I once prayed to God for a bike. But then I realised it doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and then asked for forgiveness.
Printable View
I once prayed to God for a bike. But then I realised it doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and then asked for forgiveness.
That reminds me of the man who killed his parents and then asked for clemency from the court - because he was an orphan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Good ones.:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Discussions about God tend to become pointless exchanges, because no conclusion is ever reached; the two sides continue to believe they are right, so the argument goes on, and on.
Nobody who believes in God is obliged to prove it, the concept of 'the burden of proof' is an option that can come into play when the more important issues, how rules and modes of behaviour are imposed on society in the name of God, are the suject of discussion. This is because something is being claimed by some human beings to exercise power over others, and that is where the difficulties lie. To claim that you cannot drink alcohol because God has forbidden it is a huge claim, lacking in evidence.
Nevertheless, since nobody alive can know what God is, or what it is that God wants, the fact that politics has been able to recruit God can only work because so many people, historically, have believed in one God, or many gods, and still do. If a social group does believe that there is an almighty God, then the fear of punishment can be as strong as the belief in complete and eternal redemption after death, and enable politicians to make short-term decisions with, allegedly, long term results. It also de-personalises the decisions by attributing them to God rather than to man, who can then claim to be but an instrument of 'God's Will'.
It is perhaps interesting that the Greeks believed that their gods were powerful enough to cause famines, floods, earthquakes, thunder and lightning; that they made people fall in love, or hate and go to war; that they blessed wine and song -yet were flawed. Greek literature is full of gods arguing with themselves, just as the wounded Philoctetes, refusing the gift of eternity from his god, establishes human society as the fulcrum of existence, in which gods are either optional or simply not important.
I suspect that God has moved on since creating the cosmos, and has better things to do than chuckle at the one-dimensional whimsy of Christopher Hitchens. The idea that God is ever present, above all, that you are being watched, is a useful tool to try and make naughty boys and girls behave, although it doesn't seem to work very well. My own childhood being one sin-filled example. I also don't know that it was God who claimed there was an heaven and hell; like the invention of the Devil, all that is part of the human record.
Churches, however, along with all forms of organised religion- that is something which can be usefully discussed.
Which god? There are so many.
This man does - and is perhaps contending for a key job in Education under an incoming Romney administration. This is wise old Republican Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia.
Rep. Broun: Evolution, Embryology, Big Bang Theory Are "Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell" - YouTube
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1944808.html
You sure have some objective and thoughtful guys on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Todd Akin's view of reproductive biology were interesting and informative as well.
The most famous formula is that He’s “A circle which center is everywhere, and the circumference, nowhere”…
Saint Augustin…
@ Dan, I thought that was Voltaire?
Alain de Lille, in fact, as noted in this jewel of writing by Borges:Quote:
Originally Posted by loveboof
Pascal’s Sphere
Jorge Luis Borges
Perhaps universal history is the history of a few metaphors. I should like to sketch one chapter of that history.
Six centuries before the Christian era Xenophanes of Colophon, the rhapsodist, weary of the Homeric verses he recited from city to city, attacked the poets who attributed anthropomorphic traits do the gods; the substitute he proposed to the Greeks was a single God: an eternal sphere. In Plato’s Timaeus we read that the sphere is the most perfect and most uniform shape, because all points in its surface are equidistant from the center. Olof Gigon (Ursprung der griechischen Philosophie, 183) says that Xenophanes shared that belief; the God was spheroid, because that form was the best, or the least bad, to serve as a representation of the divinity. Forty years later, Parmenides of Elea repeated the image (“Being is like the mass of a well-rounded sphere, whose force is constant from the center in any direction”). Calogero and Mondolfo believe that he envisioned an infinite, or infinitely growing sphere, and that those words have a dynamic meaning (Albertelli, Gli Eleati, 148). Parmenides taught in Italy; a few years after he died, the Sicilian Empedocles of Agrigentum plotted a laborious cosmogony, in one section of which the particles of earth, air, fire, and water compose an endless sphere, “the round Sphairos, which rejoices in its circular solitude.”
Universal history followed its course. The too-human gods attacked by Xenophanes were reduced to poetic fictions or to demons, but it was said that one god, Hermes Trismegistus, had dictated a variously estimated number of books (42, according to Clement of Alexandria; 20,000, according to Iamblichus; 36,525, according to the priests of Thoth, who is also Hermes), on whose pages all things were written. Fragments of that illusory library, compiled or forged since the third century, form the so-called Hermetica. In one part of the Asclepius, which was also attributed to Trismegistus, the twelfth-century French theologian, Alain de Lille - Alanus de Insulis - discovered this formula, which future generations would not forget: “God is an intelligible sphere, whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” The Pre-Socratic spoke of an endless sphere; Albertelli (like Aristotle before him) thinks that such a statement is a contradictio in adjecto, because the subject and predicate negate each other. Possibly so, but the formula of the Hermetic books almost enables us to envisage that sphere. In the thirteenth century the image reappeared in the symbolic Roman de la Rose, which attributed it to Plato, and in the Speculum Triplex encyclopedia. In the sixteenth century the last chapter of the last book of Pantagruel referred to “that intellectual sphere, whose center is everywhere and whose circumference nowhere, which we call God.” For the medieval mind, the meaning was clear: God is in each one of his creatures, but it not limited by anyone of them. “Behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee,” said Solomon (I Kings 8:27). The geometrical metaphor of the sphere must have seemed like a gloss of those words.
Dante’s poem has preserved Ptolemaic astronomy, which ruled men’s imaginations for fourteen hundred years. The earth is the center of the universe. It is an immovable sphere, around which nine concentric spheres revolve. The first seven are the planetary heavens (the heavens of the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn); the eighth, the Heaven of Fixed Stars; the ninth, the Crystalline Heaven (called the Primum Mobile), surrounded by the Empyrean, which is made of light. That whole laborious array of hollow, transparent, and revolving spheres (one system required fifty-five) had come to a mental necessity. De hypothesibus motuum coelestium commentariolus was the timid title that Copernicus, the disputer of Aristotle, gave to the manuscript that transformed our vision of the cosmos. For one man, Giordano Bruno, the breaking of the sidereal vaults was a liberation. In La cena de le ceneri he proclaimed that the world was the infinite effect of an infinite cause and the divinity was near, “because it is in us even more than we ourselves are in us.” He searched for the words that would explain Copernican space to mankind, and on one famous page he wrote: “We can state with certainty that the universe is all center, or that the center of the universe is everywhere and the circumference nowhere” ( De la causa, principio e uno, V).
That was written exultantly in 1584, still in the light of the Renaissance; seventy years later not one spark of that fervor remained and men felt lost in time and space. In time, because if the future and the past are infinite, there will not really be a when; in space, because if every being is equidistant from the infinite and the infinitesimal, there will not be a where. No one exists on a certain day, in a certain place; no one knows the size of his face. In the Renaissance humanity thought it had reached adulthood, and it said as much through the mouths of Bruno, Campanella, and Bacon. In the seventeenth century humanity was intimidated by a feeling of old age; to vindicate itself it exhumed the belief of a slow and fatal degeneration of all creatures because of Adam’s sin. (In Genesis 5:27 we read that “all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years”; in 6:4, that “There were giants in the earth in those days.”) The elegy Anatomy of the World, by John Donne, deplored the very brief lives and the slight stature of contemporary men, who could be likened to fairies and dwarfs. According to Johnson’s biography, Milton feared that an epic genre had become impossible on earth. Glanvill thought that Adam, God’s medal, enjoyed a telescopic and microscopic vision. Robert South wrote, in famous words, that an Aristotle was merely the wreckage of Adam, and Athens, the rudiments of Paradise. In that jaded century the absolute space that inspired the hexameters of Lucretius, the absolute space that had been a liberation for Bruno, was a labyrinth and an abyss for Pascal. He hated the universe, and yearned to adore God. But God was less real to him than the hated universe. He was sorry that the firmament could not speak; he compared our lives to those of shipwrecked men on a desert island. He felt the incessant weight of the physical world; he felt confused, afraid, and alone; and he expressed his feelings like this: “It [nature] is an infinite sphere, the center of which is everywhere, the circumference nowhere.” That is the text of the Brunschvicg edition, but the critical edition of Tourneur (Paris, 1941), which reproduces the cancellations and the hesitations of the manuscript, reveals that Pascal started to write effroyable: “A frightful sphere, the center of which is everywhere, and the circumference nowhere.”
Perhaps universal history is the history of the diverse intonation of a few metaphors.
Buenos Aires, 1951.
I follow a pagans path. Since the beginning of time. Half my tattoos are either anti Christ or anti government.
Delighted to see Borges make an appearance on Hung Angels!
Wow! nice text! I would certainly not argue with Borges, Stavros. :) From memory, I thought it was in pages Augustin wrote about time in “The City of God”, but my memory is anything but reliable –besides, a quick look back and I couldn’t find it again indeed. Borges wrote there an history of the concept. Very nice!
I think one of Voltaire’s best remembered sentences about God is that “if He didn’t exist, he should have to invent Him”… lolQuote:
Originally Posted by loveboof
Lovely Athena, I can think of quite a few pagan rites I would love to perform with you…Quote:
Originally Posted by GoddessAthena85
Borges, in my estimation, is one of the finest writers who ever lived, which sounds pompous and grandiloquent when set against just one sentence which contains so much, and is so typical of his concentrated mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by danthepoetman
Perhaps universal history is the history of the diverse intonation of a few metaphors.
We agree on something. (After your denunciation of Nabokov.) I wholeheartedly endorse your choice of the Argentinian. I've read everything he has written - many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I recall a story of his about the construction of a map that was to be drawn to life size scale. Not sure if I ever understood the point of the story, but I loved the idea of planning your route by spreading out a life sized map. Perhaps Borges meant to convey that trimming away the irrelevant and abstracting the key issues and functional relationships are more important than coding up every observable byte of information. Knowledge is not a one to one copy of the world crammed into your head, but something else...more subtle.
Try his wonderful essay "A New Refutation Of Time."
That reminds me of Synecdoche, New York where there's a life sized model of New York in a warehouse in New York... lolQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
I haven't seen it, but as a fan of Charlie Kaufman I've been meaning to get round to it.
Beautiful! If you don't mind, Stavros, I might eventually use that one for my "signature"... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I love Borges too. A rare, absolutely universal mind whose curiosity and interest constantly surprises and stimulates.
Reminds me of something less profound, obviously, but still interesting, from Romanian born French author E.M. Cioran (I translate, pretty badly, I know): “Adjectives change: such variations we call progress of the mind. Suppress them all: what would be left of civilization? The difference between intelligence and silliness resides in the management of the epithet, which the undiversified use constitutes banality. God himself only lives through the adjectives we adjoin him; there lies the purpose of theology. Therefore, man, by describing always differently the monotony of his unhappiness, only justifies himself in front of intelligence by the passionate quest for a new adjective.” From “A Short History of Decay”.
lol Classy :). Thats how I got my job, While at a festival dancing naked under the may pole. How could I ask for a better group of people to work with.?Quote:
Originally Posted by danthepoetman
I was raised Jewish and bar mitzvahed. It was some commitment as I had to attend Hebrew school and learn to read, sing, and memorize Hebrew. Beyond the singing there was not much that I found enjoyable. I decided I did not believe in a supreme being and as a result I did not go to temple even for the high holidays. It was not easy because it is a family obligation, a social sort of communion for Jews. But I felt like a bit of a hypocrite going to services and pretending to be pious when I didn't have an ounce of belief. Nothing in particular leads me not to believe except the absence of evidence for the proposition that there is a supreme being; I'm not a scientist so I could go on a hunch, but I don't have that hunch either! I mean even if there were not good evidence I could be a believer if things really were serendipitous or worked out in a way that seemed the product of some design.
I think the more interesting question than whether one believes or not is the harm that believing and wanting others to believe does in a multi-cultural society. When you want to be governed by that which is sensible it's difficult to add religion to the equation. None of it is sensible. You would have to ask yourself why there are so many religions and all are mutually exclusive? It's easier to think all prophets are hucksters than that all except one are.
Which God.....
There is documented evidence of roman emperors, kings as well as ancient scholars, there is however, no written evidence of a carpenter in any era that I have been able to find. The bible was written by people after "his" death and then translated. The universe is endless, why in the world would anyone believe in someone that can not be verifies where there are hundreds before his time that can be.
If you feel that you need a higher being go right ahead and believe, me I will fish for myself and not wait for someone to magically make fish and bread to feed the hungry masses.
Have u been watching Zeitgeist ?Quote:
Originally Posted by talldudeil
You wanted proof, I give you proof
not that i'm an atheist.
Yes lawd~!!! ;)
Believing in GOd isn't going to hurt you. Believing you are acting or speaking on behalf of the Creator is when you start fucking up.
Atheists are always trying to get more members into the club.
Maybe you should have a bake sale.lol
My fave atheist on this board is still Trish xoxoxo, (all respect to Prospero Stavros) and and I'd gladly agree to disagree with her by keeping my God love to myself if we were to meet IRL.
When believers get past the negative thinking that all atheists are spawns of the devil and not personally at war with your faith system, at least most aren't, there's less to be fearful about.
Thanks for the fave. I'm sure that we are intellectually quite compatible...and probably in other ways too.
Btw. I'm not the spawn of the Devil, however the Devil and me are great friends. All you got to do is let him into your heart; the scales will drop away from your eyes and paradise will be assured. Just let him in.
I have never claimed to be an atheist, Giovanni. I tend to find most discussions of God revolve around arguments which are actually about people. Systems of belief, call them religions if you want, try to explain why we are alive, and how we should live. The rules, the morals, the values that religions create can often be explained in material rather than supernatural circumstances -at some point in evolution, human societies realised that procreation within the family led to a deterioration of the genes of new offspring until survival itself was threatened -families then had to mate with families on the other side of the river. It may be that many -most?- ancient, pre-literate socieites believed that the forces of nature were controlled by supernatural beings -floods, earthquakes, rain, drought, and so on- so it may be that when proposing a change in the rules, as with procreation, the authority used to impress people was said to be derived from outside the social group, but from a force that everyone recognised to be more powerful than the group. Even today people admit they are powerless in the face of nature and the gods who control it -for some what appears to be fatalism is the weakest element in Hindu beliefs, to take one example of a religion which has many gods. It was once said that if you can persuade people that there is an almighty God, and that this God will punish you if you do wrong, that is in itself a form of power, it may from this aspect of God -or rather, religious belief- that critics turn away. And yet, secular society bans murder and theft; it is considered morally wrong to hate one's parents -and if someone does, it assumes an unfortunate childhood-, people who tell lies can acheve a lot, but many who are exposed lose much more; and in more than one social environment, the attempt to replace one political party by another has been punishable by lifetime imprisonment, or death. I think this is where the argument that you can teach morals/ethics/values outside religion comes from.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
And it begs the question, if all human societies have basic rules on murder, theft, deception, and authority, does that invalidate, or consolidate religious belief?
None of this has anything to do with God, but it does have a lot to do with people.
There is a very interesting book on the bible by Victor Dunstan - The Invisible Hand. The book explains a lot of the bible using a very simple code 'times' means a year of years (365 years). Less a times = subtract 365 years. A lot of ages and dates suddenly make sense such as the occupation of the holyland by the ottoman empire. The Turks believed that they would only leave Jerusalem when the waters of the Nile flow into the city and the prophet of god arrives on the same day. When they surrendered during the first world war, without a shot being fired, General Allenby arrived in Jerusalem.His name can be translated as Allah en Neby, which means prophet of god(this is from memory as I read the book many years ago therefore the spelling might be suspect).The same day the Royal Engineers pumped the waters of the Nile 418km up hill to Jerusalem. A thought provoking book which is not easy to obtain as it was written by a Mason and sold inhouse.
As for myself, I don't follow any religion but I do believe in life after death due to family experiences with spiritualists, which have been very specific about things that were unknown outside the family.
You were conned.Quote:
Originally Posted by markyboy21
What risible tosh is this? Why not Allenby = Allen Bey, something the Turks and Arabs would understand? The word for Prophet in Arabic, nabi is not quite the same (Messenger is rasul which is the word used for Muhammad) -and in what way was Allenby a prophet? A conqueror perhaps, but that's another story. And I believe the water pipeline across the Sinai ended at Khan Yunis in what is today the Gaza District -why would they need water in Jerusalem from the Nile in 1917?Quote:
Originally Posted by markyboy21
Ah, yes, This is the same Victor Dunstan who makes the following claims - after "In-depth research". Complete tosh!!Quote:
Originally Posted by markyboy21
* The Jesus family were WEALTHY people—Jesus WAS born in a manger but not because the Virgin Mary was poor! Victor Dunstan argues that the myth of Jesus' poverty was a convenient way for the Church to make the poor satisfied with their lot. Good 'sob stuff' religion!* The disciples were all members of Jesus' family, or friends of the family and were property owners and businessmen and were either RICH OR INFLUENTIAL OR BOTH. Contrary to generally accepted teaching there were no 'SIMPLE FISHERMEN' among them!* Though Jesus was a Jew he was possibly of ENGLISH DESCENT, there is evidence that his grandmother was born in Cornwall, England!* Mary and Jesus did NOT LIVE IN PALESTINE except for a very few years when Jesus was a child!* The Virgin Mary and Jesus DRANK ALCOHOL and attended 'high life' parties in Capernaum. They were quite unlike the 'po faced' characters depicted in religious art!* Jesus DESPISED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE and constantly spoke against them but never once condemned the thieves, prostitutes and sinners with whom he frequently mixed!* The Virgin Mary's uncle was a rich man, the Onassis of his day, and was a ship-owner, metal merchant and a Minister of Mines in the Roman Empire. He had EXTENSIVE BUSINESS INTERESTS in Britain!* There is scientific evidence that the 'STAR OF BETHLEHEM' and the events of the first Christmas actually happened!* The Jesus family was closely interlinked with British royalty and the uncle of the Virgin Mary FATHERED A BRITISH QUEEN!* The 'SECRET SOCIETY' password given by Pilate to Jesus at his trial and why the Romans pronounced Jesus innocent on four occasions!* Britain was a HIGHLY CIVILISED society hundreds of years before the Romans came here. There were, at the time of Jesus' birth, 40 universities here!* The first Christian Church IN THE WORLD was established in Britain. There was a Christian Church in Britain BEFORE there was a Christian Church in Jerusalem or Rome!*A member of the British royal family was THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME!* The Virgin Mary was NOT A LIFELONG VIRGIN, she gave birth to no less than seven children!* The Druids of Britain worshipped a God named 'Jesus' hundreds of years BEFORE JESUS WAS BORN in Palestine!* Paul, the apostle, was A FRIEND OF THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY and a half-brother to one of the Roman commanders in Britain!* The grave of the Virgin Mary's uncle was FOUND AT GLASTONBURY!* How the Virgin Mary escaped from Palestine by boat, under an assumed name, during the great persecution of Christians that followed the resurrection.* The origins of the British and American peoples TRACED TO PALESTINE! * How SCOTLAND AND WALES got their names!All that and much, much more in DID THE VIRGIN MARY LIVE AND DIE IN ENGLAND?