Religion

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Darkman: quote: There is a big difference between "inspired by God" and "written in heaven". One allows for the human creative element, the other doesn't.

But both are fantasy.

You haven't named any books or religions yet.

There are no books that were inspired or written by god.

Regarding religion as being made up by humans: 1.Humans cannot create outside that which is experienced. Impossible. A God without a biggining or end - eternal - is a concept totally outside the human experience (as we have a beggining), and is so incomprehendible that humans could not have created it.

It's called imagination. I've never experienced a wizard in a pointy hat shooting fireballs out of his finger tips before, but I can easily imagine that scenario. We as humans who have a definate beginning and end (we all die right?), so why shouldn't we want to believe in eternal life? That would be great. That means we no longer are meaningless specs of life doomed to some day die. We can pretend that we live forever in heaven or nirvana or whatever makes us feel good about ourselves. Anyway, your argument makes no sense. Just because we can't comprehend the infinity of time does not automatically mean that there is a god figure. We can't see into the past nor the future, so why not make believe there is a god that has existed for all time? It doesn't take a god to make one up.

2.Religions seek to curb the destructive elements of human nature.

So they act like a set of morals? What's the point? You can be a moral person without practicing a religion.[/QUOTE]You're missing my point. Name one BELIEVED to be the inspired word of a God independent from creation, apart from the Bible. You can't do it can you. You generalised and said "All religions have a book inspired by God", yet now can't name one other than the Bible. C'mon do your research

Now, regarding morals, there is a whole thread devoted to that very subject. Perhaps MagiK could bring it up.

However, for here, you made a pronouncement about how I would be.

Firstly you don't know me so how can you speak about who I am.

Secondly and more importantly, you are using an "if so" argument. "If this then that" Totally non-quantifiable, provable and unscientific. All we know is what DOES exist, not what would if some other existance were so.

Thus, in this reality, I get my morals from knowing God. Without my faith, I would exist in a survival of the fittest/law of the jungle headspace.

I am also existing in a Judeo-Christian society, which bases it's principles of justice, right and wrong, on the foundations of these faiths. For example: we do not have the ritual human sacrifice of Inca or Aztec cultures, our Judeo-Christian foundations created an atmosphere of horror towards such practices.

Seeing as western culture is based on religious principles it's very difficult to comment on how moral a person would be without the influence of religious ideas. All we can know is what we have before us, not "what if".

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Darkman:

It's called imagination. I've never experienced a wizard in a pointy hat shooting fireballs out of his finger tips before, but I can easily imagine that scenario. We as humans who have a definate beginning and end (we all die right?), so why shouldn't we want to believe in eternal life? That would be great. That means we no longer are meaningless specs of life doomed to some day die. We can pretend that we live forever in heaven or nirvana or whatever makes us feel good about ourselves. Anyway, your argument makes no sense. Just because we can't comprehend the infinity of time does not automatically mean that there is a god figure. We can't see into the past nor the future, so why not make believe there is a god that has existed for all time? It doesn't take a god to make one up. .

Imagination can only create out of what the human has experienced. It's a creative law. Humans cannot create from nothing.

I'm a professional creative. I've taught creative expression and composition in music colleges. It's an empowering concept. Your creations are the sum of your influences.

Want to be 'original'? Expand your influences. Widen the pallette from which you can draw from.

You mention the Wizard idea, but give me a break! Wizards exist in popular mythology. Wizards are human. You've experienced humans. You've experienced fire, you've experienced sudden motion (something 'shooting' out) It's a scenario collected from accumulated experience.

God is beyond anything a human would experience in this life without him revealing himself to us. As a Christians I cannot and do not, profess to limit, box, define or constrain the unlimitable undefinable creator of the entire universe and physical, spiritual, conceptual reality. To suggest to do so would be ludicrous. I KNOW God, but I have no idea WHAT he truly is. I perceive him/it as an awareness, as pure love, creative energy, and positivity. I relate to him as a father - as Jesus introduced. I relate to him as a companion, advisor and freind. I understand aspects of God through knowing him, but do I fully comprehend him? No. How can I comprehend that which is OUTSIDE TIME!?

To think one thought after another I must exist in time. In sequence. God does not need that. He just is. How do I understand that? It's like a painting seeking to understand how that artist can be three dimensional and move, eat, make sound and get angry. The painting doesn't even have a brain with which to attempt to perceive the artist.

We are the creation.

