More importantly, it is VERY POSSIBLE that NO ONE has "felt god" because it is VERY POSSIBLE a god does not exist!
More importantly, it is VERY POSSIBLE that NO ONE has "felt god" because it is VERY POSSIBLE a god does not exist!
Because the context of the writings are important to understand. Given the time frame that Leviticus was written in, some of the rules were revolutionary. For example, no one else quarantined for disease for another few hundred years at least. The Bible is fraught with the shortcomings of humanity, yet the helping hand of God is always present.
I agree completely. There can only be one truth, as truth cannot contradict truth. However, how we experience that truth is deeply personalized. This does not weaken the truth in any way any more than if the color you perceive as purple looks green to me. The wavelength of the light is still the same, though our brains may show us different things. Religion should bring you closer to God, and people should choose a religion accordingly. I feel that subjecting your beliefs or experiences to the scrutiny of others is an important part of the journey in the same way that colleagues may collaborate on a project. No one worker could complete the project on his own, at least without making numerous mistakes and taking much longer. The synergy of cooperation will (nearly) always lead to superior results in less time.
Are you an American? Because what you say is a slap in the face to all of American history. The same people that wrote the Constitution also wrote the Declaration of Independence, the document in which the fundamental hierarchy of rights was explicitly listed:
Clearly then, the rights are from the Creator (which you can take as God or not if you really want to question that). The authority of the government comes from the people to uphold these rights.
That's the kind of reasoning we're looking for: complete intolerance of those who practice religion. I'm sure that's what the Fathers had in mind in the First Amendment, right?
but that is exactly the problem with modern religions today. there is no room for cooperation, truth is absolute. people are brainwashed at a young age with a very strict set of core beliefs that are not meant to be questioned. if religion existed as you say it should then of course it would benefit everyone immensely, but the reality is that this synergy is a rarity in organized religion.
This is clearly false. If what you say were true, then the Bible (or, at the very least, the Torah) never would have been written. At some point, the first religious text was written, which means the search for divinity does not stem from the texts. The fact that you think these experiences could be attributed to something else simply tells me that you have not had such an experience. The experience comes from actively seeking the truth, and is difficult/impossible to experience if you have already closed your mind to certain possibilities as to the source of said truth.
Apparently, TYPING IN ALL CAPS stands as a replacement for your critical thinking on this issue. If you had thought about it carefully, you'd realize that probability has nothing to do with it. Either God exists or not. You simply seek to appear enlightened and intellectual by postulating his nonexistence despite all the evidence. You interpret the evidence differently because you have a predisposition to not believing in God. I have been presented with the same evidence and have come to the conclusion that the probability of God is 1.
Synergy between religions is something to be grasped at. However, I'll settle for synergy within certain religions at this time. The journey to God is not something most people can achieve on their own in a single lifetime.
When we speak of being reasonable, then we must take into consideration both creationism and science.
Teaching evolution as fact in school is a joke. We are also taught Thermodynamics which states that everything is depreciating, breaking down and dying over time. Apparently evolution doesn't follow that law...things get better over time, and develop into stronger beings than they were at the start.
Hmmm, how's that work? Sounds like science is contradicting itself! Everyone, quick, let's find some other "absolute" to believe in!
Everyone here should read The Genesis Flood. It's a compelling case for the understanding of Creationism through science.
It would benefit many of the responders here to look at both sides.
I thought I'd throw out an example of what I'm talking about when I say people may perceive evidence regarding God differently. This is a very real situation that I'm very much in tune with. I was at the Cardinals game on Tuesday when the storm started that knocked out power to most of St. Louis. The temperatures here have been >100°F all week. Much of the city is being evacuated to cooling centers. Story.
There are two primary interpretations for the above events:
1. God does not exist. If he did, he could prevent all of this suffering by not causing such a terrible storm to combine with a deadly heat wave.
2. God caused this to happen so that the good nature of humanity could once again be exposed.
Which option you select depends heavily on your state of mind, prior experiences, and thought processes. Many try to feign rationalism by pretending that option 2 is really not an option at all. They are the eternal pessimists who see no good in any event because they already know beyond all doubt that man is evil and a damned species. They arrive at this conclusion in the same way that I have arrived at the opposite conclusion. I simply have a different way of perceiving things based on my own past experiences and thought processes.
