Maxintosh Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 God is a personal thing and different to everyone. Exactly Not only that but another thing that makes QuietOC's statement wrong is that in the beginning I didn't really believe in a God, yet these things still occurred in my life, so it couldn't have been "some vague idea" that I had, because at the time I didn't have one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Well, that's because your God doesn't exists except as some vague idea in your head. How is yours any better, what is the real proof that yours exists? All real persons are limited by who they are. Only imaginary ideas can be considered limitless, but with more thought you will certainly find them rather insignificant in reality. So keep your omnipotent god who hasn't talked (and never will.) So God is a limited "person"? If horses could imagine God they would say that God is some kind of super horse And of course the Supreme Being "hasn't talked (and never will.)" But to the very few who can see, God always talks through us and through Its creation: Tat Twam Asi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi Tat Tvam Asi (Sanskrit: तत् त्वम् असि), a Sanskrit sentence, translating variously to "Thou art that", "That thou art", or "You are that" ............................................................................ Who is this 'Thou'? 'Thou' stands for the inherent substratum in each one of us without which our very existence is out of question. Certainly it is not the body, mind, the senses, or anything that we call ours. It is the innermost Self, stripped of all egoic tendencies. It is Ātman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 If horses could imagine God they would say that God is some kind of super horse LOL Is that anything like horse sense? I'm pretty sure that my dog thinks that god is a plate of spaghetti... at least that's how he acts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 I'm pretty sure that my dog thinks that god is a plate of spaghetti... at least that's how he acts (I believe my father has similar feelings ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuietOC Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 I'm not saying that your or Maxintosh's God is false or nonexistant, but how is your God any different? Maxintosh could write a book with gold pages about his God. God is a personal thing and different to everyone. It's quite ignorant to say your God for which there is no evidence is legit, while his is just a thought. Well, Christians do not have a gold paged book, but they do have a book. Not at all a pretty book--for example the story of Tamar, Judah's daughter-in-law. She doesn't have much luck in bed with his sons, so she disguises herself as a prostitute and gets Judah himself to get her pregnant. Not a book one written by one writer, or even by one group of people from one time period, but writen by a whole bunch of people. Not something just made up, but containing prexisting historical accounts. That is the difference. Christianity is based on historical particulars. It is not a nice abstract religion that could care less about what happened in the past. We have a lot of documentation about the first century when the things in the New Testament took place. There is no evidence agaist them, and some amount of collaborating evidence. There is also a lot of latter works that attempted to modify these events (the Gnostics being an early example.) Yes, your god (or idol) is a personal thing. Everyone worships something. There is no point in using our idols to look for God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danerd100 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 God didn't say 'jealous' - or anything else for that matter. Mankind claimed that God said 'this or that'. Big difference. That is what this entire argument is about. Religion. Did God say it, or did Man say it? You, and many others, will always say Man said it. Me, QuietOC djet, Alessandro, and many others who I don't have time to list, will say God said it. There is no way to prove it, until we all die. No facts that anyone here has given, or gives will change the truth. I believe the truth is there is a God, he gave his son Jesus to die for us, and he forgives our sins. I may very well be right, I may be wrong. I can promise you this, no one here will convert to or from religion because of this topic no matter how much we argue it. I am done in this topic. I may catch up on the Evolution topic though. Good Bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 Not a book one written by one writer, or even by one group of people from one time period, but writen by a whole bunch of people. Not something just made up, but containing prexisting historical accounts. So the Old Testament is a (pretty fantastic) account of what the Jews did. How does it prove the existence of God? That is the difference. Christianity is based on historical particulars. It is not a nice abstract religion that could care less about what happened in the past. We have a lot of documentation about the first century when the things in the New Testament took place. There is no evidence agaist them, and some amount of collaborating evidence. There is also a lot of latter works that attempted to modify these events (the Gnostics being an early example.) Now you are saying that the New Testament proves that a man called Jesus existed. So what? Before Constantine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I...nt_of_Orthodoxy And the First Council of Nicaea, convoked by Constantine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea there were