Are you religious?
- Thread starter ComedyPilot
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Primal Scream
Get your rocks off
No, but if you dont accept the core belief Christianity is based upon then you cannot be a Christian.
I doubt many Christians take the whole contradictory piffle in the Bible as the word of God after all how can you believe in both an "eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek"
Si_
Regular
Definitions of God. thorny issue that.
Learned men, in "the church" all seem to list theology in their studies. So basically they have all become experts in "theories" about "stuff" to do with "religion" and "why we are here" but no one as yet has defined God.
All except for "God fashioned Man in his own image" So are we to assume this "image" was only skin deep? If humans are the image of God, then are we by definiton a "god like" creation?
To explore this we then have to look at "how was man created" leaving aside creatinism theory for the more universally accepted Darwinian approach, "man" was born of mutation, natural selection and the evolutionary process.
So, one can ask, at which point in the evolutionary process did/do we humans resemble the image of God?
OR, is it the process itself that defines our "image"?
Also the other conundrum is at which point did we humans become aware of God? the Bible was written by "Man" therefore after our major evolutionary period from Sea to land, legs and standing. In order to create the bible, we humans had to be self aware at that point, and as such one could "theorise " that man created God in his own image, for what ever ends. (one can also argue that is a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, then it still falls, therefore just because we didn't know of "God" before this point isn't proof that God didn't exist)
To answer these contradictory points I have long held the view that "God" does not exist as a "person" rather more that God is the "process" by which we have come to be, the summation of the whole, the natural selection and random events that brought us and other creatures to this point in time. "God", any god, be it hindu, islam, christianity, or other is a creation of its followers, for without them there would be no "god" (think of it in terms of supply and demand, without customers a shop would not survive, so to it is with other things)
However rationalisation cannot survive in the face of belief. or "faith" as others call it. And so we get to the issue of "religious conflict". those who rationalise, and those who believe, and all those in-between. Those who "beleive" whole heartedly, will on occasion fight to defend that POV, with all the ensuing consequences, and that then brings in the argument of what is morally right or wrong, Often supplanted by what is "apropriate or justified"
Appropriate and justified are terms that very much depend on your beliefs and experience, and there we enter the personal issue of individual morality, faith and the question...
How do you define God?
Well........Definitions of God. thorny issue that....
Learned men, in "the church" all seem to list theology in their studies. So basically they have all become experts in "theories" about "stuff" to do with "religion" and "why we are here" but no one as yet has defined God.
All except for "God fashioned Man in his own image" So are we to assume this "image" was only skin deep? If humans are the image of God, then are we by definiton a "god like" creation?
To explore this we then have to look at "how was man created" leaving aside creatinism theory for the more universally accepted Darwinian approach, "man" was born of mutation, natural selection and the evolutionary process.
So, one can ask, at which point in the evolutionary process did/do we humans resemble the image of God?
OR, is it the process itself that defines our "image"?
Also the other conundrum is at which point did we humans become aware of God? the Bible was written by "Man" therefore after our major evolutionary period from Sea to land, legs and standing. In order to create the bible, we humans had to be self aware at that point, and as such one could "theorise " that man created God in his own image, for what ever ends. (one can also argue that is a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, then it still falls, therefore just because we didn't know of "God" before this point isn't proof that God didn't exist)
To answer these contradictory points I have long held the view that "God" does not exist as a "person" rather more that God is the "process" by which we have come to be, the summation of the whole, the natural selection and random events that brought us and other creatures to this point in time. "God", any god, be it hindu, islam, christianity, or other is a creation of its followers, for without them there would be no "god" (think of it in terms of supply and demand, without customers a shop would not survive, so to it is with other things)
However rationalisation cannot survive in the face of belief. or "faith" as others call it. And so we get to the issue of "religious conflict". those who rationalise, and those who believe, and all those in-between. Those who "beleive" whole heartedly, will on occasion fight to defend that POV, with all the ensuing consequences, and that then brings in the argument of what is morally right or wrong, Often supplanted by what is "apropriate or justified"
Appropriate and justified are terms that very much depend on your beliefs and experience, and there we enter the personal issue of individual morality, faith and the question...
How do you define God?
Well........Definitions of God. thorny issue that....
Si_
Regular
Never have so many electrons been squanderd by so few to make so little progress.
Humour, could be defined as something only displayed by the self aware, I.E "godlike" ...so therefore i salute you .....lol for an awesome reply. lol
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
does systematic lying to children include santa and the tooth fairy?
"Creation of the world in 6 days" is not a core belief, but "Jesus is literally the Son of God" and "Mary was medically a virgin" are core beliefs? Who decides?
Perhaps once you understand that "eye for an eye" was a limit not a target, and was imposed in response to the problem of revenge killings leading to violent escalation. On that basis, the later injunction to 'turn the other cheek' isn't a contradiction but a logical progression
Si_
Regular
only if you "believe" they dont exist.
then we get into "what is existance" arguments.
does a unicorn exist? of course it does i've seen pictures and read about it. it exists in as much as someone thought it up, though it could be argued it isnt "real"
what is "real"?
"if real is something you can fel taste, touch andsmell then "real" is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain" (film quote... any guesses?)
and finally
" what i told you was true, from a certain POV. .........Youre going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our POV" (another film quote.... easy one)
So esentially the whole debate can be summed up thus:-
"opinions are like peanuts.....we all have one"
And on the subject of "literal son of god", anyone claiming that the "vast majority of Christians" have "always believed this" might wish to look at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a2.htm - in particular the section that starts 'III THE ONLY SON OF GOD'. I won't quote it, because any out-of-context quote would not adequately summarise the whole, but even scanning it briefly should make it plain and obvious that what is meant by "son" in this context is considerably more complicated than the everyday meaning of the term. As you'd expect, or should expect, for any relationship in which one party is infinite, unknowable, and mysterious
Santa's not a child. The tooth fairy I don't know about, I've never met her
Si_
Regular
meaning that to hold to the teachings one must strive to be a pacifist? hows that working out for the wars of christianinty then? Christians wont last long if we let other faiths walk all over us. hence we suplant the ideology for the "appropriate response" sacrificing aprt of the very essences of the purported "faith" to protect that very "faith"
but what you save isnt what you set out to save, its changed, by the very act of saving it.
It would be safer not to assume anything with such far-reaching implications based only on a translation of words which were written in another language and a long time ago, especially when the obvious interpretation of those words is in conflict with other things asserted about the same God by the same people
Aperitif
Meme bar
Bless you my pieous son. (I just knew that e was around somewhere! )Never have so many electrons been squanderd by so few to make so little progress.
