I guess my point is that, for me, there has to be some reason for all this crap. I don't understand it, I may never understand it. But like a sublime striking hawk, it will one day come like a flash of lightning in the black night, and for one instant it will all be revealed. There has to be some reason for this traffic jam, this life, maybe for some there doesn't. That's fine. But for me, there must be some reason for all this crap.
Maybe it's a reason because you make it so, not because of any inherent quality it possesses. One man's cigarette butt may be another's salvation; depends on the man. But if cigarette butts become popular at one point in time (as they are now), that doesn't make them the only things out there with a glow, if you take my meaning.
Oh, yeah. It may very well be. That's the thing about faith; it doesn't really rely on scientific proof. I can't really justify messing with anyone else's butts, because my own butt might be wrong.
They might all be right.
I understand what you are saying. I guess that I feel differently simply due to scale. When entire cities/civilizations are wiped out and evidence supports what the Bible has said for centuries. When Egypt happens to lose its entire slave labor work force in a day with no fighting.Do you have a source for the slave labor work force gone in a day fact? I find it hard to believe that the archelogical record, which normally is accurate within a range of decades to hundreds of years, can pinpoint an event occurring within the span of a single day.
The Egyptians were meticulous in recording everything. So far, there is no record that they lost their entire labor force, or even a large portion of it, over a brief period of time. The common theory in archeology is that the Jews left Egypt a little at a time--prolonged Exodus. Stories like Exodus and such would be exactly what an exiled people needed at that time--they needed to feel that they were protected from the world that generally disliked them (only monotheist tribe at the time). A great and sudden departure from their slavery with the help of God and the pharoah on their heels would be a great inspiration to their people.
That's one of the most frustrating things about discussing religion. Every time you can point to actual scientific data that contradicts the Bible, the answer you get is either "you haven't proven your science" (e.g., evolution) or "that passage of the Bible is not meant to be interpreted literally" (e.g., age of the Earth). Seems to me that there's a whole lot of judgment going on in interpreting the Bible given that some passages are literal, some passages are metaphorical, and yet there's not a clear indication of which is which.
The same can be said about science. God doesn't exist because the world is made of quarks and there is the big bang and evolution etc. etc. I once had a science teacher say a very wise thing: If I were God, I would build the world using science. Why do these things have to be so mutually exclusive? If God, then not science, and visa versa, is just a silly statement. I don't see how these two things are seperate.
On that note (oops, now I'm on a tangent): I don't understand the idea that if you are one religion, you can't have ideas from another. If you're christian, the Pali Cannon is wrong and the bible is right. If you're Buddhist, the bible is just a collection of stories and there are no gods. Perhaps we could arrive at some closer semblance of truth if we were open to all the different points of view. This is my opinion only, I have no reason for saying that one particular religion does not contain ultimate truth, but I think that the differing of opinion might show that perhaps our faiths are fragmented.
I don't understand the idea that if you are one religion, you can't have ideas from another. If you're christian, the Pali Cannon is wrong and the bible is right. If you're Buddhist, the bible is just a collection of stories and there are no gods. Perhaps we could arrive at some closer semblance of truth if we were open to all the different points of view. This is my opinion only, I have no reason for saying that one particular religion does not contain ultimate truth, but I think that the differing of opinion might show that perhaps our faiths are fragmented.
I think we have to face the fact that religion as we know it is a small and petty thing. None of them are truly interchangeable with any of the others; not even the so-called tolerant ones like Buddhism. When it gets right down to it you can't be a Buddhist AND believe in a God who saves souls. If you believe in that, you're a Christian or a Muslim, not a Buddhist. And you can't NOT believe in God and still call yourself a Christian. They just aren't compatible. If any of the known religions actually share a universal truth, it can't be anything to do with God or salvation, because they each give directly conflicting answers on these matters. That means only one of them can be right, or none, but not all. I wish they could all be right, but logically it seems the best we can hope for on that front is that maybe all of them are a little bit right.
The only shared truth I can see between them is "be excellent to each other", and even then most of them add the caveat "unless..."
If you're Buddhist, the bible is just a collection of stories and there are no gods.
think we have to face the fact that religion as we know it is a small and petty thing. None of them are truly interchangeable with any of the others; not even the so-called tolerant ones like Buddhism.
Plenty of people in Japan practice Buddhism and Shinto in tandem, and see no contradiction. All over southeast Asia, there are Buddhist sects that have merged with local traditions, sharing their gods and spirits and somehow reconciling the two. And there is no reason that I can think of that a person couldn't be a Taoist and a neo-pagan, for example, or a Confucianist and a Hindu.
We've become so conditioned into the "all-or-nothing" and "my way is the only way" creed of the Big Three monotheistic religions that it's easy to believe all faiths are mutually contradictory, but that doesn't have to be the case.
|
What, you mean like the age of the Earth, or the existence of dinosaurs, or any of the other scientific facts that contradict the Bible's account of creation and were subsequently ret-conned as "interpretations?"
I have never heard a Mormon make such an acknowledgement, and, from what I have seen, they make the same arguments as defenders of the core Bible. When science turns against them (e.g., age of the Earth, the great flood, the age of dinosaurs, DNA of native Americans, etc, etc, ect), they just pull out the old card of "that particular passage is metaphorical, not literal" and go on their way.
Edit: That's one of the most frustrating things about discussing religion. Every time you can point to actual scientific data that contradicts the Bible, the answer you get is either "you haven't proven your science" (e.g., evolution) or "that passage of the Bible is not meant to be interpreted literally" (e.g., age of the Earth). Seems to me that there's a whole lot of judgment going on in interpreting the Bible given that some passages are literal, some passages are metaphorical, and yet there's not a clear indication of which is which.