There are two primary interpretations for the above events:
1. God does not exist. If he did, he could prevent all of this suffering by not causing such a terrible storm to combine with a deadly heat wave.
2. God caused this to happen so that the good nature of humanity could once again be exposed.
Which option you select depends heavily on your state of mind, prior experiences, and thought processes. Many try to feign rationalism by pretending that option 2 is really not an option at all. They are the eternal pessimists who see no good in any event because they already know beyond all doubt that man is evil and a damned species. They arrive at this conclusion in the same way that I have arrived at the opposite conclusion. I simply have a different way of perceiving things based on my own past experiences and thought processes.
Well, at the time these religions that don't cooperate today came into existence, I think they represented certain advances in the evolution of human spirituality, generally speaking. For example, Moses brought Law, which provided the foundation for moral behavior between people, hard and fast rules you were required to live up to. This is good for a lawless society where individuals make their own rules and force is the motif of the day.
But once law is established and human insanity fixes on it, the law becomes a way to murder the true religious spirit. You can't find God just by obeying law. Law is an approximation of justice which is an approximation of truth. Law without mercy is evil. It eludes elements of human compassion. So Jesus came with forgiveness for sin and the notion that you turn the other cheek instead of seeking lawful retribution. Them of course is tough boots to fill. It is pretty damn hard to turn away from monstrous evil and just say, OK go ahead and kill me.
Islam brought some balance to the scene, at least as I see it. You destroy evil mercilessly and without compromise right up to the point where evil says I give up, and then you totally forgive.
But in none of these three is there any way to be sure that what you personally are, your personal understanding, is sufficient to tell you exactly what IS good and evil. The devil is always at play and his job is to convince you that he is the good. It is quite likely, in my opinion, that if you are sure you know then he's won.
With regard to the source of human rights in our Constitution as compared to the Declaration, even if the rights are God given they must be interpreted by man. God will not come into the court house in any visible way and pass judgment on our laws. We have to do that and we have to do it based on the reason God gave us to do that ourselves, no? Man is forced, is he not, to be the measure of all things. In the end, all we have is our judgments. We have to apply them but when we do and think they are absolutes do we not run into danger?
You're confusing the difference between reality and perception. The idea of Natural rights found in the Constitution, is that they are God-given (through creation). There is no interpretation required. The fact that we do not uphold or protect those rights does not make them any less so.
The Declaration of Independence was signed before the Constitution, so it precedes the establishment of lawful government. The aim of the Declaration was to air the grievances of the original 13 States against the British Empire. These grievances no longer exist, and there are now more than 13 states. It has ZERO legal power today; all of its legal relevance was wholly nullified by the Constitution. No lawyer takes a course in Declaration of Independence law. Every lawyer takes a course in Constitution law.
Next you're going to be telling me that this country was founded "Under God" because it's on our money, forgetting the fact that those words only started appearing on our currency because of good ol' Sen. J. McCarthy during the apex of the Red Scare. :roll:
And how, pray tell, does emphasizing the fact that this nation is a secular nation which derives its rights from the people, and the government derives its power from the people, in any way signal a complete intolerance of religion? I happen to think the most important document we have is the Constitution, which clearly outlines people are free to exercise whatever religion they want. I already stated religious organizations & religious thinkers have contributed greatly & will continue to do so - but they've always been & always will be religious folks who use religion as a path to reason, not absolutist ignorance. However, believing this country was founded upon any sort of "universal truth derived from religious beliefs" is a gross & simply inexcusable misunderstanding of this nation's laws & history.
That's just about a perfect explanation. :beer:
Exactly. I think the point I was trying to make is that, historically, the founding fathers recognized a divine source of true rights that they would try to uphold.
We weren't discussing the legalities of the issue, only the history. The fact that the Declaration is not a legal document does not diminish the fact that the founding fathers recognized a divine source of rights.
I'm not arguing with your principle, only your selective memory of history. I didn't say that your emphasis on your 'fact' that this is a secular nation is intolerant. I said that your telling someone to get the hell out for disagreeing with you is intolerant. That is the quintessentially anti-American position - condemning someone for having an opinion contrary to your own, yet this is your SOP. You only appear in threads with religious connotations to condemn those who disagree with your opinions, then disappear into the night. You feign intellectual open-mindedness, yet you are the most closed-minded of individuals. You condemn others for 'forcing their beliefs on you'. In doing so, you are forcing your beliefs on them. These things point to hypocrisy. If you want to have an honest discussion, which at this point I don't think you really do, leave your ego at home. Discuss ideas instead of demonizing people for having different ideas. If your ideas really have superior merit, then they will stand on their own.