many more books and ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha And: Origen of Alexandria, one of Christianity's greatest systematic theologians, was a believer in reincarnation, later rejected by the Christian church because it didn't agree with their view of Christianity: http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen So it would seem that your sacred books and your doctrines don't look now as they looked in the early centuries. Regardless, i have written elsewhere that I believe Jesus was quite a remarkable being, an Avatar for the Hindus, the Lord Maitreya for Buddhists, a very special prophet for the Muslims, but certainly not "the only Son of God", especially not the only Son of the Supreme Being, as that wouldn't make any sense. Yes, your god (or idol) is a personal thing. Everyone worships something. There is no point in using our idols to look for God. Who decides what is an idol and what is the Real God? We have only reason to decide. I opt for a God I can believe without insulting my reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirguna_Brahman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 That is what this entire argument is about. Religion. There you guys go again, confusing religion with God You, and many others, will always say Man said it. Because we're governed by reason. There is no way to prove it, until we all die. You're assuming that when a person dies that they are conscience. I believe the truth is there is a God Yes, so do I. The only difference is the definition of what God may be. he gave his son Jesus to die for us, and he forgives our sins. Speculation basied on man made concepts. no one here will convert to or from religion because of this topic no matter how much we argue it. Is that what you think is going on here? This thread isn't supposed to be about converting, it's supposed to be about reasoning. In any event thanks for stating your opinions. It was good chatting with you certainly not "the only Son of God", especially not the only Son of the Supreme Being, as that wouldn't make any sense. Exactly, but then much of religion pivots on replacing common sense with fantasy We have only reason to decide. I opt for a God I can believe without insulting my reason Well stated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuietOC Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 So the Old Testament is a (pretty fantastic) account of what the Jews did. How does it prove the existence of God? Well, does it seem accurate in what it portrays, or is it the type of thing that is trying to indoctrinate you into a religious belief? It is rather gritty and even sacreligious for a religious book. It is filled with embarassing homely stories, maybe unabashedly honest. Us English speakers that grew up with the King James Version have a poor rose colored translation. Who decides what is an idol and what is the Real God? We have only reason to decide.I opt for a God I can believe without insulting my reason... Yes, what we believe sounds foolish, but it is reasonable to see that sometimes what sounds foolish is actually correct. The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent." So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. Jesus was executed as a criminal. No one would have cared a hill of beans about him except that he didn't remain dead and cursed. God gave him a new body and new life, proving that his condemned death sentence was not the last word. He is God's Son. God is his Father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Well, does it seem accurate in what it portrays, or is it the type of thing that is trying to indoctrinate you into a religious belief? It is rather gritty and even sacreligious for a religious book. It is filled with embarassing homely stories, maybe unabashedly honest. Us English speakers that grew up with the King James Version have a poor rose colored translation. So what makes it a sacred book (if such a thing existed)? Yes, what we believe sounds foolish, but it is reasonable to see that sometimes what sounds foolish is actually correct. So between foolishness and reason you prefer the former. I choose the latter to base my judgement upon. Jesus was executed as a criminal. No one would have cared a hill of beans about him except that he didn't remain dead and cursed. God gave him a new body and new life, proving that his condemned death sentence was not the last word. He is God's Son. God is his Father. I can even believe in the Christ resurrection, why not if he was a very special being, as I have said many times. But saying that He is the only Son of the Supreme Being is not only blasphemous, it is simply preposterous, also because the Supreme Being can't be a Personal God. I have a suggestion for you, which would make a lot more sense: maybe He is not the Son of the Supreme Being, but of some lower deity: for instance the Personal God of this planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Jesus was executed as a criminal. No one would have cared a hill of beans about him except that he didn't remain dead Pure speculation, based purely on myths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuietOC Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 So between foolishness and reason you prefer the former. I choose the latter to base my judgement upon. No, Christians do not choose foolishness. I am saying it sounds foolish to certain people. What you believe may be the best you can do with "reason", but reason has to work with something else to regard something as true, good, or even accurate. Reason is a tool that must work with something else. The main thing we choose is