country will seize his wife, so pretends they're siblings, plays a trick, gets away with riches, etc. Happens three times, in very, very similar stories that almost certainly weren't all historical events. Gen. 12:10-20, Gen. 20:1-18, and Gen. 26:1-14. Granted ,the third one happens to Isaac, son of Abraham, but the stories are just too similar to be a coincidence.
Further, the Noah's Ark story is, in fact, two readily recognized accounts spliced together by editors, which tell independant stories which do not require the other text to be made sense of, and in fact differ on some details.
I have no intent of typing up the entire story, as I have in front of my eyes, as my hands would cramp. But they're different in significant as well as minor details.
Anyway, there are other examples of this sort of interesting thing. It's interesting because these are redundant or contradictory stories, and stories they are, not actual historical events. They were all just edited together. And not the most perfectly in some cases, either.
" and, excuse me if I take the text too literally, but, Joshua took place while Joshua was alive, and Judges took place after. To only possible overlapping I see would be that period before the judges, and after Joshua died. Like, Judges says he was buried in so-and-so place, and Joshua says that he was buried in another so-and-so place. That kind of thing; the kind of thing upon much doctrinal importance is placed, I'm sure"
Um... no. That's not the difference at all. The difference is much bigger, and the two books imply a very different situation, with very different historical connotations.
Your sarcasm belies the point that you haven't studied the differences, or at least haven't noticed them, as much as I have. Luckily, I have the aid of others, and the hard-gleaned information of many other people to rely on. I didn't discover anything myself, but at least I know what others have discovered.
First, anyway, as to Joshua, the first book of the Deuteronomic History:
Joshua depicts the Hebrew conquest of Canaan as vastly different than Judges, and the rest of the more historical documents, do.
First of all, it shows a direct military conflict, as the Hebrews move in, kill everyone in their way, and conquer pretty much everythin gin their path, and end rather victoriously.
The first part of Joshua depicts, essentially, the conquest of Canaan as rapid and completely successful, though later parts do concede some parts of the country aren't conquered.
However, Judges, and archeological evidence, depict a radically different story. For one, the Hebrews did not come in a single wave, destroying everything in their path in monumental holy war, as depicted in Joshua. Judges describes a Holy Land where the Hebrews are scattered smallish tribes, not united but separate, spread among many Canaanite tribes living concurrently, which they clearly weren't able to conquer.
Judges describes the Hebrews as much, much less successful. Instead of immediately forming a kingdom, or even a contiguous area of local control, they were all scattered, divided, leaderless, living among the Canaanite cities and kingdoms, and only slowly, after centuries and centuries, growing strong enough to overcome them.
There is a lot more, and other examples of the differences, but, again, I don't have all day to list them all.
"Perhaps you meant Kings and Chronicles? Asa's reign?"
Nope. See above.
"The gospels... hmmm. I'm still going to need some elaboration. What was the big conflict? Matthew gave the geneology of Joseph, and Luke gave Mary's? Or that they all had different inscriptions written on Jesus's cross (Here is Jesus; here is Jesus, King of the jews; Here is Jesus of the Nazarine, King of the jews)"
Oh, there are much bigger things than thatin the texts! Do you mind if I handle the New Testament in a later post, as I am running out of time to check up on my information?
"Perhaps it was when Luke specified that it was that poor soldier's left ear... Or was it the right ear?"
Such sarcastic words belie and belittle the very real differences between Gospels.
Are you really that blind to the words of the Gospels that you think the only questions are silly things like that?
"Matthew quoted Hebrew scriptures for the Jewish community, Luke didn't... John emphasized God's being 100% man, Mark's emphasized his being 100% God. True, all four gospel emphasized different things, however, I've never seen a real conflict... "
Maybe in the same manner that a Trekkie can see no real conflict between the contradicting storylines of Star Trek...
"Oh yeah... How many fish and loaves did the boy really bring? How many people were there present? Where were the beattitudes given? Because it's impossible that Jesus would do or say the same thing more than once. "
Heh. Forgive me for responding to sarcasm with sarcasm, but I'll be dealing with the New Testament later.