I also felt he had a valid post that ended intolerantly and indeed almost ridiculously given the quality of what came before.
I thought we had left behind the God given as being in the Constitution. And if rights are indeed God given as you claim, their interpretation certainly ain't. You may think you understand all the deepest truths in life just fine and without any mental effort on your part, but I certainly don't want to be bound by your absolute certainty. Please give me a court of reasonable people where I can argue against you if I have a need. You seem to be a fundamentalists and that's what we want to get away from, no?
So the question I have is how do we build bridges between various religions to foster respect for some inner truth some of us think they all contain and then how do we build bridges to people who think religion is nothing but crap?
I would begin by asking if there might be some fundamental human experience that's hard to come by for the religious as well as the non-believer, but which is the source of all our longings. Does anybody ever feel incomplete and that there must be more? Does anybody ever get pissed off at the way things are. Where do such feelings of separation and injustice come from. Some might say God and some might say the human heart. But if one is the image of the other than what does it really matter? The question is, does anybody ever find a real answer, one that is so revolutionary in understanding that it overturns the world, or did Jesus and Mohamed and Moses and Buddha and many many others just happen to get lucky. Were there revelations magnetic and full of the light of truth or did they just get dealt a good hand and play a good game.
Is it possible that the truth some call various words for God is the same truth others call becoming who you really are? Is it possible there is a truth that almost everybody on earth almost completely misunderstands?
For the savage God is a rock, and for the spiritual of our day an abstract being. Could it be that our understanding has grown but little and that we have ahead of us yet more steps?
I would begin by asking if there might be some fundamental human experience that's hard to come by for the religious as well as the non-believer, but which is the source of all our longings. Does anybody ever feel incomplete and that there must be more? Does anybody ever get pissed off at the way things are. Where do such feelings of separation and injustice come from. Some might say God and some might say the human heart. But if one is the image of the other than what does it really matter? The question is, does anybody ever find a real answer, one that is so revolutionary in understanding that it overturns the world, or did Jesus and Mohamed and Moses and Buddha and many many others just happen to get lucky. Were there revelations magnetic and full of the light of truth or did they just get dealt a good hand and play a good game.
Is it possible that the truth some call various words for God is the same truth others call becoming who you really are? Is it possible there is a truth that almost everybody on earth almost completely misunderstands?
For the savage God is a rock, and for the spiritual of our day an abstract being. Could it be that our understanding has grown but little and that we have ahead of us yet more steps?
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,791
- 6,350
- 126
Practically every religion agrees on what makes a "good" person, what is acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, and in many other areas. The only differences lie in who/what is "god(s)" and what kind of practices one should carry out to appease god(s). If there is a god and that god appeared to humanity, I suggest that all Religions were founded by that god, it only makes sense. However, there is no need for god, Religious teaching is merely extrapolation of Common Sense put into a package that gives humanity pause before action("if I do this, will I go to Hell?" or "If I want to go to Heaven, should I do that?") .
Where Religion goes astray is when it gets hijacked by its' own members. They'll go beyond the Message and begin to justify their own evil by the very writings that condemn it. They'll blow up innocents at a coffee shop, assasinate Doctors at home, blow up patrons at a Pub, or even assasinate leaders of Nations all in the name of what condemns them to begin with.
Is god the original Bin Laden? I don't think so, but many of its' believers seem to think so.
Going from a Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalist to Agnostic/Atheist was both easy and hard for me. Easy due to seeing that Christians were no different from the others that Christians condemn, Hard due to the fact that the Religious message of Heaven/Hell is very effective at holding one's attention. The worst part of it all is the Group Think that goes with it, "We good, they bad!". It is so strong that Reason from outside the Group is hardly even considered because that's a Them thought and is of the Devil. If someone within the Group suggests an evil thought(Genocide, Racism, or other generally frowned upon idea) fellow members of the Group will at the very least entertain the idea, because those within the Group are not of the Devil, but of "God". The vast majority of the time those thoughts/ideas are rejected, thankfully, but on occassion they are not.
Where they usually get rejected are in Economically developed and/or Secularly Ruled Societies. On the flipside, where they are usually embraced are in Economically Poor and/or Religiously Ruled Socieites. Wealth and Secularism is what wears down the rough edges of Group Think. Wealth brings Comfort and a Lifestyle that's difficult to abandon, Secularism is a constant reminder that there are others outside the Group and that they are on equal footing with you under an Authority greater than yourself.
It is not necessary for Religion to end, for despite its' risks it offers many Hope. I think we all know somebody who "Got Religion" and it turned them from being a menace to society/themselves/others into productive citizens, although they often are bizarre in their newfound way. However, the future of Progress depends on Secularism, not Religious Fundamentalism. That's not to say that Religion must be eliminated, because that would be just as bad as Fundamentalism, it all comes down to who/what controls a Socities Government/Law(hello Dissipate!!! ). Only a Secular Government can remain neutral enough to allow a wide variety of Belief exist under its' rule, let Religious Fundamentalism take over and that becomes an impossibility.
Where Religion goes astray is when it gets hijacked by its' own members. They'll go beyond the Message and begin to justify their own evil by the very writings that condemn it. They'll blow up innocents at a coffee shop, assasinate Doctors at home, blow up patrons at a Pub, or even assasinate leaders of Nations all in the name of what condemns them to begin with.
Is god the original Bin Laden? I don't think so, but many of its' believers seem to think so.
Going from a Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalist to Agnostic/Atheist was both easy and hard for me. Easy due to seeing that Christians were no different from the others that Christians condemn, Hard due to the fact that the Religious message of Heaven/Hell is very effective at holding one's attention. The worst part of it all is the Group Think that goes with it, "We good, they bad!". It is so strong that Reason from outside the Group is hardly even considered because that's a Them thought and is of the Devil. If someone within the Group suggests an evil thought(Genocide, Racism, or other generally frowned upon idea) fellow members of the Group will at the very least entertain the idea, because those within the Group are not of the Devil, but of "God". The vast majority of the time those thoughts/ideas are rejected, thankfully, but on occassion they are not.
Where they usually get rejected are in Economically developed and/or Secularly Ruled Societies. On the flipside, where they are usually embraced are in Economically Poor and/or Religiously Ruled Socieites. Wealth and Secularism is what wears down the rough edges of Group Think. Wealth brings Comfort and a Lifestyle that's difficult to abandon, Secularism is a constant reminder that there are others outside the Group and that they are on equal footing with you under an Authority greater than yourself.
It is not necessary for Religion to end, for despite its' risks it offers many Hope. I think we all know somebody who "Got Religion" and it turned them from being a menace to society/themselves/others into productive citizens, although they often are bizarre in their newfound way.
However, the future of Progress depends on Secularism, not Religious Fundamentalism. That's not to say that Religion must be eliminated, because that would be just as bad as Fundamentalism, it all comes down to who/what controls a Socities Government/Law(hello Dissipate!!! ). Only a Secular Government can remain neutral enough to allow a wide variety of Belief exist under its' rule, let Religious Fundamentalism take over and that becomes an impossibility.Originally posted by: sandorski
Practically every religion agrees on what makes a "good" person, what is acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, and in many other areas. The only differences lie in who/what is "god(s)" and what kind of practices one should carry out to appease god(s). If there is a god and that god appeared to humanity, I suggest that all Religions were founded by that god, it only makes sense. However, there is no need for god, Religious teaching is merely extrapolation of Common Sense put into a package that gives humanity pause before action("if I do this, will I go to Hell?" or "If I want to go to Heaven, should I do that?") .
Where Religion goes astray is when it gets hijacked by its' own members. They'll go beyond the Message and begin to justify their own evil by the very writings that condemn it. They'll blow up innocents at a coffee shop, assasinate Doctors at home, blow up patrons at a Pub, or even assasinate leaders of Nations all in the name of what condemns them to begin with.
Is god the original Bin Laden? I don't think so, but many of its' believers seem to think so.
Going from a Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalist to Agnostic/Atheist was both easy and hard for me. Easy due to seeing that Christians were no different from the others that Christians condemn, Hard due to the fact that the Religious message of Heaven/Hell is very effective at holding one's attention. The worst part of it all is the Group Think that goes with it, "We good, they bad!". It is so strong that Reason from outside the Group is hardly even considered because that's a Them thought and is of the Devil. If someone within the Group suggests an evil thought(Genocide, Racism, or other generally frowned upon idea) fellow members of the Group will at the very least entertain the idea, because those within the Group are not of the Devil, but of "God". The vast majority of the time those thoughts/ideas are rejected, thankfully, but on occassion they are not.
Where they usually get rejected are in Economically developed and/or Secularly Ruled Societies. On the flipside, where they are usually embraced are in Economically Poor and/or Religiously Ruled Socieites. Wealth and Secularism is what wears down the rough edges of Group Think. Wealth brings Comfort and a Lifestyle that's difficult to abandon, Secularism is a constant reminder that there are others outside the Group and that they are on equal footing with you under an Authority greater than yourself.
It is not necessary for Religion to end, for despite its' risks it offers many Hope. I think we all know somebody who "Got Religion" and it turned them from being a menace to society/themselves/others into productive citizens, although they often are bizarre in their newfound way.
This analysis is descriptive of what is but presumes, I think, there is no hidden big truth that man, generally speaking, is blind about, which would certainly be normal if one did happen to exist and you were blind to it, no?
It is only false if you assume that all the various holy books (that happen to be somewhat conflicting) were actually written after a legitimate vision/message from God. If on the other hand you assume that all the holy books were written by clever leaders at the time who realized what a great idea it would be to create and use a guide/rulebook that claims to be divinely inspired and therefore infallible and unquestionable. I hate to pick on anyones religion, but I can't help but think of Joseph Smiths 'experience' as a recent example of how all religions and holybooks could have came into existance.
You are correct that I have not had such an experience, at least nothing that I would identify as 'feeling God' in the typical way a religous person would describe it. I have certainly had experiences that I think a fundamantal person in my shoes would likely ascribe to God even though I did not, but the fact that such an experience can not even be adequately defined makes it hard to say though. Is it something that actually has measurable effects, like say if we were monitoring someone who was 'experiencing God' would we see something happen to that persons brain activity, blood pressure, heart beat, etc? Or is it more like a dream that can't really be detected? Either way and I still think that identifying the experience as having anything to do with God is a result of being raised in such an environment that suggests this is possible and the most appropriate explanation.
An example of this idea is the alien abduction/interaction phenomenon that only recently appeared in popular culture. If you've ever read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World then you should be familar with this. Until about the 1950's aliens and ufo's were pretty much absent from our collective knowledge, and there were practically no accounts of abductions and sightings. Then once science fiction stories and the space race make the idea of extraterrestrials popular, all of a sudden we see a huge increase in 'extraterrestrial experiences'. The notion spread like wildfire throughout popular culture and before long there were millions of people claiming to have had an 'extraterrestrial experience', when only a few decades ago such a thing was unheard of. In the past before such an idea was part of our consciousness many of the people that associate their experience with extraterrestrials, might have instead attributed them to whatever was a popular explanation at the time be it God, demons, ghosts, nymphs, fairies, etc.
However if your the kind of person that atributes a power outage from a storm, as the work of God then its not very likely you'll be able to see where I'm coming from.
I think there is some evidence that the lamas of Tibet can produce some pretty weird brain activity as they do strange stuff, or that at least is what I have heard. As 1prophet mentioned in another thread, there might be some hope in recognizing the bogus from the real in their fruits. The problem then of course becomes what really are good fruits. The classic answer to this problem, it seems to me, is in the expression, 'He who tastes knows." This would imply an experience of such a caliber that it leaves no doubt. One such possibility on can read about here and there is the state of 'cosmic consciousness' just as a term label, where duality suddenly stops with ego death and a person enters fully into the timeless now or perhaps even more accurately where one brings ones heart along on entry.
But I am not sure about some of these things. I have heard often that there are three known paths to the truth and a fourth that's rather secret described in the story of the horse, the carriage, and the driver, or the way of the monk, through the heart, the way of the fakir, through the body, and the yogi, the way of the mind. Perhaps the fourth way has something to do with a passenger, hehe. Maybe these people are nuts but maybe they are up to something, no? A good scientist would have to walk the walk to really know, it seems to me. These people may have a science of steps that if you take them will take you somewhere expected by those who've gone that way before. But in the East, especially, they have this notion of a guide, a person who knows the way and can help you because of that fact. Of course nobody can guide anybody who doesn't want to be led and nothing at all about not wanting to be led has to be conscious.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter