aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Oct 8, 2006 4:06:03 GMT -5
I hope that I'm not straying too far off topic, but I wanted to reply to some of this .... Well, I'm no Biblical scholar, but it seems that most of the parts of the Bible people take issue with are in the OT. Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured, though I would say there are parts of the NT as well that harken back to the OT, what I earlier referred to as "crossover". Personally, I'm a huge science enthusiast, and when I look around at the marvels of the universe, and at the wacky stuff upon this planet alone, I actually find it quite easy to believe that anything is possible. That's hardly a scientific argument, and not a ringing endorsement of anything, but it does remove some of the human element and provide a "maybe" that doesn't necessarily go against the scientific knowledge I find so fascinating. In the end, I don't find it important to hold a strong, "I'm going to force this upon everyone I meet" opinion either way. (People get so mad at me when I say that!) Can't say I disagree. Well, when you consider how we humans treat "lower" animals, even the God of the OT doesn't seem that unreasonable- the only difference is that our species is no longer the one holding the power. It may not be fair and it may be childish, but then, by the same token we're a pretty unfair and childish species ourselves, believing that anything that doesn't share our genetic code can be exploited for food or pets or research. Of course there are people who disagree with these things, but as a society we generally justify them because we feel that a greater "good" is being obtained (usually in favor of our species. By the way, I'm not necessarily arguing against the way we treat animals, although I would like to see some changes, but that's way off topic.) It really puts things into perspective, and calls to mind that "Man created in the image of God" thing (or, as some would say, "God created in the image of Man...") Can't say I disagree. Then I guess the joke's on the believer, if that were the case. - Aric Not really. The believer is dead and gone, and therefore can't know that s/he was wrong, and all of the non-believers who are also dead and gone can't point and laugh. Those of us who are alive obviously can't be certain either way, so we don't really count. One could still see it as darkly humorous from a hypothetically objective point of view if you consider the situation. It's having there be an afterlife of some sort and following the wrong faith that could be a problem, but that's a risk we all take. True, though I don't think that's likely to happen in any case. - Aric
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Nov 15, 2006 17:25:14 GMT -5
Well, I guess my first question is, what's the meaning of life if there is a God? Don't know? Well then. A few other points: anyone who says that they would do anything they wanted without God is clearly a whackjob and, also, not as religious as they seem to be reporting. Think about it: the only reason they're not doing terrible things is a fear of Hell. That's a terrifying sort of person. On the OT vs. the NT: Jesus was operating under the assumption that most of the people he was preaching to - i.e. other Jews - knew all about the Old Testament, so there was no reason for him to reiterate it. His message was that the society had become to insular and legalistic, too rigidly adherant to the Old Testament law that they'd lost sight of any humanity and beauty that their religion had. "Above all else, love one another," he said to those who would treat Jewish society as a caste system, harshly judging, condmening, and sentencing their own people.
|
|
takumsaw
Dolphinback
I am Wind in His Hair! Do you see that I am not afraid of you? Do you see?
Posts: 14
|
Post by takumsaw on Nov 23, 2006 21:49:36 GMT -5
Well, if there is no God, we would find out eventually. If we discovered this, our society might degenerate after a long while. Still, someone would realize that the human race cannot survive without some code of ethics. Right and wrong would equal the difference between survival and obliteration. As for an afterlife, well, being remembered is the real immortality, or so the Epic of Gilgamesh teaches.
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Nov 24, 2006 12:10:29 GMT -5
Well, if there is no God, we would find out eventually. How, exactly? As for an afterlife, well, being remembered is the real immortality, or so the Epic of Gilgamesh teaches. So did the more orthodox forms of Judaism, at around Jesus' time. I think some forms still deny the existance of a real afterlife.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jan 14, 2007 0:45:59 GMT -5
Well, I guess my first question is, what's the meaning of life if there is a God? Don't know? Well then. I suppose that depends on what kind of God you're proposing exists. On the OT vs. the NT: Jesus was operating under the assumption that most of the people he was preaching to - i.e. other Jews - knew all about the Old Testament, so there was no reason for him to reiterate it. His message was that the society had become to insular and legalistic, too rigidly adherant to the Old Testament law that they'd lost sight of any humanity and beauty that their religion had. "Above all else, love one another," he said to those who would treat Jewish society as a caste system, harshly judging, condmening, and sentencing their own people. The thing that I was getting at was the idea of Jesus introducing something new to the Biblical moral system. And that would be a basis for internalized morality. For the purposes of discussion, I want to carry over your description of Jewish society being too legalistic to the OT itself. After all, IIRC, most of the basis for morality in the OT was obedience to God lest you be punished. Is that not the basis of legalism? I haven't read all of the OT, just Genesis and a smattering of other portions, and I don't recall the authors trying to justify morality as anything other than an obedience to God. The ten commandments (I don't think it matters which version it is) is perhaps a good illustration of this. I don't recall Moses trying to explain why people should follow these rules, only that you should do so because God would punish you if you don't. Jesus on the other hand introduced, for example, the Golden Rule. Though, I'm not saying he invented it. In this, you treat someone else in the same way you would want to be treated. It seems to me this is based on empathy and self-interest rather than just "Do it because God said so." Is there any legitimacy to this view, or am I just out of it? - Aric
|
|
|
Post by Wolf on Jan 21, 2007 4:07:13 GMT -5
Now i will try this again. I had a very nice well worded post almost finished nad my computer decide to fritz. Now i have to try to put it all together again. . .
I have not yet read through every post in this thread yet so i appologize if i reiterate anything that has been said. When i started this, it was almost three o'clock in the morning. It is now almost four. I will be going back at my next opportunity to read the rest but i wanted to get this in before i could forget what i wished to say.
Morality in my opinion is seperated (or at least should be) from any belief in god, gods, or goddesses. It is a sense of what is right and what is wrong, not merely a means to a nice spot in the afterlife. A person who would instantly give it up if there were no god is not exactly in a position to bother one way or the other in my opinion as there would already be a problem in their character that a god would have noticed and be preparing to punish.
Now i am not christian. Used to be but am no longer. I am pagan and believe in many gods but they have no power over my daily actions. I believe deeply in reincarnation though i do believe in 'heaven' so to speak and 'hell'. In my belief however they are only stopping points between this life and the next. My actions in this life decide where i shall wait between lives.
As such, i can see where a person might think the way mentioned however. Suddenly take god out of their equation and they have an easy out ( b x y = c , where b is god's judgement, y is the ratio of a person's good and bad deads in fraction form, and c is either eternal bliss or damnation. Take b out of the equation. 0 x y = 0 or nothing. 0 times anything equals nothing so no value of y would make a diference. ) Thus they would feel that there would be no consequences for their actions.
*realizes that her explanation may be confusing and that it shows she is a bit of a math nut (or however you wish to put it) but she cannot seem to come up with a better way of putting it . . . .*
This however does not reflect how they would be viewed by their fellow man for it is the here and now that truly matters. Crimes would still be subjuct to earthly punishment whether or not there is a god in the afterlife to punish us again. One's credibility would still be in question. How people see one would still be important.
Morality, in my opinion, is a force in itself. Much like Karma, i suppose. What you do will always have an effect. Whether or not that effect harms or benefits you is determined by the type of energy you put out. Positive or negative.
In my opinion, god or gods or goddesses should not have much to do with it at all. They have no immediate effect over my life in any way shape or form. I honor them for their wisdom and gifts but otherwise, they would be nothing. What one does not believe in cannot harm one and so if i did not believe could i be harmed by them? Not in my opinion.
As to whether or not we should still be decent people, i believe i have adequately expressed my answer to that question.
One last, semi-off-topic point i would like to express" I cannot understand the divine punishment thing. If the cristian god is benevolent and all forgiving, would they not forgive someone for following something that they believe with all their heart and follow to the best of their abilities? Also, how can one say that a person who makes small mistakes that they are more or less unaware of all their lives and never asks forgiveness of a god will go to hell and a person who does some very nasty, evil things can ask forgiveness and go to heaven? That is not the way i see a god judging a person. Not on belief and prayers but on their action and intentions. That is the reason for the christian ten commandments, is it not? I don't see why they would even be given if the people could just break every one of them and ask forgiveness to go to heaven. I understand some leniency when mistakes are made but blatantly going against them then asking forgiveness even if they do mean it in the end seems . . . against anything i can consider.
Now, most christian would say i am going to hell. I am a pagan. I practice witchcraft, divination, and do not believe in Jesus. I find his depiction to be . . . wrong, not to mention impossible. No offense meant.
My appologies for getting off topic. I will leave it at this for now until i have read a bit more of the thread. Once i have done so i may post more but i see to have written a book already. Again, my appologies. *looks up* Yep. Pretty much wrote a book.
May your dieties watch over you, Eb Dr
|
|
Anemone
Apprentice
Drummer, dreamer, and doodler...
Posts: 128
|
Post by Anemone on Jan 25, 2007 16:22:44 GMT -5
I think I'll pitch in my say: As a Christian, the thought of the absence of God is not only alarming, but terrifying, and on that hand I would immediately say 'NO!' and refuse to even think on the subject. As a philosopher, however, I can't go with any initial reaction. This question is actually best adressed by the thinkers of the past.
Democritus came up with atoms. He believed that everything in nature was made of tiny particles that 'flowed', and could never be destroyed. When a person died, their atoms dispersed and reformed into something new--a new living being. However, in his philosophy he leaves no room for the existance of man's immortal soul; in fact, he didn't believe in it.
What does this have to do with God? Well, along came Plato. He believed that everything in nature had a kind of duality (with the exception of government and ethics, but that isn't important.), and refused to believe that man did not have an immortal soul. Thus, he formed a new theory: There are two sides to everything we see--the substance of something and the idea of something. The substance of thing is quite simply its matter, the part of an object that we can see and touch; it exists in many variations but is still only variations on the same theme. The idea is that theme. It is the same object as it exists in the realm of ideas, which Plato thought of as a separate dimension of its own.
For example: Say you go to a museum and see the skeleton of a Triceratops. You are only seeing the bones; no flesh or tendons grace the creature before you. Nevertheless, your mind conjures up the image of a living, breathing dinosaur, perhaps even one that strolls along leafy ‘idea’ jungle paths or other environments. The bones—the concrete matter of the dinosaur—are an incomplete representation of the living creature, yet in your mind you see it as a whole being. The skeletion is the substance of it; the image in your mind, the idea (which, in Plato’s reasoning, is the true creature).
The same goes for humans: our body is the substance, our soul is the idea.
Centuries after Plato died, there arose a new philosophy: Neoplatonism, founded by Plotinus. Plotinus wouldn’t let Plato’s theory of ideas rest, and he took it a step further. He said that, yes, everything exists as both substance and idea, but which came first? (Aristotle also bothered with this, but only by trying to discredit Plato. He was more a fan of Democritus, it seems.) Plotinus reasoned that something must be the beginning of these ideas, and he theorized that existance was like a fire burning in an otherwise lightless void. He even went as far as to say that human ideas—souls—were sparks that flew off this fire. The flames were the source of all ideas, and the darkness was the absence of them. Thus, the darkness was concrete matter—substance—and the light immaterial ideas He called this fire that supplied the light the One.
Call it what you will: One, God, Allah, the cosmic force, the Universe, Fate, eternity, Zeus, Dagda, Jupiter, the elements, the Big Bang, I… the list goes on and on. The idea of something that came first is suggested by even the philosophers who discarded the idea of any god—one or many—and their names could fill a book.
I guess my point is that even if there is no God, we have the potential to become God to ourselves, regardless of out faith.
I can write a book, too, Ebony Dragon. ;P
|
|