Believe in God? - DPChallenge Forums

04/18/2005 08:39:17 PM · #101

Originally posted by kpriest:

If you do not believe in God (in any form), what guides your actions? Who are you accountable to? ...oh, that's right - yourself, your own rules. If I subscribed to that, I may just decide that I want your posessions and might kill you and/or your family for them if I knew I could get away with it. In fact, "Getting away with it" would be the only criteria for committing any act I so desired. You would make no moral judgements about me doing that, of course. Oh what a wonderful world it would be. :)

This is a fairly common argument, that without belief in god, people would be unable to act morally and social structures would disintegrate. I think it's a flawed argument for several reasons. First of all, all one need do is look to history to discover that religious folks are and have been capable of great violence and immoral acts, especially when it comes to people who believe in other gods and adhere to other religious beliefs. Non-believers are also violent and immoral, but they have also led good, productive, moral lives. So there doesn't appear to be any correlation between belief in god and moral behavior. Furthermore, if other primates are capable of constructing a social order and social rules, what makes you think human beings can't run their own affairs without the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of eternal bliss? Perhaps there are some people who can't find their moral compass without the presence of an all-powerful authority, but it's not true for most of the people I know.

04/18/2005 08:40:13 PM · #102

Originally posted by lykofos:

It seems like the question of god has boiled down to the definition in terms of christianity since it is the popular religion. It seems like people only want to consider the here and now when discussing religion. Christianity has been around for a comparitively small time.

If all this mumbo-jumbo about salvation and jesus being savior is true, then what about humans from the neolithic BC period before christianity and jesus even existed? Were they condemned to hell since christianity wasn't even invented yet?

An ages old question. And the answer is still NO, not necessarily. John 8:56-58 quotes an interaction between Christ and some Jews. Jesus began by saying: "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
So, two points:
1) Christ has ALWAYS been - there IS no time before He even existed. John 1:1-3 says "In the beginning was the Word ( Christ ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
2) Even so, as I have stated in another thread, with God TIME is not a limiting factor. Those whose hearts are so inclined are so inclined - whether in the past, present, or future.

Originally posted by lykofos:

Hell in the christian sense wasn't even a concept then.

Not true. The greek word for hell, she'owl, is used in Deuteronomy 32:22 "For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains."

Originally posted by lykofos:

Christianity has also assimilated pagan rituals, symbols, holidays into itself way back when it was a fledgling religion trying to convert the pagans.

Would you care to elaborate with some examples of pagan rituals, symbols, and holidays that Christianity has assimilated into itself?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/18/2005 08:58:26 PM · #103

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by kpriest:
If you do not believe in God (in any form), what guides your actions? Who are you accountable to? ...oh, that's right - yourself, your own rules. If I subscribed to that, I may just decide that I want your posessions and might kill you and/or your family for them if I knew I could get away with it. In fact, "Getting away with it" would be the only criteria for committing any act I so desired. You would make no moral judgements about me doing that, of course. Oh what a wonderful world it would be. :)

This is a fairly common argument, that without belief in god, people would be unable to act morally and social structures would disintegrate. I think it's a flawed argument for several reasons. First of all, all one need do is look to history to discover that religious folks are and have been capable of great violence and immoral acts, especially when it comes to people who believe in other gods and adhere to other religious beliefs. Non-believers are also violent and immoral, but they have also led good, productive, moral lives. So there doesn't appear to be any correlation between belief in god and moral behavior. Furthermore, if other primates are capable of constructing a social order and social rules, what makes you think human beings can't run their own affairs without the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of eternal bliss? Perhaps there are some people who can't find their moral compass without the presence of an all-powerful authority, but it's not true for most of the people I know.

You have missed the point, Judith. Consider driving a car along the highway. There is a speed limit sign that says "Speed Limit 55 MPH". The one who BELIEVES that the law is good, can drive at 35 mph or they can drive at 75 mph. The one who does NOT believe that the law is good, can also either drive at 35 mph or 75 mph. But the law is still the law.
Belief in God leads one to agree that God's laws are good. But that doesn't mean that they will obey them.
The difference is that if you speed, and get caught, you might be able to beat the ticket on a technicality, or, you might not get caught at all. But if you break God's law, you have a) already been caught, b) already been judged, c) already been found guilty. There are no technicalities. No nuances. No "interpretations". No "shades of grey". And the sentence for breaking any, even the least of God's laws is always eternal death. But, the sentencing phase is always postponed until you physically die. SO, there is still time while you live to accept God's gift of eternal LIFE by accepting the only provision He made for a pardon. That would be the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

04/18/2005 08:58:52 PM · #104

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by lykofos:
... Christianity has also assimilated pagan rituals, symbols, holidays into itself way back when it was a fledgling religion trying to convert the pagans.

Would you care to elaborate with some examples of pagan rituals, symbols, and holidays that Christianity has assimilated into itself?

Christmas (winter solstice), Easter (spring rites) are probably the best known ones. A papal bull was issued in 1233 by Pope Gregory (I believe it was, perhaps, someone can google it) documenting both deed and intent, although Constantin had already begun the systematic destruction of pagan religion and places of worship in Greece centuries earlier using the same method.

In the North, Charlemaigne completed it by slaughtering the remaining 4.OOO representatives of the old faith in a forest near Verden, Germany.

Message edited by author 2005-04-18 21:01:39.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/18/2005 09:14:35 PM · #105

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by lykofos:
... Christianity has also assimilated pagan rituals, symbols, holidays into itself way back when it was a fledgling religion trying to convert the pagans.

Would you care to elaborate with some examples of pagan rituals, symbols, and holidays that Christianity has assimilated into itself?

Christmas (winter solstice), Easter (spring rites) are probably the best known ones. A papal bull was issued in 1233 by Pope Gregory (I believe it was, perhaps, someone can google it) documenting both deed and intent, although Constantin had already begun the systematic destruction of pagan religion and places of worship in Greece centuries earlier using the same method.

In the North, Charlemaigne completed it by slaughtering the remaining 4.OOO representatives of the old faith in a forest near Verden, Germany.

Christmas is a Christian holiday that celebrates the Birth of Christ. It is not a pagan holiday. The fact that it occurs around the time of the "Winter Solstice" does not indicate in any way that pagan rituals and/or holidays were "assimilated" into Christianity. If there are any pagan rituals of "winter solstice" or other "winter solstice" holiday traditions, I would be interested in seeing them listed.

Easter is a Christian holiday that celebrates the Resurrection of Christ. It is not a pagan holiday. The fact that it occurs around the time of the "rites of spring" does not indicate in any way that pagan rituals and/or holidays were "assimilated" into Christianity. If there are any pagan rituals of the "rites of spring" or other "rites of spring" holiday traditions, I would be interested in seeing them listed.

I may be tired, but I do not understand the relevance of your postings concerning the papal bull or Charlemagne. Could you provide some context?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/18/2005 09:34:11 PM · #106

Easter occurs in the Spring because that's when the Jewish holiday of Pesach (Passover), which Jesus was celebrating when He was arrested, occurs.

Message edited by author 2005-04-18 21:34:44.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/18/2005 09:47:55 PM · #107

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by lykofos:
... Christianity has also assimilated pagan rituals, symbols, holidays into itself way back when it was a fledgling religion trying to convert the pagans.

Would you care to elaborate with some examples of pagan rituals, symbols, and holidays that Christianity has assimilated into itself?

Christmas (winter solstice), Easter (spring rites) are probably the best known ones. A papal bull was issued in 1233 by Pope Gregory (I believe it was, perhaps, someone can google it) documenting both deed and intent, although Constantin had already begun the systematic destruction of pagan religion and places of worship in Greece centuries earlier using the same method.

In the North, Charlemaigne completed it by slaughtering the remaining 4.OOO representatives of the old faith in a forest near Verden, Germany.

Christmas is a Christian holiday that celebrates the Birth of Christ. It is not a pagan holiday. The fact that it occurs around the time of the "Winter Solstice" does not indicate in any way that pagan rituals and/or holidays were "assimilated" into Christianity. If there are any pagan rituals of "winter solstice" or other "winter solstice" holiday traditions, I would be interested in seeing them listed.

Easter is a Christian holiday that celebrates the Resurrection of Christ. It is not a pagan holiday. The fact that it occurs around the time of the "rites of spring" does not indicate in any way that pagan rituals and/or holidays were "assimilated" into Christianity. If there are any pagan rituals of the "rites of spring" or other "rites of spring" holiday traditions, I would be interested in seeing them listed.

I may be tired, but I do not understand the relevance of your postings concerning the papal bull or Charlemagne. Could you provide some context?

You are right, Christmas is a Christian holiday. Equinox (winter and summer solstice) however were and still are pagan holidays. The devil is in the dates:

Christ was not born on the day of eqinox, neither did he die in the moon phase of Ostara (yes, the origin of the word is the name of a pagan goddess). The papal bull of 1233 transferred the Christian holiday onto the dates of pagan ones, for reasons which have nothing to do with historical accuracy.

04/18/2005 09:51:12 PM · #108

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by kpriest:
If you do not believe in God (in any form), what guides your actions? Who are you accountable to? ...oh, that's right - yourself, your own rules. If I subscribed to that, I may just decide that I want your posessions and might kill you and/or your family for them if I knew I could get away with it. In fact, "Getting away with it" would be the only criteria for committing any act I so desired. You would make no moral judgements about me doing that, of course. Oh what a wonderful world it would be. :)

This is a fairly common argument, that without belief in god, people would be unable to act morally and social structures would disintegrate. I think it's a flawed argument for several reasons. First of all, all one need do is look to history to discover that religious folks are and have been capable of great violence and immoral acts, especially when it comes to people who believe in other gods and adhere to other religious beliefs. Non-believers are also violent and immoral, but they have also led good, productive, moral lives. So there doesn't appear to be any correlation between belief in god and moral behavior. Furthermore, if other primates are capable of constructing a social order and social rules, what makes you think human beings can't run their own affairs without the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of eternal bliss? Perhaps there are some people who can't find their moral compass without the presence of an all-powerful authority, but it's not true for most of the people I know.

You have missed the point, Judith. Consider driving a car along the highway. There is a speed limit sign that says "Speed Limit 55 MPH". The one who BELIEVES that the law is good, can drive at 35 mph or they can drive at 75 mph. The one who does NOT believe that the law is good, can also either drive at 35 mph or 75 mph. But the law is still the law.
Belief in God leads one to agree that God's laws are good. But that doesn't mean that they will obey them.
The difference is that if you speed, and get caught, you might be able to beat the ticket on a technicality, or, you might not get caught at all. But if you break God's law, you have a) already been caught, b) already been judged, c) already been found guilty. There are no technicalities. No nuances. No "interpretations". No "shades of grey". And the sentence for breaking any, even the least of God's laws is always eternal death. But, the sentencing phase is always postponed until you physically die. SO, there is still time while you live to accept God's gift of eternal LIFE by accepting the only provision He made for a pardon. That would be the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.

Yes, you're right, I don't get your point. I don't see the connection between my post and your response.

04/18/2005 10:59:51 PM · #109

Originally posted by RonB:

Would you care to elaborate with some examples of pagan rituals, symbols, and holidays that Christianity has assimilated into itself?

Lets's start with symbols. The cross symbol was origianlly used by a mystical pagan religion and was know as the Tau of the Chaldeans in ancient babylon. It also appears in egyptian hieroglyphics along with the ankh. The cross has been used in simple form for centuries before christianity. The elaborately decorated christian crosses & those with christ pasted on front of the cross symbol is nothing more than a bastardization of the pagan cross symbols that came before it.

Furthermore, the cross wound up as the christian symbol simply by chance. Just as the cross, the pentagram has roots in ancient paganism - mesopotamia (3500BC) and was also used by the Order of Pythagoras in 550BC as a symbol of knowledge and health. In early christianity the pentagram was used to represent the 5 wounds of christ. Constantine actually used it as his symbol. Then during the dark ages, it became a symbol of witchcraft (representative of a goats head / hoof print) and the church made the cross become the preferred symbol. Ironic, isn't it?

I could go on and on. Even the "christ/savior" myth has been used in other ancient religions. Back when I was first questioning christianity, I did extensive research. The closer you look, the more you uncover (some very uncanny similarities), and realize that the early christians just grabbed a bunch of stuff here and there from other religions, put it in a blender, and called it their own.

04/18/2005 11:36:22 PM · #110

Originally posted by RonB:

John 1:1-3 says "In the beginning was the Word ( Christ ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Quoting scripture is meaningless to me. It can be used in anyone's favor. "The devil can site scripture for his own purpose! An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villian with a smiling cheek." - William Shakespeare

Originally posted by God:

Matthew 10:34-35
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Wowza! The lord is really servin it up on this one! Let loose the hounds of war!

Originally posted by God:

Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Have a wife and kids? Forsake them, it's what the lord wants and you want the reward, don't you?

Originally posted by God:

Matthew 26:26-28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mmmm, cannibalism and vampirism. Maybe Christianity isn't so bad after all, eh? :-)

04/19/2005 12:43:02 AM · #111

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by lykofos:
... Christianity has also assimilated pagan rituals, symbols, holidays into itself way back when it was a fledgling religion trying to convert the pagans.

Would you care to elaborate with some examples of pagan rituals, symbols, and holidays that Christianity has assimilated into itself?

Christmas (winter solstice), Easter (spring rites) are probably the best known ones. A papal bull was issued in 1233 by Pope Gregory (I believe it was, perhaps, someone can google it) documenting both deed and intent, although Constantin had already begun the systematic destruction of pagan religion and places of worship in Greece centuries earlier using the same method.

In the North, Charlemaigne completed it by slaughtering the remaining 4.OOO representatives of the old faith in a forest near Verden, Germany.

Christmas is a Christian holiday that celebrates the Birth of Christ. It is not a pagan holiday. The fact that it occurs around the time of the "Winter Solstice" does not indicate in any way that pagan rituals and/or holidays were "assimilated" into Christianity. If there are any pagan rituals of "winter solstice" or other "winter solstice" holiday traditions, I would be interested in seeing them listed.

Easter is a Christian holiday that celebrates the Resurrection of Christ. It is not a pagan holiday. The fact that it occurs around the time of the "rites of spring" does not indicate in any way that pagan rituals and/or holidays were "assimilated" into Christianity. If there are any pagan rituals of the "rites of spring" or other "rites of spring" holiday traditions, I would be interested in seeing them listed.

I may be tired, but I do not understand the relevance of your postings concerning the papal bull or Charlemagne. Could you provide some context?

You are right, Christmas is a Christian holiday. Equinox (winter and summer solstice) however were and still are pagan holidays. The devil is in the dates:

Do you really mean to imply that the selection of a date rises to the level of "assimilation" of "pagan rituals" or "holidays" into Christianity?

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Christ was not born on the day of eqinox

And you know this, how? Better yet, perhaps you can tell us on what day He WAS born? Or even in what month, or year?
( Note: Christians do not celebrate His birth anywhere near the equinox, anyway. Dec 25th is only a few days away from the winter solstice, however )

Originally posted by zeuszen:

...neither did he die in the moon phase of Ostara (yes, the origin of the word is the name of a pagan goddess).

Likewise, on what day DID He die? What month? What year? At any rate, given that the name was derived from the name of a pagan goddess, how does that translate into "assimilation".

Originally posted by zeuszen:

The papal bull of 1233 transferred the Christian holiday onto the dates of pagan ones, for reasons which have nothing to do with historical accuracy.

That is true. It is generally understood that Christmas was positioned in late December as a means to offer Christians an alternative holiday for them to celebrate instead of celebrating the pagan holiday at winter solstice, and/or the Roman holidays of Saturnalia ( which begin on December 17th ) and/or the Jewish festival of Channakuh.
The celebration of Easter, however ( it's name aside ) occurs as it does because scripture records that Jesus celebrated His last supper at the time of Passover.
To imply that the timing of the Christian holidays, in and of themselves, implies "assimilation" from pagan religions is to likewise imply that the timing of "kwanza" shows "assimilation" of either those same pagan holidays or Christmas or Hannakuh. But I don't subscribe to that theory.

04/19/2005 12:55:13 AM · #112

Originally posted by lykofos:

Originally posted by RonB:
Would you care to elaborate with some examples of pagan rituals, symbols, and holidays that Christianity has assimilated into itself?

Lets's start with symbols. The cross symbol was origianlly used by a mystical pagan religion and was know as the Tau of the Chaldeans in ancient babylon. It also appears in egyptian hieroglyphics along with the ankh. The cross has been used in simple form for centuries before christianity. The elaborately decorated christian crosses & those with christ pasted on front of the cross symbol is nothing more than a bastardization of the pagan cross symbols that came before it.
The mere fact that a symbol was used earlier is really not a valid argument that it was "adopted" or "assimilated" for use by another group. The BIRD was used as a symbol by the Aztecs and the Mayans and the Anasazi and the Navaho. But it was used by the Egyptians, too. So which of them stole it from the other? Give me a break.

Originally posted by zeuszen:
Furthermore, the cross wound up as the christian symbol simply by chance.

Yeah. The chance that it's deity was crucified on one.

Originally posted by lykofos:

Originally posted by zeuszen:
Just as the cross, the pentagram has roots in ancient paganism - mesopotamia (3500BC) and was also used by the Order of Pythagoras in 550BC as a symbol of knowledge and health. In early christianity the pentagram was used to represent the 5 wounds of christ.
Constantine actually used it as his symbol. Then during the dark ages, it became a symbol of witchcraft (representative of a goats head / hoof print) and the church made the cross become the preferred symbol. Ironic, isn't it?

Yeah, they probably gave up the pentagram when they found out a prior group had dibs on it.

Originally posted by lykofos:

I could go on and on. Even the "christ/savior" myth has been used in other ancient religions. Back when I was first questioning christianity, I did extensive research. The closer you look, the more you uncover (some very uncanny similarities), and realize that the early christians just grabbed a bunch of stuff here and there from other religions, put it in a blender, and called it their own.

No, please don't go on and on. I fear that if you do, your posts will repeat some of the words that I have already used, and then I'll have to complain that you are "assimilating" some of my words into your posts.

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 12:31:09.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

04/19/2005 01:05:19 AM · #113

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I do not think that anyone can argue you with on the premise that religion is not required to lead a constructive life. However, you dismiss authority. Consider the following:

The wise man establishes a higher authority within himself. Nothing to do with religion, but rather in the sense that that there is an upstairs and downstairs which is evident in the saga of existence. There is good and there is bad. It is the higher self which then becomes our authority and checks our search for what is right and what is wrong.

This awareness is as ancient as the creation. Those that find this path are all too willing to pass its way to the uninitiated. If there is no higher self (authority) then we wither because nothing checks our desires.

We can complaint about religion but religions presents that simple code of ethics. Think, how can you explain to your children that it is wrong to kill, wrong to steal etc., etc. You will have to inculcate the ability to carry a logical stream to a conclussion. Are they not too young? For example, can you dictate the knowledge to all the uncertainties that swim in your head and if you could, can you pass this to a young child?

Althought religion has many faults, it brings to the recipient a set of proper conduct.

An example, I would rather be stranded in some religious island, than in one where no religion exists. To these people religion is their guide as they have no time nor the inclination to philosophize about concepts. If their God springs from goodness, then that is their authority and they can live like the wiseman without investigating the cause of life and the undulating debates about ethics.

There is enough cause to attack the imperfections in religion but it serves a greater purpose. To attack it is to attack something that we fear in us. Nobosy can claim that their way is better then anothers.

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 01:09:09.

04/19/2005 01:07:25 AM · #114

Originally posted by lykofos:

Originally posted by RonB:
John 1:1-3 says "In the beginning was the Word ( Christ ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Quoting scripture is meaningless to me. It can be used in anyone's favor. "The devil can site scripture for his own purpose! An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villian with a smiling cheek." - William Shakespeare

Originally posted by God:

Matthew 10:34-35
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Wowza! The lord is really servin it up on this one! Let loose the hounds of war!

Originally posted by God:

Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Have a wife and kids? Forsake them, it's what the lord wants and you want the reward, don't you?

Originally posted by God:

Matthew 26:26-28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mmmm, cannibalism and vampirism. Maybe Christianity isn't so bad after all, eh? :-)

What can I say?

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." -- Galations 6:7-8

04/19/2005 11:44:50 AM · #115

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

There is enough cause to attack the imperfections in religion but it serves a greater purpose. To attack it is to attack something that we fear in us. Nobosy can claim that their way is better then anothers.

I'm not claiming that "my way" is better than another. Whatever works to create a better world, a more peaceful world, more ethical behavior, is okay with me, even if it's through religious teaching. But my post was in response to someone claiming that THEIR way, namely belief in god, was the ONLY way to morality and ethics, and I think that's just a false claim.

In any event, I'm interested in your statement that "to attack it [religion] is to attack something that we fear in us." What do you mean by that?

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

04/19/2005 02:22:43 PM · #116

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
There is enough cause to attack the imperfections in religion but it serves a greater purpose. To attack it is to attack something that we fear in us. Nobosy can claim that their way is better then anothers.

I'm not claiming that "my way" is better than another. Whatever works to create a better world, a more peaceful world, more ethical behavior, is okay with me, even if it's through religious teaching. But my post was in response to someone claiming that THEIR way, namely belief in god, was the ONLY way to morality and ethics, and I think that's just a false claim.

In any event, I'm interested in your statement that "to attack it [religion] is to attack something that we fear in us." What do you mean by that?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey Judith: what I mean is the following: First you are right there is no one path to enlightenment and no one can claim that theirs is the only way. As a matter of fact those that do need to go back to the drawingboard as they have missed something.

If you followed my post about the higher self it has some complications. One is, that upon discovery some zealots will want to spread this philosophy. Here it gets very tacky. First a body must be formed to accomodate the new comer. Not long after, something must be put into writing and before you know it a structure is born and someone will conclude that this higher self should be associated only with the best. And here is where organized religion is born. Different interpretations will yield different results dependent on temperement and this will give rise to many flavors.

Well, the meaning of the higher self is contaminated with diverse definitions. Each institution holds a viewpoint and communication between them is futile. I have nothing against referering to the higher self as God but I do have a problem when a set of attributes begins to define this God.

So the fear in us is that we are all talking roughly about the same thing but each with a different vernacular. That is there can never be true communication. Each of us that has searched must admit the many dead ends we encountered. So we all lack that absolute understanding and while we can fence for ourselves, we still depend partially on a modicum of faith otherwise we will never cross a street. We then wonder to what extent can we safely apply faith without kidding ourselves.

Here, the wiseman observes the happy peasant who works and plays hard and his belief system is tied by faith to some religion. This individual need not parse the meaning of good and evil. He accepts his teachings and goes about his life. The wiseman continues to turn in his bed because in his search it never dawned on him that the more he learns, the less he knows. At some point he begins to wonder if there is something he missed. Could he have employed more faith, but then his reasoning abilities have expanded way past the simplicity of faith. There is no way back, he took the byte out of the apple.

So, when we disparage another's faith system we attack the very shortcomings of our own incomplete stance or our developing model of this paradox we call life. No one has the answers and we all lack something. There is no completeness.

04/19/2005 03:42:10 PM · #117

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Yes, you're right, I don't get your point. I don't see the connection between my post and your response.

By way of analogy, I was agreeing with you that the PRESENCE of religion ( the Speed Limit Sign ) is not THE determinant factor in whether one is moral ( obeys the speed limit sign ) or immoral ( disobeys the speed limit sign ).

By the same token, if there were NO religion ( no speed limit sign ) at all, some would STILL act morally ( travel at a "reasonable" speed for the conditions ), but others would STILL act immorally ( travel at "unreasonable" speeds for the conditions ).

But, the presence of religion ( the Speed Limit sign ) DOES help to guide the behaviour of those who have a desire to act morally ( drive safely ), AND it can act as a deterrent to those who have no desire to act morally ( drive safely ) through peer influence.

I'm afraid my attempt at an analogy lost something in the translation the first time around, and hope it's a little clearer this time.

04/19/2005 04:25:40 PM · #118

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Hey Judith: what I mean is the following: First you are right there is no one path to enlightenment and no one can claim that theirs is the only way. As a matter of fact those that do need to go back to the drawingboard as they have missed something.

If you followed my post about the higher self it has some complications. One is, that upon discovery some zealots will want to spread this philosophy. Here it gets very tacky. First a body must be formed to accomodate the new comer. Not long after, something must be put into writing and before you know it a structure is born and someone will conclude that this higher self should be associated only with the best. And here is where organized religion is born. Different interpretations will yield different results dependent on temperement and this will give rise to many flavors.

Well, the meaning of the higher self is contaminated with diverse definitions. Each institution holds a viewpoint and communication between them is futile. I have nothing against referering to the higher self as God but I do have a problem when a set of attributes begins to define this God.

So the fear in us is that we are all talking roughly about the same thing but each with a different vernacular. That is there can never be true communication. Each of us that has searched must admit the many dead ends we encountered. So we all lack that absolute understanding and while we can fence for ourselves, we still depend partially on a modicum of faith otherwise we will never cross a street. We then wonder to what extent can we safely apply faith without kidding ourselves.

Here, the wiseman observes the happy peasant who works and plays hard and his belief system is tied by faith to some religion. This individual need not parse the meaning of good and evil. He accepts his teachings and goes about his life. The wiseman continues to turn in his bed because in his search it never dawned on him that the more he learns, the less he knows. At some point he begins to wonder if there is something he missed. Could he have employed more faith, but then his reasoning abilities have expanded way past the simplicity of faith. There is no way back, he took the byte out of the apple.

So, when we disparage another's faith system we attack the very shortcomings of our own incomplete stance or our developing model of this paradox we call life. No one has the answers and we all lack something. There is no completeness.

Daniel, thanks for the explanation. Some of what you're saying makes more sense to me now. :)

04/19/2005 04:38:01 PM · #119

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Yes, you're right, I don't get your point. I don't see the connection between my post and your response.

By way of analogy, I was agreeing with you that the PRESENCE of religion ( the Speed Limit Sign ) is not THE determinant factor in whether one is moral ( obeys the speed limit sign ) or immoral ( disobeys the speed limit sign ).

By the same token, if there were NO religion ( no speed limit sign ) at all, some would STILL act morally ( travel at a "reasonable" speed for the conditions ), but others would STILL act immorally ( travel at "unreasonable" speeds for the conditions ).

But, the presence of religion ( the Speed Limit sign ) DOES help to guide the behaviour of those who have a desire to act morally ( drive safely ), AND it can act as a deterrent to those who have no desire to act morally ( drive safely ) through peer influence.

I'm afraid my attempt at an analogy lost something in the translation the first time around, and hope it's a little clearer this time.

Ron, I thank you too for the explanation. It must be me, a lack of sleep or something, because I seem to be missing the point a lot lately. lol

Anyway, I agree with most of what you said here, with one exception, and that is that sometimes the presence of religion doesn't help guide the behavior of those who have a desire to act morally. Using myself as an example of someone who wishes to act morally, I can tell you that my inspiration and desire doesn't come from religion in the least, and I know personally at least a few other people who feel as I do. Having said that, though, I must admit that even I sometimes am inspired by the example of the life of Jesus (apart from all the stuff about worshipping him). I think that if we really tried to model our lives on his example, the world would be much better off for it. But I think his vision of morality was far too radical and socialist for the present-day world.

04/19/2005 05:05:55 PM · #120

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Anyway, I agree with most of what you said here, with one exception, and that is that sometimes the presence of religion doesn't help guide the behavior of those who have a desire to act morally. Using myself as an example of someone who wishes to act morally, I can tell you that my inspiration and desire doesn't come from religion in the least, and I know personally at least a few other people who feel as I do. Having said that, though, I must admit that even I sometimes am inspired by the example of the life of Jesus (apart from all the stuff about worshipping him). I think that if we really tried to model our lives on his example, the world would be much better off for it. But I think his vision of morality was far too radical and socialist for the present-day world.

I guess that I question what defines what "act morally" means when there IS the desire to act morally, but there is an ABSENCE of religion. The alternative is that morality is defined by current opinion, and thus is not constant. What that means is that ones desire to act morally has no fixed ideal for comparison. For example, if someone desired to act morally in regard to sexual relations, there was a boundary boundary beyond which activitiess become immoral 10 years ago. And he/she was satisfied that the boundary was "correct". But then opinion changed and the boundary moved ( and is still moving ). Someone may not agree that some formerly immoral acts should now being considered perfectly OK, but since they have no firm basis ( religion ) for their position, they have no choice but to accept the "new" morality without complaint. That does not mean that one has to engage in the nouveau-moral activities, but it does mean that they have no foundation from which to criticize it.

04/19/2005 05:20:13 PM · #121

Originally posted by RonB:

I see your analogy, but there really isn't a comparison here. Re-using individual words is completely different. A more apt analogy is taking an entire sentence (story/christ-like parable from a pagan religion/etc.) re-wording it, changing it ever so slightly (assimilation), and passing it off as one's own idea.

Originally posted by RonB:

Morality is not consistant across religion or the bible either. As in my previous example, many innocents have been slaughtered in the name of the christian god by his followers and the highest church officials. The bible (which you keep quoting) is also full of contradictions a well. In one gospel jesus is preaching love and turning the other cheek, and in another the lord is breaking apart families and encouraging the stoning of children to death.

So, even with religion there is still no consistent consensus on what is morally right.

04/19/2005 06:03:37 PM · #122

Alright, I'm outta this debate. We're starting to re-word what's already been said and re-hash old points.

Kpriest, generalIE, RonB, messerschmitt, judith, graphicfunk, et.al. it's been a fun debate. No, hard feelings. I always enjoy a lively controversial discussion, and am glad this didn't evolve into an "fu, I'm right" insult fest kind of thread.

This is how the debates usually end though, everyone still stands behind the position they were in when the debate started and think that they made the most valid statements! Maybe we even learned a little about each others opinions. It was really fun none the less! See you folks around on the forums. :-)