[ 12-05-2002, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[The Trickster]

Hi Hugh!!!

It's great to see that you are still you, and sticking up for what you believe.

Personally, I am going to stay out of this whole discussion, as I have learnt my lesson from past experience. There is one thing that I would like to say, before I back off and become a non-active spectator.

A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE VIEWING THIS THREAD!

Please treat everyone here as a human being. Just because you can hide behind a monitor somewhere, does not give anyone the right to abuse someone else's beliefs and way of life. If you are joining this discussion, or any discussion for that matter, with the sole intention of putting down another IW member's beliefs, then my suggestion is that you just forget it.

By all means, discuss religion, ask questions, but directly insulting someone's intelligence shows nothing but a case of narrow mindedness and just plain rudeness (I admit to being involved in this myself).

Otherwise, there's some very strong thought processes going on here. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Darkman]

Yorrick... your last post went over my head. How does the fact that there are things and ways in which we as humans cannot comprehend lead to the assertion that there exists a god?

[Darkman]

Originally posted by Yorick: You're missing my point. Name one BELIEVED to be the inspired word of a God independent from creation, apart from the Bible. You can't do it can you. You generalised and said "All religions have a book inspired by God", yet now can't name one other than the Bible. C'mon do your research

You caught me. I remembered reading somewhere that there were something like 25 holy books which were claimed to be divinely inspired. I don't remember where I saw this, and no I don't know specific books. I'm not a theology major and I haven't had time to learn as much about the religions of the world as you have. Here in Texas we don't exactly talk about alot besides Christianity if you get my drift [img]smile.gif[/img]

However, for here, you made a pronouncement about how I would be. Firstly you don't know me so how can you speak about who I am. Secondly and more importantly, you are using an "if so" argument. "If this then that" Totally non-quantifiable, provable and unscientific. All we know is what DOES exist, not what would if some other existance were so. Thus, in this reality, I get my morals from knowing God. Without my faith, I would exist in a survival of the fittest/law of the jungle headspace. I am also existing in a Judeo-Christian society, which bases it's principles of justice, right and wrong, on the foundations of these faiths. For example: we do not have the ritual human sacrifice of Inca or Aztec cultures, our Judeo-Christian foundations created an atmosphere of horror towards such practices. Seeing as western culture is based on religious principles it's very difficult to comment on how moral a person would be without the influence of religious ideas. All we can know is what we have before us, not "what if".

That's an interesting argument and one that I definately haven't heard before. You are right. If there had never been religion there is no way of predicting what the world would be like. It could be similar to what we know now or extremely different. However, on an individual basis, and from my experience, people who do not practice religion (even though religion is still all around us...) are not any less moral than those that do. Which is what I was trying to talk about. If you for example had never been religious, would you still be a moral person?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Darkman: Yorrick... your last post went over my head. How does the fact that there are things and ways in which we as humans cannot comprehend lead to the assertion that there exists a god?

Because we cannot create from what we do not experience. We could not have created a God with aspects that we cannot comprehend if we hadn't experienced them.

Time is a fundamental reality with which we all are caught in. Something existing outside time is conceptually outside our experience.

If God is outside time then this was revealed to us, not something some bright spark invented one day.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Darkman: However, on an individual basis, and from my experience, people who do not practice religion (even though religion is still all around us...) are not any less moral than those that do. Which is what I was trying to talk about. If you for example had never been religious, would you still be a moral person?

No matter whether the person practices a religion or not, they are the product of the society they were born into. Even if they reject and react against the said society, it has influenced the persons development.

It takes a village to raise a child.

We are not born with behavioural instincts like animals are. Everything is taught us. Some would argue that the human conscience is inherant, but I'd be thinking you'd need to believe in a creator to believe that. Does a cat get a conscience about killing a bird?

Anyhow back to the society bit....

Religions present an idea of perfection and an idea of sin or imperfection. Yet no human fits the ideal and perfect mould. Why would we have a concept of humans being anything other than what we are? When humans are at their depraved worse, we are no different from animals. That is what we insultingly call a person who commits violent sexual crime for example. An animal.

Yet animals are being just as they were made. Predatory. Concerned with survival, procreation at given times, and meeting basic needs. Guinea Pig males violently attack their sons because their sons are competition for mating. (Guinea pig Oedipus??)

We have this idea of humanity being more than that. How did this idea develop? Every primitive society had some sort of religion, so finding an explaination outside religion is difficult because to my knowledge a religion free culture has not been found.

Your Texan friends - though not practicing a religion - are still the product of a Judeo-Christian society, and, though rejecting key elements are keeping some behavioural codes from those religious worldviews.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Trickster: Hi Hugh!!! It's great to see that you are still you, and sticking up for what you believe. Personally, I am going to stay out of this whole discussion, as I have learnt my lesson from past experience. There is one thing that I would like to say, before I back off and become a non-active spectator. A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE VIEWING THIS THREAD! Please treat everyone here as a human being. Just because you can hide behind a monitor somewhere, does not give anyone the right to abuse someone else's beliefs and way of life. If you are joining this discussion, or any discussion for that matter, with the sole intention of putting down another IW member's beliefs, then my suggestion is that you just forget it. By all means, discuss religion, ask questions, but directly insulting someone's intelligence shows nothing but a case of narrow mindedness and just plain rudeness (I admit to being involved in this myself). Otherwise, there's some very strong thought processes going on here. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hey maaaaate. Good to see you too. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Madriver]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Darkman: Yorrick... your last post went over my head. How does the fact that there are things and ways in which we as humans cannot comprehend lead to the assertion that there exists a god?

Because we cannot create from what we do not experience. We could not have created a God with aspects that we cannot comprehend if we hadn't experienced them.

Time is a fundamental reality with which we all are caught in. Something existing outside time is conceptually outside our experience.

If God is outside time then this was revealed to us, not something some bright spark invented one day.[/QUOTE]The first "Gods" were created in the minds of men because of outside experiences they could not explain (lightning, storms, birth, death, etc.). By your logic, the older pantheon of Greek and Roman Gods actually existed because how could people have created them otherwise....right?

It is not much of a stretch to go from many Gods to a religion that only has one. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

I found this article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...851735,00.html

I think it might adda little bit of insight into this disscussion.

What Jesus really said Ronald Gray Monday December 2, 2002 The Guardian The satanic verses in Salman Rushdie's novel were part of the Koran, which crept in because one of the people taking down the Prophet's words included some that he did not say. Does the New Testament show some similar intrusions? Who would think that Jesus preached in order not to be understood? That never appears on any Wayside Pulpit poster. Yet when his disciples complained that they could not grasp what he was driving at, he told them he spoke in parables "that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them"(Mark 4:11-12). Does the Alpha course include that? Although Jesus says he has come to fulfil the law and the prophets, he also speaks very differently of both. His teaching on family values, as the churches call them today, is decidedly not in favour of them, for all that the Ten Commandments require honour to be given to one's parents: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). He never explains why this is not a contradiction of the Commandments. It is seldom remembered, when he talks about himself as the good shepherd, what he really means by guarding his sheep. "Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them"(John 10:7-8). This rejects the whole Jewish tradition of the prophets. Not only are his hearers and their parents "vipers" (Matthew 23:33). He makes them responsible not only for the deaths of his disciples, yet to come, but also of many earlier men: "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" (Matthew 23:35). In this wild attack, Jesus announces that they are to be held responsible for all the good men ever martyred anywhere, and at any time since the first murder ever recorded, in the history he was familiar with. Who recorded the miracle of the Gadarene swine? Jesus cures a man by sending 2,000 devils into as many pigs, which are all drowned (Mark 5:12-13). Was there no way of treating the man without ruining the livelihood of dozens of farmers? Most remarkable of all the passages not thought fit for Wayside Pulpits is Jesus's command to his disciples to go armed, contradicting his teaching of non-violence: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Is the command ironical, as at least one theologian has thought? When the disciples bring two swords to show they have obeyed, Jesus says "It is enough"- meaning, it is said, it is more than enough, you don't need any at all. St Peter seems not to have understood there was any irony, for he was carrying a sword at the moment when Jesus was arrested, and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant with it. Astonishing. Why was he not arrested on the spot, and crucified along with Jesus, who after all had never used violence, except, it is true, a few days earlier when he whipped the money-changers out of the temple? Was there a disloyal scribe? It's a lot simpler to say with Stevie Smith: "I see a doctor of Catholic divinity saying That some verses in the New Testament are pious forgeries Interpolated by eager clerks avid for good. Ah good, what is good, is it good To leave in scripture the spurious verses and not print A footnote to say they are spurious, an erratum slip?" If only there weren't so many. Dr Ronald Gray is a fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge