Why a world without religion would be a better place

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

josh0335
 
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 10:25 am
@Justin,
Justin;119961 wrote:
If I may, I think everyone should take the time to gain and understanding and knowledge of the original formation of religion...


Your objections to religion seem to be very Christian-centric. The history of Christianity is not like the history of Hinduism.

You simply don't want people to act on faith. Faith is bad, scientific method is good. But that's not for you or for anyone else to decide. Religious faith is more than just blindly following dogma, it is a feeling and thus can only be understood through experience. Find as many dictionary definitions of 'love', yet you won't get close to understanding it unless you've felt it. That is fact.

People judge each other using their own moral standards regardless of religion. You have demonstrated this by claiming people who follow religion are blind and dumb. For you, truth is what happens to agree with your views. That's not the truth most people, religious or otherwise, are looking for.
 
Justin
 
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 10:59 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;119965 wrote:
Your objections to religion seem to be very Christian-centric. The history of Christianity is not like the history of Hinduism.

You are correct. Hinduism is much older and has it's own history. However I use Christianity as an example because of how I was raised and the religion I was groomed to believe in. Besides, Abrahamic religions are the majority so I use the largest of the majority but it's all the same.

josh0335;119965 wrote:
You simply don't want people to act on faith. Faith is bad, scientific method is good. But that's not for you or for anyone else to decide.

That's not what I said at all. Having faith in mythology is not having faith in truth. I never said anything about scientific method nor does it account for everything. I said history of religion.

Having blind faith in a religion where one doesn't even understand or know the history of it is what I consider to be blind. And it's not for me to decide and I've never said I was deciding for anyone. I was more or less making a plea for people to wake up and educate themselves to a certain degree before defending their religion, usually their religion they know very little about because they don't have to as they ride the wave of faith and faith alone.

josh0335;119965 wrote:
Religious faith is more than just blindly following dogma, it is a feeling and thus can only be understood through experience. Find as many dictionary definitions of 'love', yet you won't get close to understanding it unless you've felt it. That is fact.

LOL. OK. A feeling. Like something swelling up inside you, a warm fuzzy feeling.. an experience based on skewed perceptions and faith. Love is not religion and religion is not love so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Love isn't a feeling or an emotion either. Love is a word man came up with to describe an emotion of the ego. Love is a beautiful word though and if we all shared a sense of love for ourselves and those around us, what need would we have for religion. Love is exemplified in nature and shines radiently from within us. Love as the experience when twisted by perception and social conditioning coupled with blind faith is a different flavor of love.

josh0335;119965 wrote:
People judge each other using their own moral standards regardless of religion. You have demonstrated this by claiming people who follow religion are blind and dumb. For you, truth is what happens to agree with your views. That's not the truth most people, religious or otherwise, are looking for.

Sure, and their moral standards are based upon their religious beliefs... correct? Doesn't the religion provide the moral standards backdrop? Wait, when we were born we had no moral standards or faith so where is it we get these ideas from?

I do claim following blindly is dumb. That's my perception of it based upon years of delving into the history and investigation of it. I can't believe that people just follow without knowing or understanding because they just feel or experience... well they wouldn't have these experiences of feelings if they weren't conditioned by their social environment to do so.

So strip away the junk and the smoke begins to clear. Truth for me is not following dogma blindly and my truth has changed because of introspection and investigation and research. Hell, the only thing I desire is to know truth and experience truth. I have experienced religion. I've even gone as far as experiencing the feeling and emotions tied to religious belief and experienced the love in Christianity. I was a brainwashed follower of my parents religion who were brainwashed by their preacher and it goes on and on. Each century it changes a little to fit what's right... that's not truth.

Truth is not something we'll find in religion. It's not something we can find in books. It's not something that can be found it's something we discover. Now I can reach out and grab any religious truth and embrace it and even experience the feelings of it. However, after researching and understand and meditating on it, there's no way I can embrace a religion unless I dumb myself down and I can't do that. If you understood what I understand you'd probably have similar thoughts.

All religions have a history. I've said that. Look it up. Research it and take yourself back into the days and into the events that were happening during the formation of many of these religions. Follow the changes in the writings and the authors... it's actually a lot of work to do this but it's shined a light on the whole picture for me.
 
bfz
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 08:21 am
@ArthBH,
My Only view on God relates to the fact that if i created a world in which people live i would not expect them to worship me wholeheartedly without proof of my existence, surely even if this appears as an act of giving it is ultimately selfish. If i were a god i would merely desire the people to lead their lives for the benefit of society in whatever way possible.
 
Thomistic
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 07:36 pm
@bfz,
bfz;123007 wrote:
My Only view on God relates to the fact that if i created a world in which people live i would not expect them to worship me wholeheartedly without proof of my existence, surely even if this appears as an act of giving it is ultimately selfish. If i were a god i would merely desire the people to lead their lives for the benefit of society in whatever way possible.


That is very humble of you to admit, that your desire would not be for other's to worship you to fulfill some sort of "need" for yourself.

However I'd like to, however explain a few things about what Christians believe. I realize you may not assent to these beliefs, but please keep in mind that they are nonetheless what we believe. So it is perhaps a means to develop mutual understanding.

First and foremost, God created ex-nilhio. Meaning he created out of no need for himself. So God does not need us to worship because God is perfect, and thus "needs nothing" outside of himself. If we look at Aristotle's idea of perfection, we know that which is perfect does not move, b/c it has come its full actualization for which nothing more can be added to it. This why there are some strange theological statements made in the movie "Legion" where God - who is beyond time, apparently changes his Mind about loving humanity.

God did not create out of justice, since we did not exist and therefore had no rights. God did not create out of boredom, because he lacks in nothing.

So the only thing that seems to be left, is that which requires no contigency: love. To love, for God, is to desire the good of another (rather than himself). Thus God created the universe out of nothing, which conversly means: out of Love.

Therefore it seems odd to look at God creating the world for the sake of making people worship him.

But if we look at it from this perspective things might begin to make a bit more sense. Worship in doctrine is looked at as something that is "owed" to God (justice). It is not so much something God "needs" but rather something we need if we want to live according to our design, which is to reflect what justice and love is.

So if we are disobedient to God and refuse him in every temperment, he still is missing nothing and lacking in nothing. God does not cease to be perfect because we refuse to accept his perfection.

The last thing to note is that "worship" is a means to self-actualization. The best analogy we can give is one that scripture often goes towards which is to look at God as Father. When we honour our Dad for being good and loving, we are simply being thankful.

Consider the consequences of raising children who are "ungrateful." If you buy your children all sorts of things and it is out of the goodness of your own heart, but they perceive it as something they have a "right to" that means they cannot experience your love as a father. It means rather they only "use" your love, which means they do not "know" how you really feel about them.

But a person who is honestly thankful, is a person who has in reality accepted the Love of God.

I hope this analogy has helped you understand our position.

And for the record, I would hate to believe in a "needy" God. I'm glad my faith is not like that, and I apologize if people have given you the impression that is the way it is.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 05:54 am
@Thomistic,
Why is it men of faith dont realise that those who oppose the notion of a benevolent god have not considered the arguments? I will ask you...why do you think god created us ?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 07:35 am
@Thomistic,
Thomistic;124259 wrote:
God did not create out of justice, since we did not exist and therefore had no rights. God did not create out of boredom, because he lacks in nothing.

So the only thing that seems to be left, is that which requires no contigency: love. To love, for God, is to desire the good of another (rather than himself). Thus God created the universe out of nothing, which conversly means: out of Love.


This is a contradiction. If there was only god, then why would there be any love? You can't love something that does not exist. It would be like me loving a child in which I do not have or hasn't been created. That doesn't make any sense. The love could only be after the fact, but you are saying love was his motivation, motivation doesn't come after the act, it comes before it. So what you have proposed here does not answer anything.

Here is another way to look at it. How long have humans be around? How long has the universe existed? These don't match. If his motivation was to create us, then why did he wait billions of years to do it? Seems a little delayed doesn't it?

I want to get to the store, but first I think I'll go on a hike. I really need to get some food, but instead I'm going to go take a nap. Doesn't make any sense if your motivation is for one purpose, love, that you would prolong it for so long.

Your argument doesn't hold up to any of the logic.

EDIT:

However; you could make the argument that god loves to create things. In this sense your argument would hold. But it does not mean that we would be the object of that love. No, creating is the object of god's love, and we are the product of that love. So only in that way would it make sense. It means that god could hate what he has created. The bible holds this to be the case on more occasions than what these new age Christians keep trying to claim. It god really loved what he has created, he wouldn't keep destroying it or threaten it.
 
Thomistic
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 07:46 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;124338 wrote:
This is a contradiction. If there was only god, then why would there be any love? You can't love something that does not exist. It would be like me loving a child in which I do not have or hasn't been created. That doesn't make any sense. The love could only be after the fact, but you are saying love was his motivation, motivation doesn't come after the act, it comes before it. So what you have proposed here does not answer anything.

Here is another way to look at it. How long have humans be around? How long has the universe existed? These don't match. If his motivation was to create us, then why did he wait billions of years to do it? Seems a little delayed doesn't it?

I want to get to the store, but first I think I'll go on a hike. I really need to get some food, but instead I'm going to go take a nap. Doesn't make any sense if your motivation is for one purpose, love, that you would prolong it for so long.

Your argument doesn't hold up to any of the logic.


That is a good point, and I didn't really think of it. First and foremost, however I'd respond by discussing the immenant God, insofar as God is seen as Trinity, implying that God loves in and through his relationship between the Father and Son. That the Father forgets about himself and loves the Son, and the son like-wise forgets about himself and only thinks of the Father.

God creating out of Love, I suppose is a bit of a mystery to any logician, but I would never propose that any mystery could defy logic. I think however, if we understand it in terms of the eternal, it can be non-contradictorary. Insofar as God does not exist in a prior-ness to our existence nor does he exist in a post-ness to our existence, since he is present at all times and places.

Implying that God knows who we are outside of time, thus love us as a perfect thought. If you consider Plato's world of forms, where there are perfect ideas that have yet to be materialized in the universe (say, neo-platonism) I think it can be reconciled.

---------- Post added 02-02-2010 at 08:51 AM ----------

xris;124314 wrote:
Why is it men of faith dont realise that those who oppose the notion of a benevolent god have not considered the arguments? I will ask you...why do you think god created us ?


It harkons back to a discussion on "being." What is "being." To Aristotle and Aquinas the nature of what is good was directly linked to the existence of things. Therefore the goodness of God who was all-existent, or the source of all things that exist, was consequently all good.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 08:08 am
@Thomistic,
Thomistic;124339 wrote:
God creating out of Love, I suppose is a bit of a mystery to any logician, but I would never propose that any mystery could defy logic. I think however, if we understand it in terms of the eternal, it can be non-contradictorary. Insofar as God does not exist in a prior-ness to our existence nor does he exist in a post-ness to our existence, since he is present at all times and places.


So what you are saying here is that god knew prior to creating? God knew about everything before god did everything? If god is also everywhere at all times then basically we would be inside of god. No where could there be a place that was absent or else there would be a place in which god would not be. See any contradiction here? So which is it? God is in all places and times or there are places in which god is not? Is god in the bowels of pigs? Is god also fecal matter? If you start saying no to this, then god can't be in all places. If god is not in all places it would also mean god could not be in all times as well. If you move the place where god wasn't to a new location that would constitute time change and also the movement of where god would be displaced. Therefore he couldn't exist in all times in all places.

Thomistic;124339 wrote:

Implying that God knows who we are outside of time, thus love us as a perfect thought. If you consider Plato's world of forms, where there are perfect ideas that have yet to be materialized in the universe (say, neo-platonism) I think it can be reconciled.


God can have thoughts but only if god is subject to time. You can't have thoughts in a timeless place. I know that doesn't directly address your perfect thought but it does conflict with having a perfect thought. Although I do not disagree with the ability to have a perfect thought, it is the process by which you arrive at a perfect thought that is imperfect. Are you implying that all god's thoughts are perfect? Or that only one of god's thoughts were perfect? If god only has one thought, and that thought was perfect then alright, but were there more than one? This is the spot where your perfect thought starts to crumble away.
 
Thomistic
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 08:16 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;124344 wrote:
So what you are saying here is that god knew prior to creating? God knew about everything before god did everything? If god is also everywhere at all times then basically we would be inside of god. No where could there be a place that was absent or else there would be a place in which god would not be. See any contradiction here? So which is it? God is in all places and times or there are places in which god is not? Is god in the bowels of pigs? Is god also fecal matter? If you start saying no to this, then god can't be in all places. If god is not in all places it would also mean god could not be in all times as well. If you move the place where god wasn't to a new location that would constitute time change and also the movement of where god would be displaced. Therefore he couldn't exist in all times in all places.



God can have thoughts but only if god is subject to time. You can't have thoughts in a timeless place. I know that doesn't directly address your perfect thought but it does conflict with having a perfect thought. Although I do not disagree with the ability to have a perfect thought, it is the process by which you arrive at a perfect thought that is imperfect. Are you implying that all god's thoughts are perfect? Or that only one of god's thoughts were perfect? If god only has one thought, and that thought was perfect then alright, but were there more than one? This is the spot where your perfect thought starts to crumble away.


Can you please go easy on me, there are far to many questions being dumped on me. Keep in mind that there is an entire book dedicated to answering these questions that you are asking (Summa Theologica).

What I'm saying is merely that you cannot attatch a-priori knowledge or a-posteriori knowledge to God, because both imply time and thus finitude.

Second, you are looking at God's existence as pure extension which is contrary to what Aquinas means by "presence." The artist is present in the painting insofar as what was in his mind was impressed upon it. Likewise God is present in all of creation insofar as it is his art work.

Second of all, creation does not have an extrinsic relationship with God (unless we merely mean what God is not). Human beings have an instrinsic relationship with God, which implies that all of creation exists "within God" as you stated above. This is hardly a contradiction, because it is rather consistent with the fact that God is infinite. IF God is limitless, we'd be fools to think we can escape his presence. Our very existence is a participation in his very Being.

Lastly, in discussing "Time" and metaphysics, I'd add that outside of time is not something that specifically implies "static" state. Rather, it is analagously described as an "eternal moment." I realize this is hardly helpful, but it certainly offers a different perspective than you might presuppose.

Either way, this is all a digression from my original point, which was in reference to a question about "worship"
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 08:53 am
@Thomistic,
Thomistic;124345 wrote:
Can you please go easy on me, there are far to many questions being dumped on me. Keep in mind that there is an entire book dedicated to answering these questions that you are asking (Summa Theologica).


I apolo for so many questions. It helps to put things into perspective to make sure nothing is left out or assumed. I am familar with Summa Theologica and have studied it. I can't say that I am impressed. Most of the answers are flat and leave far too much assumed. He expected some of these responses to be forthright knowledge and taken to be accepted concepts, which they are not. You can't approach this work from a non-believer's point of view because it doesn't address any of the issues of it.

Thomistic;124345 wrote:

What I'm saying is merely that you cannot attatch a-priori knowledge or a-posteriori knowledge to God, because both imply time and thus finitude.


Which is the same argument I make for any thing that is said about or of god in the first place. For example, believers of god assume that god created the universe but god could be trying to take credit for creating the universe or perhaps under the impression that he created it but he really didn't. A sort of dumb founded knowledge.

Thomistic;124345 wrote:

Second, you are looking at God's existence as pure extension which is contrary to what Aquinas means by "presence." The artist is present in the painting insofar as what was in his mind was impressed upon it. Likewise God is present in all of creation insofar as it is his art work.


Then it should not be called presence. I am familiar with what he was trying to imply. He means that god has the potential to be in all places but actually adheres to not do so for what ever purpose. It is that ability to have that it would be considered all encompassing. I do however disagree that the finger print is evident in the painting of the universe. I do not see any presence of a god anywhere in the universe.

It would be like secretly placing a canvas under the leaky faucet of a painter. The water going down the drain absorbs some of the paint when the painter washes out his brushes. That water then leaks out of the pipe and onto the canvas. Later, I remove it and say, "Wow what beautiful creation you have made here." No, that would not be the work of art by the painter, instead it would belong to me who placed the canvas there but obviously I was not involved in the application of any of the paint either, chaos was. This is my impression of the universe.

Thomistic;124345 wrote:

Second of all, creation does not have an extrinsic relationship with God (unless we merely mean what God is not). Human beings have an instrinsic relationship with God, which implies that all of creation exists "within God" as you stated above. This is hardly a contradiction, because it is rather consistent with the fact that God is infinite. IF God is limitless, we'd be fools to think we can escape his presence. Our very existence is a participation in his very Being.


Oh a lot of contradictions here. You can't on one hand say god is infinite then also make the statement that creation does not have an extrinsic relationship with god. You can't have both an infinity with a finite surrounding, it doesn't work. It's why quantum physicists are annoyed with general relativity.

Thomistic;124345 wrote:

Lastly, in discussing "Time" and metaphysics, I'd add that outside of time is not something that specifically implies "static" state. Rather, it is analagously described as an "eternal moment." I realize this is hardly helpful, but it certainly offers a different perspective than you might presuppose.


Well an "eternal moment" would have to cover the entire moment then. So the thought would take up the entire moment from beginning to end which would mean all encompassing in an eternity. Meaning you could only have one thought because you couldn't get to the next until the first thought finished. But the first thought can not finish because it covers the entire eternal moment.

You could have more than one at a time but that goes back to causing the infinite thought before thought problem. Doesn't work. It would be like holding out your hand to catch a ball that you didn't know and knew would be thrown at you prior to it being created. Or looking at every single frame of every single movie ever created all at the exact same time.

Thomistic;124345 wrote:

Either way, this is all a digression from my original point, which was in reference to a question about "worship"


Oh you mean that Christians stole sun worship from the Egyptians? But instead of actually calling it sun worship they just called it god to circumvent all the problems with what the Egyptians were facing?
 
Thomistic
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 10:16 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;124351 wrote:
I apolo for so many questions. It helps to put things into perspective to make sure nothing is left out or assumed. I am familar with Summa Theologica and have studied it. I can't say that I am impressed. Most of the answers are flat and leave far too much assumed. He expected some of these responses to be forthright knowledge and taken to be accepted concepts, which they are not. You can't approach this work from a non-believer's point of view because it doesn't address any of the issues of it.


Hmm...we'll I've studied it quite extensively, so hopefully I can address some of the issues you might have with it.


Quote:

Which is the same argument I make for any thing that is said about or of god in the first place. For example, believers of god assume that god created the universe but god could be trying to take credit for creating the universe or perhaps under the impression that he created it but he really didn't. A sort of dumb founded knowledge.


This is ambigious to me. Since God is the ground of all being, it is a logical consequence that he created all that exists. However, if he ceases to be the ground of all creation, then he ceases to be God. This statement to me is no different than saying, "Who is to say that fire burns?" Well if fire does not take the credit for burning, than it ceases to be fire. Likewise if God did not create the universe, than he is not God.


Quote:

Then it should not be called presence. I am familiar with what he was trying to imply. He means that god has the potential to be in all places but actually adheres to not do so for what ever purpose. It is that ability to have that it would be considered all encompassing. I do however disagree that the finger print is evident in the painting of the universe. I do not see any presence of a god anywhere in the universe.


Um, lets just leave it at equivocation, because there are different meanings to the word presence. For instance, you can be "locally present to a friend" but not present to them at all. How many times in my life has it been true that I have been surronded by people but completely lonely? THere as an absence of presence. I think we have to make the distinction between "relative" or "relational presence" or to Aquinas, Presence by way of "agency" or efficent-causation, and local or material presence.

Um, I wasn't offering a proof by the way. The last thing I want is to make way for more diverse topics of discussion here.

Quote:


It would be like secretly placing a canvas under the leaky faucet of a painter. The water going down the drain absorbs some of the paint when the painter washes out his brushes. That water then leaks out of the pipe and onto the canvas. Later, I remove it and say, "Wow what beautiful creation you have made here." No, that would not be the work of art by the painter, instead it would belong to me who placed the canvas there but obviously I was not involved in the application of any of the paint either, chaos was. This is my impression of the universe.


Aw, art without final-causation...lol...never understood that idea. But nice ironic use of the word "impression" in your last sentence.

Quote:

Oh a lot of contradictions here. You can't on one hand say god is infinite then also make the statement that creation does not have an extrinsic relationship with god. You can't have both an infinity with a finite surrounding, it doesn't work. It's why quantum physicists are annoyed with general relativity.


There is no contradiction if your definition of In-finite and Finity are the same as mine and Aristotle's. It is a contradiction to say that God is infinite and the ground of all being, and yet we exist apart from God! That is why we are extrinsic insofar as we are not God, but intrinsic insofar as we participate in God's being.

Again, it harkons back to an understanding of "being." If you ascribe to Descartes who views being as mere extension, and matter, than of course you will not believe in a being whose existence is his own essence.

Quote:

Well an "eternal moment" would have to cover the entire moment then. So the thought would take up the entire moment from beginning to end which would mean all encompassing in an eternity. Meaning you could only have one thought because you couldn't get to the next until the first thought finished. But the first thought can not finish because it covers the entire eternal moment.


Actually this is quite good! Smile This is why in Christianity we say things like the Son is "eternally begotten of the Father" (as opposed to eternally created). And furthermore that the Son is the Logos. The Father has one thought, and it is completely simple. Our existence on the other hand is complex. God's is not. God has one thing to say and it is Son or Logos. This is why I mentioned before that God does not "change his mind" like in the movie "Legion" - firstly if God is perfect, he requires no change or motion from potentiality to actuality (aristotle).

Quote:

You could have more than one at a time but that goes back to causing the infinite thought before thought problem. Doesn't work. It would be like holding out your hand to catch a ball that you didn't know and knew would be thrown at you prior to it being created. Or looking at every single frame of every single movie ever created all at the exact same time.


God does perceive everything immediately, past present and future. WE cannot comprehend that, but this is one of the ways in which we reconcile with Calvinists how God creates and how his creation is not simply a "beginning" and then he lets the watch tick, but that creation itself is a matter of God creating the universe at all points of time.

If we perceived God creating the beginning we would be putting him behind the beginning of time, and running to the end to finish it up. This would of itself imply temporal activity on the part of God, which is nonesense.

Quote:

Oh you mean that Christians stole sun worship from the Egyptians? But instead of actually calling it sun worship they just called it god to circumvent all the problems with what the Egyptians were facing?


????
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 10:48 am
@Thomistic,
I would like to ask again why did god create us? not goodness, humanity, what purpose do we serve? No references please just in your own words, please.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 12:34 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;119130 wrote:
For the same reason you abandon the idea of Santa Claus -- its childish, and for anyone to continue believing in such nonsense is deliberately deluding themselves. This doesnt mean you have to give up the concept of god, it just means its time to grow up and stop thinking life is like a fairytale.

Yes; as a form religion is a part of the childhood of mankind just as it is a part of every childhood...Think of it, how impossible it is to escape notions of fate, or magic, or luck...We wish, and Wish was once a God... What is our purpose??? It is the same with our new religion of science, to have our way, to have power, to avoid the pitiful little lives we all suffer regardless...Once mankind tied into the power of nature and God... Now we seek power over nature, and even the best of us at one time or another has offered a bribe to God to let the chips fall our way...It is in our nature, and as much as we should learn religion to understand ourselves, we should free ourselves from its dominance over our thoughts...
 
andy1984
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:21 pm
@ArthBH,
maybe theory has replaced myth/dogma as a way of passing on ideas? that is the only way i can make out what this thread is about. there is a feeling that myth/dogma is no longer able to be used to justify anything and it seems obsolete, yet people still use it. pretty much just dawkins-ish stuff, right?
 
Thomistic
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 02:22 pm
@xris,
xris;124373 wrote:
I would like to ask again why did god create us? not goodness, humanity, what purpose do we serve? No references please just in your own words, please.


My own opinion on the Matter is that God had "no need" to create us, but he did anyways. And he did because he wanted to share His love, beyond the love he contained within himself. Why do we feed the poor? Why do we care for those who are weak? Why do we love our neighbour? Because in many ways, its a part of who we are, its our nature.

---------- Post added 02-02-2010 at 03:23 PM ----------

Fido;124392 wrote:
Yes; as a form religion is a part of the childhood of mankind just as it is a part of every childhood...Think of it, how impossible it is to escape notions of fate, or magic, or luck...We wish, and Wish was once a God... What is our purpose??? It is the same with our new religion of science, to have our way, to have power, to avoid the pitiful little lives we all suffer regardless...Once mankind tied into the power of nature and God... Now we seek power over nature, and even the best of us at one time or another has offered a bribe to God to let the chips fall our way...It is in our nature, and as much as we should learn religion to understand ourselves, we should free ourselves from its dominance over our thoughts...


Interesting...The version of Christianity I a belong to emphasizes learning to be "human" and "who we are" over trying to escape reality.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 03:01 pm
@Thomistic,
He did not need to but he did...Now either he wanted to or not ? What did he create us for, what purpose do we serve god. I would like an answer please.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 03:13 pm
@xris,
xris;124431 wrote:
He did not need to but he did...Now either he wanted to or not ? What did he create us for, what purpose do we serve god. I would like an answer please.
God created all things so that all things could know God. God didn't need anything. I believe our purpose, what we are created for, is to come to a knowledge of God and His love. And it's hard for me to imagine someone coming to this knowledge and wanting to do anything but reciprocate that love.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 03:19 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;124433 wrote:
God created everything so that everything could know God. God didn't need anything. I believe our purpose, what we are created for, is to come to a knowledge of God and His love. And it's hard for me to imagine someone coming to this knowledge and wanting to do anything but reciprocate that love.
So you are saying god created us for our good not his? he had no personal gain from this creation? are you sure?
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 03:20 pm
@xris,
xris;124435 wrote:
So you are saying god created us for our good not his? he had no personal gain from this creation? are you sure?
that is exactly what I'm saying. That is the definition of love
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 03:33 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;124437 wrote:
that is exactly what I'm saying. That is the definition of love
So he created us for our benefit. Did he actually assume we would appreciate our existance without question. Are we allowed to question our existance or are we to be grateful without benefit of knowing.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 03:06:39