Forums > Social Discussion > My agnostic connection with "God"
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
No idea whether or not this warrants is own thread in everyone elses eyes, I thought about throwing this in the "Agnostic and atheist: a discussion" topic... but I didn't feel it fit there.
I AM agnostic, I neither confirm nor deny God.
But I have a systemised view on God I felt an urge to share.
Lets assume I am a believer for the rest of this post because it makes it easier to talk about.
God and I have a connection... If Satan is real I reject his influence.
I do not need to recognise the entity in order to reject his influence. I lead my life according to moral principles, I do my best to reject hate in all forms, I see the bible as mans attempt to control man rather than Gods attempt to control man.
You could say that Satan is a metaphor for 'primal' urges, aggression, lust, unreasonable fear (of which hate is a subdivision)
You could say God is a metaphor for our empathic urges, as well.
In daily life we often have several ways we can react, even to something as simple as someone doing something annoying on the road... someone cuts you off, overtakes you just to drive much slower than you were originally going...
You can get upset by that, even if you don't beep your horn or gesture or any other road rage... or you can accept it as part of the give and take of the road, you can react aggressively even if its just cursing them within your own head... this could be seen as Satans influence.
To reiterate I do not believe in God or Satan though I do not disbelieve either... I do not feel like being unacknowledging of such a beings existence denies my having a relationship with it.
I'm not really sure what I want people to say to this, but I'd like some discussion around it to help flesh out my own base of ideas but mostly to get an idea of what other people think around this topic in general.
Thoughts? Questions? Tea? Biscuits?
No idea whether or not this warrants is own thread in everyone elses eyes, I thought about throwing this in the "Agnostic and atheist: a discussion" topic... but I didn't feel it fit there.
I AM agnostic, I neither confirm nor deny God.
But I have a systemised view on God I felt an urge to share.
Lets assume I am a believer for the rest of this post because it makes it easier to talk about.
God and I have a connection... If Satan is real I reject his influence.
I do not need to recognise the entity in order to reject his influence. I lead my life according to moral principles, I do my best to reject hate in all forms, I see the bible as mans attempt to control man rather than Gods attempt to control man.
You could say that Satan is a metaphor for 'primal' urges, aggression, lust, unreasonable fear (of which hate is a subdivision)
You could say God is a metaphor for our empathic urges, as well.
In daily life we often have several ways we can react, even to something as simple as someone doing something annoying on the road... someone cuts you off, overtakes you just to drive much slower than you were originally going...
You can get upset by that, even if you don't beep your horn or gesture or any other road rage... or you can accept it as part of the give and take of the road, you can react aggressively even if its just cursing them within your own head... this could be seen as Satans influence.
To reiterate I do not believe in God or Satan though I do not disbelieve either... I do not feel like being unacknowledging of such a beings existence denies my having a relationship with it.
I'm not really sure what I want people to say to this, but I'd like some discussion around it to help flesh out my own base of ideas but mostly to get an idea of what other people think around this topic in general.
Thoughts? Questions? Tea? Biscuits?
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
I don't know where you get the idea I'm offended from, you've clearly misinterpreted my entire stance. I think you might well be getting my sense of humour mixed up in this whole thing...
I am however getting somewhat tired of speaking quite plainly about things only to have you question me on. I have stated several time my belief stance, I have stated several times I have nothing to get offended about. It makes me wonder at what your real aims in this thread are...
I do have respect, I was just trying to demonstrate to you the realm of possibility as far as i see it.
I guess in some ways you could relate it to the idea that people are the creators of God in that as you form conceptions about something then it becomes so. Perception creating reality as you see it...
But that idea can be upheld by an atheist, an agnostic or even a theist in some ways...
I don't know where you get the idea I'm offended from, you've clearly misinterpreted my entire stance. I think you might well be getting my sense of humour mixed up in this whole thing...
I am however getting somewhat tired of speaking quite plainly about things only to have you question me on. I have stated several time my belief stance, I have stated several times I have nothing to get offended about. It makes me wonder at what your real aims in this thread are...
I do have respect, I was just trying to demonstrate to you the realm of possibility as far as i see it.
I guess in some ways you could relate it to the idea that people are the creators of God in that as you form conceptions about something then it becomes so. Perception creating reality as you see it...
But that idea can be upheld by an atheist, an agnostic or even a theist in some ways...
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
We both might have failed to keep our interpretations to a minimum...
There are infinite interpretations as of what god is/n't and even fierce wars have been fought over it - completely pointless.
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether or not you're content and happy with the choices you made.
I for my part have been struggling long time with who and what "god" might be... can't relate to the ideas of any fundamentalism, as every dogma repells me and I investigated, researched, questioned AND - which is most important - observed.
Now I acknowledged for me:
the Universe is.
there has been and there will be a time where the Universe is not - as it is in the nature of the material world, that every creation has a beginning and an end.
If god is bound to this universe, then he too is part of creation and not the creator thus - what I understand of god to be - he must be beyond.
All contemplation upon the nature of god is situated in the limited environment of the mind, which is conditioned - thus if I am really investigating I need to go even beyond that, what I perceive to be "logical".
I find evidence in anything and anywhere as to what "god nature" is, everything acts as a metaphor in to inquiry - and often the answers I get are a reflection of the way I'm inquiring.
If I have established a satisfactory relationship with my perception or definition of god, then it is fine - as long as I do respect other peoples definition.
*
If you're still looking, then I recommend respectful observation - no matter whether you're inside a temple or behind a screen - and cautious interrogation.
Matters of faith - as much as matters of the heart - are sometimes delicate and being rough might trigger an equal, if not exagerated response. The term "sacred" applies to both... relation and worship.
In the limitation of man, he - has not "invented", but - *defined* what god must be... thus religion sometimes can be regarded as "reverse engeneering"... always in the limitation of his capability of observation, his environment and mental capacity.
So at the end of another day, it doesn't matter what conclusions I draw for myself - as long as I feel the need to compete and improve my consistency or to diminish other peoples belief systems.
Thanks for the lesson - honestly
We both might have failed to keep our interpretations to a minimum...
There are infinite interpretations as of what god is/n't and even fierce wars have been fought over it - completely pointless.
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether or not you're content and happy with the choices you made.
I for my part have been struggling long time with who and what "god" might be... can't relate to the ideas of any fundamentalism, as every dogma repells me and I investigated, researched, questioned AND - which is most important - observed.
Now I acknowledged for me:
the Universe is.
there has been and there will be a time where the Universe is not - as it is in the nature of the material world, that every creation has a beginning and an end.
If god is bound to this universe, then he too is part of creation and not the creator thus - what I understand of god to be - he must be beyond.
All contemplation upon the nature of god is situated in the limited environment of the mind, which is conditioned - thus if I am really investigating I need to go even beyond that, what I perceive to be "logical".
I find evidence in anything and anywhere as to what "god nature" is, everything acts as a metaphor in to inquiry - and often the answers I get are a reflection of the way I'm inquiring.
If I have established a satisfactory relationship with my perception or definition of god, then it is fine - as long as I do respect other peoples definition.
*
If you're still looking, then I recommend respectful observation - no matter whether you're inside a temple or behind a screen - and cautious interrogation.
Matters of faith - as much as matters of the heart - are sometimes delicate and being rough might trigger an equal, if not exagerated response. The term "sacred" applies to both... relation and worship.
In the limitation of man, he - has not "invented", but - *defined* what god must be... thus religion sometimes can be regarded as "reverse engeneering"... always in the limitation of his capability of observation, his environment and mental capacity.
So at the end of another day, it doesn't matter what conclusions I draw for myself - as long as I feel the need to compete and improve my consistency or to diminish other peoples belief systems.
Thanks for the lesson - honestly
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
*bump* maybe we can get over the past posts and start over...
I feel the following is much better suited in here:
Originally Posted By: MNSI have heard this theory before... its an incredibly dangerous idea for people to be toting. I've spent a lot of time examining other peoples belief structures and each time I understand how they got to where they are and why they put faith in such things. This theory however is based on pure gibberish. It essentially is structured around perception being reality as far as it matters to an individual, the issue is that in communicating with others we interact with different conceptions of the way reality is.
Its an idea, thats for sure, very much half baked, and half baked ideas are not effective tools for attaining life goals. "Your reality effects you and only you" Isn't really conducive to realistic levels of empathy, the only saving grace is "learn to love" and yet it also implies that love is a personal thing also... so someone could go through life believing all this and yet remaining ignorant to the destruction their actions cause.
The inclusion of the mandelbrot set is a bit of a stretch.
The video starts with the theory that "you are god"... "you are the creator and designer of the universe"...
Not sure where this idea is "half baked"... fact is that perception is individual and happens only between your right and left ear. Two people can sit next to each other and look at the same object, listen to the same sounds, taste the same food - and interpret every part of this in their own, unique way.
What exactly do you feel is based on gibberish?
I feel that words are usually failing to properly describe ... well, most theological theories - but even if they do, even if someone is talking about "the love field" etc... Sure, when he starts talking @ 5:32min's through the vid, he lost me - see, but I didn't even notice much.
I filtered and what remained - for me - is that (slightly changed) metaphor:
"you can go into a dark room filled with fear and negativity and when you light a candle [sic: of hope] that darkness vanishes - but you try the opposite in a room full of light and harmony [you'd need the entire gravity of a black hole]"
and this message:
"The whole world does not need to be awoken. There is no race to inform the 6 Billion people on this planet (of this message). It is only important that you personally learn to conquer your innermost fears and learn to love. When you see your fears for what they are and master your emotions, then - and only then - will you truly be free."
*bump* maybe we can get over the past posts and start over...
I feel the following is much better suited in here:
Originally Posted By: MNSI have heard this theory before... its an incredibly dangerous idea for people to be toting. I've spent a lot of time examining other peoples belief structures and each time I understand how they got to where they are and why they put faith in such things. This theory however is based on pure gibberish. It essentially is structured around perception being reality as far as it matters to an individual, the issue is that in communicating with others we interact with different conceptions of the way reality is.
Its an idea, thats for sure, very much half baked, and half baked ideas are not effective tools for attaining life goals. "Your reality effects you and only you" Isn't really conducive to realistic levels of empathy, the only saving grace is "learn to love" and yet it also implies that love is a personal thing also... so someone could go through life believing all this and yet remaining ignorant to the destruction their actions cause.
The inclusion of the mandelbrot set is a bit of a stretch.
The video starts with the theory that "you are god"... "you are the creator and designer of the universe"...
Not sure where this idea is "half baked"... fact is that perception is individual and happens only between your right and left ear. Two people can sit next to each other and look at the same object, listen to the same sounds, taste the same food - and interpret every part of this in their own, unique way.
What exactly do you feel is based on gibberish?
I feel that words are usually failing to properly describe ... well, most theological theories - but even if they do, even if someone is talking about "the love field" etc... Sure, when he starts talking @ 5:32min's through the vid, he lost me - see, but I didn't even notice much.
I filtered and what remained - for me - is that (slightly changed) metaphor:
"you can go into a dark room filled with fear and negativity and when you light a candle [sic: of hope] that darkness vanishes - but you try the opposite in a room full of light and harmony [you'd need the entire gravity of a black hole]"
and this message:
"The whole world does not need to be awoken. There is no race to inform the 6 Billion people on this planet (of this message). It is only important that you personally learn to conquer your innermost fears and learn to love. When you see your fears for what they are and master your emotions, then - and only then - will you truly be free."
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
I never really took issue with the individual messages within it. The issue is that that video is not a holistic theory... and yet it presents itself as such.
Each message on its own is worthwhile apart from the thing about reality relating everything solely to yourself, it needs to expand upon that by noting that it is through your relations with other people that you can discover yourself, even other people who appear to mean nothing to you. This is hinted at earlier in the video.. but not even as their own idea, but as an idea that was held to be true by others.
This video is a collection of things, none of them relate back to the "you are god" theory in the end, really, at least its not presented clearly. The fact that I had to include that extra bit in the last paragraph along with the fact that its not cohesive is what makes i half baked.
The thing about light and dark combined with DNA emitting photons as well as the mandelbrot set are what are based on gibberish.
With the right filters these ideas can be constructive, but without filters or with the wrong filters this can be very dangerous stuff.
I never really took issue with the individual messages within it. The issue is that that video is not a holistic theory... and yet it presents itself as such.
Each message on its own is worthwhile apart from the thing about reality relating everything solely to yourself, it needs to expand upon that by noting that it is through your relations with other people that you can discover yourself, even other people who appear to mean nothing to you. This is hinted at earlier in the video.. but not even as their own idea, but as an idea that was held to be true by others.
This video is a collection of things, none of them relate back to the "you are god" theory in the end, really, at least its not presented clearly. The fact that I had to include that extra bit in the last paragraph along with the fact that its not cohesive is what makes i half baked.
The thing about light and dark combined with DNA emitting photons as well as the mandelbrot set are what are based on gibberish.
With the right filters these ideas can be constructive, but without filters or with the wrong filters this can be very dangerous stuff.
GOLD Member
Mission: Ignition
534 posts
Location: Central New Jersey, USA
Mission: Ignition
534 posts
Location: Central New Jersey, USA
Posted:
::JayKitty yawns and sips his pint::
Everything passes. Your head is going to explode mate.
::JayKitty yawns and sips his pint::
Everything passes. Your head is going to explode mate.
Don't mind me, just passing through.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
mmm... well, I'd say that the more room for (individual) interpretation, the more freedom to make your own choices.
What I object is the stance of (for example) newborn Christians (and other spiritual sects), like: "If you (have ever heard of him and still) don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you will go to hell". Christianity is a compilation of ideas too - highly successful, but most likely not that much to do with the initial one. But I don't really want to
Xtians in order to highlight "selfians".
"Reality" only takes place in y/our perception, it truly is a very individual thing. Who can ever prove that semolina pudding (or spaghetti for that matter) looks and tastes the same to each and everyone of all ppl on the planet? If you're looking at religion (or the/ir definition of god) it is the same: everybody has a slightly different picture (even though the conditioning is grossly the same).
Do you mean that if someone perceives himself as being god... and is moving over the planet, driving a fuel guzzling SUV with a shotgun above his seat (ready to shoot anyone (who appears to be) threatening him or his property) and/or supporting violent actions against ppl of other ethnic bckgrnds or nationality or religion, using intoxicants (whilst driving), watching splatter movies and/or making campfires in the woods during droughts... could be deemed "dangerous"? For that same matter would you say that some CEO(s) of international banks plummeting global economics into recession and still insisting on their 200million$ gratification could be deemed "ignorant"?
I'd agree that this is not very "skilled", yet they are still part of the same collective as you and me. I might (not) like it in that moment but that's the matter of the fact (for me at least), they are part of the same collective consciousness.
The "right filters"... and who's going to set the "standards" for them? *small voice: "me, please"*
I'd finish that nobody needs to relate to anyone in order to discover the self (or god or whatever) - some do and that's perfect. Others can exclusively relate to their own selves (if that is possible at all) and attain the same goal.
What I'm taking from the madelbrot metaphor is that it is relating to Hinayana Buddhism (as I personally interpret it) "don't worry so much about the enlightenment of everybody else, care for your own spiritual advancement (without spiritual capitalism that is) and observe how everybody/everything around you is changing along in that process".
mmm... well, I'd say that the more room for (individual) interpretation, the more freedom to make your own choices.
What I object is the stance of (for example) newborn Christians (and other spiritual sects), like: "If you (have ever heard of him and still) don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you will go to hell". Christianity is a compilation of ideas too - highly successful, but most likely not that much to do with the initial one. But I don't really want to
Xtians in order to highlight "selfians"."Reality" only takes place in y/our perception, it truly is a very individual thing. Who can ever prove that semolina pudding (or spaghetti for that matter) looks and tastes the same to each and everyone of all ppl on the planet? If you're looking at religion (or the/ir definition of god) it is the same: everybody has a slightly different picture (even though the conditioning is grossly the same).
Do you mean that if someone perceives himself as being god... and is moving over the planet, driving a fuel guzzling SUV with a shotgun above his seat (ready to shoot anyone (who appears to be) threatening him or his property) and/or supporting violent actions against ppl of other ethnic bckgrnds or nationality or religion, using intoxicants (whilst driving), watching splatter movies and/or making campfires in the woods during droughts... could be deemed "dangerous"? For that same matter would you say that some CEO(s) of international banks plummeting global economics into recession and still insisting on their 200million$ gratification could be deemed "ignorant"?
I'd agree that this is not very "skilled", yet they are still part of the same collective as you and me. I might (not) like it in that moment but that's the matter of the fact (for me at least), they are part of the same collective consciousness.
The "right filters"... and who's going to set the "standards" for them? *small voice: "me, please"*
I'd finish that nobody needs to relate to anyone in order to discover the self (or god or whatever) - some do and that's perfect. Others can exclusively relate to their own selves (if that is possible at all) and attain the same goal.
What I'm taking from the madelbrot metaphor is that it is relating to Hinayana Buddhism (as I personally interpret it) "don't worry so much about the enlightenment of everybody else, care for your own spiritual advancement (without spiritual capitalism that is) and observe how everybody/everything around you is changing along in that process".
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
this thread reminds me why i don't come here very often
this thread reminds me why i don't come here very often
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Why, becauase some people don't beleive in the same things that you do?
Why, becauase some people don't beleive in the same things that you do?
SILVER Member
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
4,061 posts
Location: South Africa
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
4,061 posts
Location: South Africa
Posted:
And the way conversation goes round in circles with no one really agreeing with anyone else. That said, it can be amusing.
And the way conversation goes round in circles with no one really agreeing with anyone else. That said, it can be amusing.
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I'm aware that "if you have silenced someone, it doesn't mean you convinced her/him"...
Faith: sad you don't come around (or post) that much often anymore... I hoped you'd just take it from another angle, as in "back up your arguments", "stand by your beliefs" and "live up to your own principles" = or better "grow"...
After all I acknowledge that what I'm posting is a reflection of my self (in that very moment).
I'm aware that "if you have silenced someone, it doesn't mean you convinced her/him"...
Faith: sad you don't come around (or post) that much often anymore... I hoped you'd just take it from another angle, as in "back up your arguments", "stand by your beliefs" and "live up to your own principles" = or better "grow"...
After all I acknowledge that what I'm posting is a reflection of my self (in that very moment).
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
Posted:
I have not read the posts after the original, but I have a question.
Firstly you reject the Bible, that's good and is the logical choice because it is demonstrably false. But with your own description of what you believe and why you believe in it, I don't see why you can't just have this good moral beliefs and joyous love of life but just leave gods and devils out.
Basically, I am asking if your belief in the unknown divine influence has any practical benefit.
Thanks
I have not read the posts after the original, but I have a question.
Firstly you reject the Bible, that's good and is the logical choice because it is demonstrably false. But with your own description of what you believe and why you believe in it, I don't see why you can't just have this good moral beliefs and joyous love of life but just leave gods and devils out.
Basically, I am asking if your belief in the unknown divine influence has any practical benefit.
Thanks
Fair luna bright, fair luna moon
it shines at night but fades too soon
fair luna moon, fair luna bright
forever we dance
we dance under starlight
GOLD Member
Mission: Ignition
534 posts
Location: Central New Jersey, USA
Mission: Ignition
534 posts
Location: Central New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Something along the lines of does having some kind of faith in some kind of higher power influence any aspect of your life? Aside from making for an interesting post on HoP lol. I know that being a good person and such, the things that most religion teach, is just a good idea. The higher power deal just kind of makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside when I think about it.
Something along the lines of does having some kind of faith in some kind of higher power influence any aspect of your life? Aside from making for an interesting post on HoP lol. I know that being a good person and such, the things that most religion teach, is just a good idea. The higher power deal just kind of makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside when I think about it.
Don't mind me, just passing through.
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: DoktorSkellI have not read the posts after the original, but I have a question.
Firstly you reject the Bible, that's good and is the logical choice because it is demonstrably false. But with your own description of what you believe and why you believe in it, I don't see why you can't just have this good moral beliefs and joyous love of life but just leave gods and devils out.
Basically, I am asking if your belief in the unknown divine influence has any practical benefit.
Thanks
I know this is a conversation from a few months ago, but was wondering what you meant by 'demonstrably false'?
Originally Posted By: DoktorSkellI have not read the posts after the original, but I have a question.
Firstly you reject the Bible, that's good and is the logical choice because it is demonstrably false. But with your own description of what you believe and why you believe in it, I don't see why you can't just have this good moral beliefs and joyous love of life but just leave gods and devils out.
Basically, I am asking if your belief in the unknown divine influence has any practical benefit.
Thanks
I know this is a conversation from a few months ago, but was wondering what you meant by 'demonstrably false'?
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: WoodlandAppleOriginally Posted By: DoktorSkellI have not read the posts after the original, but I have a question.
Firstly you reject the Bible, that's good and is the logical choice because it is demonstrably false. But with your own description of what you believe and why you believe in it, I don't see why you can't just have this good moral beliefs and joyous love of life but just leave gods and devils out.
Basically, I am asking if your belief in the unknown divine influence has any practical benefit.
Thanks
I know this is a conversation from a few months ago, but was wondering what you meant by 'demonstrably false'?
i think he means things like creating a boat that fits every land animal on the planet, or the many 'miricles' that can only be attributable to a higher entity. they're demonstratably false because they are not scientifically possible.
EDITED_BY: Mr Majestik (1259736974)
EDIT_REASON: typo
Originally Posted By: WoodlandAppleOriginally Posted By: DoktorSkellI have not read the posts after the original, but I have a question.
Firstly you reject the Bible, that's good and is the logical choice because it is demonstrably false. But with your own description of what you believe and why you believe in it, I don't see why you can't just have this good moral beliefs and joyous love of life but just leave gods and devils out.
Basically, I am asking if your belief in the unknown divine influence has any practical benefit.
Thanks
I know this is a conversation from a few months ago, but was wondering what you meant by 'demonstrably false'?
i think he means things like creating a boat that fits every land animal on the planet, or the many 'miricles' that can only be attributable to a higher entity. they're demonstratably false because they are not scientifically possible.
EDITED_BY: Mr Majestik (1259736974)
EDIT_REASON: typo
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
Howdy, Skell, I believe nothing in particular, but I do enjoy using metaphors to structure my thoughts.
A 'god' could be nothing more than my intuition. I will still scrutinize everything that is inbound (or instilled) rather than simply accepting something.
As far as I see it, the possibility of a god is just as viable as the possibility of no god.
It states that I am agnostic in the title and despite this being continually misunderstood thats what I am. I believe nothing in particular but I also believe that nothing is beyond possibility. Thankyou for your reply, I hope this answers your question.
Howdy, Skell, I believe nothing in particular, but I do enjoy using metaphors to structure my thoughts.
A 'god' could be nothing more than my intuition. I will still scrutinize everything that is inbound (or instilled) rather than simply accepting something.
As far as I see it, the possibility of a god is just as viable as the possibility of no god.
It states that I am agnostic in the title and despite this being continually misunderstood thats what I am. I believe nothing in particular but I also believe that nothing is beyond possibility. Thankyou for your reply, I hope this answers your question.
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Mr Majestiki think he means things like creating a boat that fits every land animal on the planet, or the many 'miricles' that can only be attributable to a higher entity. they're demonstratably false because they are not scientifically possible.
cool. But to throw some wood on the fire, it has been shown a few times that Noah's ark is possible.
I ask because a lot of people spout stuff about the bible without actually knowing anything about it. Peoples opinions tend to be based on assumptions and misconceptions.
The Bible is arguably the most accurate historical account we have of ancient times.
EDITED_BY: WoodlandApple (1259743687)
EDIT_REASON: tried to make the quote function work properly
Originally Posted By: Mr Majestiki think he means things like creating a boat that fits every land animal on the planet, or the many 'miricles' that can only be attributable to a higher entity. they're demonstratably false because they are not scientifically possible.
cool. But to throw some wood on the fire, it has been shown a few times that Noah's ark is possible.
I ask because a lot of people spout stuff about the bible without actually knowing anything about it. Peoples opinions tend to be based on assumptions and misconceptions.
The Bible is arguably the most accurate historical account we have of ancient times.
EDITED_BY: WoodlandApple (1259743687)
EDIT_REASON: tried to make the quote function work properly
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
BRONZE Member
journeyman
65 posts
Location: The netherlands
journeyman
65 posts
Location: The netherlands
Posted:
Originally Posted By: WoodlandAppleOriginally Posted By: Mr Majestiki think he means things like creating a boat that fits every land animal on the planet, or the many 'miricles' that can only be attributable to a higher entity. they're demonstratably false because they are not scientifically possible.
cool. But to throw some wood on the fire, it has been shown a few times that Noah's ark is possible.
I ask because a lot of people spout stuff about the bible without actually knowing anything about it. Peoples opinions tend to be based on assumptions and misconceptions.
The Bible is arguably the most accurate historical account we have of ancient times.
The construction of such a boat might be possible but to gather a male and female of every spiecies of animal isn't possible and the offspring of those animals could be overbred and as a result they'd have all kinds of things wrong with them and they'd go extinct :3
Originally Posted By: WoodlandAppleOriginally Posted By: Mr Majestiki think he means things like creating a boat that fits every land animal on the planet, or the many 'miricles' that can only be attributable to a higher entity. they're demonstratably false because they are not scientifically possible.
cool. But to throw some wood on the fire, it has been shown a few times that Noah's ark is possible.
I ask because a lot of people spout stuff about the bible without actually knowing anything about it. Peoples opinions tend to be based on assumptions and misconceptions.
The Bible is arguably the most accurate historical account we have of ancient times.
The construction of such a boat might be possible but to gather a male and female of every spiecies of animal isn't possible and the offspring of those animals could be overbred and as a result they'd have all kinds of things wrong with them and they'd go extinct :3
Ouch o.O
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
I agree, it can be proven false by examination of genetic diversity, but I agreea big boat could have been built and a flood may have indeed occurred although I wouldn't blame the rain on a vengeful deity.
I agree, it can be proven false by examination of genetic diversity, but I agreea big boat could have been built and a flood may have indeed occurred although I wouldn't blame the rain on a vengeful deity.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
I think the ideas work if you don't equate them to being a world wide phenomenon as the book suggests.
I'd like to note to make it clear that my comments from above do not speculate on the historical accuracy so much as equality in the viability of both the claim that such a being exists and that it does not.
I think the ideas work if you don't equate them to being a world wide phenomenon as the book suggests.
I'd like to note to make it clear that my comments from above do not speculate on the historical accuracy so much as equality in the viability of both the claim that such a being exists and that it does not.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MynciI agree, it can be proven false by examination of genetic diversity, but I agreea big boat could have been built and a flood may have indeed occurred although I wouldn't blame the rain on a vengeful deity.
Current thinking has it that evolution happened after the flood. All the animals in the world were accessible to Noah and his clan and it's only after they did the bobbing around in the water thing and landed did *God* crank on the genetic diversity that we see today.
For instance, Koala bears didn't exist back in the time of the flood, they were something else that somehow ended up on some sort of raft, floated to Australia and evolved into Koalas once they'd arrived.
Isn't there actually a half scale replica of the ark in the Netherlands?
Originally Posted By: MynciI agree, it can be proven false by examination of genetic diversity, but I agreea big boat could have been built and a flood may have indeed occurred although I wouldn't blame the rain on a vengeful deity.
Current thinking has it that evolution happened after the flood. All the animals in the world were accessible to Noah and his clan and it's only after they did the bobbing around in the water thing and landed did *God* crank on the genetic diversity that we see today.
For instance, Koala bears didn't exist back in the time of the flood, they were something else that somehow ended up on some sort of raft, floated to Australia and evolved into Koalas once they'd arrived.
Isn't there actually a half scale replica of the ark in the Netherlands?
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: WoodandAppleThe Bible is arguably the most accurate historical account we have of ancient times.
I think you mean the bible is the most inaccurate account of history. Sure some of the stories are true, but they are way out chronologically. (See Bible and History.)
Personally, I don’t see how anyone can believe Genesis is anything more than a story to explain the world at the time. Lots of scholars even argue whether the historical Jesus is a fact or fiction. Some scholars suggest (with good reason) that in fact Apollonius of Tyana, was the real Jesus. And his life and deeds were cut and pasted into the bible, with the addition of the crucifixion and resurrection "drama" at the end.
Originally Posted By: WoodandAppleThe Bible is arguably the most accurate historical account we have of ancient times.
I think you mean the bible is the most inaccurate account of history. Sure some of the stories are true, but they are way out chronologically. (See Bible and History.)
Personally, I don’t see how anyone can believe Genesis is anything more than a story to explain the world at the time. Lots of scholars even argue whether the historical Jesus is a fact or fiction. Some scholars suggest (with good reason) that in fact Apollonius of Tyana, was the real Jesus. And his life and deeds were cut and pasted into the bible, with the addition of the crucifixion and resurrection "drama" at the end.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Posted:
How many of you guys watched "Religulous" out of curiousity and how do you feel about Deism vs Agnostic (since the orignial post did sound closer to Deism in reference)?
Personally my mind works in the realms of Exitensialism and Absurdism too much grasp how others can believe in any true theology or even question the possible existence of such concepts/ideology being true based on the texts the major worship based religions are founded on.
Can anyone from personal experience share the fundamentals that have convinced them to identify as Agnostic in nature?
*is curious yet again!*
How many of you guys watched "Religulous" out of curiousity and how do you feel about Deism vs Agnostic (since the orignial post did sound closer to Deism in reference)?
Personally my mind works in the realms of Exitensialism and Absurdism too much grasp how others can believe in any true theology or even question the possible existence of such concepts/ideology being true based on the texts the major worship based religions are founded on.
Can anyone from personal experience share the fundamentals that have convinced them to identify as Agnostic in nature?
*is curious yet again!*
~Rock on!~
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life
(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
wow, see what happens when you only read one article, escpecially from Wikipedia!
what a long article, Im not going to talk about what I think of it, just address some points,
Wikipedia talks about the inaccuracies of the bible due to differences in the various texts. Lets look at these:
There are 150 000 varients to the bible, of these 95% are known to be errors of spelling, the other 5% are changes of spelling, harmonising texts when translated etc.
an example of variens in the bible are is 5 variations of the one line:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.
there are only 50 direct varients that meaningful, non of which are found in the texts used by the christian faith today.
WHen comaring the bible to other ancient texts:
No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.
The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.
The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.
The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
ANd some quotes to round up the NT side of things
(Alan.NTTC Aland, Barbara, ed. New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History. Kampen: Pharos, 1994.):
The student of the history of Jesus is, from the point of view of textual criticism, on vastly safer ground than the student of the life of Julius Caesar or indeed of any other figure of ancient history.
[More.ScCy Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987]:
Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.
WHen talking about the OT
It is true that the earliest copy is from the dead sea scrolls, we can successfully say that no substantial changes have been made since this time to now; before the dead sea scrolls we have no text or hard proof on the OT reliability but we do have a great understanding of how texts were kept and copied in ancient times, which givs us direct evidence of a sociological model that emphasized the accurate preservation of texts in the ancient world.
however, using the fragmented copies of OT we do have, 4 main stiles of innacurracies have been identified (McCrt.TCOT - McCarter, Kyle P., Jr. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
1. To protect God or some revered figure from injury or reproach. The Masoretes knew of at least 18 instances where a change was made that seemed offensive in this manner. For example, 1 Samuel 3:13 read that "sons were blaspheming for themselves," whereas the LXX read that the "sons were blaspheming God." This sort of change does not really alter the context - we can figure out, after all, who the sons were blaspheming! - but they were indeed made.
2. Eupemistic insertions/subbstitutions. These too were often made to avoid perceived dishonor to God.
3. Harmonizing.
4.Suppressed readings. These last two were used in an attempt to resolve perceived difficulties.
WHen discussing these changes in relation to the texts,
one version of Jeremiah is 1/6 shorter than the other with most changes being single words or phrases. With most emmissions being elucidations. Similar differences occor in different versions of Ezekiel, and there is a parrellel version of proverbs which has some omissions and a different order.
After a huge read I reiterate my statement, the bible is arguably the most accurate account we have of ancient times. Im not debating religion, Im not suggesting that it is 100% awsomeness, but it is the most accurate we have.
wow, see what happens when you only read one article, escpecially from Wikipedia!
what a long article, Im not going to talk about what I think of it, just address some points,
Wikipedia talks about the inaccuracies of the bible due to differences in the various texts. Lets look at these:
There are 150 000 varients to the bible, of these 95% are known to be errors of spelling, the other 5% are changes of spelling, harmonising texts when translated etc.
an example of variens in the bible are is 5 variations of the one line:
Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.
there are only 50 direct varients that meaningful, non of which are found in the texts used by the christian faith today.
WHen comaring the bible to other ancient texts:
No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.
The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.
The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.
The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
ANd some quotes to round up the NT side of things
(Alan.NTTC Aland, Barbara, ed. New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History. Kampen: Pharos, 1994.):
The student of the history of Jesus is, from the point of view of textual criticism, on vastly safer ground than the student of the life of Julius Caesar or indeed of any other figure of ancient history.
[More.ScCy Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987]:
Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.
WHen talking about the OT
It is true that the earliest copy is from the dead sea scrolls, we can successfully say that no substantial changes have been made since this time to now; before the dead sea scrolls we have no text or hard proof on the OT reliability but we do have a great understanding of how texts were kept and copied in ancient times, which givs us direct evidence of a sociological model that emphasized the accurate preservation of texts in the ancient world.
however, using the fragmented copies of OT we do have, 4 main stiles of innacurracies have been identified (McCrt.TCOT - McCarter, Kyle P., Jr. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
1. To protect God or some revered figure from injury or reproach. The Masoretes knew of at least 18 instances where a change was made that seemed offensive in this manner. For example, 1 Samuel 3:13 read that "sons were blaspheming for themselves," whereas the LXX read that the "sons were blaspheming God." This sort of change does not really alter the context - we can figure out, after all, who the sons were blaspheming! - but they were indeed made.
2. Eupemistic insertions/subbstitutions. These too were often made to avoid perceived dishonor to God.
3. Harmonizing.
4.Suppressed readings. These last two were used in an attempt to resolve perceived difficulties.
WHen discussing these changes in relation to the texts,
one version of Jeremiah is 1/6 shorter than the other with most changes being single words or phrases. With most emmissions being elucidations. Similar differences occor in different versions of Ezekiel, and there is a parrellel version of proverbs which has some omissions and a different order.
After a huge read I reiterate my statement, the bible is arguably the most accurate account we have of ancient times. Im not debating religion, Im not suggesting that it is 100% awsomeness, but it is the most accurate we have.
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
I watched a documentary on Jerico the other day, using the bible story they identified the part of the wall that collaped, the bridge it created which the Isrealite troops useed to assualt, archaeological evidence of the sacking of the old city. The only contradiction was the dating of objects placed the assualt 50 years after the bible account tells it.
The narrator then used this to argue that therefore the whole bible was therefore false. That the fight that was described in the bible could not have taken place cause the old city was abandoned 50 years prior. THis is the biased thinking Im talking about.
I watched a documentary on Jerico the other day, using the bible story they identified the part of the wall that collaped, the bridge it created which the Isrealite troops useed to assualt, archaeological evidence of the sacking of the old city. The only contradiction was the dating of objects placed the assualt 50 years after the bible account tells it.
The narrator then used this to argue that therefore the whole bible was therefore false. That the fight that was described in the bible could not have taken place cause the old city was abandoned 50 years prior. THis is the biased thinking Im talking about.
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: WoodlandApplewow, see what happens when you only read one article, escpecially from Wikipedia!
In reply I’d say, look what has happens when people limit themselves to one book and narrow dogma?
What about the books that were excluded from the Christian bible?
The bible was put together by the Christians, and certain books were excluded from the canon of scripture because they didn’t agree with ***drum roll*** “The Roman Catholic Church”. For example, the Gnostic books were excluded because they contained ways of understanding God that disagreed with the Roman Catholics.
Originally Posted By: WoodlandApplewow, see what happens when you only read one article, escpecially from Wikipedia!
In reply I’d say, look what has happens when people limit themselves to one book and narrow dogma?
What about the books that were excluded from the Christian bible?
The bible was put together by the Christians, and certain books were excluded from the canon of scripture because they didn’t agree with ***drum roll*** “The Roman Catholic Church”. For example, the Gnostic books were excluded because they contained ways of understanding God that disagreed with the Roman Catholics.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
Epitome of Novice, I was the original poster and I assure you it IS Agnostic.
I neither believe nor disbelieve in any theism that could possibly exist.
There is EQUAL possibility that a god exists that it does not exist.
You cannot rule out something not existing quite simply because you cannot see it, so the claim that there is a god is equally as valid as the one that there is no god.
The honest truth is given our powers of perception the only objectively true statement on religiousity that we can make is this one...
There might be a god... but there might not be also.
I don't feel that existentialism weighs in on the topic of theism at all, it is inherently about the position of the self.
Now, absurdism I'm not quite so fresh on, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm incorrect here, but isn't it concerned largely with the basic premise that finding the meaning of the universe is humanly impossible?
If we take that as true then by applying absurdist thinking to the question of "Is there a god?" then wouldnt the answer be "Maybe, but we have no real way of discerning that."?
Epitome of Novice, I was the original poster and I assure you it IS Agnostic.
I neither believe nor disbelieve in any theism that could possibly exist.
There is EQUAL possibility that a god exists that it does not exist.
You cannot rule out something not existing quite simply because you cannot see it, so the claim that there is a god is equally as valid as the one that there is no god.
The honest truth is given our powers of perception the only objectively true statement on religiousity that we can make is this one...
There might be a god... but there might not be also.
I don't feel that existentialism weighs in on the topic of theism at all, it is inherently about the position of the self.
Now, absurdism I'm not quite so fresh on, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm incorrect here, but isn't it concerned largely with the basic premise that finding the meaning of the universe is humanly impossible?
If we take that as true then by applying absurdist thinking to the question of "Is there a god?" then wouldnt the answer be "Maybe, but we have no real way of discerning that."?
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Stone
The bible was put together by the Christians, and certain books were excluded from the canon of scripture because they didn’t agree with ***drum roll*** “The Roman Catholic Church”. For example, the Gnostic books were excluded because they contained ways of understanding God that disagreed with the Roman Catholics.
Nonsence, the gnostic gospels were discarded because they were unreliable and contained proven falsehood.The four gospels of the Christian bible (Matthew, MArk, Luke and John) where written in the same generation as Jesus, from eyewitness accounts. These accounts where written by 4 different people from 4 different locations and they correlate the same stories, and is backed up by Roman and other historic records at the time.
If we take the Gospel of Thomas, for example, it was written 2 hundred years after Jesus died. The earlist known copy is dated to one hundred years past that. To put that into context, its like me writing the day to day history of Napoleon, a history that totally goes against the known history of Napoleon we have today.
The Gnostic manuscripts comprise of 3 heavily damaged fragments that date to 300 ACE. Documents that contradict the overwelming evidence of what we know happened at the time. You complain that the bible is innaccurate and unreliable, yet you are willing to believe in 3 parchments of unkown origin that we dont even have complete copies of yet.
Next you will be telling me that Dan Brown was right and that you can tell what Jesus's middle name was by staring at a Davinci painting while being chased by an albino monk.
A question to all those that think the bible is full of lies that brainwash people, have you read it? have you tried to understand what it means, and in context?
Originally Posted By: Stone
The bible was put together by the Christians, and certain books were excluded from the canon of scripture because they didn’t agree with ***drum roll*** “The Roman Catholic Church”. For example, the Gnostic books were excluded because they contained ways of understanding God that disagreed with the Roman Catholics.
Nonsence, the gnostic gospels were discarded because they were unreliable and contained proven falsehood.The four gospels of the Christian bible (Matthew, MArk, Luke and John) where written in the same generation as Jesus, from eyewitness accounts. These accounts where written by 4 different people from 4 different locations and they correlate the same stories, and is backed up by Roman and other historic records at the time.
If we take the Gospel of Thomas, for example, it was written 2 hundred years after Jesus died. The earlist known copy is dated to one hundred years past that. To put that into context, its like me writing the day to day history of Napoleon, a history that totally goes against the known history of Napoleon we have today.
The Gnostic manuscripts comprise of 3 heavily damaged fragments that date to 300 ACE. Documents that contradict the overwelming evidence of what we know happened at the time. You complain that the bible is innaccurate and unreliable, yet you are willing to believe in 3 parchments of unkown origin that we dont even have complete copies of yet.
Next you will be telling me that Dan Brown was right and that you can tell what Jesus's middle name was by staring at a Davinci painting while being chased by an albino monk.
A question to all those that think the bible is full of lies that brainwash people, have you read it? have you tried to understand what it means, and in context?
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
addict
489 posts
Location: Perth
489 posts
Location: Perth
Posted:
Yes I have read it.
Have I understood what it means? HELL NO... Does anyone understand? There are people who take it word for word, people who regard it as a 'guideline', people who say "oh, it was written by people of the time, that is why it endorses slavery and stoning of women".
Is there one way of reading it and understanding it? Can one person presume to know which parts are outdated and which parts are still relevant today?
Is everything Jesus or god said relevant? Or would this also have been altered by the beliefs of the time?
If so much of it is discarded because it is unreliable, how can we tell what is reliable?
Yes I have read it.
Have I understood what it means? HELL NO... Does anyone understand? There are people who take it word for word, people who regard it as a 'guideline', people who say "oh, it was written by people of the time, that is why it endorses slavery and stoning of women".
Is there one way of reading it and understanding it? Can one person presume to know which parts are outdated and which parts are still relevant today?
Is everything Jesus or god said relevant? Or would this also have been altered by the beliefs of the time?
If so much of it is discarded because it is unreliable, how can we tell what is reliable?
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
lol,
all of those are correct, for example
the gospels are meant to be taken word for word, Proverbs and Psalms are guidelines and the rest of the NT (apart from revelations) were written by people of the time and need to be used in context.
I dont think you can understand it fully, I certainly dont.
As for reliability, Im not going to touch on whether God exists, or whether miricles are the acts of that God. Or whether or not that Jesus was the Messiah. Im claiming that as a historical account of events and people, it is accurate. That the bible you can read today is an accurate version of the original.
lol,
all of those are correct, for example
the gospels are meant to be taken word for word, Proverbs and Psalms are guidelines and the rest of the NT (apart from revelations) were written by people of the time and need to be used in context.
I dont think you can understand it fully, I certainly dont.
As for reliability, Im not going to touch on whether God exists, or whether miricles are the acts of that God. Or whether or not that Jesus was the Messiah. Im claiming that as a historical account of events and people, it is accurate. That the bible you can read today is an accurate version of the original.
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
GOLD Member
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
787 posts
Location: Dover, Delaware USA
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_SonI don't feel that existentialism weighs in on the topic of theism at all, it is inherently about the position of the self.
Now, absurdism I'm not quite so fresh on, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm incorrect here, but isn't it concerned largely with the basic premise that finding the meaning of the universe is humanly impossible?
If we take that as true then by applying absurdist thinking to the question of "Is there a god?" then wouldnt the answer be "Maybe, but we have no real way of discerning that."?
Hey there Mother_Natures_Son I think I can make my original post make a little more sense and clean up what I was trying to talk about now, so here goes...
Well I think the position of self is the biggest factor (to me the only factor) in theism throughout all of history and now, so I threw existentialism in there for that reason and to give a different view to think about. As humans we really have nothing but the here and now. The future and past both lay in the realm of hyper-real technically. When life is viewed in this way (kind of like I do) the effort placed on this topic is very interesting because from my perspective there isn't much of to gain from contemplating the validity of such things.
If every experience is truly individual, in essence we create our own reality through perception, and all phenomena is technically temporary/transient (speaking of the life in the absolute "present tense" here and all that can be encompassed in that steady flow of moments) would it really matter if there was a "god" or not when viewing life under these principles? I guess it's not a question of "is or isn't" that I'm interested in, but more about "why is the question asked to begin with?"
Here is a brief Wiki on Absurdism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism
(not very indepth, but covers the basics in a way that can't be misunderstood too easily) The great thing about absurdism is that you understand it's humanly impossible to apply meaning to the universe, but you can apply meaning to the experiences and the journey of life itself.
Yeah, the way you answered that question is almost the absurd answer, but when asked if there was a god the answer would be "Maybe, but it's humanly impossible to know". Of course since I find this way of thinking liberating and I embrace it, I'm curious about why everyone thinks the way that they do and their individual reasoning/results with their approaches as well
I think these kinds of questions are much more so about the people than they could possibly ever be about theological figures/doctrines/possibilities. I guess I wonder why in this modern era with so many philosophical breakthroughs in thought and ways of exploring the human condition, why so many choose to express/explore their ideology and question their existence using measuring standards that are humanly impossible to verify or understand?
Okay, your explanations of things just made me think Deism, but if that's your stance I get what you're saying now. I just was a touch confused at how you illustrate your thoughts with "god" and "devil" so if those are unassigned Deism would work, however since they are only anecdotes I get the Agnostic thing now. I hope my ramblings made some sense and weren't just a whole lot of nothing, I've had difficulty conveying my thoughts and questions on similar topics for a very long time with certain types of people *LOL and scratches back of head
*
EDITED_BY: EpitomeOfNovice (1259854829)
Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_SonI don't feel that existentialism weighs in on the topic of theism at all, it is inherently about the position of the self.
Now, absurdism I'm not quite so fresh on, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm incorrect here, but isn't it concerned largely with the basic premise that finding the meaning of the universe is humanly impossible?
If we take that as true then by applying absurdist thinking to the question of "Is there a god?" then wouldnt the answer be "Maybe, but we have no real way of discerning that."?
Hey there Mother_Natures_Son I think I can make my original post make a little more sense and clean up what I was trying to talk about now, so here goes...
Well I think the position of self is the biggest factor (to me the only factor) in theism throughout all of history and now, so I threw existentialism in there for that reason and to give a different view to think about. As humans we really have nothing but the here and now. The future and past both lay in the realm of hyper-real technically. When life is viewed in this way (kind of like I do) the effort placed on this topic is very interesting because from my perspective there isn't much of to gain from contemplating the validity of such things.
If every experience is truly individual, in essence we create our own reality through perception, and all phenomena is technically temporary/transient (speaking of the life in the absolute "present tense" here and all that can be encompassed in that steady flow of moments) would it really matter if there was a "god" or not when viewing life under these principles? I guess it's not a question of "is or isn't" that I'm interested in, but more about "why is the question asked to begin with?"
Here is a brief Wiki on Absurdism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism
(not very indepth, but covers the basics in a way that can't be misunderstood too easily) The great thing about absurdism is that you understand it's humanly impossible to apply meaning to the universe, but you can apply meaning to the experiences and the journey of life itself.
Yeah, the way you answered that question is almost the absurd answer, but when asked if there was a god the answer would be "Maybe, but it's humanly impossible to know". Of course since I find this way of thinking liberating and I embrace it, I'm curious about why everyone thinks the way that they do and their individual reasoning/results with their approaches as well
I think these kinds of questions are much more so about the people than they could possibly ever be about theological figures/doctrines/possibilities. I guess I wonder why in this modern era with so many philosophical breakthroughs in thought and ways of exploring the human condition, why so many choose to express/explore their ideology and question their existence using measuring standards that are humanly impossible to verify or understand?
Okay, your explanations of things just made me think Deism, but if that's your stance I get what you're saying now. I just was a touch confused at how you illustrate your thoughts with "god" and "devil" so if those are unassigned Deism would work, however since they are only anecdotes I get the Agnostic thing now. I hope my ramblings made some sense and weren't just a whole lot of nothing, I've had difficulty conveying my thoughts and questions on similar topics for a very long time with certain types of people *LOL and scratches back of head
*EDITED_BY: EpitomeOfNovice (1259854829)
~Rock on!~
"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life
(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com