# logic and religion, ca fait deux (incompatible)?



## Benjy

is there a place for logic when discussion things concerning god/religion etc etc?
are all beliefs in a higher power illogical? 

play nicely


----------



## cuchuflete

If you are discussing churches, which are terrestrial, man-made institutions, logic is fair play.  If you are discussing faith and spirituality, I don't see that it matters whether the conversation is 'logical', as logical process and outcomes are not the point.  

Here is where it can get sticky....some religions say that their scriptures and dogma are received almost directly from a higher power.  This can neither be proved nor disproved with logic.  Hence, a logical discussion of those writings is inherently illogical.  Either one believes them or one does not.  It's about faith.


----------



## Benjy

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> If you are discussing churches, which are terrestrial, man-made institutions, logic is fair play.  If you are discussing faith and spirituality, I don't see that it matters whether the conversation is 'logical', as logical process and outcomes are not the point.
> 
> Here is where it can get sticky....some religions say that their scriptures and dogma are received almost directly from a higher power.  This can neither be proved nor disproved with logic.  Hence, a logical discussion of those writings is inherently illogical.  Either one believes them or one does not.  It's about faith.



mmm i don't know  i still think a religions dogma can be tested in a logical fashion wether it be claimed that it comes from on high or not.

"if any man will do his will he will know of the doctrine whether it be of the father or whether i speak of myself"

"by their fruits ye shall know them"

ignoring the source of these two quotations for a second i would liek to submit a very simple theory:

what is the ultimate way of finding out if a diet works? you try it out, and until you do you have nothing but the word of others.

can this analogy be applied to religions? i would suggest that it can.


----------



## gaer

Benjy said:
			
		

> what is the ultimate way of finding out if a diet works? you try it out, and until you do you have nothing but the word of others.
> 
> can this analogy be applied to religions? i would suggest that it can.


I think I'll sit this one out. It's going to be interesting!  

G


----------



## Monkling

I never took a class in theology and it's been a long time since I was in school but I'm pretty sure some of the ancient philosophers came to the conclusion, through logic, that there is some sort of Supreme Being. For myself, I find that the more I know about my own faith, the more I see the logic behind it, the reasons behind the rules.


----------



## gotitadeleche

Monkling said:
			
		

> I never took a class in theology and it's been a long time since I was in school but I'm pretty sure some of the ancient philosophers came to the conclusion, through logic, that there is some sort of Supreme Being. For myself, I find that the more I know about my own faith, the more I see the logic behind it, the reasons behind the rules.



And there are people like C.S. Lewis who started out atheistic and through reasoning and logic, wound up becoming Christian. A record of the reasoning he used is in his book Mere Christianity.


----------



## Mr X

I have been told that faith has nothing to do with logic, but I disagree. If I believe that God is a supremely powerful being who is also perfect, and has my best interests at heart, from my point of view it makes absolute sense to put my faith in Him! That seems logical to me.


----------



## Benjy

about the "logical proof" of god's existence.. i don't think that i have every read an argument that really holds. 

"in the absence of the experience of god men have tried to explain the experience of the absense of god"


----------



## Benjy

i aslo changed the title of the thread slightly.. before i couldn't think of a word in english for ça fait deux


----------



## Silvia

ça fait deux = two separate things

I would say:

reason and religion, a great distinction

Could that work? Reason was at the basis of enlightenment in the XVIII century.


----------



## Leopold

Benjy said:
			
		

> what is the ultimate way of finding out if a diet works? you try it out, and until you do you have nothing but the word of others.
> 
> can this analogy be applied to religions? i would suggest that it can.



Erm, isn't it that way for everything in life? And isn't it different for each person? And what do you mean? If it works then take it??

Religions may help us to have our lives under control and giving a (pseudo)sense (sorry) to our lifes.

In my view life is senseless and aimless. Looking for something for fixing that hole is deceiving yourself (this is my opinion). Which, on the other hand, may be the best of approaches.


Leo


----------



## kathy_wylie

For me, I don't need 'proof' of God's existence. I believe in Him. For me it just seems logical that there is God, a perfect supreme, mighty being who is in control of my life, has a plan for my life, has reasons for everything that happens in my life and to me, and who is looking out for me. I have faith in him.

I think that there are things are little human minds can't conceive, can't grasp etc. IE.. God


----------



## Everness

In the letter pasted below, there are two examples of arguments trying to explain God's participation in human suffering. The first one emphasizes human beings' free will. The second one lays the blame squarely on God's big shoulders. 

Who is the winner? Neither and both. Why? Because believing in God is a matter of faith and not believing in God is a matter of ideology. Even if you can convince me or I can convince you at an intellectual level about the rational merits of your/my argument, you or I might choose to continue trusting our belief systems (mystic, atheist, agnostic). 

Hay razones del corazon que la mente no entiende!


God's poorly designed creation

April 17, 2005

EDWARD A. Colozzi writes that ''It may be hard sometimes to trust an almighty God who allows wars, injustice, and poverty." But he then reflects that mankind has free will so we do have some control over these problems (''Promoting justice, peace, and love," letter , April 10).
Remaining text from quote deleted by moderator. Click on the link to read it!!  Everness:  


> No web pages or copyrighted or plagiarized content may be inserted into WordReference posts. Minor fair use excerpts from dictionaries such as a definition/translation or two is permitted. Other *quotes of less than one paragraph (4 sentences) are permitted* as well. All other forms of inserted content from press releases, newsletters, web pages, or any other copyrighted content placed into messages will be removed without exception. A link to the content is acceptable and appropriate.


 




http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/04/17/gods_poorly_designed_creation?mode=PF


----------



## cuchuflete

Nothing has been censored. Every word from the original post is visible if you click on the link.

Thanks,
Cuchuflete


----------



## lsp

kathy_wylie said:
			
		

> For me, I don't need 'proof' of God's existence. I believe in Him. For me it just seems logical that there is God, a perfect supreme, mighty being who is in control of my life, has a plan for my life, has reasons for everything that happens in my life and to me, and who is looking out for me. I have faith in him.
> 
> I think that there are things are our little human minds can't conceive, can't grasp etc. IE.. God


I don't know how to phrase this without sounding facetious, but I mean it very sincerely, please take my word on that. You say, "I have faith in him." Faith in him to do what? Can he keep someone out of the path of a drunken driver? Spare a soldier's life in combat? Guide a world leader to the path of peace? Lead those that believe in the "wrong" faith (because surely God can't endorse all of our contradictory beliefs) to the "right" one? Faith in him to make it up to the righteous person who had a hellish earthly life by rewarding them in heaven?

I believe in God, but I struggle with the boundaries or implications of faith, and when I meet someone who seems to have less doubt, but is not a clergyman, I try to understand what that person thinks faith is and what role God plays in life on earth. 

I hope you don't mind, and understand where my question to you is coming from.


----------



## Benjy

lsp said:
			
		

> I don't know how to phrase this without sounding facetious, but I mean it very sincerely, please take my word on that. You say, "I have faith in him." Faith in him to do what? Can he keep someone out of the path of a drunken driver? Spare a soldier's life in combat? Guide a world leader to the path of peace? Lead those that believe in the "wrong" faith (because surely God can't endorse all of our contradictory beliefs) to the "right" one? Faith in him to make it up to the righteous person who had a hellish earthly life by rewarding them in heaven?
> 
> I believe in God, but I struggle with the boundaries or implications of faith, and when I meet someone who seems to have less doubt, but is not a clergyman, I try to understand what that person thinks faith is and what role God plays in life on earth.
> 
> I hope you don't mind, and understand where my question to you is coming from.




i would guess by faith she means that she has faith that in the end things will be alright because there is someone who will balance out the scales in the end.


----------



## lsp

Benjy said:
			
		

> i would guess by faith she means that she has faith that in the end things will be alright because there is someone who will balance out the scales in the end.


What and where is "the end" when things all work out? Heaven? 

p.s. Is that what you mean by faith, too? Or just what you think KW meant?


----------



## kathy_wylie

Being a Christian means having a personal relationship with God, therefore not everyone's definition or meaning of faith is the same as mine. 

Yeah, Benjy has a point. I have faith in God that everything will be OK in the end.

But its not just that, it's more than that.

I'll give a few examples, it's easier for me to explain that way!

