- Status
Interesting question a question that has a plethora of right 'answers' and none that are wrong. As an individual admidst individuals I can only speak for myself on why this topic is one that one either strays away from or gravitates towards, recall that you weavile#1 was the one who started the thread and that I was the one who responded first and despite our differences we are still here.
Here is my opinion on the controversy of the matter at hand put as briefly as possible while yet remaining clear. God is an answer that is a superimposed answer on and for all questions that have arisen, will rise or may rise to notion. It is not that God is the only answer or the only 'truthful' answer but that that God is a superimposed answer in the sense that it is over and above any answer and no answer is above it i.e. the answer as 'God'.
This causes God to become a crutch for those who lack an understanding and do not bother with questioning but only in answering questions in ignorance in the name of God that makes of God a catch-phrase a byword a to put in the words of a 'believer' a blasphemy and a vanity. God becomes vain and void neither in believers or non-belivers but those who subsitute all and everything as an answer as 'God'.
Now here is the paradox that superimposed answer is indeed the Truth however it is a truth that becomes a void and a vanity because it removes the seperation of holiness and orientation towards the truth of what is by elimniating both path and obstacle by making God/Truth as stated above into a byword, a blasphemy in the sense that God becomes a value of exchange ready to be picked up and deposited on the drop of a dime or tip of a hat, i.e. God is pocketed and pursed about as an item amongst items not as the Idea amongst ideas.
In short the greatest sin imo is not the disbelief in God but belief and disbelief that is not questioned for questioning is our greatest gift it proves our thought confirms our intelligence by shining forth the presence of our ignorance as an ignorance that seeks out the truth a truth that is transends all answers and that is where our imortality and our liberation/freedom lie. It lies not in truth as formula or equation but in questioning and the pursuit of questioning i.e. an eternal endurance.
mca3
New Member
After just noticing this thread, here is my take:
I have been raised my whole life as a Baptist. At an early age grew a large interest in Christianity. I have spent my whole life of 22 years trying to find what I was meant to do in life. Whether it be sports, martial arts, mechanices, etc, I have had faith in GOD to find what I was put on earth to do. What many people dont realize is life is a test. We as humans go through everyday trials and temptations to see where out future lies. There may not be a any proof in the existance of GOD, but that is where faith comes in. That is a primary attribute in ANY religon. Nothing in life is giving to us, most of the time. Why should the existance of GOD be? We wouldnt have anything to live for or prove. Life itself would be meaningless , because it didnt dictate anything afterwards.
Anyone who doesnt believe in Religon or GOD as a whole, is narrow-minded. Social Darwinism, science , etc has facts, but who can really believe i n a "Big bang theory" but not believe there is a GOD? That itself is bazaar. I live each day by Phillipians 4:13 " I can do all things through Christ, which strenghten me." Why, must you ask? Because I if I dont have faith, I dont have anything
I have been raised my whole life as a Baptist. At an early age grew a large interest in Christianity. I have spent my whole life of 22 years trying to find what I was meant to do in life. Whether it be sports, martial arts, mechanices, etc, I have had faith in GOD to find what I was put on earth to do. What many people dont realize is life is a test. We as humans go through everyday trials and temptations to see where out future lies. There may not be a any proof in the existance of GOD, but that is where faith comes in. That is a primary attribute in ANY religon. Nothing in life is giving to us, most of the time. Why should the existance of GOD be? We wouldnt have anything to live for or prove. Life itself would be meaningless , because it didnt dictate anything afterwards.
Anyone who doesnt believe in Religon or GOD as a whole, is narrow-minded. Social Darwinism, science , etc has facts, but who can really believe i n a "Big bang theory" but not believe there is a GOD? That itself is bazaar. I live each day by Phillipians 4:13 " I can do all things through Christ, which strenghten me." Why, must you ask? Because I if I dont have faith, I dont have anything
toxictaipan
New Member
How is not believing in a religion or god narrow-minded?After just noticing this thread, here is my take:
I have been raised my whole life as a Baptist. At an early age grew a large interest in Christianity. I have spent my whole life of 22 years trying to find what I was meant to do in life. Whether it be sports, martial arts, mechanices, etc, I have had faith in GOD to find what I was put on earth to do. What many people dont realize is life is a test. We as humans go through everyday trials and temptations to see where out future lies. There may not be a any proof in the existance of GOD, but that is where faith comes in. That is a primary attribute in ANY religon. Nothing in life is giving to us, most of the time. Why should the existance of GOD be? We wouldnt have anything to live for or prove. Life itself would be meaningless , because it didnt dictate anything afterwards.
Anyone who doesnt believe in Religon or GOD as a whole, is narrow-minded. Social Darwinism, science , etc has facts, but who can really believe i n a "Big bang theory" but not believe there is a GOD? That itself is bazaar. I live each day by Phillipians 4:13 " I can do all things through Christ, which strenghten me." Why, must you ask? Because I if I dont have faith, I dont have anything
Actually, it's the opposite. Believing in only one god and/or religion is narrow-minded.
Just about everyone else is looking for some kind of an alternative explanation like evolution, etc., etc.
mca3
New Member
Not exactly, if you dont believe a religion can be true and everything is based on science, you wouldnt call that being narrow-minded?
Maybe if religion offered even the tiniest bit of proof that would make it a little bit believable that god exists, then it would be narrow-minded. That's like saying because my house caught on fire, a little gremlin did it. Is it narrow-minded to say that a gremlin absolutely didn't do it?
mca3
New Member
Yes, it is, unless you actually saw it. Like I said faith is what makes a religon what it is, a belief. There is NO science proving that religion is absolutely fake. Besides, people are going to believe in what they want anyways. This thread is pointless IMO! Its the same discussion that has been going on for hundreds upon hundres of years, if not more.
The concept of faith being a preresequite for belief in God has been discussed but like all noteworthy concepts it bears repeating. Faith and emotions which are to spirtuality what empricism and language/discourse as rational/logical are to science are indespensible. Even science is 'spirtual' in the sense that primarily it proceeds on faith and on the emotions of the evaluators.
The difference being that the former (God) has an ultimate, a telos, a goal of sorts, a deposit of wealth of all values i.e. an accumulation that has an end an eternal one while the latter (science) is absolutely devoid of an ultimate, it has no telos, no goal it's wealth is the evaluating and re-evaluating of values or accumalations that have an end and purpose, science as the method and pursuit of truth as formula as equation has an enduring end not an eternal one.
What is the difference between the two if both are viewed or considered as the essence of persitance throughout time for all time? the difference is this, the former end as an eternal remains what it is as it 'was' and so shall be throughout it has neither cause nor effect it is not sliced in to 'past' 'present' and 'future', while the latter end as enduring must ever and always proceed in a fashion a manner of before and an after the past for the enduring is a 'primitive-past' its present a 'purposeful-present' and its future non-existent, non-existent for it's non-viewable, non-viewable in the sense that the enduring-end proceeds with building up and then dismantling its own truth, it is never satisfied its purpose is seeking not finding.
@mca3 of course this has been going on for centuries far longer than that and will continue. The discussion of God imo is the highest and most noteworthy discussion we can engage in regardless of our beliefs.
The difference being that the former (God) has an ultimate, a telos, a goal of sorts, a deposit of wealth of all values i.e. an accumulation that has an end an eternal one while the latter (science) is absolutely devoid of an ultimate, it has no telos, no goal it's wealth is the evaluating and re-evaluating of values or accumalations that have an end and purpose, science as the method and pursuit of truth as formula as equation has an enduring end not an eternal one.
What is the difference between the two if both are viewed or considered as the essence of persitance throughout time for all time? the difference is this, the former end as an eternal remains what it is as it 'was' and so shall be throughout it has neither cause nor effect it is not sliced in to 'past' 'present' and 'future', while the latter end as enduring must ever and always proceed in a fashion a manner of before and an after the past for the enduring is a 'primitive-past' its present a 'purposeful-present' and its future non-existent, non-existent for it's non-viewable, non-viewable in the sense that the enduring-end proceeds with building up and then dismantling its own truth, it is never satisfied its purpose is seeking not finding.
@mca3 of course this has been going on for centuries far longer than that and will continue. The discussion of God imo is the highest and most noteworthy discussion we can engage in regardless of our beliefs.
mca3
New Member
There doesnt have to be a clear answer, because like I keep saying, our faith guides us to believe our own religion is the right one. If there was a solemn, bonafide answer then faith would be meaningless and there would be no reason to have religion, everybody would worship the same thing. Got me?
KingGengar
New Member
The answer was "Mormon" (courtesy: South Park).
ryanvergel
New Member
The religions seem to be mutually exclusive. Just because we don't know which is the right answer, doesn't mean there isn't a right answer.
We didn't know about the Earth being round a long time ago, and many people contested its shape and placement and size, etc. But we eventually did find out. That is why subjectivism just doesn't work- the fact that people contest and we don't have full knowledge doesn't mean there isn't a right answer out there.
A lot of these religions claim that theirs and only theirs is right.
We didn't know about the Earth being round a long time ago, and many people contested its shape and placement and size, etc. But we eventually did find out. That is why subjectivism just doesn't work- the fact that people contest and we don't have full knowledge doesn't mean there isn't a right answer out there.
A lot of these religions claim that theirs and only theirs is right.
SuperWooper
New Member
Last edited:
It has been once again pointed out by the extordinary common sense of ryanvergel in post#456 above on the truth of the matter when it comes to belief systems and the error of subjectivity when uncoupled with empirical equations.
The notion of harmonious religions is very old though the notion of harmonious 'my path and your path lead to ever lasting reward is fairly new.'
The Quaran and Hadith of God and the Prophet mention the intention of the creator to diversify the tribes and nations so that one may know and learn of difference. The early Christians took pride that they came from all walks of life and from all nations. In the Mahabrata all manner of tribe and tongue came to fight in the great war between the Pandavas and the Kurus.
These examples may seem to show universal toleration but it does not, the examples when you study the texts merely show universal recgonition of man's placement on earth. When it comes to faith the similarties are there but when it comes to the means of worship (by worship I mean the vehicle or mode in which 'faith' manifests itself) the diversity is ever so present.
The notion of harmonious religions is very old though the notion of harmonious 'my path and your path lead to ever lasting reward is fairly new.'
The Quaran and Hadith of God and the Prophet mention the intention of the creator to diversify the tribes and nations so that one may know and learn of difference. The early Christians took pride that they came from all walks of life and from all nations. In the Mahabrata all manner of tribe and tongue came to fight in the great war between the Pandavas and the Kurus.
These examples may seem to show universal toleration but it does not, the examples when you study the texts merely show universal recgonition of man's placement on earth. When it comes to faith the similarties are there but when it comes to the means of worship (by worship I mean the vehicle or mode in which 'faith' manifests itself) the diversity is ever so present.
No no no no no no no no.
Why must there be a clear answer? For those religions which have some concept of an afterlife, you'll find out whether those concepts are true after you die
Yeah but there is also compatability between some of them in (limited) areas:
- The Abrahamic religions have a complicated theological relationship with each other
- Hinduism/Jainism has a huge amount of overlap
- Hinduism/Buddhism and Hinduism/Sikhism have overt similaraties
I actually can't think of any mainstream religions at the moment! But I'm sure there are cross-overs and similarities. In terms of whether they claim to be mutually exclusive - I guess most do, but e.g. the Indian religions are so intermingled that I doubt many believe in that exclusivity in practise. Finally in Islam, there is a lot about the 'people of the book'. According to some interpretations (admittedly not a mainstream interpretation), pious Christians and Jews are treated as believers and go to heaven.
Wow, even I wasn't expecting it to the that complicated, but I guess the truth is what it is
@dogma or anyone who would be likely to know, is it true that the last revealed verse of the Quaran was something along the lines that 'today We have made it lawful for you to receive and eat food of the people of the book who came before you and they may receicve and eat your food.'? One could on a spirtual level interpret this to mean a sharing of food for thought and/or spirtitual-substance.
'Hinduism' which I always put 'quotes' around for a reason has not much mainstream until very recently, like 130yrs or less thanks in large part to a sort of spiritual defense/response against Christian missionaries. As a Religion it existed mostly in the concept of 'Chaturavarnaashram' or the four stages of life and caste i.e. as a social-structure not so much a spiritual one. The concept that hinduism as it is known today mostly, as 'Bhakti' and 'Sanatana-Dharma' or 'devotional-faith' and 'eternal-law/truth' wasn't really developed or thought of in detail until the 15th century of the common era.
'Hinduism' which I always put 'quotes' around for a reason has not much mainstream until very recently, like 130yrs or less thanks in large part to a sort of spiritual defense/response against Christian missionaries. As a Religion it existed mostly in the concept of 'Chaturavarnaashram' or the four stages of life and caste i.e. as a social-structure not so much a spiritual one. The concept that hinduism as it is known today mostly, as 'Bhakti' and 'Sanatana-Dharma' or 'devotional-faith' and 'eternal-law/truth' wasn't really developed or thought of in detail until the 15th century of the common era.
- Status