100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: What is the purpose........ | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jess642
on
Sat 02/09/08 08:26 PM
|
|
What is the purpose????
Ummm....picture this..... Inexplicable phenomena occurs....person A asks person B...'How did that happen?' Person B not wanting to appear an uninformed idiot, replies....'Religion'. All unexplainable guff, now resides in the file marked 'Religion'.   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the purpose???? Ummm....picture this..... Unexplicable phenomena occurs....person A asks person B...'How did that happen?' Person B not wanting to appear an uninformed idiot, replies....'Religion'. All unexplainable guff, now resides in the file marked 'Religion'.
I BELIEVE (((Jess642)))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey S1ow!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Starlight
Miss seeing you around you know!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jess, haven't seen you in while. If you were gone, welcome back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not gone, just absent.... Thanks Dragoness, life found me meandering in distracted absentia....
Busy world, lovely man, and a whole lot of stuff piled up to get through... Never gone, always in the shadows..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are only two really important questions in life: a) what is virtuous? and b) how shall i spend my time? Yes, the ultimate wisdom. 
To bad this isn't the focus of religion. 
Far too many people spend part b trying to tell other people how they should answer part a.
It's a personal question folks.
That's the key. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To bad this isn't the focus of religion.
religion Definition (from yourdictionary.com) re·li·gion (ri lij′ən) noun 2. 1. any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy - the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc. 2. any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system - humanism as a religion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the way i look at it, a single life is one thing, multiple lives and their interactions is a larger existence, the totality of all life and interactions is godlike. i conceive of God as the origin of life. i consider this one God entity to be the equivalent or synonymous with the Old Testament God - or any monotheistic concept of God for that matter. i do not believe that virtue is subjective. there are qualitative and measureable differences between what Josef Stalin considered virtuous and what Mahatma Ghandi considered virtuous. There has to be a standard by which good is differentiated from evil. Some people might refer to this standard as God as well while others might say that it is merely human consensus opinion. However, the human consensus argument does not wash since a group of humans is just as capable of having an arbitrary ethical standard as any individual - e.g. Lord of the Flies. The Bible(s) of the world are interesting and worthy of examination and study by anyone truly interested in learning about such issues as they are humankind's earliest written record of our attempts to deal with these fundamental problems. Although as of this writing the jury (i would have to say) is still out.
Virtuousness is subjective just as you said Stalin will have a different ideal of virtuousness than Ghandi. Degrees of virtue are subjective. The ideal of good is not synonymous with god though. If I am with a group of people and I take a chain and sling it around my head and cause pain in my fellow humans I will know by their pain that this is not a good thing to do. On the flip side of that when I am walking into building and I see a person in a wheel chair having a hard time navigating the door and I ask if it would be okay for me to help them and they say yes and I do, the result is a good response and I will know that I did a good thing. I did not need a book or bible to tell me that, I interacted with my fellow man and found out on my own one was good and the other bad. As children we learn these things without a book to teach us. Now as for a group, well, even in bible groups the group mentality is whole different dynamic then a personal interaction. Groups of people lynch other humans and make themselves feel justified in doing it. Groups of people can be much more dangerous then one individual. On the flip side of that coin groups of people do amazingly good works together also. I guess I would have to say if you are of a weak constitution and cannot decipher that hurting others is not a good thing to do then a book or religion that threatens you to do them or go to hell, it may work for you. I feel a strong spirit or person however you want to put it can stand on their own without instruction from a book or religion to make them "be good", they wiil choose the right road to travel without this outside instruction. Also, if a strong person does not know an answer to a dilemma for them they ask, this is an action of a strong person. I hope this makes sense, I am getting very tired. I am going to go to bed. If this does not make sense, let me know and I will correct myself tomorrow. Good night all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has to be a standard by which good is differentiated from evil. Some people might refer to this standard as God as well while others might say that it is merely human consensus opinion. However, the human consensus argument does not wash since a group of humans is just as capable of having an arbitrary ethical standard as any individual
If the human consensus argument doesn’t wash then what do we do? Who’s to say which book is the word of God? As far as I’m concerned the Bible is nothing more than the opinions of the humans who wrote it. And I would add that they most certainly don’t appear to be in consensus with one another. Even the God of the Old Testament doesn’t seem to be in consensus with the God of the New Testament. One says, “an eye for an eye”, the other one says “turn the other cheek”. One God says to stone sinners to death, the other God says that only those who are without sin should cast the first stone. They are clearly not in consensus on these and other issues as well. So even the Gods of the bible aren’t in consensus on what is virtuous. The Bible(s) of the world are interesting and worthy of examination and study by anyone truly interested in learning about such issues as they are humankind's earliest written record of our attempts to deal with these fundamental problems. Although as of this writing the jury (i would have to say) is still out.
The jury may be still out for you. But in my world that trial was over a long time ago and the verdict was unanimous can clear. The Bible is so self-inconsistent that it couldn’t possibly be of a divine origin or inspiration. There wasn’t even any reasonable doubt. It should have never even gone to trial. The book should have been dismissed as pure mythology eons ago. That’s my reality. If it has any value at all, it contains the opinions of men. Many opinions that don’t even appear to be in consensual agreement. If we’re going to take Jesus at his word, for example, then we have to denounce the parts of the bible where it says that all men are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God. Because Jesus clearly states otherwise. A lot of people have tried to separate the teachings of Jesus from the rest of the Bible. Unfortunately this cannot be done whilst maintain the Gospels as “gospel truth”. Because the Gospels imply that Jesus was indeed the incarnation of the God of Abraham thus nailing Jesus permanently to the Old Testament. None of this matters to me because, as I say, for me personally the trial was over long ago and the verdict is that it was never a divine book to begin with. Not even close. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well i can certainly understand your skeptical point of view!