1. My life in general.. I have faith in God that he has a plan for my life, adn that everything that I encounter in my life is for a good reason, even though I don't know what the reasons may be at the time. Even obstacles, hardships, tragedies even that happen to me or just in my life, I believe that God allows and even makes them happen for good and valid reasons! I hope that's clear enough! I'm not brilliant at expressing myself!!

2. If I have something which seems important and 'life changing' coming up, ie, a university interview, a job interview maybe, I have faith in God that I'll do it how he wants it to be. If it goes well then brill, that's what God wants for me. If it doesn't, that's what God wants for me, and he'll bring along other even better opportunities that are all part of this 'plan'.

Are you beginning to get the picture? Ii don't know if i have explained myself very well!!


----------



## cuchuflete

I have faith in a higher power that offers guidance and opportunity for us to be good to ourselves and to one another. I do not believe in a 'him' that will force us to make the right choices. I believe in a power that allows us to create good religions, and that allows fanatic opportunists who use perverted interpretations of good religions for evil motives. My personal notion of that power has nothing to do with a Disney movie in which justice always prevails, or in which innocence always leads to rewards.

A glance at almost any history book or newspaper will show that human events are driven, at very least in part, by flawed human characteristics. That does not lead me to abandon the idea that a higher power gives us the opportunity to do good. Rather, it persuades me that some people don't make use of that opportunity.

 Religions are man and woman made institutions that enjoy the benefits and suffer the defects of human character. For me, they are not confused with the higher power(s) that is said to motivate their existence.


----------



## Everness

lsp said:
			
		

> I don't know how to phrase this without sounding facetious, but I mean it very sincerely, please take my word on that. You say, "I have faith in him." Faith in him to do what? Can he keep someone out of the path of a drunken driver? Spare a soldier's life in combat? Guide a world leader to the path of peace? Lead those that believe in the "wrong" faith (because surely God can't endorse all of our contradictory beliefs) to the "right" one? Faith in him to make it up to the righteous person who had a hellish earthly life by rewarding them in heaven?
> 
> I believe in God, but I struggle with the boundaries or implications of faith, and when I meet someone who seems to have less doubt, but is not a clergyman, I try to understand what that person thinks faith is and what role God plays in life on earth.
> 
> I hope you don't mind, and understand where my question to you is coming from.



The assumption behind your questions is that God is the Great Puppeteer and we are impotent puppets, and that God is in complete control of his/her puppets and the world scene. Whatever happens in this world and in my life, especially the bad things, has to do with God's direct intervention. 

As a Christian, I don't share your assumptions. God is control but we are in charge.   We human beings get ourselves into bad situations. When that happens, we blame God for intervening or not intervening. We should learn to take resonsibility of our own actions. For instance,

It was the drunk at the wheel who killed the pedestrian, not God. 
It was Bush who decided to invade Iraq and put American soldiers in harm's way, not God.
It is ethnocentrism or political shortsightdness that doesn't allow Jews and Palestinians to reach a peace, not God.
It's human beings who ultimately decide in what God to believe or the ones who construct religions that separate them from other religions, not God.
Its human beings (parents, society, etc.) who create hellish conditions of life for other human beings, and that have a huge impact on present and future generations, not God. 

We should cease whinning and bitching about how unfair life and God are, and do something to improve our shitty world and our shitty existences. Let's look inward to discover the good and bad within ourselves. Once we do that, God might give us a hand!


----------



## lsp

Everness (and everyone), I do appreciate people sharing on a sensitive, personal and elusive topic. But let me clear up one point. I made no assumptions. I have none to make, hence the question. By the way, you didn't really tell me what your answer is, you only told me what, in your opinion, God doesn't do. What is God's role in the events on earth, and/ or in oursleves on earth?


----------



## JLanguage

First of I want to state that I am Jewish, and that while my opinion has no strict adherence to tradition, I still believe that as a Jew God requires me to act in certain ways above and beyond that go above and beyond the requirements of Gentiles. However all people are required both by follow basic rules of human decency.

I cannot believe that God directly controls everything that happens. I believe that he created the universe as he saw fit and then left his creations to do the rest. by this mean that when a Tsunami it's not the will of god, but simply a natural occurrence. God is omnipotent could intervene to stop bad things from happenings, but that would disrupt nature and restrict free will. 

When the Nazis systemically murder millions of people, or when Saddam Hussein orders chemical and biological weapons to be used on the Iranians, that is free will. I do believe that in the end any person who increased the amount of good in the world will be rewarded, and any person who increased the amount of evil will be punished. How and in what manner this will be carried out is beyond human knowledge.

My two cents,
-Jonathan.

Naturally as a Jew I do not believe in Jesus or Mohammad, but I have no problems with the existence any other religion.


----------



## Everness

lsp said:
			
		

> Everness (and everyone), I do appreciate people sharing on a sensitive, personal and elusive topic. But let me clear up one point. I made no assumptions. I have none to make, hence the question. By the way, you didn't really tell me what your answer is, you only told me what, in your opinion, God doesn't do. What is God's role in the events on earth, and/ or in oursleves on earth?



Fair enough. I'm trying to find answers myself to those questions. Someone is helping me in this endeavor. Her name is luar. She is a forero and a good friend of mine in the real world. She has a gifted mind, a great heart, an exquisite spirit, and all this interior beauty wrapped up in a beautiful body! (Sorry luar to put you on the spot!) I really enjoy our lenghty and passionate conversations. Although she became a forero, luar doesn't believe in cyberspace and is convincing me to leave the virtual world and return to the real world. Why these introductory words? Because my dearest friend is moving back to her beautiful Dominican Republic in a matter of days and this is my way of saying good-bye... 

The first thing I got out of our conversations is that God didn't need to create us, human beings, but he choose to do it. Why? God enjoys relationships, after all we Christians believe in a triune God and we believe that the members of the Trinity relate to one another. So God decided to create someone --and not something-- in his image and likeness: us. What are the implications of this? First, human beings have this deep hunger and thirst for relationships. God is a God for others. Human beings have this strong need to love and to be loved. Second, human beings also have this unquenchable need to create: intellectually, emotionally, artistically, relationally, etc. Our ability to co-create with God is another sign of having been created in his image. Third, human beings aren't puppets but agents of free will who can script their own lives within the limitations of being a creature and not the creator. If we take into account how screwed up things currently are in the world and to some extent in our lives, was this after all a good idea? I don't think God has any remorse about having created a human being who could say no to him, and who eventually did exactly that.

So what does God do in this world and in our lives? He is not the clockmaker who made a clock, wound it up, and then forgot all about it. In a mysterious way he is with us: He is suffering with us, laughing with us, walking with us. He is someone who doesn't forget us even if we forget him. He is someone who sticks with us even if we turn our back on him. He is the God of the second, third, fourth... opportunity. He sheds a tear and gets pissed every time that a drunk driver kills an innocent pedestrian or an Iraqi or American life is lost in this stupid war. I believe in a God who is willing to work with us in getting rid of war, bigotry, poverty, etc. and creating a more secure, just, and loving world. 

So luar, am I a good disciple or what?


----------



## Benjy

mmmm.. the only thing that i don't agree with all that is the basic logical quandry that plagues pretty much all mono aetheitic systems: if god created everything then he created the very conditions which 1) necessitated the sending of his son jesus christ to die. why? that just makes no sense. 2) sin? why sin. surely, if he creates the rules then why punishment? what is the point of this life anyhows? whats going to happen in heaven? and if the goal is just to  exist forever happily and he knows everything why didnt he just put the "good" people in heaven and the "bad" people in hell and just skip the whole earth life bit. but then why bother with "bad" peaople? did he create them so that he could watch them suffer? questions questions questions...


----------



## JLanguage

Benjy said:
			
		

> mmmm.. the only thing that i don't agree with all that is the basic logical quandry that plagues pretty much all mono aetheitic systems: if god created everything then he created the very conditions which 1) necessitated the sending of his son jesus christ to die. why? that just makes no sense. 2) sin? why sin. surely, if he creates the rules then why punishment? what is the point of this life anyhows? whats going to happen in heaven? and if the goal is just to exist forever happily and he knows everything why didnt he just put the "good" people in heaven and the "bad" people in hell and just skip the whole earth life bit. but then why bother with "bad" peaople? did he create them so that he could watch them suffer? questions questions questions...


 
1. In Judaism Jesus was a heretic and a messianic pretender. In Islam, Jesus never died, he went straight to heaven. It was Judas who was crucified in his stead. 
2. What do you mean? Most people on this Earth know that you are not supposed to murder, steal, cheat, etc. They choose to ignore this.
3. The point of this life, is the great mystery. However, I believe that each individual's purpose is to do as much good as he can, each in his own way. 
4. Those who claim to know about Heaven cannot because they have never been there before. You will know when you die.
5. No one is born "evil", every person has a chance to do good. Hitler could have become the political savior of Germany, brigning germany back into a position of prominence, without all his massive crimes aginast hunmanhity.  Who can say that in anothjer life he may not have made that choice?
7. God did not create "bad people". Yes he gave people free will, and therefore the ability to to choose evil over good, but without our existence would be pointless.


----------



## Benjy

ok. mayb i didnt explain myself very well. let me try again 

if god knows the begining from the end then regardless of my agency he knows what i will choose. if i am a being totally of his creation then you pretty much make him responsible for the choices i make. this is logical. it makes no sense to create a being who you know subjectively will make bad choices then send him to hell.

as for the meaning of life. why would anybody have any faith in a religion that makes no attmept to explain why we are here or what the point is. all rational people need some kind of rational basis for their faith. if not, then by definition they are nto rational.


----------



## JLanguage

Benjy said:
			
		

> ok. mayb i didnt explain myself very well. let me try again
> 
> if god knows the begining from the end then regardless of my agency he knows what i will choose. if i am a being totally of his creation then you pretty much make him responsible for the choices i make. this is logical. it makes no sense to create a being who you know subjectively will make bad choices then send him to hell.
> 
> as for the meaning of life. why would anybody have any faith in a religion that makes no attmept to explain why we are here or what the point is. all rational people need some kind of rational basis for their faith. if not, then by definition they are nto rational.


 
So you are saying that if I God is, omnipotent,omniscient, prescient and he creates you, then he is responsible for your actions because he knows what you will do. God is beyond time and space and so indeed he knows what you will choose. Why then doen he create you? I am not sure, I do not claim to know the answer. However, I know that God is not responsible for your actions. How do I know this? Because you have free will. There are many instances where people have planned some nefarious deed and then decided against it. You are responsible for your actions, because you are a sentient being, because you have a soul. You can go against what you know is right. An angell is an emissary of God and cannot choose to do good or evil. It simply carries out God's orders. Therefore, God is responsible for it's actions. This, among other reasons is why Jews do not believe in the Christian Devil, nothing can rebel against God unless God allows it.

A rational basis for my faith? You truly want one? I was raised Jewish. But why do I continue to believe? Because, I cannot believe that the world is pointless. God''s existence justisfies my own. It's as simple as that. I have yet to find a rational secular justification for why we exist. Believing that we are random occurrences, brought about by some system of the universe, is not true justification.


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> . it makes no sense to create a being who you know subjectively will make bad choices then send him to hell.



However it might 'make sense' from a human perspective for God to create a being that may make either good or bad choices.  If that's the case, and if one were to be too literal in interpreting the 'in his likeness and image' thing,
that would imply.......


----------



## JLanguage

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> However it might 'make sense' from a human perspective for God to create a being that may make either good or bad choices. If that's the case, and if one were to be too literal in interpreting the 'in his likeness and image' thing,
> that would imply.......


Also, at least on this planet, it seems as if for good to exist, so must evil. I should hope that's not true, but who knows.


----------



## Benjy

interesting. what do the jews say about isiah 14?

i still fail to see how god is not resposible. for it seems that there are two logical possibilites with regards to free will.

if i make a robot that has the capacity to make choices based on the information it recieves then it is making its own choices. but we all make choices based on what we know. in this case i programmed the robot. i gave it its base. if it decided based on the knowlegde that i had given it to go and kill people i think i would have a hard time escaping the blame. if god totally created us then somewhere along the line he programmed us. he fixed our capacities for learning. he did something. ergo he is resposible for that.

other possibility is that intelligence cannot  be created. rather than creating it he organised it. which incedentally is a possible interpretation of the word created in the first sentance in genesis. barau is the word in latin chracters i believe. i don't know how to do the herbrew characters on this keyboard.

do you see what i am getting at?


----------



## Everness

JLanguage said:
			
		

> A rational basis for my faith? You truly want one? I was raised Jewish. But why do I continue to believe? Because, I cannot believe that the world is pointless. God''s existence justisfies my own. It's as simple as that. I have yet to find a rational secular justification for why we exist. Believing that we are random occurrences, brought about by some system of the universe, is not true justification.



Ah, this type of statements are the ones that make me say that if I weren't Presbyterian I would be Jewish!   Ah, by the way, this same argument but from a Christian perspective is what keeps me alive. Otherwise, life would have no sense whatsoever and taking my life would be the only rational thing to do...


----------



## lsp

Everness said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> So what does God do in this world and in our lives? He is not the clockmaker who made a clock, wound it up, and then forgot all about it. In a mysterious way he is with us: He is suffering with us, laughing with us, walking with us. He is someone who doesn't forget us even if we forget him. He is someone who sticks with us even if we turn our back on him. He is the God of the second, third, fourth... opportunity. He sheds a tear and gets pissed every time that a drunk driver kills an innocent pedestrian or an Iraqi or American life is lost in this stupid war. I believe in a God who is willing to work with us in getting rid of war, bigotry, poverty, etc. and creating a more secure, just, and loving world.


I'm with Benjy (questions, questions, questions...).  How do his creations benefit from the tears he sheds when a drunk driver kills an innocent pedestrian, etc. How will he/does he work with us in getting rid of war, bigotry, poverty, etc. and creating a more secure, just, and loving world? Basically, what is the difference between the way things are and the way they would be if God had created us like a clockmaker, wound us up and forgot all about us?


----------



## lainyn

I agree with Benjy incredibly precisely on most days, but on others my Christian upbringing rises out of nowhere to influence me tremendously. This is what I have learnt:

1)God doesn't make sense, though I'm not sure if I can accept this and still believe in God.
2) It is not possible to prove he exists, or that he doesn't. Such things must be taken in faith.
3)Religious brings comfort to many people, whether or not the /truths/ it preaches are true. Thus the reason I still enjoy worship music, and reading the Bible.


----------



## Benjy

ok. hebrews 11:3 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

faith bases itself on something. to say that the answer is a mystery or simply imcomprehensible is not good enough for me. example: i take a man off the street, you don't know him. i say "give him £100, and he will triple your money" you say "go take a running jump" why? because you don't know the first thing about him. thats logical. can you see the application im trying to make? how can you trust in some force? some being whose nature you know not? 

john 4:20 "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"

in much the same vein one might ask "If a man say, I have faith in God, and hath not faith in his brother, he is a liar: for he that hath not faith in his brother whom he hath seen, how hath he faith in God whom he hath not seen?"


----------



## Silvia

Cuchu: 
you call churches terrestrial, as far as I know everything on this Earth is terrestrial  Everything is made by men, if you want to see it from a rational point of view. Let’s take the Bible for instance: someone claims God is telling him His rules, but it’s the man writing them down, so how can I be sure they are from God? Either I believe his words or doubt them.

Benjy: 
you said any religion must have a basis of rationalism. Then you question God’s need to send His son. You are looking for possible reasons for this need. Throughout history, human beings have been needing some kind of proof (just like you’re doing now). Starting from the point that you either believe in a supreme entity or you don’t, whatever proof could be inconsistent because subject to interpretation: what is a sign of God for a believer, it’s a mere natural event or else for a non-believer. If I want to seek some rationalism in what men say, I would start wondering why different religions share the basics about creation, about the flood – please consider men who had not the chance to be in contact with one another. So the universal flood is half way between the legend and the science fact, all ancient cultures share that piece of knowledge. Also, specifically about Jesus, why was he sent? Logical explanation: he was sent, because he was the only one who could come back in flesh and bone, thus the most important concept among Christian beliefs is the one of Resurrection, which is also a further proof to believers and non-believers. Speaking of which, the story about Thomas is still very up-to-date, it pretty sums up the nature of men: he couldn’t believe in the return of his dead friend, actually he was bothered that Jesus decided to show up when he was not there and knowing he was not there, after all Jesus could have shown up in another more suitable moment, when everybody was present (at least every disciple). But there lies the core of the whole matter: you don’t have to believe because you saw, you just believe or you don’t and, in the case of Thomas, his faith could not be based on that further proof. Moral of the story: you can’t make everyone happy.


----------



## Benjy

i'm not questioning the whether sending his son was rational  assuming that we needed a saviour and that jesus was the one to do it it all makes perfect sense BUT why would god create conditions such that his son would have to suffer and die as he did? thats my question 

by the way: tradiotns of the flood everywhere is a rther facinating point. esp the ones found in south america which tally up with the chronology of the bible


----------



## Philippa

Silvia said:
			
		

> Starting from the point that you either believe in a supreme entity or you don’t, whatever proof could be inconsistent because subject to interpretation: what is a sign of God for a believer, it’s a mere natural event or else for a non-believer.


Hi! I agree with this, you can make a logical worldview with either a god existing or no god existing. With no supreme being I do think you end up with something like Leo's view in post#11.

I thought of this argument/line of reasoning as I read this thread. The bit I remember is from halfway down the page onwards - the big list of common arguments for Christianity and then the diagram showing their overlap
"Even though no one of these arguments could alone carry the day, together they converge to point to the Person and Work of Jesus Christ as indeed God-in-human-flesh with incredible force. They make a "cumulative case" (from philosophy) and a "converging evidence case" (from legal science) for the system as a whole."
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/justlook.html
In fact this whole thinktank website is a powerful case for logic and religion being compatible. I've tried reading lots of it and it is very
in-depth, interesting and too tricky/philosophical for me to follow at times!


			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> i'm not questioning the whether sending his son was rational  assuming that we needed a saviour and that jesus was the one to do it it all makes perfect sense BUT why would god create conditions such that his son would have to suffer and die as he did? thats my question


Benjy, hasn't this got something to do with free will? If we didn't have the choice to rebel and be selfish, and we hadn't chosen that, then we wouldn't need rescuing by Jesus? And God did want to give us free will, so that we could choose to love him and not be forced to.

Saludos a todos los foreros
Philippa


----------



## Benjy

ahh yes  free will. but if this is something of god own creation why didnt he just sort it so we would all make good choices? it doesnt seem logical to me that as paul said he would make some vessels unto honour others to dishonour (see my other posts in this thread) i'll take a look at the website you posted


----------



## Benjy

so i looked on the website  its an interesting read. but it still doesnt answer the most basic question. why? christian theology holds itself together very well but what's the point? what's the end goal? and before someone spouts something suitably trite about faith consider the following:

god creates rational being -> thus, being the perfect teacher he would give precepts calculated to be understood by such minds

it does no good to anyone to say: believe! without giving them a basis on which to found it 

i have never circumnavigated the globe. i do however believe that we live on a sphere, based on the evidences presented to my mind by numerous people.


----------



## Silvia

Benjy said:
			
		

> BUT why would god create conditions such that his son would have to suffer and die as he did? thats my question


 That one is as easy as eating a piece of cake 

Your position is the same one as the ones who were looking at Jesus on the cross and said: why doesn't he come down there? if he is a god, he can do that. Why doesn't he spare himself all that? I think you are smart enough to come to conclusion that the story has a meaning because of the events happened.

About life in general, of course it's a mystery. We don't have much info about death after life, except for many descriptions of people who were declared officially dead, but they start to live again (heart started to pulse again etc.). As far as I know, they all described an intense light, but this whole matter is difficult to be discussed and I don't want to go off topic.


----------



## Everness

lsp said:
			
		

> I'm with Benjy (questions, questions, questions...).  How do his creations benefit from the tears he sheds when a drunk driver kills an innocent pedestrian, etc. How will he/does he work with us in getting rid of war, bigotry, poverty, etc. and creating a more secure, just, and loving world? Basically, what is the difference between the way things are and the way they would be if God had created us like a clockmaker, wound us up and forgot all about us?



Some people think that believing in God amounts to intellectual suicide. I think that asking tough questions about God, the Bible, etc. etc. makes your faith stronger and not weaker. I know Chrisitians who believe that asking these type of questions amounts to lack of faith. They also think that this attitude pisses God off. God and the Bible don't need a trial lawyer. But the day we stop asking these questions we deserve to die. Will we find answers to all questions? I doubt it. Remember: Creer is tambien pensar. 

I think we are confusing rationality with faith. They are two separate entities. Some of us would like to think our way toward God. That doesn't make sense in Reformed theology. God is greater than our finite mind. General revelation (looking at the sky at night and realizing that someone must be behind such beauty) isn't enough. Special revelation (God speaks to us through his Word and his Son) is needed. All ladders that are built from earth never reach heaven. It's God who reaches out to us. Faith goes beyond the mind and involves our whole being, including our heart. It has to do with allowing God change our worldview and our lifestyle. Those who ask questions and expect to receive answers before moving on in their spiritual pilgrimage are simply kidding themselves. Agnosticism is the only position that intellectually makes sense. I even think that God respects agnostics! Why? Because they don't make absolute statements about God. An atheist works within mysticism because he/she acknowledges the existence of God by denying his existence. An agnostic doesn't address the question of God's existence.

Yes, I believe that we need to partner with God in changing ourselves and our world. But we can't do it by ourselves. That's when communities of faith kick in. You gather with other people who share your faith and work together inspired and guided by God's Spirit in making this world a better place to live. Actually this is what billions of people around the world are doing as we speak! And they are doing a great job. Otherwise, our world would have already ceased to exist. 

My 2 cents (I love this expression!)

Saludos!


----------



## Benjy

mike is actually setting up a paypal account so that you can actually give him your two cents. it might reduce the ammount of popunder adverts in the dictionaries.


----------



## ceirun

Logic and religion incompatible:
I'd have to say undoubtedly yes (and the very fact there are a zillion different religions with vastly different beliefs would kind of be a clue to this), but it's fascinating how *all* religions employ their own brand of 'selective logic' (an oxymoron if ever there was on) to justifiy their own particular beliefs.
I could never go along with: "if _(my)_ God doesn't exist then the world is just pointless", etc,.
Life is really nothing more than what we make of it, and the sooner people stop believing in superstitious (illogical) nonsense, the infinitely better (...in my humble opinion).
If we knew for certain that when we die it's simply GAME OVER (no 'extended play' if you insert an extra dime = follow a certain set of rules (invented by man) when you're alive) then I don't think we'd be living in a world of total anarchy, but rather a much better one than we live in at the moment.


----------



## Benjy

the fact there are many different religions is not proof in itself that religion is inherently illogical. there are many conficting views in the world of science on varying matters. is science illogical? take psychology and medicine. is there a concensus on everything there?

i don't think that a sure knowlegde of nothingness after death would make a better world. look at the current moral decay in society. people are looking for exuses to do stuff that they feel isn't right ethically already. do you think anything would prevent social freefall if people knew for a fact you get one shot?


----------



## Silvia

Everness, your last post made me think of something I heard when I was younger...

I had a literature/history teacher/professor (like an English teacher in English speaking countries) who was a strict communist and atheist, but he bowed to priests (figuratively! ) because of their knowledge (he had the chance to work with some of them). Well, he used to say that seminaries were the highest level of studies available, I guess it's still true. In Italy it lasts 6 years. I don't know why that's precluded to seminaries... maybe it's not something you would study for general business: in random order history, philosophy, theology, Hebrew, history of the Church, Greek, sociology, Canon Law and lots more, plus general studies just like for a graduated student. I guess all that study should make you doubt a lot!


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> god creates rational being -> thus, being the perfect teacher he would give precepts calculated to be understood by such minds



You have stated this both here and in other posts.  Let me take a try at an analogy.

Suppose that the teacher has the choice of imparting knowledge by, figuratively speaking, just injecting it into the brain of the student.  The student will have the knowledge, but will not have learned anything. 

If the teacher is concerned with the learning process, as well as with the desired outcome of having the student know something by the end of the school term, a different approach is required.  

Now let's assume that the teacher is able to create students with the capacity to learn, but little or no knowledge at the start of class.  The teacher presents the 'right' solution to a problem. Some students 'get it'
fairly quickly.  Most do not.  In fact, they wander off into some very mistaken areas, based on their misinterpretations of what's right, or even the fact that they found another 'solution' that's easier to deal with.

The teacher does something very dramatic to get the attention of the class,
and offers more examples of the consequences of correct and incorrect solutions.  Good pedagogy can help students learn, but the students still have to pay attention and do the schoolwork if they are to eventually be in full accord with the teacher. 

As an aside...the teacher may have students from lots of different backgrounds, speaking many different languages, and coming from totally distinct cultures.  Perhaps the teacher finds it effective to use different textbooks for each group of students.  The key principles of the course are the same in each text, but the presentations are a little, or even vastly, different.

c.


----------



## Silvia

Benjy said:
			
		

> decay in society.


 History repeats itself... we call it big wheel rolling (in Italian)... the world can reach a peak and then be forced to reinvent oneself... it happened in the past, at least according to modern science.


----------



## Benjy

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> You have stated this both here and in other posts.  Let me take a try at an analogy.
> 
> Suppose that the teacher has the choice of imparting knowledge by, figuratively speaking, just injecting it into the brain of the student.  The student will have the knowledge, but will not have learned anything.
> 
> If the teacher is concerned with the learning process, as well as with the desired outcome of having the student know something by the end of the school term, a different approach is required.
> 
> Now let's assume that the teacher is able to create students with the capacity to learn, but little or no knowledge at the start of class.  The teacher presents the 'right' solution to a problem. Some students 'get it'
> fairly quickly.  Most do not.  In fact, they wander off into some very mistaken areas, based on their misinterpretations of what's right, or even the fact that they found another 'solution' that's easier to deal with.
> 
> The teacher does something very dramatic to get the attention of the class,
> and offers more examples of the consequences of correct and incorrect solutions.  Good pedagogy can help students learn, but the students still have to pay attention and do the schoolwork if they are to eventually be in full accord with the teacher.
> 
> As an aside...the teacher may have students from lots of different backgrounds, speaking many different languages, and coming from totally distinct cultures.  Perhaps the teacher finds it effective to use different textbooks for each group of students.  The key principles of the course are the same in each text, but the presentations are a little, or even vastly, different.
> 
> c.



*claps* that deserves applause if only for its simplicity.


----------



## ceirun

Benjy said:
			
		

> the fact there are many different religions is not proof in itself that religion is inherently illogical. there are many conficting views in the world of science on varying matters. is science illogical? take psychology and medicine. is there a concensus on everything there?


2 + 2 = 4, right? When you switched on your computer today did you just keep your fingers crossed and hope that some divine force would make it work. Is the only thing that stops an aeroplane from falling out of the sky the collective will of the people onboard? If you were seriously ill would you go to see a medical doctor or maybe prefer just to say a few humble prayers instead?
It seems we have enough _faith_ in the universal logic of science (i.e. logic) when it suits us.




			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> i don't think that a sure knowlegde of nothingness after death would make a better world. look at the current moral decay in society. people are looking for exuses to do stuff that they feel isn't right ethically already. do you think anything would prevent social freefall if people knew for a fact you get one shot?


Ah, so religion is really just an excuse to keep people under control?
That's kind of what I already thought.


----------



## Benjy

ceirun said:
			
		

> 2 + 2 = 4, right? When you switched on your computer today did you just keep your fingers crossed and hope that some divine force would make it work. Is the only thing that stops an aeroplane from falling out of the sky the collective will of the people onboard? If you were seriously ill would you go to see a medical doctor or maybe prefer just to say a few humble prayers instead?
> It seems we have enough faith in the univsersal logic of science (i.e. logic) when it suits us.
> 
> 
> Ah, so religion is really just an excuse to keep people under control?
> That's kind of what I already thought.



wow. 2+2=4. i guess that means that you are going to help me with partial differentiation/advanced calculus? you completely ignored what i was saying. for every medical study you can find showing me that mobile phones don't cause cancer i can find you one saying they do. are you really so blind as to the fact that using empirical methods people (read: scientists/doctors) come up with different conclusions that i have to spell it out for you? 

where did i say that religion is for control purposes? you brought up anarchy. and unless you stop being so beligerent and aggressive i will not waste my time answering your posts.


----------



## Silvia

ceirun said:
			
		

> If you were seriously ill would you go to see a medical doctor or maybe prefer just to say a few humble prayers instead?


 Haha, I hope you don't mind if I'm laughing at this  I don't have such low esteem of believers to think that they pray INSTEAD of curing themself, usually prayer is their last resort, and guess what? It even works now and then! That's something that goes beyond science, that is science is not able to explain yet, beyond any reasonable explanation. And no self-suggestion, I don't think it can take cancer away.


----------



## Everness

ceirun said:
			
		

> Logic and religion incompatible:
> I'd have to say undoubtedly yes (and the very fact there are a zillion different religions with vastly different beliefs would kind of be a clue to this), but it's fascinating how *all* religions employ their own brand of 'selective logic' (an oxymoron if ever there was on) to justifiy their own particular beliefs.
> I could never go along with: "if _(my)_ God doesn't exist then the world is just pointless", etc,.
> Life is really nothing more than what we make of it, and the sooner people stop believing in superstitious (illogical) nonsense, the infinitely better (...in my humble opinion).
> If we knew for certain that when we die it's simply GAME OVER (no 'extended play' if you insert an extra dime = follow a certain set of rules (invented by man) when you're alive) then I don't think we'd be living in a world of total anarchy, but rather a much better one than we live in at the moment.



Ah, mi querido primo hermano! I loved your statement: "Life is really nothing more than what we make of it." Some of us draw upon religion to accomplish that task and some of us draw upon anything but religion in pursuit of the same goal. However, your position is as superstitious as mine. For instance, you state that the game is over when we die, right? Well, prove it to me! (o como se diga!) *It's a statement of faith just like mine!* One is not better or worse than the other one! You would like it to be a *prophecy about the future,* but we would still be in religious territory. ¡Es hora de bajarse del caballo!

By the way, I bet $10 on the Hispanic cardinal you made reference in your post. How much will I get?


----------



## ceirun

Benjy said:
			
		

> wow. 2+2=4. i guess that means that you are going to help me with partial differentiation/advanced calculus?


Well, if you like. I did get an A in A-level maths before they dropped the standards. 




			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> you completely ignored what i was saying.


No, but it seems you've at least partially ignored what I was saying.
Obviously there is not 100% consensus on anything, that goes without saying:
My point was that we obviously have enough belief in science that the extension of the basic principals at its core are the basis of the technology that dominates our modern lives (hence the examples about computers, aeroplanes and medicine).
It seems, however, that some people choose to invent their own logic (or at least let others do it for them - read: religion) whenever it suits them to do so.




			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> where did i say that religion is for control purposes? you brought up anarchy. and unless you stop being so beligerent and aggressive i will not waste my time answering your posts.


To me, religion is completely man-made. If people knew that only had one shot at life then I don't think it would it would escalate the moral decay in society, anything but. But maybe I just have a more idealist view of humanity.

"Beligerent and aggessive": I'd ask anyone to re-read my posts in this thread and compare it to your previous one and judge for themselves where any unnecessary bad feeling is coming from.
If you don't agree with what I said or don't want to reply to me again then fair enough.


----------



## ceirun

Silvia said:
			
		

> Haha, I hope you don't mind if I'm laughing at this  I don't have such low esteem of believers to think that they pray INSTEAD of curing themself, usually prayer is their last resort, and guess what? It even works now and then!


LOL. I'm glad to have made at least one person laugh today, anyway.


----------



## Benjy

humpf.
so my a levels are worth less than yours eh?  (actually im not going to argue that one lol)

i dont think i follow what you are trying to say about science. yes people trust science. i get that. people sometimes trust in god. i get that too. but i don't see what you are trying to show. and isn't the concpt of making up logic rather illogical? either something is logical or it isn't. logic isn't something that can be created.

i considered the way you belittled belief in god in your other posts rather aggressive. granted i don't know you and you don't know me. if it was an attempt at humour i guess i'll go back and re read them


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> humpf.
> logic isn't something that can be created.



PITA reporting for duty Sir!

We generally use a base ten number system for counting. That is a logical system that requires that we agree, in advance, that the numbers in the rightmost column represent units, and next column to the left are multiples of ten, etc. I have also been taught to use a base six system. Different underlying assumptions. Different system of logic.

Logical sytems can be created.

Try this out:

Basic premise: Science, as we know it today, can explain many, but not all, natural phenomena.

Logical deductions:  1) Science cannot explain everything, thus some things do not have scientific explanations.
2) Science will eventually get around to explaining everything.

