Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

We or God?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I've heard this so many times its become this false cliche in my mind.

We are the children of God.

But really, are we God's children or is God our child? Which is a healthier choice.

:a-thought:Do we defend God's fundamentals, its virtues like that of a mother defending our child, or do we act as if to use God to defend our little, vagrant lives.

Is it saner to uphold our prejudices, our morals, from that which tells us what to do, or from what we believe in to pass on to an idea, another generation.

It is like humanity is accelerating through time, and people are still basing their beliefs, religion, lives, power, greed, and assets through an instant in the past, that which has an instantaneous velocity differing from the moment we are in today. Some reprise it, and some are so bounded to it, but in the end we are a more intellectual race by having a vivid visual on what our speed and projectory are as a society through the accelerating information we possess. If we slip off from the now, then we will undoubtedly show evil.

And yet, as philosophers,, as intellectuals, it is like we've caught on to how humanity is not at a constant acceleration, in that we (I hope anyways) find it prudent to study the past in order to find the rate(s) we are advancing.

@Holiday20310401,

Well we can't say that humans are grown up yet because of al the issues in the world that could actually be solved so easily. War genocide. Why can't people just follow the ten commandments and we all just live our lives. Also to stop believing in god is when we would be considered grown up because we will no longer need an excuse or guidance through life to follow the ten commandments. We would just follow them out of the goodness of our hearts. We shouldn't need an excuse like if you follow the ten commandments you will go to heaven in order to convince us.

Whether or not you believe in god in the first place is up to you.

@astrotheological,

This is the kind of thinking that makes people take part in religion. Its the thinking that no thinking is necessary when they've concluded that they've ascertained this moral prudential lifestyle; as if the ten commandments delves deeply into morality.

I'd question the ten commandments. They are good, but I'd judge morality equivocatively, judging what should be done differently in a different situation.

There is no objectiveness to morality.

That should be the one commandment on there. What we can morally define in one situation, would seem inconsistent in other, similar situations. But yes it is wrong to do those things mentioned in the commandments in almost all cases.

@Holiday20310401,

We are all the children of God, and the notion of God is a human invention.

The first claim is should be understood figuratively. It stresses the notion that we are all humans, we should care for one another, every human being, as family cares for it's members. That we are all equal, that no person is worth more or entitled to more than another.

The second is a statement regarding the language used to express ourselves and our experiences. Man invented every single word used, so of course man invented the term "God". The difficulty with this term is that it is often applied to mutually exclusive ideas. This causes immense confusion when people only glance at religion, rather than digging into the heart of what God means when the term is being used in different contexts.

Quote:

Also to stop believing in god is when we would be considered grown up because we will no longer need an excuse or guidance through life to follow the ten commandments. We would just follow them out of the goodness of our hearts.

What if God is that goodness of our hearts that causes us to naturally follow such upright teaching as the Ten Commandments?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

What if God is that goodness of our hearts that causes us to naturally follow such upright teaching as the Ten Commandments?

Yes of course, but is it good for God to tell us what to do by means of just some human thought conceived a thousand years ago.

If God is that fundamental/spiritual picture then we should be giving to God not God giving to us. Children do not give back to their parents intentionally.

@Didymos Thomas,

We are all brains in jars, fed electrical impulses we mistake for reality.

(equally valid statement)

The first claim IS understood figuratively - and if you disagree THEN YOU ARE WRONG, AND WILL BE PURSUED AND PERSECUTED, HARRASSED AND SHOUTED DOWN.

The Ten Commandments begin:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

There's nothing good about this. It's justified century after century, of what is essentially inter-racial warfare. So much for us all being children of God - caring for eachother as members of the family.

Equal, apparently, while religion has created and mantianed gross inequalities of wealth and power wherever it has been. Which might be justifiable if there were a god, but it's a human invention. So, the hierarchies raised on this foundation are utterly illegitimate.

[How do you like it?]

@iconoclast,

If God was the way religion portrays it I'd dedicate my life to destroy it, which I suppose would be impossible, but whatever, you know, just my moral obligations, nothing much.

But I doubt people who are smart religious people who have wisdom are usually in the 'norm' or persuaded to believe in an old man in heaven who will sentence you to :devil: for eternity.

Take Dydimos for example. His double standard advocates for his spiritual side being right when he has not shown any examples from what I've read supporting how we need a spiritual side; one which I am not sure why requires religion.

@Holiday20310401,

Quote:

Yes of course, but is it good for God to tell us what to do by means of just some human thought conceived a thousand years ago.

If God is that fundamental/spiritual picture then we should be giving to God not God giving to us. Children do not give back to their parents intentionally.

What is wrong with ancient human thought?

As for children and parents - I certainly hope that you intentionally try to be good to yours!

Quote:

There's nothing good about this. It's justified century after century, of what is essentially inter-racial warfare. So much for us all being children of God - caring for eachother as members of the family.

Nothing good? So, idolatry and language designed to be hurtful and disrespectful is good?
Also, the Ten Commandments are not centuries of warfare. That's the result of people struggling for power - against the teachings of the book in which the Commandments are found: "Thou shall not kill".

Quote:

[How do you like it?]

Just run of the mill, knee jerk ideology. Nothing surprising.

Quote:

If God was the way religion portrays it I'd dedicate my life to destroy it, which I suppose would be impossible, but whatever, you know, just my moral obligations, nothing much.

It's interesting you say that. The gnostic Christians thought that the material world was created by the demiurge, the creator/war god of the Old Testament. Some call this the Abrahamic God, but the God Abraham encountered sat and shared a meal in the myth. Sounds to me more like the God of Moses, who drowns the Egyptian army.

Anyway, the gnostics believed there to be the demiurge and another god who represented good, who could be discovered through gnosis, direct experience of the divine, and the knwoledge derived from this experience would free man from the corrupt and evil material world of the demiurge.

Quote:

Take Dydimos for example. His double standard advocates for his spiritual side being right when he has not shown any examples from what I've read supporting how we need a spiritual side; one which I am not sure why requires religion.

Let me first say that man's spiritual needs do not require of man organized religion, or religion at all. Religion can be difficult to define; if the definition requires belief, some strains of religion (like Buddhism, which is commonly thought of as religion) are out. Not all religion is theistic, nor does all religion has dogma.

It's not that man needs a spiritual side, it's that man has a spiritual side. SeanK posted this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
This may help you begin to understand the need.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas,

I find your easy dismissal of very serious charges aginst religion equally knee-jerk - but infinitely less honest.

I didn't say there's nothing good about religion, but you cited the TEN commandments, and I cited three of them which lend religion a racist antagonistic dynamic we still see played out in the world today.

Israel/Palestine. 9/11. Ireland - though less so these days. India - muslims and hindus, more so these days. India/Pakistan. US-Iraq? US-Iran?

Historically the list is endless - one religiously defined tribe invoking the name of God as they rip eachothers guts out. And you say it's nothing to do with religion?

Religion defines the sides in these conflicts - and by elevating the moral good of the group thus defined, infers the moral evil of the other.

'Axis of evil' ring any bells?

This is not a question to be so lightly dismissed by anyone with a real interest in the good.

iconoclast.

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Historically the list is endless - one religiously defined tribe invoking the name of God as they rip eachothers guts out. And you say it's nothing to do with religion?

Religion defines the sides in these conflicts - and by elevating the moral good of the group thus defined, infers the moral evil of the other.

One could plausibly argue that "religion" (boy, there are a lot of possible meanings of the word here) is used as an excuse and justification for warfare by the powerful, rather than being its root cause.

One could also ask why it matters. Why are warfare, racism and such necessarily bad things?

@Grimlock,

Grimlock,

because they now constitute threats of extinction.

iconoclast.

@iconoclast,

An eminently practical answer, though we should be careful not to throw out the gladius with the H bomb.

@Grimlock,

Another interesting question Grimlock -

but do you account for the fact that that human warfare is unlike the death that occurs in evolution? The cheeta picks the weakest from the herd - we send out our strongest to die.

iconoclast.

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

but do you account for the fact that that human warfare is unlike the death that occurs in evolution? The cheeta picks the weakest from the herd - we send out our strongest to die.

Can I say sorta?

As a former soldier (if such a thing is possible) I cannot endorse the perspective that only the strongest die in war. In addition to the randomness of "shrieking iron and flame" (can I quote an interesting man who did?), the stupid are surely more likely to perish, though perhaps the brave, as well. Those who do not die (?) certainly grow as a result of the experience; this may apply to cultures, as well.

Is warfare perhaps not simply one of many selective forces in the process of cultural (not "social"; I've no desire to associate myself with that mess) evolution? Is there not perhaps a good reason that Rome triumphed over Carthage?

Stupid H bomb takes the fun out of everything.

Not that I necessarily endorse the old reaper "evolution". I enjoy strange and freakish things, but mother nature doesn't seem to share my tastes in this regard.

