Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Is there such a thing as God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Islam? What about the shahadah- the oath that to be a Muslim one had to believe, truly, that there was one God, to be worshiped, and that Muhammad was His messenger.

That seems pretty mutually exclusive to me. If you don't accept that creed, then you can't be a Muslim.
 
Will-iam said:
@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.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite right. I think the very last words revealed are along the lines of 'on this day We have perfected our religion for you'.

ryanvergel said:
Islam? What about the shahadah- the oath that to be a Muslim one had to believe, truly, that there was one God, to be worshiped, and that Muhammad was His messenger.

That seems pretty mutually exclusive to me. If you don't accept that creed, then you can't be a Muslim.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much (there are some tangential cases of what happens to a wife of a Muslim if she is a Christian or Jew (which is allowed in some interpretations)), but my point is the whole point of being a Muslim is to get into heaven after you die. Muslims don't believe that the pious Christians and Jews that came before don't get the same right.

Its complicated!
 
@dogma, that's what I thought, it makes more sense for that to be the last statement of revelation.

I thought the whole point of being Muslim was worshipping Allah/God and one's reward was the Garden for having such dutiful service here on earth. If heaven is the goal for a Muslim then I am sorry I find that to be a selfish goal that puts God as object that isn't too much different than the selfishness of the Christians' approach towards heaven.

IMO if there is a heaven and if one has a place in it one shouldn't seek it but seek God with an assumption that this is all we get. This conviction of doing right to avoid hellfire and laying claim to some everlasting paradise could easily become poisoned as everything does when self establishes all else as objects of values.

One should never forget that before us there were others and before them the world and before the world there was God and God is to remain God throughout after we are gone after the world is gone after everything is gone, Then God will once again become the Nothing God is, with neither name nor form or concept, the names, forms and concepts that we in our blasphemies superimpose upon God turning God from what God is to object, to idol that we set up and before to punish those we disagree with and reward those of us who are agreeable to us.

Unless and until one can realize that there is nothing but God in truth we will remain distant and limited to what we truly are.
 
Will: I agree wholeheartedly about the 'afterlife' and 'heaven/paradise' becoming coveted objects in themselves. People often times merely do/act right in the hopes for a reward- the afterlife, or for the avoidance of punishment- Hell, but is this true altruism or right-doing? To avoid punishment, or because one truly feels one ought to do something?

If you really believed in God, you would do things because they ought to be done, but to avoid Hell/seek Heaven- and the two are very, very hard to separate from each other. Some people have no separation and they have an incompletely, immature understand of morality. In this way I sometimes see religion as a hindrance to morality.
 
ryanvergel said:
Will: I agree wholeheartedly about the 'afterlife' and 'heaven/paradise' becoming coveted objects in themselves. People often times merely do/act right in the hopes for a reward- the afterlife, or for the avoidance of punishment- Hell, but is this true altruism or right-doing? To avoid punishment, or because one truly feels one ought to do something?

If you really believed in God, you would do things because they ought to be done, but to avoid Hell/seek Heaven- and the two are very, very hard to separate from each other..
Click to expand...

This. They're pretty much the same thing. I guess you and Will see this as warping morality, I see it as defining morality (if I wasn't religious, I doubt I'd care much for a secular morality. I'd do things because law and custom tells me to, which I don't think is the same)
 
Secular and spiritual 'morality' is the same if it is a desire to 'avoid this result and to achieve that result'. Morality like truth is shown as a rational, as an equation of sorts it seems that we merely reap to benefit ourselves. I ask the general you if there were no God and afterlife was rewarded with blessing no matter what, would you still behave the way you do? Perhaps, though now take prison and other means and forms of punishment out of the equation of moral 'safe-gaurds' would you still?

How many of us are truly moral and how many of us are truly sociopathic? Perhaps its not so clear perhaps we are neither for how much of us can say we are consistent with anything? Though take God out of heaven and all of existence for that matter and take man with the notion, the conviction that man no matter what he does here upon this earth will launch him to an everlasting heaven will not choose self-gratifying hedonism at the cost of all others?

If Morality is merely a creation of laws and customs, utterances of God/s and/or men then it (morality) can be broken and bent by those who utter 'wiser' or louder; it becomes then not a truth but a popular philosophy waiting to be replaced with yet another. Morality must to be truly moral must have been here before there was a 'here' to begin with i.e. morality must be eternal or if not eternal it must have risen simultaneously with relation of consciousnesses to one another. Though this would grant the notion that there isn't a singular consciousness but a multiplicity, a unique multiplicity of minds who are to be governed by a moral code whose law is as natural as that which which pulls planetary bodies.

Yet if Morality is to be seen as such a law in the sense of being mathematical then would this give rise to the assumption that there must be certain equations to create a desired result? Of course though it would be just like any other math problem after all there are an infinite amount of ways just to get to the number one.
 
Yes, I think that morality would essentially be arbitrary if it merely hung on the words of God.

Do the gods command it because it is pious, or is it pious because the gods command it?

Each has very different and important consequences. I think we should go with the former. Christians with the latter.
 
The consequences at least mentally/emotionally of doing moral good for a reward is twofold with divergent effects. Effect 1: Yippie! I got into heaven for being good!' Effect2: I got into heaven for selfish reasons and I just can't help removing a sense of tremendous guilt, a guilt that will gravitate me away from this reward.'

Unless one can be at peace with all there is one will not be able to remove fear of guilt and loss and become unmovable in conviction and compassionate for all, towards all. The distinction between 'you' and 'me' God and everything else being removed. This is the most difficult thing to do for one loses one's identity to become all identity which is paradoxically at the same time non-identity.
 
If those are the same programmes you linked to earlier, I'm sorry to say that I don't really think they explained very much.

I guess the concept of God being a construct necessary due to evolution is as clumsy a hypothesis as any other out there IMO. The consequences of such a theory aren't much different from those already proposed and thus it seems like a bit of a dead-end in terms of explaining what's really going on

(Unless I've completely misunderstood the point of the programme :confused:)
 
if the gods command it because it is moral, then there is a standard of morality or good independent of god.

if it is good because the gods command it, then morality becomes arbitrary. the good is merely what god describes as good- nothing in itself has an intrinsic value. things become less personal, direct, and valuable as objects only have their worth as god describes it. the arbitrary nature of such a morality would call into question why it should be adhered to, and what makes it moral over immoral/amoral.
 
ryanvergel said:
if the gods command it because it is moral, then there is a standard of morality or good independent of god.

if it is good because the gods command it, then morality becomes arbitrary. the good is merely what god describes as good- nothing in itself has an intrinsic value. things become less personal, direct, and valuable as objects only have their worth as god describes it. the arbitrary nature of such a morality would call into question why it should be adhered to, and what makes it moral over immoral/amoral.
Click to expand...

And I guess for you, "because God says so" isn't good enough?
 
It is not a question of 'good-enough' its a question of Truth no matter who or what 'speaks' it. There is a saying that goes something along the lines of 'When pursuing philosophy no matter how horrible or terrible it may seem, one should never give up the Truth, even if it means going against everything you believe in, for philosophy and all else are deprived and poor if they shirk away from their duties towards Truth for Truth.'

By 'Truth' I mean the ultimate Truth i.e. As it really is and not merely the counterpart/opposite of lying.
 
I think we're talking about the same thing. I am taking as my guiding principle that God exists and that a religion is true.

So then it must follow that whatever God commands me to do is the Truth (in the way you defined it above, Will).

But as Ryan points out, that kinda means that such commandments are arbitrary, because God could've commanded anything and I would have to take that as granted because of my religious beliefs. So for those who do not follow the religion, it will seem completely arbitrary.

(The feeling of arbitrariness does not go unnoticed in Islam. There are lots of sayings of the prophet acknowledging this in part, noting that the religion is to submit to the will of God, not merely 'follow' it.)
 
I see my rights as being justified, not merely being arbitrarily granted/valuable. If i were to believe that morality was through/because of god, it would undermine my intuitions and arguments for my rights/moral decisions not being arbitrary.

Morality being based on/through god is counter-intuitive to me, and more importantly removes some of my agency. I have more value and worth if actions towards me are moral or immoral based on my worth or capacities and their considerations than if morality is merely the arbitrary distinctions that God might make.

I really think that adhering to many of these religions weakens morality, ideas of free will, and reduces the significance of science and philosophy. Aside from appearing flawed in believing 100% (as these religions demand) the written works, believing in such things weakens important aspects of our humanity. I already pointed out problems of Biblical ethics applied to modern day scenarios, and I already showed that the Bible hints at a lack of free will. If you pair this with the problem of evil, my question as to WHY God would create the soul being damned to Hell (with the knowledge that he would end up there- derived from his omni-potence/niscience), you can see why I see religion as a negative thing.

I think it's a superficial benefit. It's like people offering benefits to those who volunteer. If you volunteer at specific places in the US, Disney was going to give you a free one day park pass. But that isn't volunteering anymore- it's replacing the money to be earned with a Disney ticket. Even if it gets people to be more moral by commanding it and justifying it easily through God, is it worth it- is it really a benefit? Kant would say that their moral praiseworthiness would be reduced since they are doing it because it is commanded, rather than from an intrinsic or internal motivation to uphold an imperative appealed to when considering the nature and capacities of what it is to be a human being.
 
Lost everything I was going to say! I really wish this wouldn't happen:( Anyway the gist of what I have already written is that 'freewill' is a paradox because freedom implies openess/expanse and will implies choice. Yet no matter how many choices the will can make it can only execute one at a given time and whose results may not be for the best according to the one who executed them.

God is all knowing because God is the source of knoweldge, the wellspring the fountainhead of the waters of wisdom. The mystery of this is, is why does the 'mouth' of God flow towards us, for us? Why does does it come to us in the guise of scripture and prophets? Words spoken and written through the hand and mouths of mortals seem too fragile of vessels to contain the waters of wisdom that God pours forth and yet this seems to be the only 'earthenware' that God chooses or that at least is explicitly pointed to.

The question that can not be answered is not why do we 'need' God but rather why does God 'want' us? The Creator became Creator in and through Creation, but why? IMO there is something greater than God, something not even god can grasp but only 'see' and that is the radiant-flashing-glow on the horizon of what we call the unmanifest. I believe that God sprung suddenly from Nothing and has attempted to cover up that Nothing for the fear of falling back and becomming once again that Nothing and yet God sees its 'creation' being a mere porus thing that is constantly being dissolved back in to that Nothing. Yes there is something greater and beyond God it is a fear that we both share, our image of God is in a lack of knowing and a fear of wanting. God's concern for us is a concern for itself the radiant-flashing-glow of the Nothing from the horizon of the unmanifest is approaching and will eventually blind and consume back all into itself.

Our history our creation is nothing but the resonating thunder of the radiant-flashing-glow that ripples throughout eternity in ever abiding order of repition in/on the Ocean-of-Being.
 
Ugh- people have been claiming that they have the right religion for so long, it has even sparked wars that still are going on in this day and age. I had Mormons come visit my house, I talked with them for a while, and I asked how it is that they are given their "assignments" because one of them said this was his current assignment. He said that the Deacon (spelling, and I am not sure the direct reference) but anyways, the regional higher- authorative of the religion gave him his assingment to go do "feild work in recruiting for new souls" ( that is what he said) and that the assingment was a direct order from God that he is to do this feild work assignment in some farther away state. I asked what if he did not want to take the assignment because it was so far away. He said he did not have to do the fieldwork assingment if he did not want to do so. I asked why he would out-right disobey a direct command from God since the deacon told him that is what God said for him to do. He said that he could take up the matter with God through prayer to find out if that realy is what he is to do- MY POINT IN THIS- orginized religion is flawed, because we all can have a direct link to God, and we do not need some other person to be the middle man. The only middle "man" to God is Christ- why go to a religion who has people in charge, who are just as equal to me in God's eyes, just so that you can have order and structure with people making themselves feel more important because they belong to a gruop who claim to know the truth- when they are just as imperfect as me, and are willing to look the other way by turning up thier noses to others because they are so much better because God favors them for being the correct religion- God can see us for who we are, he can determin if we are worthy or not- why is it man can say who is worthy or not based on the religion and what the religion claims? Are people who go to church that much better then me? or is that just a way of by-passing what God said that we are all equal? Or is it more duoble standered catch 22's that we all must figure it out, or just be told by someone else who wants to do our thinking for us so they can be all goody-goody by saying " I am out there saving lives, because I tell people what the bible says, and I speak the truth"? Yes, I am venting a little, but I have enjoyed reading everyones postings. Good points- and I have learned alot. I just do not see how a religion can prove the existance of a God when the religion is voulnerable to flaws and imperfection, especialy IMO when man thinks he has it figuered out and wants to tell you how it has to be done, when they can not do it perfectly themselves while expecting you to do it perfectly. And if you don't, then your not good enough to be in that religion.
 
@Benzo, I will restate the request that I believe that has already been stated: Please create paragraphs! Even if you are talking about the same subject matter divide it up, our poor little eyes can take in so much at a given time.

That said I agree with you on the flaw of organized-religion or organized-anything for that matter. Though have you asked your self what is it that causes institutions with ideal-structures to rise in the first place? Religions are communities when they become 'organized' and are organized by the majority of individuals in a response to something they need, 'protection' the very concept that forms governments from the very tyranical to the highly democratic.

The breaking away of such structures is when the dialouge between individual and insitutuion becomes monolouge, the insititution speaking on the behalf of itself removing the recoprical relationship of the individual. The individual becomes a fodder-bag that is seen as being squeezed for taxes or tithes to support and enhance the power hunger structure of this or that institution that removes its ideals from the realm of the 'immortal'.

Individuals with more or less universal and timeless ideals is what creates instituitons but something happens that causes this to break away. IMO it is the over abundance of people demanding to be fed on an institution that was set up to 'protect' them, this concept of protection also has when the individual is in dire straits a 'providing' responisbility.

Desire always causes deprivation no matter what and this is what happens. The instition then begins to create more and more power of administration it creates heirarchies that turns people in to product the individual is swallowed up by the crowd, the crowd by the structure that it would adhere to.

Powerless do we become because of our demand of more power, an institution puts us in order then while in fact it was originally supposed to put the world in order to make it into 'their' world, the world of individuals protected and provided by the institution of their choosing.

The storehouse of this or that concept and desire becomes a slaughterhouse cutting off the life of an individual by removing its sense of self worth to itself. We become weak and hungry and are at either the mercy of the sheperds that become butchers of their flock or of the wolves in the dark-wood of uncertainty.

We are literally stuck between a rock and a hard place, we who see that insitution has become prision and individuality has become isolation.

Though both individuality and institution is flawed for both fail to see that that the truth of individuality is illusion, the former would locate it behind the mouth, ears and eyes while the latter would regulate to a mere number a disposal. Unless and until we can see that we are mortal in the absolute sense of that term and that history is a poor repesentation of immortality we will remain consummers being consummed for a so called progress that will with everyday cause less and less value and meaning for us, our lives will become easier thanks to this process of progress but it will disown us see us as disposals mere throw aways, tools that serve as fodder for the so called progress.

The individual mortal has to become at peace with its true idenity its true relation and that is it has none, we came from Nothing we will return to Nothing that is the errie mystery of prior-birth and fearful mystery of posterior death. Our fretfulness is the fear that no matter what we do or support will come to nothing and yet this is the truth, the ultimate and the absolute truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top