But, showing you my words on the Old Testament, I hope you'll be able to wait patiently.
And by the way, the thing you think I mean in Acts is not at all the thing I mean.
You really don't know, do you?
But your sarcasm simply shows your ignorance. What a pity.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, when fans of television shows or books find contradictions, and then work hard and go through complicated mental gymnastics to create a reasoning or a point of view from which two absolutely contradictory statements in the texts or films are, in fact, not contradictory at all, it's called fan-wanking.
I don't see why the same term doesn't apply to those who do the same thing to the Bible... except, of course, the fact that fan-wankers of the Bible are much more powerful.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I just know that he's ignorant of a lot, at the very least what I've studied, unless he's just pretending.
He certainly hasn't shown any knowledge of such things, but of course, if he shows otherwise later, I will be forced, thanks to new evidence, to change my view.
So. Perhaps I'll concede I've almost certainly not studied it as long, as he's certianly much older.
But that time doesn't seem to have served him very well, if he has.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yes, I forgot this completely unrelated subject:
"I'm just saying, in the off-chance that there is a God, and that that God is the Christian God, according to the Bible, you already instinctively knew that there was a God, and are without excuse."
Heh. But that's another theory which, you know, is completely, without question, false.
If everyone instinctively knew that God, particularly the Christian God, was there, then it would be a good time to ask why, in fact, the only people who ever believe in that God, or came up with that God, happened to live originally in a single small area of the planet, and spread only through convincing others, and particularly by ingraining it into their children when they were young.
Especially interesting is the Native Americans, who had no connection with Europeans for nearly 13,000 years, who came up with many beliefs, none of which you can attribute easily to belief in the Christian God... they all came up with something totally different! (unless you feel that all attempts at the divine are because of that ingrained belief in God... which of course leads to the question as to why they all got it wrong.)
Why would God, being omnipotent, ingraine the knowledge of Himself in such a manner that the only way to get it accurately was by His special revelation, and nothing else? As obviously, without said special revelation, everyone else got it wrong.
Further, they claim they got special revelation saying sometimes utterly contradictory things!
So, the theory doesn't follow the evidence. If my reasoning is flawed, I'll fix the flaws after having them pointed out.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's funny that you mentioned Carl Sagan and his tools for rationalism, because I don't think he was an atheist, and he talks about that in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He was a skeptic, though, and not a strong believer in conventional religion.
here's some text from wikipedia about Carl Sagan's religious beliefs:
quote:Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about many conventional conceptualizations of God. Sagan once stated, for instance, that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
From what I know of him I think atheist is probably the best description of his beliefs. His "god" doesn't seem to be any different than Einstien's "god", which they really just meant as "nature" or "the laws that tie the universe together". It was more about a connection with the universe, not any belief in a deity or creator.
From the short summary at wiki of Sagan's beliefs, Sagan seems like a pantheist more than an atheist.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I've been reading this thread since it started, I can definitely say it's brought me some comfort and understanding. I've been "on the fence" about God for a few years now, and I've definitely rejected most interpretations of him. Now, when I think of things that are sacred, holy, or divine, I think of the relationships we have with other people here on earth. The interconnected-ness of all living things is what God is. The magic of "life" and the underlying energy in all things beautiful. Those are things that can't be explained by science.
Is there some religion that fits this interpretation of God?
Launchywiggin, your thoughts on what is divine remind me of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's ideas of Unity, the Noösphere, and the Omega Point. From the little I know of de Chardin's theories, the interconnectedness of all things is critical. To me, it's an appealing idea.
quote:Omega point is a term invented by French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to describe the ultimate maximum level of complexity-consciousness, considered by him the aim towards which consciousness evolves. Rather than divinity being found "in the heavens" he held that evolution was a process converging toward a "final unity", identical with the Eschaton and with God. According to Teilhard and the Russian scholar and biologist Vladimir Vernadsky (author of The Geosphere 1924 and The Biosphere 1926), the planet is in a transformative process, metamorphosing from the biosphere into the noosphere.
Like others have pointed out, Taoism and Buddhism also fit these beliefs somewhat.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
