|
On May 28 2011 12:56 firefistAce wrote:
this is kind of off topic, but i was thinking about religion and my belief in god while i was bored in my class, and i came to realize that god isn't really "real". he is has no physical form. god didn't create us. we created god. god is just a representation of our faith and our will to believe.
Man loves to think god is merely a creation of his desire to comprehend the universe, and doesnt realize, that by reducing something unfathomable to a mere (we all wish it was true and thats how all this started) hes doing exacly that, just projecting your need to understand god into a simple and shallow idea.
|
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy.
|
On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy.
Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God.
Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one.
|
On May 28 2011 12:58 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 12:22 D10 wrote:
Simply put, standard jewish-christian religious culture believes we got only 1 shot to make outselves worthy of illumination, heaven, etc.... I just want to point out that the Christians don't try to make themselves worthy of illumination (well some do, but they have a misunderstanding of the bible). One of my favorite bible verses sums up what the bible really says: When Jesus's disciples ask what they must do to get to heaven, he replies "do the work of God." They ask what the work of God is... Show nested quote +Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." John 6:29 (NIV) You see, salvation is not earned, it is a gift from God... all you need to do is accept it. People with autism and other disabilities are just as capable of accepting this gift as any other person. Now, granted, some people are so severely disabled that they can't even comprehend simple things, much less the concept of forgiveness and salvation. I have a few things to say about that: First and foremost, I can't tell you if they are forgiven or not. The bible simply does not say. That being said, by understanding that God is perfectly just, it is likely that he will take into account extenuating circumstances such as disabilities. But I am not God, so I can't tell you if this is the case or not. Secondly, I want to address your argument that "if God was perfectly understanding and kind etc. why does he have people born with disabilities?" This is really a great question, and can be further extended to "why does he allow anything bad or wrong to happen?" The answer is that at first, none of that stuff did happen, but then WE sinned. It is OUR fault that the world is not perfect. Now, if you still want God to eradicate things that are wrong, where do you draw the line? Unfair circumstances? Evil deeds? Evil thoughts? The truth is, that if God were to eliminate wrong things, then we, human beings, would be eliminated. It is his mercy that lets us live, even in our broken conditions (be them physically or mentally broken or both). Still, living broken isn't exactly a great life. Luckily it doesn't end there! That's why God unleashed his wrath (wrath that was supposed to be aimed at us) at Jesus, so that we could one day live as unbroken beings, the way it was meant to be! So I don't see physical disabilities of humans any differently than I do spiritual disabilities (the fact that we sin). Luckily, the disabilities can be fixed by acknowledging them, and simply accepting the gift of salvation that God has offered.
Well, then we enter a new territory, is jesus the only prophet whose words are truths of god ?
As a spiritist, I believe theres many prophets out there who were truly in touch with the holy ghost, but they words never managed to create one global philosophy of good and understanding.
Guys like Allan Kardec tried bringing new light to old text, and show that there was not 1 supreme religion, theres salvation thro all of them, and if you are spreading the work of god (charity, mainly) you were working towards your personal salvation/enlightenment, they are one and the same, a guy far from it would die and spend centuries suffering in a bubble of his own nightmares until his energy hit a point of natural reincarnation.
Jesus wouldnt even be able to spread his religion to a bunch of post stone age fisherman from the desert if he didnt use such bland and generic allegories to illustrate his points, how could he possibly explain all the intricacies of cause and effect, when his listeners wouldnt understand half of it.
When enlightned and inspired man came later to complement what he said because new times require new answers, they just dont get the same volume, they no one will ever match the popularity of christ
ps: I do believe jesus is our lord and savior, hes the overseer of earth.
|
On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one.
Hardly. Especially if we're talking any kind of organized religion. Science actually has explanations for how it arrived at it's conclusions; religion is basically arbitrary with it's conclusions.
|
|
|
On May 28 2011 13:13 Oreo7 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. Hardly. Especially if we're talking any kind of organized religion. Science actually has explanations for how it arrived at it's conclusions; religion is basically arbitrary with it's conclusions.
Hence, faith.
Tho theres so many scientists with faith that I dont see why people separate them so much, as if one canceled the other.
If one day, science proves the afterlife is real, would that blow your mind ?
Why would it blow your mind ? because you thought it was impossible to prove, or because it didnt exist ?
|
On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one.
You missed something between "harder to understand" and "greater leap of faith".
Tell me something, if you believe in God, why aren't you using that God given brain of yours to educate yourself?
|
Somehow I don't think God needs to comply to our standards of "fair" ... it's all in His plan, or something like that~
|
On May 28 2011 13:22 synapse wrote:
Somehow I don't think God needs to comply to our standards of "fair" ... it's all in His plan, or something like that~
Thanks god
Otherwise we would screw up our one chance by smoking pot drinking beer and having unmarried sex
|
I disagree with faith being universal. One does not need to believe things based on faith; one can most certainly only accept things that have evidence for existing.
And are you really saying that if Christianity is correct, than reincarnation exists? o.O That's not how it works.
|
You obviously don't understand Christianity which is why you don't find it fair.
But in my opinion, theres just a failure of concept there, if we are really working with a god that has infinite love, inteligence, and power, he would have a very specific reason for someone to be born in such a horrible contition, and in my mind that is punishment.
You answered your own question there.
For more info John 9
|
Jesus wouldnt even be able to spread his religion to a bunch of post stone age fisherman from the desert if he didnt use such bland and generic allegories to illustrate his points, how could he possibly explain all the intricacies of cause and effect, when his listeners wouldnt understand half of it.
It's a bit of a pitfall to believe that just because it happened a long time ago, that the people were any stupider than you and I. In fact, I honestly believe that without all of the laziness and media brainwashing that goes on today, people back then were likely smarter. Jesus uses parables because, like you said, no finite being could understand the intricacies, including you or I.
And I do not believe in reincaration (separate from resurrection) because the bible does not say anything about it. It says you will either have life for eternity in heaven, or death for eternity.
Also, I do not believe that Jesus was the only prophet, but I do believe that any "prophet" outside of the one's in the bible are false. Firstly, I am cautious because the bible warns many times against false prophets. Secondly, I believe that the bible's creation as a book was guided by God, so there will be no omissions. I believe this because
1) The bible says it is God-breathed (which is technically circular logic, so that argument doesn't stand completely on its own) and
2) because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it.
So I believe the words of the bible, no more, no less. While I'm unfamiliar with Allan Kardec, I do not believe he could have been a prophet. Also, I do not believe in reincarnation as the bible clearly states that the only options are eternal life or eternal death.
|
On May 28 2011 13:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I disagree with faith being universal. One does not need to believe things based on faith; one can most certainly only accept things that have evidence for existing.
And are you really saying that if Christianity is correct, than reincarnation exists? o.O That's not how it works.
Well jesus himself droped the R bomb on top of a whole religious following, id like to see how you run from his statement about John the baptist being Elias
Regarding faith, you can have faith in yourself, in a project, in science, in someone else, in a way of living.
You might think you made a purely rational decision by only believing in what you can attest, but at the same time you could be one of those guys who was completely and utterly sure that the earth was flat and the sun orbited around it.
Faith is universal.
|
Eh, you're working off the axiom that God is a being, and also the more tired and rather baseless axiom that God is good in a moral sense. Then you subject God to a human and personal moral standard.
|
On May 28 2011 13:15 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:13 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. Hardly. Especially if we're talking any kind of organized religion. Science actually has explanations for how it arrived at it's conclusions; religion is basically arbitrary with it's conclusions. Hence, faith. Tho theres so many scientists with faith that I dont see why people separate them so much, as if one canceled the other. If one day, science proves the afterlife is real, would that blow your mind ? Why would it blow your mind ? because you thought it was impossible to prove, or because it didnt exist ?
Science's conclusions are based on the scientific process, one of the key steps of which is observation. You can't observe god, nor can you trace any impacts in our world back to a god, therefore god does not scientifically exist, according to current evidence. Of course it's possible (anything is) it's just much more likely he doesn't.
Yes, the after life being proven real somehow through observation and experimentation that had consistent results would blow my mind and it would also be the happiest day of my life.
|
On May 28 2011 13:30 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +Jesus wouldnt even be able to spread his religion to a bunch of post stone age fisherman from the desert if he didnt use such bland and generic allegories to illustrate his points, how could he possibly explain all the intricacies of cause and effect, when his listeners wouldnt understand half of it. It's a bit of a pitfall to believe that just because it happened a long time ago, that the people were any stupider than you and I. In fact, I honestly believe that without all of the laziness and media brainwashing that goes on today, people back then were likely smarter. Jesus uses parables because, like you said, no finite being could understand the intricacies, including you or I. And I do not believe in reincaration (separate from resurrection) because the bible does not say anything about it. It says you will either have life for eternity in heaven, or death for eternity. Also, I do not believe that Jesus was the only prophet, but I do believe that any "prophet" outside of the one's in the bible are false. Firstly, I am cautious because the bible warns many times against false prophets. Secondly, I believe that the bible's creation as a book was guided by God, so there will be no omissions. I believe this because 1) The bible says it is God-breathed (which is technically circular logic, so that argument doesn't stand completely on its own) and 2) because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. So I believe the words of the bible, no more, no less. While I'm unfamiliar with Allan Kardec, I do not believe he could have been a prophet. Also, I do not believe in reincarnation as the bible clearly states that the only options are eternal life or eternal death.
Allan Kardec was not a profet, he just sent letters to mediums across france, asking questions about life, death, god, the medium phenomenae and etc...
All the mediums from all over france that had never talked to each other, answered the exacly same letters, word by word, even the hand writing was the same.
All signed, the spirit of truth.
try reading the gospels according to spiritism, its an awesome book, full of wisdom
|
On May 28 2011 13:31 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I disagree with faith being universal. One does not need to believe things based on faith; one can most certainly only accept things that have evidence for existing.
And are you really saying that if Christianity is correct, than reincarnation exists? o.O That's not how it works. Well jesus himself droped the R bomb on top of a whole religious following, id like to see how you run from his statement about John the baptist being Elias Regarding faith, you can have faith in yourself, in a project, in science, in someone else, in a way of living. You might think you made a purely rational decision by only believing in what you can attest, but at the same time you could be one of those guys who was completely and utterly sure that the earth was flat and the sun orbited around it. Faith is universal.
But the extent of faith differs between religion and science.
Religion asks you to take the jump from this guy named Jesus, he was great to he was the son of god and also god at the same time, while offering no real proof for that claim.
Science makes a claim, we can use evolution for example, that man shares ancestry with chimps, and then shows you the evidence and the logical observations that lead to that conclusion, which makes the leap of faith much, much smaller.
TL;DR: everything takes faith, but religion is an extraordinary claim with no extraordinary evidence.
|
On May 28 2011 13:33 koreasilver wrote:
Eh, you're working off the axiom that God is a being, and also the more tired and rather baseless axiom that God is good in a moral sense. Then you subject God to a human and personal moral standard.
Its more about the motivations behind the programation of the universe, it needs not be seen as a being because thats beyond us really.
his design is the obvious accomodation of infinite intelligence with infinite love
|
On May 28 2011 13:16 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. You missed something between "harder to understand" and "greater leap of faith". Tell me something, if you believe in God, why aren't you using that God given brain of yours to educate yourself?
Funny you should mention that, but I have a 4.5+ GPA and am ranked 4th in my class. I am very educated in the scientific details of life, and in my opinion they only confirm my faith. Science only reinforces the bible. You tell me how random chance can create perfect conditions for life, and also make DNA (which is far more complex than the computer that you are typing on) out of inorganic matter. Then tell me how that inorganic matter was created out of nothing. In order for anything to exist, something has to be eternal. I say that that eternal thing is God. Your idea of science says that there isn't anything eternal.
Anyway, back to the DNA thing. If you saw something simple, like a watch, you would never even begin to think that it was made by nature. Yet human beings and other life forms that are millions of times more complex than that watch were? Doesn't add up to me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