I'm not sure how the DNA of native Americans is "metaphorical". Pretty much, the whole point of the Book of Mormon is that native American indians are of Jewish decent which is why Jesus appeared to them here after the events in Israel. I'm not sure how that is "metaphorical".
Around a year ago, there was an artical about a Mormon archeologist that wrote a book that basically said that there was not any evidence that the events/places in the Book of Mormon happened. He was excommunicated for his book. What gets me is that he still felt like he was Mormon and hoped to come back to the church at some point. At work one day, I overheard a Mormon talking about the prophecy of Joseph Smith about the inhabitants of the moon (looking like six foot quakers, etc.) and saying that it didn't matter to her -- as long as some of his prophecies came true, he would follow the man.
Joseph Smith said some things that it is hard to justify "metaphorically". He would say things like "this generation will not pass before the American government would collapse". And he would preface these kinds of statements saying that he got the information directly from God.
The story in the Book of Mormon starts around 650 BC. It talks repeatedly about our hero carrying around a steel sword and working on getting his family's brass plates back. I believe that brass wasn't invented until some time around 800 AD. Steel is harder to pin down, but that wasn't invented (I believe) until some time after 200 AD. They claimed to have brought over many types of animals and other technologies, none of which were here until the Spanish came over.
Then there are odd things. Somehow the Hebrews wrote down this holy text in ancient Egyptian (which would not have happened) and Joseph Smith translated it into English and parts of it came out in French.
Then there is the story itself. God told some of these ancient Hebrews to build big barges. He gave explicit instructions on how to do this. They were to be completely enclosed. And then one of the smarter Hebrews said to God -- If the boat is entirely sealed, we will not be able to breath (I'm not sure how they were supposed to get into the boat -- but at any rate...). So God said -- Oh yeah, you're right. In that case put an airhole in the bottom of the boat.
While I guess that a lot of this could be considered metaphorical, I'm not sure what putting an airhole in the bottom of a boat is supposed to symbolize.
|
|
I have never heard a Mormon make such an acknowledgement, and, from what I have seen, they make the same arguments as defenders of the core Bible. When science turns against them (e.g., age of the Earth, the great flood, the age of dinosaurs, DNA of native Americans, etc, etc, ect), they just pull out the old card of "that particular passage is metaphorical, not literal" and go on their way.
How old does the Bible say the Earth is?
What benefit would there have been to have mentioned the dinosaurs in the Bible? Science has pretty well determined that humans and dinosaurs didn't live at the same time. Why should God have mentioned it? People are important. I'm not sure why dinosaurs are.
Great flood? I don't know that there is any scientific proof that it did happen, but I also don't know of any scientific proof that it didn't happen either. What I find interesting is that nearly every ancient religion has a flood story. While this by itself doesn't necessarily imply that the flood story happened, I find it interesting.
I find science as helping us understand God better. Of course I am starting from a different assumption than you are.
|
|
I don't understand the idea that if you are one religion, you can't have ideas from another. If you're christian, the Pali Cannon is wrong and the bible is right. If you're Buddhist, the bible is just a collection of stories and there are no gods. Perhaps we could arrive at some closer semblance of truth if we were open to all the different points of view. This is my opinion only, I have no reason for saying that one particular religion does not contain ultimate truth, but I think that the differing of opinion might show that perhaps our faiths are fragmented.
I don't necessarily see this as being true, but I know people who do.
The problem (as I see it) is when there is a contradiction. At least with my faith, I believe in the Bible. I have no problem looking at other things and possibly applying it -- unless it contradicts what can be found in the Bible. If you are just gleaning ideas for a better life or something similar, this works just fine. It doesn't seem to work so well if you are looking for "salvation" (or its equivalent) as most religious texts seem contradict each other on either what this means or how to get there (or both).
If you're Buddhist, the bible is just a collection of stories and there are no gods.
think we have to face the fact that religion as we know it is a small and petty thing. None of them are truly interchangeable with any of the others; not even the so-called tolerant ones like Buddhism.
Plenty of people in Japan practice Buddhism and Shinto in tandem, and see no contradiction. All over southeast Asia, there are Buddhist sects that have merged with local traditions, sharing their gods and spirits and somehow reconciling the two. And there is no reason that I can think of that a person couldn't be a Taoist and a neo-pagan, for example, or a Confucianist and a Hindu.
We've become so conditioned into the "all-or-nothing" and "my way is the only way" creed of the Big Three monotheistic religions that it's easy to believe all faiths are mutually contradictory, but that doesn't have to be the case.
Ghandi was Hindu, and much of his nonviolence was inspired by Jesus. I see absolutely no contradiction between beleiving in two or more different religions at once, or, rather, taking aspects from multiple religions that you think fit together and represent truth for you. As it has been said before on this board--no single religion that originated within a single group of people in one area could possably hold all truth.
Plus, religions have more in common than just "be nice". There is the metaphysical idea of the soul or something like it in every major religion. This may not seem like much, but in the same way that most early belief systems ahve some sort of flood myth, this could reveal something about reality and/or our perception of it. I feel that only the tribalistic ideas of us v. them keeps us from looking at other belief systems and saying "what a good idea/concept/thought, we sould do soemthing like that." I'm not saying we sould go as far as to mix the ideas of all religions completely. But I believe Kirth said something earlier about a monk who said (and I'm paraphrasing based on memory here) "Jesus seemed very enlightened, he must have been a Buddhist". Even very different religions have more in common than we can see on the surface.|
|
The Egyptians were meticulous in recording everything. So far, there is no record that they lost their entire labor force, or even a large portion of it, over a brief period of time. The common theory in archeology is that the Jews left Egypt a little at a time--prolonged Exodus. Stories like Exodus and such would be exactly what an exiled people needed at that time--they needed to feel that they were protected from the world that generally disliked them (only monotheist tribe at the time). A great and sudden departure from their slavery with the help of God and the pharoah on their heels would be a great inspiration to their people.
I mis-spoke about this. (Hadn't done my homework.) A couple of other thoughts though.
You said the "common theory". That's just it -- nobody knows. "The Egyptians were meticulous in recording everything" and yet there seems to be a black hole surrounding this event (however long it was). As I understand it (and I could be wrong) there is evidence that the Hebrews were there and then there is evidence that the Hebrews weren't. But there seems to be a significant lack of information between these time periods.
I also don't see the Exodus story as terribly "inspirational". If you believe the Biblical account -- here is a story about a group of people that got to see the full power of God pretty much on a daily basis. Every night they had a pillar of fire that followed them around and kept them safe every night. Every day they had the pillar of smoke that basically did the same thing. They were fed with free food from "heaven". They saw the Red Sea parted, the plagues of Egypt, water come from a rock that Moses hit -- and what did they do? They complained pretty much non-stop. They made an idol of a gold calf. They were incredibly uninspirational. So if that was the purpose of the story, I feel that it failed pretty miserably.
The problem (as I see it) is when there is a contradiction. At least with my faith, I believe in the Bible. I have no problem looking at other things and possibly applying it -- unless it contradicts what can be found in the Bible. If you are just gleaning ideas for a better life or something similar, this works just fine. It doesn't seem to work so well if you are looking for "salvation" (or its equivalent) as most religious texts seem contradict each other on either what this means or how to get there (or both).
My issue is, I question if "salvation" is even anything God would put forth as a possability. We've already had the "loving God=no hell" discussion, so I won't go into that (will never really get anywhere anyways). But just as odd, to me, is the idea of a heavenly paradise. Why? Why have such a place? Sure, God lives there (allegedly) and the faithful (whoever they are) can bask in his glory and presence for all eternity. But why? Live a life of purity and then you will go to paradise? This sounds like a recruting technique, for one thing.
In addition, why, if there is this amazing and eternal clubhouse of joy in the sky, should we care so much about the "real" and immediate world of the living. Is it just to get into the good place? If so, that makes it all meaningless. Good deeds should not be performed with the intent of getting something out of it. I don't think God would create something that would sour the deeds of his followers like that.I apoligize for my tangent, but this heaven thing really is an enigma to me.
|
|
Baha'i
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Jainism
Judaism
Hinduism
Islam
Mormonism
Paganism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
ZoroastrianismJust to name a few are mainstream religions with with dozens of different independent factions. Most of these factions have their own books of prophets gods and holy events.
If you are really that interested in looking them all up you go ahead. But yes their are a LOT of religious writings.
Most of these aren't really books/texts, they're religions. I'm not sure what relgious text to look up for the Book of Paganism. And I guess that I also don't fully understand a religion that suggests that everything is 100% right.
I will try and look into the other religions. But, I'm still not sure how "This religion didn't have anything like the Crusades, so their text must have more credentials" is true.
Interesting. Never saw this sight but know of the arguement. Jade knows somethings of Hawaii? If I remember you know about the word Haole.
Aloha
I try to learn from all great peoples, Killah.
He lawai`a no ke kai papa`u, he pôkole ke aho;
he lawai`a no ke kai hohonu he loa ke aho.
|
|
I don't know. I have been asking myself a lot of this stuff ever since Sexi's abortion question.
My issue is, I question if "salvation" is even anything God would put forth as a possability. We've already had the "loving God=no hell" discussion, so I won't go into that (will never really get anywhere anyways). But just as odd, to me, is the idea of a heavenly paradise. Why? Why have such a place? Sure, God lives there (allegedly) and the faithful (whoever they are) can bask in his glory and presence for all eternity. But why?
I don't know. It is implied that Heaven was created before (pretty much) anything else. I don't feel like God's initial purpose was for us to go to Heaven. I think that He initially wanted us to simply live happily forever on earth. But that didn't work out so well due to the tree -- and we have had this discussion as well. So, basically, I don't know.
Live a life of purity and then you will go to paradise? This sounds like a recruting technique, for one thing.
It does. But if it is true and there are two choices as to where to end up, it makes sense to me that the two "factions" would be vying for your support.
In addition, why, if there is this amazing and eternal clubhouse of joy in the sky, should we care so much about the "real" and immediate world of the living.
I don't know. I'm not sure that we necessarily should be.
Is it just to get into the good place?
Again, I don't know. While I feel that some choices do/can make a difference, I don't know about situations where a choice can't be made (like abortions).
If so, that makes it all meaningless. Good deeds should not be performed with the intent of getting something out of it.
And this is not supported by the Bible. The Bible teaches that you will never be "good enough".
I don't think God would create something that would sour the deeds of his followers like that.
I apoligize for my tangent, but this heaven thing really is an enigma to me.
I'm sorry that I really don't know. These are some good questions that I am struggling with.
But, I'm still not sure how "This religion didn't have anything like the Crusades, so their text must have more credentials" is true.
Then what should be? WHAT COUNTS!? Those texts are more valid because they have no history of bring used to encite massive atrocities. When you look at books that are supposed to lead confused souls to salvation and peace, what the hell could be more relevant than wether or not they perform that job? How is this not important?
So what counts? Seriously, is it because the bible is so old? Is it because the bible seems accurate? Is it because it is sooo popular and has ben sround for such a long time? We had widespread acceptance of slavery for a long time too does that make it right?
Most of these aren't really books/texts, they're religions.
I know thats why I also added this underneath
Just to name a few are mainstream religions with with dozens of different independent factions. Most of these factions have their own books of prophets gods and holy events.
If you are really that interested in looking them all up you go ahead. But yes their are a LOT of religious writings.
Is there any logical argument whatsoever that can vouch for the bible as the best choice of written religious guidance?
Is there any logical argument whatsoever that can vouch for the bible as the best choice of written religious guidance?
There's only one argument, Sexi, that pretty much all Christians use (and can never be refuted on precisely because it does not depend on logic): "I believe in it, therefore it must be true."
True believers do not evaluate things based on evidence or logic. By logical standards, Sebastian absolutely trounced Moff Rimmer into the dust in their recent "mini-debate." But Moff is obviously an intelligent guy, and I think that, by his standards, he didn't "lose" that debate at all-- Sebastian did, for not grasping Moff's sole argument: his faith. Correct me if I'm wrong, Moff, but I'm guessing you read all of Sebastion's and Sexi's arguments, and are probably left feeling like they're missing the point.
Sexi, you could bring God Himself down to Earth in a flash of miracles and have Him explain in no uncertain terms that Christ's divinity was a myth, and that the New Testament is a sham... and no Christian will believe Him. Evidence and logic have no effect.
Ghandi was Hindu, and much of his nonviolence was inspired by Jesus. I see absolutely no contradiction between beleiving in two or more different religions at once, or, rather, taking aspects from multiple religions that you think fit together and represent truth for you. I feel that only the tribalistic ideas of us v. them keeps us from looking at other belief systems and saying "what a good idea/concept/thought, we should do soemthing like that." I'm not saying we sould go as far as to mix the ideas of all religions completely. But I believe Kirth said something earlier about a monk who said (and I'm paraphrasing based on memory here) "Jesus seemed very enlightened, he must have been a Buddhist". Even very different religions have more in common than we can see on the surface.
You and I think a lot alike, Dirk. And your memory is good--Thich Nhat Hanh was the monk, and I think Erian_7 even went so far as to recommend his book entitled "Living Buddha, Living Christ."
And you can't NOT believe in God and still call yourself a Christian.
Gotta disagree with you there. If act the way Jesus taught people to act, you're a Christian in my book. If you claim Jesus is God, and then act selfish and wrathful, you're not a Christian. I'm a pragmatist: I don't care what you believe, I care what you do.
They just aren't compatible.
Here's the thing: there is no such thing as a "fundamental" religion. All religions are syncretic (adapting ideas from other religions). Christianity is particularly big on stealing other people's ideas. The way I see it, if public religions are syncretic, there's no reason personal religion should be any different. No one religion can honestly answer every question, which is why I subscribe to multiples.
On the issue of faith: I think faith is like violence, it's an expedient. When you have no other choice, an expedient can be necessary, even heroic. But when you have other options, resorting to faith, like resorting to violence, is going to get someone get someone hurt unecessarily.
On the issue of faith: I think faith is like violence, it's an expedient. When you have no other choice, an expedient can be necessary, even heroic. But when you have other options, resorting to faith, like resorting to violence, is going to get someone get someone hurt unecessarily.
I disagree. While I think that blind faith can lead to not being open to new ideas, faith is very important so some, and gives them hope. Many people would just give up and stop trying if they did not have their faith to help them see order and love in the world. People can have faith in a lot of different things too, not just God or religion. I'm sure Sexi and Seabstain have faith in something, good of humanity or some underlying order or something that has nothing to do with God or any such entity.
It's when people become so unopen to ideas outside their own faith that they refuse to even listen that things become dangerous. A lot of inter-religious fighting and hostility between different religions is a lot of them v. us where they don't beleive the EXACT same thing, so they must be flawed and evil in some way. To use a term a philosophy teacher of mine once used--we can get so caught up in our "pet belief" that we are blind to the fact that what we are doing is wrong. That's why people kill in the name of thier religions; the heathens are dangerous, and it's all for the "common good".
Being a strong materialist ratonalist (Ie an Athiest who knows what hes talking about) I see freligious belief as rather like the belief in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. Its a plesant enough thing to have faith in as a child, but something one should grow out of.
At the root this has 2 causes, firstly religion and sience have contradictory ideas on cosmogenisis the rise of man and many other issues, and by the buy Sience has had the more validateable answers. I'll go so far as to state that the rule of Sience finds its valadation in every technological implament you own, including the computer you are reading this on. Sientific study, sientific method, have aloud the pronciled of that device to funtion. I know for sure theres no biusy team of cheribum powerd by prayer fetching my emails for me.
The second is the way Reliions behave. If there were one true faith then like the microwave radiation that proved the Big bang, its marks should be everywhere. Instead faiths are always deviding and asimilating, so Christans celabrate the rebirth of christ on a pagan holy day becase ariving christains asimilated the holidays to gain converts and Samhain wears a haloween mask. This is not the mark of an existing entity or panthion of entitys responible for cosmogenisis. It is the mark of tribal societys creating myhs serialy altered and embelished.
Being a strong materialist ratonalist (Ie an Athiest who knows what hes talking about) I see freligious belief as rather like the belief in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny.
How do I reply? (1) Your notion of "religion" seems confined to Christianity; see the many posts on others above.
(2) Science does not "prove" anything: that's the whole basis of the method. The idea of science and faith occupying separate niches, and the reconciling of the two, has also been discussed above.(3) For the love of God, PLEASE use a spell-check!
What exactly would constitute an atheist who doesn't know what they're talking about, Eled? This is an atheist asking.
What exactly would constitute an atheist who doesn't know what they're talking about, Eled? This is an atheist asking.
I see a lot of atheists who esentaly dont beleave becase of lazyness, it is to them I reffer, also to the many who are literatly withouth faith as the words meaning implys.
I use chrisianity as my main example as it is he main faith I've had case to deal with.
And finlay I apologise for my spelling but Dyslexia bites :/
Its a plesant enough thing to have faith in as a child, but something one should grow out of.
Why? What about religion makes it childish? Belief in something helps people make sense of the world. God is not just some imaginary friend, something to discard when one feels that he/she has grown out of it. How can you outgrow faith? Faith can evolve; you describe yourself as a materialist--i.e. you have faith in science and the material world. How is that different than faith in God? Sure, science seems to have better cridentials emperialistically, we see it work and it has solved a lot of problems. But faith is more than just truth and metaphysics--it's about knowing that there is something greater than yourself, something that can help make sense of things, at least, that's what it is for me.
I'll go so far as to state that the rule of Sience finds its valadation in every technological implament you own, including the computer you are reading this on. Sientific study, sientific method, have aloud the pronciled of that device to funtion. I know for sure theres no biusy team of cheribum powerd by prayer fetching my emails for me.
Yes, science has proved that it works. But are science and religion completely irreconcileable? Has anyone truly tried? The idea of science v. God is rediculous to me.
I use chrisianity as my main example as it is he main faith I've had case to deal with.
To use a mineral analogy, one does not look at a piece of quartz and assume that all minerals are clear crystals. Calcite might superficially resemble quartz, but galena does not.
To extend the analogy further, it would be easy to look at quartz and sees its obvious decorative and abrasive properties, and dismisses it as simply a reasonably hard (though not so hard as corundum), reasonably pretty (though not as pretty as diamond) chunk of material. One might then miss the piezoelectric properties that make quartz useful in watchmaking, in a way that corundum and diamond (for all their uses) are not.
Poor analogy involving minerals...
In scientific terms, think of the Bohr model of the atom, with the cute little rings of electrons. Subsequent research has shown that this view is incorrect, and does not accurately depict the structure at all... but we still teach the Bohr model in Chemistry class, because its lack of technical accuracy does not compromise its usefulness.
In the case of religion, faith can allow a person to transcend his or her ordinary limits. Used misguidedly (as in the Inquisition), maybe those limits are better off in place. Used well (as with Mother Theresa), self-sacrifice that would not otherwise happen might be the result, to the disproportionate betterment of far more people that the one acting. Does it matter if the Bible does not accurately depict history, if Christianity could compel her to do the things she did?
Religion is a tool. It's very obviously not a useful tool for describing the physical nature of the cosmos-- much as a saw makes a lousy hammer. Hopefully this addresses your points, Eled, while also referencing Dirk's non-interference comments. A hammer does not prevent the use of a saw; a good carpenter uses both.
True believers do not evaluate things based on evidence or logic.
See, this is where I guess I have issues. I used to have a great deal of faith as a young Catholic. Once I wrapped my mind fully around the enormity of what an all loving, all powerful, omniscient God that took the time to create and love me and ask only for my love in return I started reading the bible and asking my pastor and youth group leaders a lot of questions.
I didn't ask questions to try and poke holes in the logic of christianity, I asked fairly simple stuff about the nature of god and what he wants me to do. I wanted to make sure I was doing what was right in his eyes, but I kept getting wierd and conflicting answers. I never thought to blame the church itself though. I just figued that human error had seeped into the process so I kept looking for answers. God was WAY more important than anything else in the world so I figured I'd have a lot of help asking questions and looking for answers. Go figure I was the only one who seemed to take it seriously and I was fairly alone in my attempts to get closer to God.
But nobody had any answers, and I didn't like a lot of the stuff I was finding in the bible. By the time I was a pre teen I had so many unanswered questions backed up I had gotten sick of seeing the pained look on my youth ministers face when I raised my hand.
Then something clicked. Nothing made since unless Catholisism had it wrong. Note that at this time I had not contemplated the idea that god may not exist. I just thought some other religion might have a better Q&A service and I'd finally figure out what I could do to serve my all loving creator (who I still prayed to daily and thanked mentally for my well being damn near hourly). Lutherin? nope, Baptist? nope, Methodist? nope. None of them gave decent answers to the most basic of my questions. I tired passivly to look at other religions beside christianity but my resourses at 13 years old in southern Indiana were few. Liked Buddhisms policies but never could get into the meditation bit.
I didn't understand why I was meeting so much resistance. I loved God. He was the most important thing in the world to me. Since I was little I had been humbly trying to please him. What was so wrong about checking my work to make sure what I was doing was what he wanted? Why did no one else ask questions? Wasn't God important enough to people that they would want to know more about him?
Click number two.
1.God does not exist- explains nearly all of my questions
2.Religion is a primitive tool used to keep fragile people from loosing hope in the face of a finite existance governed by chance- explained why no one else cared to look deeper
3. The feeling of warmth and acceptance I felt when I prayed or went to church could be casually explianed away as endorphines triggered by concentrating on something pleasent and familier. (I was getting close to puberty so I was beginning to realize a LOT of funny things the body will do if you concentrate on something specific)
The feeling when I finally turned away from my faith? AWESOME! I had spent so long looking as my time on earth as meaningless in the face of an eternity with God I had completely written off my existance as something I owed to someone else. And the worst part was I thought I was happy! (I was but it was a match stick compared to a bon fire). I started living, enjoying my friends, family, and community and stopped wasting my time trying to please an entity that had no intention of simply telling me what it wanted out of me.
The feeling when I finally turned away from my faith? AWESOME! I had spent so long looking as my time on earth as meaningless in the face of an eternity with God I had completely written off my existance as something I owed to someone else. And the worst part was I thought I was happy! (I was but it was a match stick compared to a bon fire). I started living, enjoying my friends, family, and community and stopped wasting my time trying to please an entity that had no intention of simply telling me what it wanted out of me.
Like I've said before--and I think Dirk will back me up here--there are many different paths to the same destination, my friend. Some people talk about "finding Jesus" in much the same terms you use in describing leaving the church. The flash of realization is common to Buddhist enlightenment experiences as well, as is the deeper, fuller commitment to life afterwards. Who says you're not religious?
Holy Christmas, this thread has gotten huge! Anyway, here's a question for everyone whether or not you're religious or not: do you see your personal ideals/faith/whatever as Lawful or Good? Or perhaps Other?
|
Holy Christmas, this thread has gotten huge! Anyway, here's a question for everyone whether or not you're religious or not: do you see your personal ideals/faith/whatever as Lawful or Good? Or perhaps Other?
I see myself as Chaotic Neutral, with both minor Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Good tendencies. I do not believe that there is a One True God, but I do have a firm belief in the supernatural. I also subscribe to the somewhat contradictory beliefs of:
a.) The human race should never have existed.
b.) However, we're here, so as long as it may last, we should do anything we are physically capable of doing. Come on, we're a walking extinction event. Let's live it up.
I also subscribe to the 'the best government is no government' philosophy, but since anarchy inherently cannot be organized, I guess it's just a pipe dream.
Yet another thing: I believe that there is, in real life, no actual 'Good' and 'Evil,' there are just people and their decisions. No matter the decision, we're all going to die sooner or later, so it's a moot point if it goes for the common good.
Anyway, that's my stand on things. Please don't report me to the police.
- Mr. Shiny
I'm sure Sexi and Seabstain have faith in something, good of humanity or some underlying order or something that has nothing to do with God or any such entity.
See, I don't have faith in the good intentions of humanity, I have evidence and analysis. I don't need faith in an underlying a order, because I have perception to see it. This is not to say I don't have faith at all, my fatalism is arguably a faith, and it has gotten me through rough patches.
My comparison of faith to violence is not flippant. As I see it, learning to have faith is like learning a martial art. The real benefits are things like discipline and awareness. The actual practice of the art is something to be used reactively, when the world comes at you, not a tool to be used to subjugate the world.
I'm not anti-religion as a tool. I'm anti-tenacity as a justification.
(On a tangent, I said to a friend of mine the other day: "You know the problem with secularist is we're too polite. Just once I'd like someone to accost me on the street and say, 'Have you heard the Good News? There is no God!'")
This IS an interesting discussion. I gotta say I agree with Moff on the whole compatibility of religions thing. Here's why:
Plenty of people in Japan practice Buddhism and Shinto in tandem, and see no contradiction. All over southeast Asia, there are Buddhist sects that have merged with local traditions, sharing their gods and spirits and somehow reconciling the two. And there is no reason that I can think of that a person couldn't be a Taoist and a neo-pagan, for example, or a Confucianist and a Hindu.
As I see it those are examples of religions syncretizing, not being truly compatible. The situation in Japan is similar to voodoo in Haiti. Your average person in the street just shrugs and says "I'm a Buddhist and Shinto," but anyone who is religious enough to actually go and learn in depth about their faith will soon uncover inconsistencies between the two that can't be reconciled. I doubt very much you'd find a Buddhist monk who prays to Amaterasu, just like you are unlikely to find a catholic priest in Haiti who makes offerings to the loa. Though in both cases, members of the lay community might. All religions are compatible in a surface sense, but when you examine their actual doctrines, none of them are.
Confucianism is OK in this respect because Confucius was a non-theist like the Buddha. He was very careful to avoid answering questions about souls and deities and salvation because he thought that our first duty was to live ethically on earth and all that other stuff was a time-waster. That's why Confucianism was able to be transplanted all over east asia: It doesn't conflict with any religion because it isn't one.
Ghandi was Hindu, and much of his nonviolence was inspired by Jesus. I see absolutely no contradiction between beleiving in two or more different religions at once, or, rather, taking aspects from multiple religions that you think fit together and represent truth for you. As it has been said before on this board--no single religion that originated within a single group of people in one area could possably hold all truth.
Plus, religions have more in common than just "be nice". There is the metaphysical idea of the soul or something like it in every major religion. This may not seem like much, but in the same way that most early belief systems ahve some sort of flood myth, this could reveal something about reality and/or our perception of it. I feel that only the tribalistic ideas of us v. them keeps us from looking at other belief systems and saying "what a good idea/concept/thought, we sould do soemthing like that." I'm not saying we should go as far as to mix the ideas of all religions completely. But I believe Kirth said something earlier about a monk who said (and I'm paraphrasing based on memory here) "Jesus seemed very enlightened, he must have been a Buddhist". Even very different religions have more in common than we can see on the surface.
Yeah but being inspired by a prophet of a different religion (they're all holy people after all) is very different from being that religion. Noting that Jesus was a nice guy didn't make Ghandi stop being a Hindu or make Han renounce Buddhism in favour of Christianity. That's because these guys understood their own religion deeply, and could see that even if Jesus' actions were compatible with their own, his actual beliefs weren't.
And on the soul thing: The doctrine of anatman (no-self) is one of the central tenets of Buddhism. This is the idea that there is absoultely no such thing as a soul or something like it - the delusion that there is, and that we have a self, is what keeps us in samsara which is what we are trying to escape in the first place.
The problem (as I see it) is when there is a contradiction. At least with my faith, I believe in the Bible. I have no problem looking at other things and possibly applying it -- unless it contradicts what can be found in the Bible. If you are just gleaning ideas for a better life or something similar, this works just fine. It doesn't seem to work so well if you are looking for "salvation" (or its equivalent) as most religious texts seem contradict each other on either what this means or how to get there (or both).
Couldn't have said it better myself.
a.) The human race should never have existed.
Why do you think this?
As I see it those are examples of religions syncretizing, not being truly compatible.
Well, relativity and quantum mechanics don't exactly play well together but we keep trying anyway (A particle and a wave? WTF?). The world is paradoxical, why shouldn't one's world view be?
That's why Confucianism was able to be transplanted all over east asia: It doesn't conflict with any religion because it isn't one.
I'll repeat: a religion doesn't need a supernatural component.
The feeling when I finally turned away from my faith? AWESOME! I had spent so long looking as my time on earth as meaningless in the face of an eternity with God I had completely written off my existance as something I owed to someone else. And the worst part was I thought I was happy! (I was but it was a match stick compared to a bon fire). I started living, enjoying my friends, family, and community and stopped wasting my time trying to please an entity that had no intention of simply telling me what it wanted out of me.
Like I've said before--and I think Dirk will back me up here--there are many different paths to the same destination, my friend. Some people talk about "finding Jesus" in much the same terms you use in describing leaving the church. The flash of realization is common to Buddhist enlightenment experiences as well, as is the deeper, fuller commitment to life afterwards. Who says you're not religious?
Exactly. You have the same faith in life that you used to have in God. It hasn't changed in intensity, just focus. This is exactly how I feel about the organized religions I've tried to be a part of, although I came to the realization/idea that everyone was just so totally wrong about God and what he/she/it could have wanted, and decided to live according to my own intuition, no so different from your own way. I just feel that God directs my intuition from time to time (not so often, but how can I know, honestly).
Holy Christmas, this thread has gotten huge! Anyway, here's a question for everyone whether or not you're religious or not: do you see your personal ideals/faith/whatever as Lawful or Good? Or perhaps Other?
NG, I don't like causing pain and suffering and my ideas on this matter are on par with religion (my personal habits and OCD, on the other hand, are LN).
God, however, is True Neutral. He just exists, an energy in the world, binding it together and achieving balance.
As I see it those are examples of religions syncretizing, not being truly compatible.Well, relativity and quantum mechanics don't exactly play well together but we keep trying anyway (A particle and a wave? WTF?). The world is paradoxical, why shouldn't one's world view be?
It can be if you want. I just don't think following a particular religion is compatible with a paradoxical world view. By definition following a religion means you believe some things are true and others are false. A paradox means you think something is true AND false.
I'm a non-theist anyway. I'm not saying this from any "crush free thought in the name of my faith" standpoint. I just think religion by it's nature is conservative and inflexible, which is one of the reasons why I think it is best ignored when making decisions. We wuldn't be having this discussion if all religions were fluidly compatible with every other school of thought. You can say that's how it should be till you're blue in the face, but it ain't necessarily so ;)
I'll repeat: a religion doesn't need a supernatural component.
I disagree with this. A religion without a supernatural component is a system of secular ethics.
|
|
Holy Christmas, this thread has gotten huge! Anyway, here's a question for everyone whether or not you're religious or not: do you see your personal ideals/faith/whatever as Lawful or Good? Or perhaps Other?
I think the D&D alignment system is too simplistic and flawed to apply to the real world, and so I don't ascribe any alignment to myself.
I'd say I'm a Chaotic Good person in a Lawful Stupid society.
Holy Christmas, this thread has gotten huge! Anyway, here's a question for everyone whether or not you're religious or not: do you see your personal ideals/faith/whatever as Lawful or Good? Or perhaps Other?I think the D&D alignment system is too simplistic and flawed to apply to the real world, and so I don't ascribe any alignment to myself.
And also in the PHB they say most of the alignments are "The Best Alignment" which doesn't really help at all.
And on the soul thing: The doctrine of anatman (no-self) is one of the central tenets of Buddhism. This is the idea that there is absoultely no such thing as a soul or something like it - the delusion that there is, and that we have a self, is what keeps us in samsara which is what we are trying to escape in the first place.
Ah... someone actually does know something about Buddhism! Well said, Kahoolin. But the Buddha also warned against falling into the trap of grasping intellectual answers that one believes are "correct," rather than directly perceiving for oneself. If fairy tales and invisible men in the sky help one let go of the dross, and can then be let go in their turn... what harm is done?
A religion without a supernatural component is a system of secular ethics.
Ah, but if there is no supernatural, then all ethical systems are secular whether or not they believe in the supernatural.
Ah... someone actually does know something about Buddhism! Well said, Kahoolin. But the Buddha also warned against falling into the trap of grasping intellectual answers that one believes are "correct," rather than directly perceiving for oneself. If fairy tales and invisible men in the sky help one let go of the dross, and can then be let go in their turn... what harm is done?
Indeed he did. And you've hit upon my main weak spot in religious discussions: As I have no feeling one way or the other about any religions, I can only talk about them in terms of intellectual phenomena. So I can talk about religions theoretically, and about how consistent their notions are, but I can't honestly talk about their spiritual dimension. That means I can know a lot about them intellectually, but a large part of the religious experience is outside my limits. When the Buddha said that, he was probably talking to some ancient Indian version of me :)
A religion without a supernatural component is a system of secular ethics.Ah, but if there is no supernatural, then all ethical systems are secular whether or not they believe in the supernatural.
That's true. But I'm not willing to say one way or the other whether the supernatural exists, so I go by the intentions of the people themselves. If they are acting on what they perceive to be supernatural direction, then I call it a religion. If they are not, then I call it secular ethics. To me people is all there is.
Who says you're not religious?
Christians for the most part....
Oops, looks like I spilled all that crap without actually putting a lid on it.
I was SUPPOSED to end my huge largely useless post above like this.
My point is when I had faith I asked questions because I felt like God would want me to know how I could help. So I don't understand when "religious" types can't answer a question about their faith without wincing or throwing up dozens of "I never thought about it that way" or worse cop outs like "the lord works in mystrious ways".
It seems like the majority spend no time whatsoever actually thinking [i]about[i/] god and his words and works and what they might mean. It feels like anyone that really believes in that should have "take time to ponder benevolent creator and what he may desire/how he might operate" pretty high on the to do list.
Faith may be blind, but blindness and ignorance are two different ailments.
My understanding of buddhism has always been thus.
Buddha saw suffering in the world, he made a system one could use to relieve and eventually transcend this suffering.
I never new buddhism would conflict with any belief in any god. Buddhism simply says that you, the world, and whatever gods you choose are all really the same thing. That thing being the oneness of the universe.
Belief in a god is 'kay up until you reach the final stages of enlightenment where you give up the worship of god/gods as you shed your attatchments to illusion (or reality for non buddhists)
It's been awhile since I've studied though. Kirth how off base am I so far?
The Bible does tell us that God IS perfectly consistent and never makes mistakes, and so I would say that in most situations, it is actually easy to know what he wants you to do.Unless the bible is not true. Why do you think the bible is true? You believe it is the truth because you trust that god would write the truth. But why do you trust god so much? Because the bible claims he was a nice guy? I don't get it. And I certainly don't see how this is easy.
SIDE NOTE: Why do christians act like it is so obvious that the bible is TRUTH? There are a LOT and I mean a FRIGGIN LOT of other religious texts besided the "good book" that claim to be the TRUTH and have way more credentials.
Man, I go away for the weekend, and this thread explodes.
I'll definently agree that most of what I believe is based on what the Bible says, and yes, if the Bible is false, then basically my whole worldview is a complete crock, and as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, I am to be pitied above all men.
I trust God for that same reason any of us trust anybody. Because He is trustworthy. He always keeps His promises, what He says He will do, He does. He has not given me any reason NOT to trust Him, and PLENTY of reasons to trust Him.
I don't know why so many Christians act like it is obvious that the Bible is the Truth. If my previous posts suggested this thinking, then sorry, it was not what I meant. Especially becasue the Bible does tell us, that those who are not saved, can't see the truth of the Bible, becasue they are clouded by sin. Chrisitans should NOT expect non chrisitans to act like christians (especailly becasue so many Christians fail to act like they should).
But assuming you believe the Bible is the truth, then I think it is actually relatively easy to see what God wants you to do in most situations. The problem is we often expect God to give us specific guidance (like who we shold marry), but apart from some broad guidelines (Christian, not already married, opposite gender etc), the details don't really matter all that much.
Who says you're not religious?
Christians for the most part....
Oops, looks like I spilled all that crap without actually putting a lid on it.
I was SUPPOSED to end my huge largely useless post above like this.
My point is when I had faith I asked questions because I felt like God would want me to know how I could help. So I don't understand when "religious" types can't answer a question about their faith without wincing or throwing up dozens of "I never thought about it that way" or worse cop outs like "the lord works in mystrious ways".
It seems like the majority spend no time whatsoever actually thinking [i]about[i/] god and his words and works and what they might mean. It feels like anyone that really believes in that should have "take time to ponder benevolent creator and what he may desire/how he might operate" pretty high on the to do list.
Faith may be blind, but blindness and ignorance are two different ailments.
I am sorry that people were not able to answer your questions. You are right, any person seriously seeking to follow God (and not just the "party line" or their religion), should be spending hard, earnest time seeking out His will and understanding HIm.
The fact that so many Chrisitans today DO NOT do this, is one of the great blights on Christianity, that I fear future generations will look back the same way we look back on Christians who supported (quite wrongly) slavery and segregation.
To amny Christians today seem to be happy to just swallow whatever their pastor/minister/priest etc tells them, without actually checking it against the word of God, without thinking it through for themselves, without questioning them at all. And that is wrong.
I am sorry that poeple have used cop out answers to your questions in the past. I will admit that i have said on occassion "I have never thought about it like that" (I fact the Bible study group I was leading often heard these words from me, as they showed me I had misunderstood the passage). But they are an opportunity to increase your learning, not a cop out for close mindedness and ignorance.
Of course, simply trotting out "The Lord works in Mysterious ways" is generally a complete cop out. But there are some things that are genuinely hard to understand, but we need to keep working at them, and trying to understand them better.
My understanding of buddhism has always been thus.
Buddha saw suffering in the world, he made a system one could use to relieve and eventually transcend this suffering. I never new buddhism would conflict with any belief in any god. Buddhism simply says that you, the world, and whatever gods you choose are all really the same thing. That thing being the oneness of the universe. Belief in a god is 'kay up until you reach the final stages of enlightenment where you give up the worship of god/gods as you shed your attatchments to illusion (or reality for non buddhists)It's been awhile since I've studied though. Kirth how off base am I so far?
Not far off at all, Sexi. That's actually a pretty good summary.
I'm finding that Buddhism is a lot like quitting smoking, though. The theory is easy; the practice turns out to be somewhat more difficult.