@Grimlock,

Grimlock,

'Sorta' is perfectly apt. Like all questions - when examined, it devolves into a myriad of other more or less determinable questions (like the miasma of a rotting God!)

One factor is level of resolution - (perspective) - and it's an important question. You seem to adopt a pincer manouvre, on the individual level arguing the stupid and weak are more likely to perish in war, and on the cultural level suggesting that there are reasons Rome defeated Carthage. It's a good argument.

The other main factor is level of technology which you also acknowledge. Where the gladius is the main tool of warfare, okay. But the first world war was just a slaughter - utterly inhuman in scale. So was the second world war, and the weapons used increasingly fail to discrimitnate between the stupid and intelligent, strong, weak, brave, cowardly - they hardly even discrimitinate between soldier and civillian. So in this carnage both our arguments are lost. We turn to Rosenberg to make some sense of it.

But in nuclear war everything would be lost.

boo-hoo!

I too enjoy strange and freakish things - and evolution creates them in abundance, because it's not just killing off the weak. There's genetic mutation occuring all the time - tested against the function or die dynamic.
It's this that establishes strong varieties - as opposed to formless or uniform life.

Anyhow, I'm logging off until tonight, when I'll be posting the next part in the Social Origins...thread. Be great to get your comments.

regards,

iconoclast.

@iconoclast,

Quote:

I didn't say there's nothing good about religion, but you cited the TEN commandments, and I cited three of them which lend religion a racist antagonistic dynamic we still see played out in the world today.

Racism and antagonism do not come from the Ten Commandments. The Commandments are for those who refer to that particular book. The Commandments do not tell people to hate and abuse those who do not follow the Commandments.

Quote:

Historically the list is endless - one religiously defined tribe invoking the name of God as they rip eachothers guts out. And you say it's nothing to do with religion?

Religion is often perverted to horrible ends. But so is science, so is politics. Should we give up science and politics as well? Hardly.

Quote:

Religion defines the sides in these conflicts - and by elevating the moral good of the group thus defined, infers the moral evil of the other.

Many things are used to divide people into seperate camps. Inflamatory religious claims, calls of nationalism, racial differences.

Quote:

This is not a question to be so lightly dismissed by anyone with a real interest in the good.

You are right about this - we should address the issue. But what we should not do is overgeneralize, especially in such a way as to promote even greater division among men. Angry division between religious and atheists only creates a new problem.

We have to honestly approach the issue - which means that we should not write off religion in broad strokes as racist and destructive, doing so misses the good of religion. Nor should we pretend that religion is all flowers and sunshine, because religion can most certainly be perverted. Instead, we should examine the proper way to conduct religion so as to maximize the good and minimize the negative. We do the same with science, and we do the same with politics, though we've been a bit more successful with science and religion than we have been with politics. Most of the abuses of religion that lead to evil are really political motivations given a populist guise.

@Didymos Thomas,

At certain points in man's development, I think that religion has almost certainly been useful towards the advancement of the species, for the good and the bad, the best and the worst (though these periods may not, and in fact probably do not overlap with regards to when religion has been useful to whom and in what way).

Enough of that, though. What good is it today? Sometimes I wish my wife was more religious because I think the concept of (original?) sin is a powerful aphrodisiac. Breaking down barriers taps into our basic will to live, and the genitals cannot be far behind when it comes to such things. Does that sound strange coming from a self-styled dinobot?

@Grimlock,

Quote:

What good is it today?

What good is religion? None if religious is abused. If used properly, if used to cultivate loving kindness, then religion is wonderful.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

What good is religion? None if religious is abused. If used properly, if used to cultivate loving kindness, then religion is wonderful.

You won't get a married man to honestly debate the value of love (though I am unclear, perhaps due to inexperience, on how religion heightens or spreads that thing called love), so we'll stick to kindness, then. Besides not leading directly to the use of nuclear weapons, what the hell good is kindness, really?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

What good is religion? None if religious is abused. If used properly, if used to cultivate loving kindness, then religion is wonderful.

But why religion? Why not promote love and kindness as the virtues they undoubtedly are? Why relate this to a sky God - whom at the very least leaves himself open to misinterpretation.

Indeed, it seems to me he's been misintepreted far more than he's been correctly understood.

Like me, for example, who still thinks the first and third commandments particularly lend religion a racist antagonistic dynamic.

Why is that not a correct interpretation?

iconoclast.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

We or God?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know