Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Agreed! It is really nice to be able to learn about other people's ideas on these things without people getting nasty!
I think its funny because it took like 3 posts for one of the Obama threads to turn ugly. But this one is going 4 pages strong without major conflict.
This is why I hate to discuss religion because it usually ends in a headed debate, but yes this thread is going along smoothly. I think because we all accept each others beliefs
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 11:04:03 GMT -5
The point of the light switch wasn't that EVERYONE doesn't know how it worked, it was that I didn't know, and only believed it would go on because I had been told so and had done so before, with it usually, but not always, going on. The other point was that electricity is something you cannot see, and even though there may be people who have worked out exactly how it works, for many of us when we pull the switch the source of our belief that the light will go on is not our own knowledge, but faith in what we have heard. I don't entirely buy this thinking, but it does make you think more about what you really know and what you have just accepted in all areas of life. That was the point, to me.
For the record, I now have a much better understanding of electricity then I did at the time, because that conversation made me want to learn more about how everything works.
I'm very impressed by points made on both sides of the debate. We have some very smart people here. I just wish that i had more knowledge of stuff to better debate my side, but then again do i need to do that? I know what my belief is, or in this case, lack thereof, and i'm not going to try to convince anyone otherwise.
It seems to me that religion/god/superstition/etc were created as ways to explain the unknown.
In my "Origins of Western Religious & Intellectual Thought" class, we called this Reflectionism. In a nutshell: man's perception of God is based on man's perception of man.
God used to be angry & vengeful, demanding sacrifices, advocated for the stoning of people. Man grew more civilized. Stopped stoning people, stopped burning cattle in God's name... as a result, man's interpretation became one of a kinder, gentler God.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 11:13:46 GMT -5
The question that leads to then is what caused man to become more civilized? Chicken and egg - did the study of and reaching towards god make man more civilized, or did man becoming more civilized on his own, then make god more civilized, and if so how did man become more civilized on his own?
Good thing I have to go to work now, because I have no idea on that!
It seems to me that religion/god/superstition/etc were created as ways to explain the unknown.
Problem for me is, as things are explained, those beliefs become "mythology" vs religion. How long before the current religions fall into that category? For me, and some of you, they already have.
But if/when that belief is more mainstream, what, if anything, replaces them? Someone mentioned scientology... that's one. are there other new religions? I suppose satanism (anton levay based) is pretty new...
I agree that religion and God evolved as a way of explaining the unknown. My question was more in reference to how the belief originates in the individual person. Why does one person start believing in God?
I believe that for many, many people, they do not ever really start believing in God because they've always believed. They were raised believing in God, and they just never stopped believing because they never bothered to think about it.
For those who really believe, though, I wonder what makes them start.
Hilari: I would say it's because our hearts tell us so. I would also say it's how God wants the world to be-- that so much can be viewed as miraculous signs of God if one has faith, or impressive physical coincidences if one does not have faith. Like the birth of a child; it's equally amazing in Divine and scientific terms, both are correct ways of viewing it, but a person's faith dictates which one takes precedence in their thought. In this view, God is still there and available for us to reach out to Him if we choose to.
I think this is the best explanation I can hope for, but it's still somewhat unsatisfying. It also opens up more questions for me, in that it gets into the idea of a "heart." Obviously, you don't mean that the blood-pumping organ in your chest tells you that there is a God. Do we have a "heart" and a "soul" that is separate from our nerve endings, and synapses, and whatever else makes us think thoughts? Or is it just chemistry?
The point of the light switch wasn't that EVERYONE doesn't know how it worked, it was that I didn't know, and only believed it would go on because I had been told so and had done so before, with it usually, but not always, going on. The other point was that electricity is something you cannot see, and even though there may be people who have worked out exactly how it works, for many of us when we pull the switch the source of our belief that the light will go on is not our own knowledge, but faith in what we have heard. I don't entirely buy this thinking, but it does make you think more about what you really know and what you have just accepted in all areas of life. That was the point, to me.
For the record, I now have a much better understanding of electricity then I did at the time, because that conversation made me want to learn more about how everything works.
I wasnt attacking you Ive heard this argument before. Which lead me to my point things like electricity (which you can actually see in lightining) can be proven on paper and in labs, have a physical presence, equations to calculate, can be manipulated by mankind by being created and destroyed.
I suppose satanism (anton levay based) is pretty new...
I actually own the Satanic bible. I bought it as a book to keep on my coffee table as a conversation piece. It isn't actually as silly as you would think. It says that people are their own gods and that they practice religions because they enjoy the rituals and such. I tend to agree with Mr. Levay on that one.
How come all of the examples of God appearing in front of people (talking to Moses, Abe, Noah) were all thousands of years ago? Why doesn't something like this happen in modern times? And if it did, would we not consider this person crazy? Also, how bad was the earth when God decided to flood it and start anew? Was is worse than our current global situation?
I'm not sure why you would expect Christians and Jews to agree on which books to use - they aren't the same religions. As far as the books that Protestants don't use and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do, they really don't make that much of a difference theologically, so it isn't a matter of picking and choosing for content. The same is true for the slight variations in texts used today and used in 300 AD - the differences tend to be minor and have more to do with variances in translation than any substantive theological differences, although certainly even slight variations can lead to big theological disputes - no variation at all leads to that, too.
But a minor variation in translation can make a huge difference in the meaning. Take John 1:1. I grew up Southern Baptist, so I grew up reading that passage as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jehovah's Witnesses read that passage as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God." One letter difference changes the meaning altogether.
And, you're right, even without the variation, one could interpret each individual phrase several different ways. That's what leads to the problem as I see it. People choose what they are and aren't going to believe. If there is a God, none of us knows what he's like or what he wants us to do. Nobody knows if he really disapproves of homosexuality, or he really thinks we should all go to church on Sunday, or he really thinks we should all get naked and run around in the rain. So, people base what they believe on (1) the Bible, (2) what other people say the Bible says, (3) what the church tells them to believe, or (4) whatever they, personally, decide is right. And really, it all comes down to the last one because each person decides how much of the first three they are going to adopt as his/her own. But that's not faith in God, then. That's just developing your own moral code/belief system and attributing it to a higher power.
Which leads me to the idea that you can believe in God and the church, but not believe that you should "push" that belief on other people. The Bible says that we only can be saved through faith in God, repenting for our sins, and accepting Jesus as the son of God (it's been awhile, but that's the way I was taught anyway). By that reasoning, anyone who does not believe in God cannot be saved, and thus, cannot go to Heaven. That leaves Hell or just ceasing to exist, and all the churches I grew up in just taught that Hell was the other option. If I truly believed that everyone I knew who didn't believe in God was going to Hell, shouldn't I feel that it was a moral imperative for me to spend my life trying to help those people avoid eternal suffering? I'm not saying stand on a corner outside of a Marilyn Manson concert telling all the fans that they are going to Hell. I'm talking about making sharing God's word the first priority in everything I do. Wouldn't that be the only possible option? Like in the movie, The Big Kahuna. Shouldn't all believers be like Peter Facinelli's character? Or, not to be irreverant, but the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine finds out that Puddy is Christian, and she's upset because he believes that she's going to Hell, but he doesn't care enough to try to save her? If a person believes that non-believers are going to Hell and doesn't spend his/her life trying to convert those non-believers, does he/she really care about people?
And, if you don't believe that all non-believers are going to Hell, how do you support that conclusion, other than a personal belief that it would be wrong for God to punish good people who just happen to not believe?
(As a side note, I know some people have expressed that particular belief, that they do believe, but don't think they should push their views on anyone. I just want to be clear that I am not trying to get personal with anyone, call anyone a bad person, or uncaring, or anything like that. Basically, this was one of the major things I struggled with when I went to church, and, although I no longer consider myself religious, it still perplexes me. Also, sorry for the big, giant post!)
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
I wasnt attacking you Ive heard this argument before. Which lead me to my point things like electricity (which you can actually see in lightining) can be proven on paper and in labs, have a physical presence, equations to calculate, can be manipulated by mankind by being created and destroyed.
Oh, I know you weren't, and I know the analogy is flawed as a general analogy. I just think it does raise the point that whether it be electricity or something else, most of us do things everyday without really knowing why we are getting the results we get, and we never bother to question those things. And it's somewhat disconcerting when you really start to think about how much you don't know about things you do every day. Disconcerting in a fun way, but still.
I know what my belief is, or in this case, lack thereof, and i'm not going to try to convince anyone otherwise.
And if more people were confident in what they believed or did not believe and did not feel the need to push things - then it would be a much friendlier place.
How come all of the examples of God appearing in front of people (talking to Moses, Abe, Noah) were all thousands of years ago? Why doesn't something like this happen in modern times? And if it did, would we not consider this person crazy? Also, how bad was the earth when God decided to flood it and start anew? Was is worse than our current global situation?
I don't know for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that mental hospitals are full of folks who believe they have seen God.
Have you heard of Daniel Johnston? There's a movie about him called The Devil and Daniel Johnston (which I heard about on here, actually, and I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it). Basically, he's got really severe bipolar disorder, and it made him have all kinds of religious delusions. But in cases like that, I can't help but wonder, are they necessarily delusions? Maybe his particular illness opens him up to seeing things other people can't see or don't see or won't see? (The movie does not raise these questions. It's more biographical than philosophical). In the end, I guess I don't really believe that, but I do believe that, if a person actually were to see or talk to God, s/he likely would be written off as psychotic.
I suppose satanism (anton levay based) is pretty new...
I actually own the Satanic bible. I bought it as a book to keep on my coffee table as a conversation piece. It isn't actually as silly as you would think. It says that people are their own gods and that they practice religions because they enjoy the rituals and such. I tend to agree with Mr. Levay on that one.
How come all of the examples of God appearing in front of people (talking to Moses, Abe, Noah) were all thousands of years ago? Why doesn't something like this happen in modern times? And if it did, would we not consider this person crazy? Also, how bad was the earth when God decided to flood it and start anew? Was is worse than our current global situation?
I've read up on it - satanism is cool up until the point where they believe in magic, curses, and other superstitious things. also, he really is over the deep end in a few things - relating to retaliation and destroying your enemies... it's been a while. i almost joined the church because i wanted the business card saying you were a member just send cash!
but its struck me as a bastardization of humanism. and wouldnt result in a very peaceful society.
as for your second point - go to nyc - find a street corner - you will find someone talking to god, aliens, and a lamppost
also, i agree with viciouscircle about her point with electricity. i might have a degree in biology, but im not a scientist - nor to i pretend to know much about quantum physics, evolutionary biology, etc etc - but these are widely researched topics and there are many experts on the subject. i "believe" in their work, although i do not care to take the time to understand it. however, unlike religion, it's all reviewed and reproducible research... i just have faith the scientific process / principles were used when publishing the knowledge.
Last Edit: Mar 13, 2009 11:34:41 GMT -5 by idio - Back to Top
How come all of the examples of God appearing in front of people (talking to Moses, Abe, Noah) were all thousands of years ago? Why doesn't something like this happen in modern times? And if it did, would we not consider this person crazy?
lol... it does, and we do. That's the short answer. In the Orthodox Church we believe strongly in miracles and that they still happen. There are many, many books written on the miraculous lives of saints, and these aren't just really old stories. One of my favorite books is about a priest named Fr. Arseny who was a prisoner in Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution. He lived in the camps for about 30 years, and the book is written by his many friends and spiritual children, chronicling the miracles they witnessed as a part of his holiness. It's a compelling book.
I wouldn't call myself religious, but I still investigate religious beliefs, as well as science and how the two work together and complement or contradict each other, because I don't think I'll ever be certain of how, precisely, one ought to live, and that's the big question to me, in a nutshell. How am I to best live, how am I to best handle interactions with others, with myself, with the planet etc. and those are the questions at the root of all religions, ultimately. That and death, but I don't really concern myself too much with the question of what's after death - I figure the questions about right now, today, are more than sufficient to keep me occupied. And I figure the death one can't be answered with certainty anyway till (hopefully!) much later. Another 40 years for me, at least!
YEM - Nowhere in the bible are women called whores. You are probably thinking of the common perception that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute - the bible does not say that and it wasn't interpreted that way till the 8th century ( I think that's the time frame)
Oh, I didn't mean women in general. Sorry for being so vague. I just meant there are references in the Bible to women being harlots (at least twice that I can think of off hand...one time when Judah pays someone for sex, another time when Dinah's sister is raped). I understand during the time the Bible was written women were like property, and the Bible conveys that-but doesn't make it "right." My main objective was to point out that women are and inferior most of the time in ancient religous texts.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
The question that leads to then is what caused man to become more civilized? Chicken and egg - did the study of and reaching towards god make man more civilized, or did man becoming more civilized on his own, then make god more civilized, and if so how did man become more civilized on his own?
Good thing I have to go to work now, because I have no idea on that!
No... It does not address if there was a God who created man. It's just an anthropological observation about how humans' views of God have changed as human society has changed.
I think Reflectionism says something to the earlier statements about how certain religious groups adhere to ancient texts more or less strictly.
As for man becoming civilized... We discovered fire, metal alloys, yada yada, nuclear weapons & the Internet. We did that ourselves. God didn't will them into existence. The advancement of human civilization is not the work of a supreme being - it's the work of man.
Reflectionism, as the name implies, was man's concept of God becoming more civilized as man became more civilized.
I guess to add to my question is that if we think that the guy on the corner of the street in NYC who claims to be talking to God is indeed crazy, why do we not believe Moses et all to be crazy? What method do we use to weed out the crazies from the non-crazies?
This thread gets an A+ from me; shows us all as open minded and respectful of everyone's opinions. I've read this thread, and most of all of what I think has been said, in one way or another.
Way to go, guys... this makes me proud!
Oh and for the record, I was raised in a strong Southern Baptist family, started questioning at an early age (like 6 or 7), gave my religion more of a shot in my pre-teen years, did more research in my early-mid teens, and then settled on my agnostic opinion in late high school.
This thread gets an A+ from me; shows us all as open minded and respectful of everyone's opinions. I've read this thread, and most of all of what I think has been said, in one way or another.
Way to go, guys... this makes me proud!
^this
since I give advice in the "going to vegas" thread and get smited...sigh maybe I should stick to intelligent debates and not try yo help someone out. Glad some people on here have an open mind
I guess to add to my question is that if we think that the guy on the corner of the street in NYC who claims to be talking to God is indeed crazy, why do we not believe Moses et all to be crazy? What method do we use to weed out the crazies from the non-crazies?
I think it first helps to refrain from labeling people based upon behavior you cannot reconcile with your own. "Crazy" cannot be diagnosed by a layman from a passing encounter on a street corner.
I guess to add to my question is that if we think that the guy on the corner of the street in NYC who claims to be talking to God is indeed crazy, why do we not believe Moses et all to be crazy? What method do we use to weed out the crazies from the non-crazies?
I find it hard to believe when people argue over the legitimacy of some of these claims and not others. A God who is able to create the universe is probably capable of reaching out to more than one individual, should he see fit. The fact that God is said to have talked to Moses & Jesus doesn't necessarily prohibit God from also speaking to Muhammad.
For example, the Qu'ran's account of the birth of Jesus (who is considered to be a prophet in Islam) sounds suspiciously like accounts of the Buddha's birth.
I just see too much overlap... The way I see it, a majority of the world worships the same being but disagrees on how best to do it. Which, I should add, is a big reason I don't claim any religion. I haven't even responded to the poll. If pressed for an answer, I suppose I'd call myself a non-practicing Unitarian Universalist... which is pretty much the most non-committal option out there.
I guess to add to my question is that if we think that the guy on the corner of the street in NYC who claims to be talking to God is indeed crazy, why do we not believe Moses et all to be crazy? What method do we use to weed out the crazies from the non-crazies?
I think it first helps to refrain from labeling people based upon behavior you cannot reconcile with your own. "Crazy" cannot be diagnosed by a layman from a passing encounter on a street corner.
So only a doctor can label a person as crazy? And even then if 9/10 doctors say that that person is crazy, are they still crazy? It's not unanimous.
If I were to say that all of the roads are made of peanut butter and I drive a spaceship with hamburger wheels that can shoot lazers out of my headlights, is that not crazy? Should you refrain from judgment then? There must be a criteria to determine sane from insane.
There is criteria to determine sane from insane. I'm saying that you cannot gather enough enough information in a brief encounter -- the "crazy" on the street, as you described it - to make that determination, particularly as it relates to whether or not someone believes they are being spoken to by God.
I think it first helps to refrain from labeling people based upon behavior you cannot reconcile with your own. "Crazy" cannot be diagnosed by a layman from a passing encounter on a street corner.
Crazy can be quite self-evident at times. You can't always tell, but you also can't always not tell... Inbetween those extremes, there will be people who obviously have toys in the attic.
I do the Dante Hicks register jockey gig. I'm a layman. I deal with the general public for brief interactions. You can definitely pick that up from some people with just a brief encounter. Trust me, I live in a state with some of the most open government laws in the nation. All I need is your name, and I can find your court records, voting history, and most likely your current home address, among other things. I've had plenty of suspicions which I've verified.
I don't know whether God speaks directly to anyone or not, but I'd like to think if he spoke directly to me, a rational and intelligent being, that people wouldn't be chomping at the bit to say I'm off my rocker.
It's arrogant to profess we are authorities on something none of us have concrete evidence supporting or disproving. I respect everyone's right to believe or not believe.