the collection of literature known as the Bible. We choose to believe it because it demonstrates the power to give us new life. It is not an unreasonable belief, but it sounds stupid to people who expect a deity to meet their demands for what truth must be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sxjthefirst Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I am agnostic. My attitude has always been maybe there is a god maybe htere isn't in either case what does it mean to me. The problem is that many people assume if you believe in existence of a god or gods they can automatically tag on rebirth, afterlife, angels, devils, souls etc. I mean assuming there is a god what proof do we (s)he even cares about us or listens to prayers? So I believe there are other planets where life thrives than Earth. But I don't go about praying to them. They might exist but until I get to see them or their effect on me it's no use to me. Religion and faith are IMO socio-psychological constructs. Some people deny, some accept, some buy the whole package others take some and leave some, some are willing die for their faith others to kill. I find the emotion of faith more interesting than any gods themselves. Then are the plain hypocrites who practice the very opposite of what they preach - think homophobic (male) priest who picks up a male escort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 The thing that bothers me about most religious people that I have met is that they will put faith ABOVE Reason/Logic. This to me is utterly asinine because if one takes two examples of a decision, one based purely on faith and trust, and the other based on reason, and logic, I guarantee you, the logic/reason will be right more than faith. Faith is simply a {censored} shoot, its like gambling, but with your life, rather than your money...except, there's no chance of a payout at the end, just luck/or lack thereof. I don't know...It's just hard to make that leap for no apparent reason whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuietOC Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I am agnostic. My attitude has always been maybe there is a god maybe htere isn't in either case what does it mean to me. Religion and faith are IMO socio-psychological constructs. You do know that agnosticism itself is a very specific socio-psychological construct. It really only exists in nominally "Christian" countries. Most people should accept that all religions are such constructs--realizing that doesn't have to discredit them (or accept them). The problem is that many people assume if you believe in existence of a god or gods they can automatically tag on rebirth, afterlife, angels, devils, souls etc. Even if one believes in such things one cringes at the popular ideas about such. One could see the Bible as a counter-social/psychological force. Sure, it uses ancient near eastern metaphysics common with other near eastern myths, but then it effectively subverts them for a different purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Then are the plain hypocrites who practice the very opposite of what they preach - think homophobic (male) priest who picks up a male escort Good one The religious hypocrites are an army. I have had very bad experiences with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Good one The religious hypocrites are an army. I have had very bad experiences with them. Ditto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sxjthefirst Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 You do know that agnosticism itself is a very specific socio-psychological construct. It really only exists in nominally "Christian" countries. Most people should accept that all religions are such constructs--realizing that doesn't have to discredit them (or accept them). Yes most belief systems are constructs but in religion people aren't ready to accept it as such. Even if one believes in such things one cringes at the popular ideas about such. One could see the Bible as a counter-social/psychological force. Sure, it uses ancient near eastern metaphysics common with other near eastern myths, but then it effectively subverts them for a different purpose.I once participated in an interesting discussion on a blog about how eastern religions might have influenced Christianity. There are books that claim that Jesus went to India (I am Indian myself). Also certain Islamic subgroups claim that Jesus escaped the cross and went East and that he preached in what would today be Iran. All this is speculation. BTW just to let people know it was not a bunch of agnostics/atheists discussing the topic. There was a Catholic (or two), a Presbyterian, Lutheran, a Wiccan and others who didn't specify their affiliations.Good one The religious hypocrites are an army. I have had very bad experiences with them.What can I say I just read the news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 We choose to believe it because it demonstrates the power to give us new life. It doesn't demonstrate anything, it represents wishful thinking. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I thought this was rather fitting, did you guys know that Ghandi said "There is nothing wrong with Christianity except Christians." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuietOC Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I thought this was rather fitting, did you guys know that Ghandi said "There is nothing wrong with Christianity except Christians." No, but the main point of Christian anthropology is that there is something wrong with Christians--and with everybody else too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts