....
Printable View
....
If the question was: Who would you rather party with: the Amish, the Jews, the Baptists, the Muslims, the Satanists, or the Irish Catholics...I'd probably take the Catholics.
If I had to choose who I'd want to hang with to find God, I'd say the Zen Buddhists.
I was Baptized, but Pat Mattus came up to me after I was dunked, and said "Come on man, let's go"
I said "I don't think I'm done yet"
he said "Yeah, I've already done it, you're through" ..so I took off. It turned out later that I wasn't actually finished, so I'm not sure they'll let me into Heaven when I die.
They said my sister's name wrong when she was Baptized, accident? I don't think so.
In Sunday School they couldn't come down on you like real School, I can't say County School set me up for a Dream Life, maybe I should have spent more time in Sunday School. All that homework I did....I knew it was bullshit!!!
I think reincarnation is making a comeback
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Indeed. It often gets out of fashion, but it never cease to come back... Go figure!Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
....
i've always understood being "God Fearing" as anti-intellectualism
my interpretation of the first teaching of god and humankind is that adam & eve were banished from the garden of eden by indulging in the temption of fruit -- from the tree of knowledge.
the first lesson is: do not learn, or you will be punished. i've always had to read and learn as to why i was different and i suppose i'd be banished away as well. i only fear not knowing more, and being artificially self-limited by the forced adoration of a supposed god which exhibits the very same sins and flaws humans do.
while its easy to take the atheist approach and that "i'm holier than thou", i have met genuinely good people who are religious. i think they mean well, but have that conflict which tethers their good-will from roaming too far outside the confines and reach of their faith
Nicely done. BTW, welcome to the HA forums :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 8bit
Welcome aboard 8bitsadollar,
While the Bible does say that GOD told Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of his tree, the tree of knowledge, you could make the point that the Bible is a book of knowledge that has been around a long time and has sales numbers that would make many an egocentric author kill himself for.
I personally think most people go to Church for family or neighborhood reasons, as much as an interest in God, little kids are warned to be good or they'll go to hell. I would say "God Fearing" is an admission that there is a whole lot you don't know yet, and that there may be things you are doing wrong now that you're not even aware of, and as a warning to others that they don't know everything either, but they can and should have the wisdom to be conscious of that fact.
I would say true religion is about keeping your eye focused on your personal blind spot, which has absolutely nothing to do with organized religion, but just like in Art, you can look at what other people have done and use it to find your own path forward.
One time I was drunk at 2AM in front of a strip club in the city, when some guy came up and urged me to renounce my life of sin and come join his Church. Then a young black guy walked up crying, he was hooked on crack and he was begging for help. The Church guy got a blank look on his face and walked away. I talked to the kid a bit, but I had nothing to give. Where is Jesus when you need him?
:confused:
Well , just wondering if "god fearing" means, living in a way that even God fears??!! ;) :) :P
:banana:
:cheers:
If I have to come down there, you kids will be in big trouble.
Asked my mother about Adam and/or Eve committing incest with their kids so as to propagate the species. I asked her why God would approve such a thing. Her reply is that back then people lived to several hundred years of age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
OK then.
Mathus'la lived nine-hundred years.
Mathus'la lived nine-hundred years.
But who'd call that livin'
When no gal'll give in
To no guy whose nine-hundred years?
Reclusive deity hasn't written a new book in 2000 years.
Satire from "The Onion".
http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=...7&e=05568b8654
"Leading writers, scholars, and publishers gathered this week at Fordham University for a literary conference and panel discussion on God, the widely praised but reclusive deity who has not published a book since His landmark debut 2,000 years ago."Quote:
Originally Posted by sukumvit boy
- An odd statement to make given that Muhammad claims that his revelations came from the Angel Gabriel, ie that the Quran is the word of God. I thought everyone knew that (regardless as to whether or not they believe it). The first revelations were received in 610 or thereabouts, but not brought together in a textual fashion and in a definitive version until 650 so that makes it 1,364 years ago...unless...
The conference at Fordham shows no interest in other, non-biblical religions. Following Islam, some might say related to it is the Bahai faith, which also claims that some of its canonical texts are divine revelation. This gives God a more recent entry into publishing, as Bab's Commentary on the Suri'h of Joseph was published in earthly form in 1844 -'Bab' -Siyyid Mirza Ali Muhammad Shirazi (ie a dude called Ali born in Shiraz in Iran)- claimed to be the vanished Imam or Mahdi and thus the man who had 'returned' to earth to lead mankind to salvation, or also that he was the returning John the Baptist, Elijah, and so on. He became known as 'Bab' meaning gate or door to imply that we would pass through him to eternal sunshine. Baha'ullah was a follower and was instrumental in codifying the Bahai 'faith' which now claims to unify all monotheist religions although I have always thought of it as an Islamic heresy. Whatever, that God was a contemporary of Charles Dickens and Honore de Balzac seems lost on the 'scholars of Fordham'.
I think it was a joke!
You mean there wasn't a conference? Hmmm...still they could at least have widened their brief...
Though God hasn't published for awhile, apparently he does "reveal" himself to believers. I thought we would arrest old men for doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
wow.
God's literary output is very uneven, probably due to his use of holy ghost writers.
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. The Greatest George Carlin.... couldn't said it better
Little off topic, but I couldn't resist: The 'science' of supply side economics has convinced people that a free market has an invisible hand that carefully balances every need with just the right amount of product to fulfill that need. Moreover, like the multiplying loaves and fishes, each market interaction creates an excess of wealth in the form of profit that is drained from wage earners (who have no use for it) and into the offshore accounts of stock owners. If we just leave people, businesses and corporations to their own devices, the economy will grow and grow and grow and grow beyond the very finite boundaries of Earth and Nature herself. They will reach a heavenly and dynamically growing economic equilibrium where every need will be met and every man will be happy.
Back on topic.
It seems to me that the question, “Does God exist?”, like the question “Do unicorns exist?” is simply incoherent.
The ontological argument goes,
God is good.
God is perfect.
Existence is a trait of good and perfect things (for a good thing that does not exist wouldn’t be perfect if it didn’t exist).
Therefore God exists.
Applied to unicorns it goes
Existential unicorns are by definition those unicorns which have the trait of existing.
By definition existential unicorns exist.
Therefore some unicorns exist.
The flaw in these arguments is that existence is not a trait; it is a logical quantifier. After all, what are unicorns doing when they’re not existing? What do gods do when they’re existing? The word “exist” is neither an adjective nor a predicate. Treating it as such can lead to paradoxes and other nonsense. “Does God exist?” is just poor grammar.
I’m sitting in a room with a laptop in front of me. “The laptop exists” is short for “Something in this room is a laptop.” Existential quantification is the dual of universal quantification: to say of a trait T “Something in this room has trait T” is the same as asserting “Not everything in this room doesn’t have the trait T.” Hence not everything in this room isn’t a laptop.
So the proper way to unravel the assertion “God exists” is “Not everything in the universe isn’t God.”
The trouble with quantifiers is that before you can use them you have to agree on a domain of application: quantifiers range over a domain of discourse (or using the parlance of logicians...a universe). When I say “Not everything in this room isn’t a laptop” I refer to the room I was sitting in when writing this post. When the grammatically aware preacher says, “Not everything in the universe isn’t God” he needs to make it clear to us what the universe of discourse is; i.e. what is the understood range of the universal quantifier in this assertion?
“Universe” could mean something like: every object and phenomenon found in nature taking up a region of space and having some temporal duration. Under such an understanding “Not everything in the universe isn’t God” would put God squarely in the universe. He would be an object or phenomenon of nature, explicable in natural terms. An alien life-form perhaps, certainly not a transcendent being outside the universe and responsible for its creation.
On the other hand “universe” could mean something like: every object or phenomena natural or supernatural. Then the claim “Not everything in the universe isn’t God” leaves open the possibility of God’s transcendence. The trouble here is making sense of just what sort of objects this “universe” is understood to house. Could it contain unicorns? Garuda? We need to agree on the domain of discourse before we can make specific existential and universal claims. I’m certainly not going to adopt a domain that presupposes the veracity of the claim “Gods exist.” Those who believe the claim are not going to adopt a domain of discourse that automatically closes off the veracity of the claim.
...plus he insists on using one finger.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
So?!!Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Maybe we were all a little tipsy when we said it.
Maybe it was after someones wedding reception and we all had a little too much champagne...or maybe we like having a couple of glasses of wine for health reasons....
So we made a teensy weensy mistake Miss Polly Perfect...
I mean Christ Sakes.....
....lol..forgot where I was going with that.
I gave you a thumbs up for remembering the Miss in the Miss Polly Perfect :)
An unusually incoherent post from you Trish and one which I would have expected to be more rational.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
On Unicorns: historically they are most likely in reality the now extinct Indian Rhinoceros which may also have been found further west in ancient Persia where a visiting Greek doctor (Ctesius) referred to them as 'ugly brutes'. There is a strong likelihood that cave paintings which depict a beast with one horn seen from the side angle (eg in Lascaux) is in fact a beast with two horns but the artist has no knowledge of perspective.
More interesting perhaps is that in more modern times rather than being an 'ugly beast' the Unicorn has become a non-threatening, even enchanted animal much to be desired. A Unicorn shares a shield with a Lion sitting atop a local building in my town.
There is also the 'fact' according to the North Korean news agency that the corpse of the last living Unicorn, the mount of Dongmyeong -founder of the Korean Kingdom- is buried not from the Dear Leader Kim Jong Il, the man who invented the Hamburger and once played a round of Golf scoring a hole in one 18 times.
Your attempt to apply rational thought to the existence of God is in fact irrational as it uses a secular mode of thought when the religious is required, it is rather like being presented with a bowl of soup and a fork to eat it with. From the point of view of most religions the existence of God or of gods is a rational explanation of everything that exists in this world, the previous world, and the world to come. The fundamental problem it seems to me is that most religions rest on texts that are thousands of years old (less than 2,000 in the case of the Quran) which raises the obvious question -how does one relate an ancient text to contemporary life?
Ancient religions express the views that were common at the time which made no distinction between life on earth and what was perceived to be in the sky above. What has become crucial to the history of human behaviour, was the emergence from this perspective of a 'moral cosmology' which continues to form the basis of contemporary morals because mixed in with the explanations of existence, and the rules and regulations which bound human communities through a shared moral recognition of what was right and wrong for the community to survive (and often to survive without destroying each other) are those principles and values which still exist in both natural law and jurisprudence, and not just in Western societies.
In other words, without ancient religions we would not have contemporary morals or law. Without ancient religions, we would not have modern science which emerged from the belief that some held that theology could not explain change. For the weakest element of theological explanations of life is that they tend to insist that what they proclaim ends the need for any further debate on what life is for. Everything you need to live is in 'The Bible' or the 'Quran'.
Hence the paradox: it is irrational to believe in God, and irrational not to believe in God. One discipline is based on evidence, the other on faith.
What science does not explain is the soul, if science even believes that there is such a 'thing'. But if science argues we human are machines, then why is that we have for the most part the same component parts, yet like or dislike this type of music or that, and why is that some people find science does not explain to them what love is, or beauty? What can be more irrational than love, causing people to lose their appetite, to lose sleep, to behave as if possessed by demons? Why do people describe the effect of a sunset or the climax of an opera or even a pop song as 'uplifting' or 'moving'? Lifting where? Moving towards what?
People need something 'extra' just as they often need the answers provided by science, and I think for most people it is love; but I do think Hegel had an interesting thing to say which resonates with people in our own times who have 'found religion' -just as I am sure others have travelled the other way and turned against it.
"Time was when man had a heaven, decked and fitted out with endless wealth of thoughts and pictures. The significance of all that is, lay in the thread of light by which it was attached to heaven; instead of dwelling in the present as it is here and now, the eye glanced away over the present to the Divine, away, so to say, to a present that lies beyond. The mind’s gaze had to be directed under compulsion to what is earthly, and kept fixed there; and it has needed a long time to introduce that clearness, which only celestial realities had, into the crassness and confusion shrouding the sense of things earthly, and to make attention to the immediate present as such, which was called Experience, of interest and of value. Now we have apparently the need for the opposite of all this; man’s mind and interest are so deeply rooted in the earthly that we require a like power to have them raised above that level. His spirit shows such poverty of nature that it seems to long for the mere pitiful feeling of the divine in the abstract, and to get refreshment from that, like a wanderer in the desert craving for the merest mouthful of water. By the little which can thus satisfy the needs of the human spirit we can measure the extent of its loss".
Good to know unicorns once roamed the world. I did not know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
On the larger point, that existence is incoherent, I should’ve thought we might agree. I neither argue (in the post above) that God exists nor do I argue that he doesn’t. I maintained that attempts (like Avicenna’s, Anselm’s and others) to rationally prove His existence are doomed to fail. I think, from what you say about the inapplicability of reason to the questions of religion, that we both have come to that same conclusion. Our routes, though convergent, do not depart from the same ports. I take as my starting point the observation that “existence” is not a trait that something might or might not have. You, if I am not mistaken, start from premise that the world offers us more than can reason and science and what they fail to prove may yet be.
God is good.
God is perfect.
Existence is a trait of good and perfect things (for a good thing that does not exist wouldn’t be perfect if it didn’t exist).
Therefore God exists.
I’m sitting in a room with a laptop in front of me. “The laptop exists” is short for “Something in this room is a laptop.” Existential quantification is the dual of universal quantification: to say of a trait T “Something in this room has trait T” is the same as asserting “Not everything in this room doesn’t have the trait T.” Hence not everything in this room isn’t a laptop.
From the point of view of most religions the existence of God or of gods is a rational explanation of everything that exists in this world, the previous world, and the world to come.
Very interesting indeed your point.
I liked this thread and I have seen really beautiful arguments about god.. Please let me add my opinion and what I think about it thank you.
The fundamental problem it seems to me is that most religions rest on texts that are thousands of years old which raises the obvious question -how does one relate an ancient text to contemporary life?
Ancient text are somehow useful in everyday life, if taken for what they are without necessarily making a dogma out of them; They can reinforce our wisdom and common sense.
1 A typical example would be Buddha 2,500 years ago. A woman was suffering for the death of her brother, therefore she complained to Buddha and asked for an explanation about the god justice.. The Buddha replied and said to the woman to go to as many houses as she could and beg for some nuts.. but only one condition had to be followed and that was she should get the nuts from houses and families where nobody died before. At nite time the woman came back totally transformed and of course with no nuts, because in every family she found that someone had died in the past.. She recognized the trick of the Buddha to give her an understanding about death and sufferance.
2 Another example just few centuries BC about this is a decision taken by King Salomon; The story from the Hebrew Bible in which King Solomon of Israel ruled between two women both claiming to be the mother of a child by tricking the parties into revealing their true feelings. He simply replied to the ladies that if they both claim the child, then he should split it into two so everyone will be happy… the real mother replied that the other lady should keep it in that case. The king declared the first mother as the true mother. This wisdom can be used anytime someone claims things are not his or hers. The truth will always come up now or later on…
3 At that time, although Adam and his wife were both naked, neither of them felt any shame" (2:25).Interesting! What does this make me think of? That the grass looks always greener on the other side of the fence. A sexy woman will always look more appealing and sexy than the sexier wife. Anyone can have his/her own interpretation as long as it helps. The biblist will probably say that there was no sin yet at the time, and adam and eve were living in harmony with their bodies and senses. True too.
4 Jesus? He was great and I have photos of him in jeans. If I get rid of his ancient clothes and don’t think of him as standing always on that cross, and having a beautiful smile he becomes a very nice and wise man, still able to help in this modern times with his wisdom. We all know the ‘Ask and it shall be given to you” Knock and the door will be opened” , but I actually prefer the one that says, What’s the point of asking as it is already been given to you, and you just need the eyes to see it… Don’t knock as the door it is already opened, you just need the courage to pass through it.
Back to the god now…
To get an idea of what the god is… it would better to live in a monastery for a while, not to get more religious but to have a big laugh to the god’s idea created by a few men a couple of thousand years ago. After a while one who is not into it, begins to realise why theology should be learned without the real experience. Theology comes from the greek or latin of The words Theos = god and Logos = Logic … The logic about god. At times ignorance is a bliss.
The humanity is in need of a new dictionary,,, Seriously I think that in 2014 we are still using such old-fashioned words given to us by our ancestors. I am always replacing the word god by Existence or Sky, .. and like to call it anything but not god… that word has become so mischievous and harmful to many who prefer to live a guilty life, thinking about their sins all the time, in the hope to be forgiven by the projected image of the god they have created.
Using the word god, one is bound to think of a “He” as a person, and thinking of He as a person, it is like projecting our desires onto him.... It is restricting the infinity to something finite. Buddha gave the order to all his disciples not to create any image of him, and I love a famous sentence from someone who said: When you meet the Buddha, kill him. That is religion. Meaning…. The Buddha is within you and no need to follow false images.
I like to think of this universe with a presence of godliness…
Nietzsche gave the people a sense of freedom when he wrote the sentence: “God is Dead therefore man is free”, however that was a non complete and also a negative-only statement,,, He meant obviously the image of the god sitting in the sky who punishes people for their sins is dead.. is over, so relax.
In my opinion my vision of Religion is both negative and positive and neither this nor that; Not having any creed, and not following any particular belief, at the same time being aware of what we are and where we “Did Not come From” It is crucial for a balanced life, well at least mine. If the god created us, then I guess he can also un-create us, therefore we are the puppets and he is the puppeteer. Nahh the idea is so wrong. What about if we were never born and never to die? Even after physical death..
So many unanswered questions we still have about where we came from? Where are we going? What is there after death? Does god exists? Listening to the atheist that says god does not exists, makes them also in a way believers of the supernatural; Whenever we reject something a kind of pain is felt, and to get some release we need to hold onto something else, therefore embracing new ideals.
What about the one that says: We are not alone in this universe? The fact is that if we are alone or not alone both realities might be frightening.
Someone tried to put thing in a better way and stated that: “God is a symbol that constantly requires reinterpretation” I might agree to this concept but then again who will give the right interpretation of what god is? Thousands minds will have thousands explanations.
The god can also be a nice escape not to work on us and blame the He for what happened to us and for what we have not gotten yet.
It is not my intention to argue with any written philosophy or any religion being created on this earth, I can agree with the feeling of love and communion and the feeling of happiness that people feel when participating to a mass celebration or a religious gathering of any sort, however I had the same feeling when I was participating to a football game years back, or when working with fantastic and like-minded people, or even when making love.
I do not deny the perception of faith, not to be confused with devotion and find it to be an essential part of my life. Faith in not any who and what? Simply in the fact that being positive is not an option, looking at things and people that might appear boring, might and will expand the mind in the long term. Tomorrow is still a good day to feel good, and if it is not, then it’s only me who has closed the eyes. The others are us, is also a cool way of thinking positive when we don’t get right away what we want.
Feeling happy is feeling in tune with existence with all the human beings around us, even if it lasts a few secs… that is godliness too, and no religion is needed to feel happy and to have empathy with other people.
My escorting voyage has taught me a lot in my life, and I can say that I have learned more from my meeting with different type of people in the past year or so, than from my entire life. I will not obviously talk about escort stuff and will stick to the thread but please let me say that one of the interesting points I found.. It is the connection with sex and anger, sex and smoke, sex and loneliness, sex to release tension from work, also sex and love, sex and connection with religion, sex and clothes/no-clothes, and sex for the sex’s sake…
More than a year ago I had wrote a little Blog called: “Quick analysis of a sexual meeting or an act of masturbation, close to godliness” Re-proposed here: http://ladyboy-europe.blogspot.co.uk...ng-or-act.html
It has to be taken with a detached and a reasonable approach and it might be easier to understand for those gentlemen here who are into oriental religion and have grasped the meaning of it.
Many find it pointless talking about the existence of god, and everyone have their viewpoint, arguing about it will certainly not bring up the truth, but it is beneficial to know how so many people can talk about the supernatural on a shemale forum. I like to thank all of you intelligent people who started this thread and also the others who had the courage to give their opinion …. When I saw it, I stopped my work for today to write something about it..
And if I may ask, any thoughts from anyone about the afterlife, or before this life? Read about the unicorns, though I have heard about the white ones, .. what about farthing monkeys >?
Mhhwa kissex Jia
Afterlife ?...I suppose everyone has thought about this several million times in their life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jia_westladyboy
At this moment in time I really doubt here is an afterlife...not one in which a person has a conscious awareness anyway. I realize there is no romance in that belief...and it's what makes some people fear the prospect of death so much.
but...
you do become part of a greater something when you pass. Even if it may only be in a biological sense...and there is a purpose to that...and almost everyone does leave a legacy whether they realize it or not - whether it was in remembrance of a deed or words having been spoken...hell, maybe a sentence left on this site. An individuals existence often has an impact one can barely be aware of ...and there is a purpose to that...not to mention children.
Sometimes that's enough.
you do become part of a greater something when you pass. Even if it may only be in a biological sense
I tend to be closer to the buddhist explanation about the afterlife... I am not entirely sure about turning into a cow or a rich man depending on the past action of the previous life, however it is also true that people who went trough the process of hypnosis could remember up to 3 past lives.
The less credible of the possible theories is the one that believes that people will be condemned to eternal hell or be blissful in heaven according on how religious they have been.
I find it hard to think that such a cruel god can exists ... Our life span is 70 years, minus the childhood, minus 8 hours sleep per day... and being condemned for eternal time? That must have been created by the ancient priests to keep under control and fear the god fearing ones...
I'm already a part of something greater than myself. My community, the throbbing planet, the swirling solar system etc. I really don't think that my death will make the universe any greater than it is (though some may disagree). And since no part of myself will be "passing" out of the universe to a better place (I'm plan on bequeathing all my quarks to the cosmos) I definitely will not be part of something greater than I'm already a part of now.
Briefly the universe has a bit more information packed into the corners you and I now inhabit. But entropy will catch up with us that will dissipate. The universe will expand, its matter and energy will transmogrify, change and transform. Our cupful of particles will bounce around with the rest, but in the long run the whole will neither be the lesser nor greater for it.
I'll die, but I won't pass. My bits and pieces will be part of the same spectacular universe they're already a part of now. Their roles will perhaps be quite interesting (to a physicist), but in time, my role will be considerably diminished.
There is nothing more I would like than to hear Trish admit the possibility of the existence of God, but my Brother was a Teacher also, and he was a big fan of THE TREE OF KNOWLEGE, he can actually tell you how much the air in the room you're in weighs. His kids never went to Sunday School.
The DEATH you need to see God is an artistic license type of death, those Yogis you see in intense meditation turn their bodies off by slowing down their breathing, like an anesthesia. It is like as close to physical death as you can get without dying. So when they say you have to die to go to Heaven, I think that's an inside joke.
Dealing with people and traffic and problems all day is not exactly the most REFINED life you can experience. The WORLD argues with everybody. God doesn't kill babies or deny you a bicycle when you're a kid, that's the world and the laws of nature talking. Eating that shit is a full time job, and then you die.
In a way a guy sleeping is completely worthless, eh? But sleep solves almost every problem the world can come up with. Hop out of your meat suit and master the game of life, the game that hasn't changed in 10,000 years.
Why wait any longer for the one you love, when he's standing, in front of you?**
**Bob Dylan, Lay, Lady Lay
Admit the possibility of God's existence?! I have a whiskey with Him every Tuesday down at the Bada Bing after work. Says He's some sort of architect and right now He's overseeing some construction in a whole 'nother universe. The Bada Bing is on His commute so He drops by on Tuesdays for a little Holy Huba Huba.
He's a bit depressed these days. Says, He's not too happy with some of His past projects. But He's a good Guy, a really Good Guy, when He's not smitin' people.
Said He created me, and Pete over there, and everybody in here. Said He created our whole fuckin' universe.
I asked Him once, "Who created you?"
He looked me in the eyes and said, "You did."
I'm sensing a LOT of bitterness here. LOTS.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Not bitter, just an acerbic personality. :)
That avatar's making me bitter buttslinger. Holy shiite.
Personally I can admit the possibility of anything that is not known to a certainty. But there are many things more plausible than the existence of God that aren't really plausible at all. For instance, what if we are simulations playing on futuristic computers? At least then it would makes sense that the rules of the universe were flexible. We would only be what was programmed, pure consciousness; and our bodies and the material world for that matter, would be an illusion.
But if we believe the universe is material, and we are both participants and observers, we expect there not to be such contradictions. We would not expect to find 4 billion year old rocks on a 6,000 year old planet. Or that many things in these old books contradict known laws of physics, without at least having a reason the laws suspended themselves, but otherwise operate without fail thus obscuring this proof except to the authors of these books.
By the way, that idea about simulations on futuristic computers is not my idea (though I made it sound that way). I heard someone mention it as some philosopher's idea, and it wouldn't surprise me if he weren't the first to think of it.
I'm not a practicing Christian, I do believe that the entire universe never had a beginning....once, and that long long ago the energy of a million suns was crammed into a very heavy softball sized mass of very hot funk. Mmmmm...maybe those scientists are just pulling our legs.
One thing I think we can all agree on, what it is is what it is!!
Jia, your earlier post stressed the personal nature of faith. Your last comment- being condemned for eternal time? That must have been created by the ancient priests to keep under control and fear the god fearing ones -is where I think many posters believe that 'god fearing' becomes something more dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jia_westladyboy
I don't think those people who think of religion as a belief in sky fairies actually have a problem with those who do believe in God when it is something personal, it is when an individual relationship to God becomes part of a communal relationship that problems develop. It may be comforting to be in a Jewish neighbourhood, to have a strong Church community, and so forth, but what worries many people is the way in which religions have developed socially binding expressions of the faith which do not just resemble political systems, but systems that cannot change, or which resist change. Attitudes to sexual preference are a good example of how flexible a religion is or can be, and for its critics, religious systems resemble dictatorships that do not tolerate dissent, but it must also be said that creating a systematic explanation of a religion does tend to create a rule book -and 'specialists' (priests, et al) who are paid to enforce the rules...
Hi Stavros,,, I don’t know what else to believe after I have tried them all…. I also find it kinda offensive to my mind to believe into something and someone… and have come to the conclusion that an intelligent person cannot be a believer …. I feel close to the Buddhist explanation, it is true, perhaps it makes me feel better and forget about my priesthood time- The zen seem to be the highest level of perception and have lifted the consciousness of many who have become totally silent and find it useless to talk and argue.
I find that Living the everyday life in awareness of the things happening around us and inside us is the most reliable and realistic approach I can have in order to live a balanced life… Being just a witness, assuming a non judgmental attitude helps a lot.
Considering the fact that somehow we all have hidden powers in our minds and we are not using them 100%, makes me more confident that we can change things beginning from ourselves and as a consequence around us. Like attracts like, and what we think about we bring about are realities that cannot be denied and no god can interfere with those. It is my faith too.
I liked also the Trish way of thinking: I'm already a part of something greater than myself. My community, the throbbing planet, the swirling solar system etc. I really don't think that my death will make the universe any greater than it is (though some may disagree). And since no part of myself will be "passing" out of the universe to a better place (I'm plan on bequeathing all my quarks to the cosmos) I definitely will not be part of something greater than I'm already a part of now.
Exactly !.. it means awareness for me .. and ultimately being happy with what we have and what we are…. If there is a god, then there is a devil too, and if god is heaven then the devil is hell… therefore our mind will project paradise and nightmare after death.
I once suggested in a feminist forum that perhaps if “some men” seem to be too dominant with women, the problem could be originated by the wrong concept of god that we all have in our early childhood conditioning. God has traditionally been described using masculine terms, and therefore can I imagine that men feel more powerful because of this? (Unconsciously more authoritative maybe)… It is like having the creator on their side and feeling that exist more, have more rights, thus putting women in a second place. Just my personal theory.
Why should god be described in masculine terms, and not both man and woman too, and neither this nor that.
I remember once reading a text… Once a wise man was asked… Do you believe in god? He replied: Yes, not, both yes and not, god is both not: neither is nor is not. Existence is Indefinite and contradictory, moving and changing all the time;
The names that we attach to realities like the tree, the mountain and the river make us forget the authentic meaning of things surrounding us,,, I like some times to use the word River-ing, as it reminds me of the changing and moving status of the river.
A good day for all of you
Jia