i often feel skeptical myself
but my perspective is a little different. i view the attempts of humankind to grapple with these issues - even in such a contradictory and inconsistent way - as the search for truth - the search for perfection - what many call a quest for god and holiness. in this sense the bible is a holy book - craziness and inconsistencies and all. i can accept that. so i find the beauty and wisdom in it and recognize that it cannot be taken literally and that with a little creativity it can be interpreted almost any way you wish. it is the effort to work through our common problems which makes it special - and its historical significance of course. i see this as a divine struggle. you ask - "if the human consensus argument doesn't wash then what do we do?" and "who's to say which book is the word of God?" i would answer that the answer to the first question is that we look inward (pray) and outward through discussion with others we continue to sincerely seek what is just with as open a mind as possible - without accepting that the virtue of Pol Pot is the same as the virtue of MLK. but this is not an easy question and there is no indisputable answer...but that in and of itself is part of the answer...for me
as for the second...that one is easy. none of them are. they were written by people - fallible people...but there are grains of truth in all of them...that is why we must be tolerant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so i find the beauty and wisdom in it and recognize that it cannot be taken literally and that with a little creativity it can be interpreted almost any way you wish. it is the effort to work through our common problems which makes it special - and its historical significance of course. i see this as a divine struggle.
I’m in 100% agreement with you here. I think a lot of people misunderstand me. I reject (and even denounce on logical grounds) that the Bible is not the word of God. This does not mean that the stories have no value at all. They have just as much value as any other writings of men. I’m in perfect harmony with that. The only thing I object to is the idea that it is the sole and indisputable word of our creator. I totally reject that notion with passion for a myriad of reasons, not the least being that I simply don’t believe that our creator would play such petty games with us. There can be no question that the biblical God loves to play hide-and-seek to the point where he won’t even make himself known to many very devout and sincere people who have seriously wanted to believe in him. I just don’t believe that our creator would be so bold as to write a clearly ambiguous book and then go off playing hide-and-seek to see who will believe the absurdities in the book. And there are absurdities in the book. Quite many of them. From fire-breathing dragons to people being turned into pillars of salt, to the whole planet being flooded and a handful of people building a boat to save the animal kingdom,… to,… well the list just goes on and on and on,… So it’s this idea that the book is the verbatim word of God that is absurd. Is it a spiritual text written by men? Sure. But that’s not the same as being the word of God. I personally don’t believe that God would be so perverted about sex. Fornication might sound like a bad word but all it really means is to have sexual intimacy outside of holy matrimony. It’s not adultery. It’s not perversion. It can be a completely loving sincere relationship between two very decent loving people who simply aren’t interested in making a lifetime commitment to each other. They act of fornication in and of itself can be a very beautiful loving thing, dispute the negative connotations of the word that is used to denigrate it. I just personally don’t believe that God would be against LOVE just because a lifetime commitment is not of interest to the lovers. Only the perverted minds of men could come up with that crap!!! I also don’t believe that God would disapprove of same-gender relationships if they were genuinely loving caring individuals. I’m not gay myself, but I just can’t imagine a loving God frowning on TRUE LOVE in any form. There are other supposedly “laws” or “rules” that this book claims are from God which I also believe are just as perverted. Those are the perversions from the minds of meddling fools, I don’t believe they came from a genuinely loving God. Too much bigotry to be from God.
So valuable writings of men? Perhaps some of it is. But the concrete word of God? No way. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are other supposedly “laws” or “rules” that this book claims are from God which I also believe are just as perverted.
but these are not Gods laws....
God has indicated to me that stoning was not from God and that sex is great, and love is beautiful, all sincere and kind people are accepted....and >that< is what you should learn from the bible...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are other supposedly “laws” or “rules” that this book claims are from God which I also believe are just as perverted.
but these are not Gods laws....
God has indicated to me that stoning was not from God and that sex is great, and love is beautiful, all sincere and kind people are accepted....and >that< is what you should learn from the bible...
I guess I've been listening to too many perverted fundamentalists.
But seriously, if you’re going to pick and choose what you like, then why bother clinging to the whole picture? Why not just recognize that the book isn’t the word of God, and just say so. I think all you’re really doing is trying to be PC so the fundamentalists won’t throw stones at you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I've been listening to too many perverted fundamentalists.
But seriously, if you’re going to pick and choose what you like, then why bother clinging to the whole picture? Why not just recognize that the book isn’t the word of God, and just say so. I think all you’re really doing is trying to be PC so the fundamentalists won’t throw stones at you.
you ...you ...(spluttering) calling me PC?!!
well OK mr. pantheist. if you don't wanna see the divine in the bible then why see the divine in all these flawed peepses?! hmmm? hmmm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Mon 02/11/08 10:19 AM
|
|
well OK mr. pantheist. if you don't wanna see the divine in the bible then why see the divine in all these flawed peepses?!
Cuz peepsies are cute and extremely astute so that makes your question exceedingly moot The women all love me cuz I’m naughty as hell I may be a saint, but I sure ring their bell And now you are jealous cuz your hands are too S1ow you miss all the pleasures of spontaneous flow Checking the rules to see if your right before acting on impulse in the heat of the night Flowing with spirit will set your soul free to indulge in creation with unrestrained glee Devouring passions with a frivolous fervor trusting your instincts to be your preserver Knowing your heart is the guide at your helm and all of God’s wishes reside in that realm Give yourself over to the spirit inside quit chasing an idol that insists it must hide!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(playing with contrasts. )
|
|
|
|
|