Both explanations are "logical".  Some people prefer #1, others like #2.
Neither can be proved to be correct or incorrect by my current logical system and available information.

That's why thinking is fun.

abrazos,
Cuchu

PS- If you like #2 better, it's because you have "faith" in science!!


----------



## Benjy

permission to disagree sir!

maths existed before we got around to discovering it. apples were accelerating at about 10m/s along time before we named the force in question gravity, or discovered calculus and used it to describe the apples motion


----------



## ceirun

Everness said:
			
		

> Ah, mi querido primo hermano! I loved your statement: "Life is really nothing more than what we make of it." Some of us draw upon religion to accomplish that task and some of us draw upon anything but religion in pursuit of the same goal. However, your position is as superstitious as mine. For instance, you state that the game is over when we die, right? Well, prove it to me! (o como se diga!) *It's a statement of faith just like mine!* One is not better or worse than the other one! You would like it to be a *prophecy about the future,* but we would still be in religious territory. ¡Es hora de bajarse del caballo!
> 
> By the way, I bet $10 on the Hispanic cardinal you made reference in your post. How much will I get?


Hola, querido hermano.
Well, I didn't actually say that I believe it's definitely 'game over' when this life comes to an end, but as yet there is nothing that's really convinced me otherwise (not even the heavenly hand of El Pibe de Oro), so rather than just subscribe to a set of beliefs that have been handed down to me, I think I'd prefer to stay on my caballo and believe in the beautiful (logical) chaos of the universe. 
Hmm, maybe I should keep a few spare dimes in my pocket, though... just in case, eh. 

PS. About the Pope thing... I think you'd get about $80 with a $10 bet.


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> permission to disagree sir!
> 
> maths existed before we got around to discovering it. apples were accelerating at about 10m/s along time before we named the force in question gravity, or discovered calculus and used it to describe the apples motion



Permission granted, said the corporal to the Generalísimo.

The relationships and behaviours existed before we had the language to describe them.  We agree.

Care to address the base 6 and base 10 number systems as alternate, and equally valid, logical systems?  They are both created concepts.

I admire how well you dance.   I dance quickly...a skill acquired through years of having people shoot at my feet.

Heading for the enlisted soldiers' mess hall.
C.


----------



## ceirun

Benjy said:
			
		

> humpf.
> 
> i considered the way you belittled belief in god in your other posts rather aggressive. granted i don't know you and you don't know me. if it was an attempt at humour i guess i'll go back and re read them


"An attempt at humour"... lol, cheers!  
Well, there was no beligerence intended on my part... but if it came out that way then sorry.
I guess I have some fairly strong feelings about religion, partly due to having had it rammed down my throat from an early age.

I agree with you that logic (in its pure sense) can't just be invented, but it seems to me that this is precisely what religion does in its attempt to 'fill in the grey bits', so to speak.
As opposed to religion, science doesn't pretend to have the explanation for everything (not yet anyway) ...and it's this simplification of God as an all-encompassing Everything Theory that kind of p*sses me off.

Hmm, another PITA signing off from this thread now anyway...


PS: Oh, about the A-levels thing... it's true, really! 

PPS: If by any freak chance there is a planet out there where the inhabitants have 16 fingers instead of 10, I'm sure they'll be much more advanced than us due to the advantages of the hexidecimal system... but at least we'd probably beat them at tying shoelaces.


----------



## Edwin

Benjy said:
			
		

> is there a place for logic when discussing things concerning god/religion etc etc?
> are all beliefs in a higher power illogical?



Why not use logic? I will say a little about where it has led me with regard to religion.

Most of the discussion here so-far has been based on

1. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic views of God.

2. The Newtonian mechanistic view of science.

There are other ways to look at this existence we are involved in. Too bad we don't have any foreos to represent the Eastern religions of India, China and Japan:  Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism,  Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, ...

Modern science--even relatively old sciences such as special relativity and quantum mechanics do not lead to a mechanistic view of the university.   And even though modern science was developed in the West it seems to lead inexorably back to certain Eastern ways of viewing the universe. (E.g., have you read The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra)

Special relativity shows that simultaneous events for one inertial observer are not the same as for another. This certainly implies that what one observer sees has already happened for another observer. To me this implies that the totality of things just lies there in ''spacetime'' and somehow our consciousness moves along experiencing it bit by bit. (This doesn't leave much room for free will--just enjoy the Only Dance There Is (book by Ram Dass)!  Using memory we can to some extent go back and experience things from our past. Perhaps someday we will be able to see the whole at one fell swoop.

Bell's Theorem in quantum mechanics ( http://twm.co.nz/herbert.htm ) implies that everything is connected to everything else. So the feeling we have of being separate individuals is quite likely an illusion related to how we experience the flow of time.  We are all one.

One problem I see with the arguments concerning good and evil is the tendency we have to see reality as made up of discrete units of matter. We think of ourselves as being separate individuals. To me it makes more sense to thing of myself as an intergral part of the universe. I like the Vedantic Philosophy: Basically it is that we are God. It is just that we have temporarily forgotten it. The idea is that God was bored and felt a need to, well, ''feel'', that is, experience all possibilities. So IT divides itself into electrons, muons, etc,..., and begins to ''play'' (that is, all that we see ''happens'').  Eventually we will, as the story goes, remember that we are God afterall and the illusions will disappear. 

As for good and evil, beauty and ugliness, that's all part of experiencing everything. Some part of us must take the job of experiencing what it is like to be born with terrible deformities, to be a criminal, to be Miss America, to die in the ovens at Auschwitz,....

All the consequences of logic.


----------



## Benjy

thanks for the article on bell's theorem.. really interesting site. im sure that there is hours of reading to be done there


----------



## Everness

Silvia said:
			
		

> Everness, your last post made me think of something I heard when I was younger...
> 
> I had a literature/history teacher/professor (like an English teacher in English speaking countries) who was a strict communist and atheist, but he bowed to priests (figuratively! ) because of their knowledge (he had the chance to work with some of them). Well, he used to say that seminaries were the highest level of studies available, I guess it's still true. In Italy it lasts 6 years. I don't know why that's precluded to seminaries... maybe it's not something you would study for general business: in random order history, philosophy, theology, Hebrew, history of the Church, Greek, sociology, Canon Law and lots more, plus general studies just like for a graduated student. I guess all that study should make you doubt a lot!



Hi Silvia. I missed your post. I find Jesuits particularly knowledgeable on many topics. It's interesting to note that kids who attend elementary schools run by Jesuits have a greater chance of making it to college. Jesuits are highly educated across disciplines but most importantly they teach you to think critically. That's why they have been criticized even within the Catholic church, at least that is my impression. I also respect them because they have a strong, very strong stand on social issues and they don't shut up. That's why some of them have been killed. I have a question. Don't Dominicans emphasize rigorous thinking too?


----------



## Everness

Edwin said:
			
		

> I like the Vedantic Philosophy: Basically it is that we are God. It is just that we have temporarily forgotten it. The idea is that God was bored and felt a need to, well, ''feel'', that is, experience all possibilities. So IT divides itself into electrons, muons, etc,..., and begins to ''play'' (that is, all that we see ''happens'').  Eventually we will, as the story goes, remember that we are God afterall and the illusions will disappear.



Let's hope that Cardinal Ratzinger doesn't read our posts!   Before the conclave he told his fellow Cardinals that Christians had been buffeted "from Marxism to free-market liberalism to even libertarianism, from collectivism to radical individualism, from atheism to a vague religious mysticism, from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth." He added: "Relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable by today's standards." By the way I didn't know that Ratzinger was once a liberal theologian!


----------



## Edwin

Everness said:
			
		

> Let's hope that Cardinal Ratzinger doesn't read our posts!   Before the conclave he told his fellow Cardinals that Christians had been buffeted "from Marxism to free-market liberalism to even libertarianism, from collectivism to radical individualism, from atheism to a vague religious mysticism, from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth." He added: "Relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable by today's standards." By the way I didn't know that Ratzinger was once a liberal theologian!



Hey Everness.  I suppose since your post quotes my description of the Vedantic philosophy that you are placing it in the camp of those terrible things that Cardinal Ratzinger seems so worried about in the sentences you quote.

Let's hope that that he does read our posts. If the new Pope Benedict XVI doesn't know about the Vedantic view of the universe, it is high time he found out. After all it has been around a lot longer than Christianity. Of course, there is not much chance of making him an adherent of this view
(properly called *advaita vedanta*). 

As for his worry about mysticism. Advaita vedanta doesn't appear to me any more mystical than Catholicism and it is (to stick to the theme of this thread) a lot more logical way to make sense out of this reality we find ourselves enclosed in. As Galileo may have put it, nevertheless the maya* persists.

---------------------------------------------------------------
*maya= the sense-world of manifold phenomena held in Vedanta to conceal the unity of absolute being; broadly : ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)


----------



## Everness

Edwin said:
			
		

> Hey Everness.  I suppose since your post quotes my description of the Vedantic philosophy that you are placing it in the camp of those terrible things that Cardinal Ratzinger seems so worried about in the sentences you quote.
> 
> Let's hope that that he does read our posts. If the new Pope Benedict XVI doesn't know about the Vedantic view of the universe, it is high time he found out. After all it has been around a lot longer than Christianity. Of course, there is not much chance of making him an adherent of this view
> (properly called *advaita vedanta*).
> 
> As for his worry about mysticism. Advaita vedanta doesn't appear to me any more mystical than Catholicism and it is (to stick to the theme of this thread) a lot more logical way to make sense out of this reality we find ourselves enclosed in. As Galileo may have put it, nevertheless the maya* persists.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> *maya= the sense-world of manifold phenomena held in Vedanta to conceal the unity of absolute being; broadly : ILLUSION (Merriam-Webster Online)



Hace apenas horas que fue escogido papa y ya lo quieres matar del corazon al pobre hombre!


----------



## Edwin

Everness said:
			
		

> Hace apenas horas que fue escogido papa y ya lo quieres matar del corazon al pobre hombre!



No, Everness, solamente me estaba defendiendo contra las palabras del papa.   ¡Que viva el papa! Será interesante ver lo que hará con su iglesia.


----------



## Everness

Edwin said:
			
		

> No, Everness, solamente me estaba defendiendo contra las palabras del papa.   ¡Que viva el papa! Será interesante ver lo que hará con su iglesia.



I think (humbly) that the two basic virtues of Christianity are love and grace on the one hand and justice and truth on the other. I think the new pope strongly believes in the theory of change Paul stated in Romans 12.2

_And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God._

He believes that theology informs ethics. Therefore, if people think biblically and believe correctly (orthodoxy), their lifestyles will change and reflect the values of the gospel (orthopraxis). If the sermon he preached before the conclave is a window to his heart and mind, we are going to have a pope who will emphasize truth over love in order to correct the path of the church and society. 

My 2 cents!


----------



## Cath.S.

> Otherwise, life would have no sense whatsoever and taking my life would be the only rational thing to do...


My two cents:
as a non-believer (through a lack of logic ? lol) I don't believe life needs to have a sense... at least not in the meaning you all seem to give to the word "sense".
I feel that _freedom_ and _need _and _desire_ are meaningful words and _sense_ is an empty one.

(Telle est la nature du langage, capable de créer des ensembles vides, des univers virtuels.)

But it certainly does not make me want to kill myself, why would I want such a silly thing?  
I may want it one day if I am in unbearable pain, but not now, thanks.
For if life is senseless I, for one, am not so, and my senses give me a lot of pleasure.
Life is enjoyable and unique, I feel the utmost awe and respect for other beings' existence; as a human I also enjoy playing games amongst which language games, I also love other beings, life is wonderfuly fulfulling in itself.
If you despise apes, go ahead and despise me, for I am a talking godless ape.


----------



## Edwin

egueule said:
			
		

> If you despise apes, go ahead and despise me, for I am a talking godless ape.



Egueule, as you can see from my avatar, I'm a chimpanzee.  But so far as needing a reason to live the underlying significance of your avatar  Yin and Yang  will suffice.


----------



## Cath.S.

Thanks, Edwin.


> The Tao that can be known is not Tao.
> The substance of the World is only a name for Tao.
> Tao is all that exists and may exist;
> the World is only a map of what exists and may exist.
> One experiences without Self to sense the World,
> and experiences with Self to understand the World.
> The two experiences are the same within Tao;
> they are distinct only within the World.
> Neither experience conveys Tao
> which is infinitely greater and more subtle than the World.


----------



## Everness

egueule said:
			
		

> But it certainly does not make me want to kill myself, why would I want such a silly thing?
> I may want it one day if I am in unbearable pain, but not now, thanks.
> For if life is senseless I, for one, am not so, and my senses give me a lot of pleasure.



I disagree. The worst of all pains is meaninglessness. What our senses do so effectively is distract us and deceive us. Our senses do a great job in anesthetizing our mind and soul. A meaningless life doesn't deserve to be lived. We might be physically alive but intellectually and emotionally dead.
My 3 cents! (ideas get devalued too!)


----------



## Edwin

Everness said:
			
		

> I disagree. The worst of all pains is meaninglessness. What our senses do so effectively is distract us and deceive us. Our senses do a great job in anesthetizing our mind and soul. A meaningless life doesn't deserve to be lived. We might be physically alive but intellectually and emotionally dead.
> My 3 cents! (ideas get devalued too!)



Everness, you have a bunch of ideas there. But to say, ''A meaningless life doesn't deserve to be lived, " seems to me pretty extreme.  I used to think some lives were meaningless, but I changed my mind. All lives, I believe, are meaningful.  

Can you give a specific example of a meaningless life?  And what do you mean they don't deserve to live?


----------



## Everness

Edwin said:
			
		

> Can you give a specific example of a meaningless life?  And what do you mean they don't deserve to live?



A meaningless life is one that isn't aware of its finitude, that suppresses the awareness of its own possible death by keeping itself occupied by all type of trivial things. A meaningful life asks itself questions like the following: "Why should I do all the things that I do everyday?" "Why should I believe or take seriously all the things that nobody seems to question?" "Why is there anything at all, and not rather nothing?" Grasping Hiedegger's concept of "being-toward-death" is basic in order to live responsibly and authentically. I found this quote and the full article informative. 

_The full awareness of my death brings my existence into a clear focus that is absent from the average sort of life that is frittered away on trivial details and cluttered with superficial distractions.
_

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Existentialism.htm


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> I disagree.



It's not at all clear what you disagree with.

Please point out precisely what Eguele has said, your interpretation of what was meant by it, and why you disagree.  Your writings and Equele's appear to me to be expressions of ideas that are distinct, but not in conflict.

Thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## Edwin

Everness said:
			
		

> A meaningless life is one that isn't aware of its finitude, that suppresses the awareness of its own possible death by keeping itself occupied by all type of trivial things. A meaningful life asks itself questions like the following: "Why should I do all the things that I do everyday?" "Why should I believe or take seriously all the things that nobody seems to question?" "Why is there anything at all, and not rather nothing?" Grasping Hiedegger's concept of "being-toward-death" is basic in order to live responsibly and authentically. I found this quote and the full article informative.
> 
> _The full awareness of my death brings my existence into a clear focus that is absent from the average sort of life that is frittered away on trivial details and cluttered with superficial distractions.
> _
> 
> http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Existentialism.htm



That's interesting. I like a lot of the questions that you say one needs to ask to be able to live a meaningful life.  One question, ''Why is there something rather than nothing,'' is perhaps my favorite question.  Yet I don't see how asking such questions can add meaning to my life. 

I have a certain sympathy with existentialism but I have a lot of trouble understanding exactly what their position is.

On the one hand they say forcefully that the universe is *meaningless* and we are in an *absurd* situation. Yet to live an ''authentic'' life one must realize this absurdity and live a "life with an incorruptibility and moral determination as if there were a universal and absolute law that commands it."  So you must accept that life is meaningless, but pretend it is meaningful and live your life according to this illusion that you generate?


My reply to this is:  How do existentialists know what is meaningful or authentic about a persons life?  Perhaps they need to be more modest in their assertions about such matters.  They might start by realizing that human understanding of reality is limited, we see only a small part of this unfolding universe. There are many connections that we cannot see. For example, we see only certain wave lengths of electromagnetic radiation. And who knows what other forces are vibrating through the universe that we are totally unaware of.  It is certainly conceivable that if we could see the whole picture, we might understand the meaning in lives not considered authentic by existentialist criteria.

Last Friday I attended a lecture ''The Universe is a Strange Place'' by  Frank Wilczek Nobel Laureate 2004 in Physics.  After speaking for most of the lecture about recent advances in understanding the known four forces and recent near successes in creating a unified theory, he went on to say  that according to recent observations most of the universe is composed of so-called *dark matter* and *dark energy* (two different things) ---and we have only the foggiest idea what this stuff is.  

I love Wilczek's description of the current theory of matter: *the building blocks of matter are like notes in a Music of the Void*. (His capitalization of Music and Void.)


----------



## Markus

Edwin, I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed reading your posts on this subject matter very much. For me the proof that we are fundamentally limited is in attempting to answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

I do not believe that we will ever understand how something exists. When I dwell on the concept of nothing for too long, my mind reaches a certain point and I have a momentary feeling that I cannot hold on to, as if my mind is attempting to think beyond its limits. It is a very strange feeling that I cannot describe. To reexperience the feeling, I need to go through the whole thought process of thinking about nothing again; I cannot skip a step. I believe that the reason I cannot hold on to this thought is because I am at the edge of what is comprehensible for humans.

If there were a satisfactory, rational explanation for how something can exist, philosophers would have reasoned it out by now. Even if God (assuming one exists) were to come down and explain it to me, I would not understand. However: By the very fact that we are here, something exists, thus there is a reason. Therefore, we are fundamentally limited in what we can understand.

It is a very frustrating feeling for me, to believe that I will die and once again become nothing, never having understood how it is that I exist. But not only me; the entire human race will die, and eventually all life in the universe, never having understood, and then there will be nothing again, forever and ever and ever.

But let us not underestimate the importance of sentience. If there were no sentience, would there really be anything? If nothing existed to observe the universe, would it be something or would it be nothing? What was the universe doing for those 5-10 billion years before the first life evolved? What does 5-10 billion years mean when there is nothing there to observe its passing? Is it instant, is it infinite? Is it completely undefined?


----------



## gaer

Markus said:
			
		

> What was the universe doing for those 5-10 billion years before the first life evolved? What does 5-10 billion years mean when there is nothing there to observe its passing? Is it instant, is it infinite? Is it completely undefined?


Let's not completely rule out the idea that just because WE were not around, no other intelligent life was not around either. 

G


----------



## Cath.S.

> What our senses do so effectively is distract us and deceive us. Our senses do a great job in anesthetizing our mind and soul.


What our mind does effectively is distract us and deceive us. Our mind does a great job in anesthetizing our body which is also our soul in my belief.

One immediate example: my body would like to move, as I've been sitting on this chair typing and reading words for far too long.

But my mind keeps telling it to keep quiet : "can't you see I'm doing something important? Come on, keep still one more hour or so, I know what I'm doing, I know what is good for the two of us." 

...which is a blatant lie, but the body (what the real me amounts to), having become the slave to a masochistic master, having had its brain infected by language, has to obey even though it holds the deeply accurate, fleshy knowledge of what good really means.

By the way, Everness, did you imply that,  being a meaninglessness advocate, I did not deserve to live?

If you did, I find it really funny! Really, very amusing!  (as long as I don't find you on my doorstep with a shotgun in your hand, of course)

As an hiv-positive person, an aids long-term survivor, I've been made very much aware of the closeness of my own end, my _finitude_ as you so gracefully put it,  and that awareness did not make me a better person, because once again it was language terrorizing the flesh.

I wish that people could be aware that they are alive, not that they are going to die!

Love you and leave you - the body's won this battle.


----------



## gaer

Everness said:
			
		

> A meaningless life is one that isn't aware of its finitude, that suppresses the awareness of its own possible death by keeping itself occupied by all type of trivial things.


Who gets to define what things are trivial? Supposing I spend a good deal of my life keeping myself occupied by things I'm doing, in order to stop thinking too much about my own mortality. Is this meaningless too?

Would I make my life more meaningful by focusing more on the clear fact that I will die? Or that someone I really care just died about two days ago? Or that we are all going to die, many after long, painful and sometimes humiliating illnesses?

Come to think of it, is the writing I'm doing here now, and the other things I answer at night, trying not to think about mortality, are all these things trivial too?

I'm sorry, but I think what you said is incredibly arrogant.

Gaer


----------



## te gato

Everness said:
			
		

> A meaningless life is one that isn't aware of its finitude, that suppresses the awareness of its own possible death by keeping itself occupied by all type of trivial things.


 
Oh how wrong you are...
I see the possible death of my father EVERY DAY that I visit him and watch him slip away further and further..
Oh bravo for me..I am aware..
Do you think that 'Man' is not aware that we are not going to live forever? All of us know that..And I think that is why we do enjoy the TRIVIAL things in life..Why not enjoy what we have..Now..I personaly like the trivial things in my life..it makes the awareness easier to deal with...does that make my life meaningless..no..It makes my life..Livable.
Who knows anyway when we are going to die..you could walk outside tomorrow and get hit by a bus..were you aware?..Ahhh..NO...and therefore because you were not aware.. your life was meaningless..please!!
We are all here for some reason..some of us are here for a longer time that others..but we all have a purpose...
And as gaer had said..who is to decide what is trivial in our lives?..what is trivial to you might not be trivial to me..
It is the little trivial things in our lives that are a part of who we are..and I like my trivial meaningless life..

te gato


----------



## Benjy

Everness said:
			
		

> A meaningless life is one that isn't aware of its finitude, that suppresses the awareness of its own possible death by keeping itself occupied by all type of trivial things.



hmm. a lot has been said but i had my own little experience with this this morning even.

i went into town to buy a powerstrip for my pc because i had left mine back at home (i just went back to uni) and i noticed a big shiny new statue that had been built in the town centre during my absence. so many people were walking by and admiring it, talking about it etc etc and just off to the side of this teeming mass of humanity were two homeless people: dirty, unshaven and unhappy. all i could think of was my couple of thousand pounds of student debt and my total inablility to give those people what they needed.. the money that had been spent on that statue, the total indifference of the crowd to the plight of those who needed help so much. i just stared crying.. wanted to puke. it was so unfair. but when you think of how messed up this planet is, the babies being born with aids in africa, the millions of starving people whose hunger will never be satisfied while we have our supermarkets throw away food because we can't eat it fast enough. so many people who are going to die unhappy unloved and unoticed. if we spent all our time thinking about stuff like that i'm fairly sure we would just lay down and never get back up again. it would be impossible to function. so we don't think about it. do we thus all lead meaningless lives?


----------



## Edwin

Markus said:
			
		

> It is a very frustrating feeling for me, to believe that I will die and once again become nothing, never having understood how it is that I exist. But not only me; the entire human race will die, and eventually all life in the universe, never having understood, and then there will be nothing again, forever and ever and ever.



One might be comforted by the vedantic view that *we* are god and just playing around. Then dying will be like waking up and realizing our true nature.   Well this is one senario.   An important aspect of this is to try to get rid of the illusion that we are  separate distinct entities.  The interconnectedness of everthing is something amply supported by modern physics.  So why do we hang on to the notion that we are separate creatures?  I guess it is an important part of the illusion--the maya.

Alan Watts explains it in his book "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" There is a high level of BS in this book as in most of Watts writings, nevertheless it contains the kernel of an interesting way to view the universe. I agree with one of the  reviewers (see the reviews at the bottom of the page the above link sends you to) who said the whole book could have been condensed to two pages.

Maybe it is all contained in this poem quoted in the book.



> This is It
> and I am It
> and You are It
> and so is That.
> 
> and He is It
> and She is It
> and It is It
> and That is That.
> 
> -- James Broughton


----------



## Everness

Let's put things in perspective. This was the post that originated the other posts.



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Ah, this type of statements are the ones that make me say that if I weren't Presbyterian I would be Jewish!   Ah, by the way, this same argument but from a Christian perspective is what keeps me alive. *Otherwise, life would have no sense whatsoever and taking my life would be the only rational thing to do...*



Then egueule responded: 



			
				egueule said:
			
		

> My two cents:
> as a non-believer (through a lack of logic ? lol) I don't believe life needs to have a sense... at least not in the meaning you all seem to give to the word "sense".
> I feel that _freedom_ and _need _and _desire_ are meaningful words and _sense_ is an empty one.
> 
> (Telle est la nature du langage, capable de créer des ensembles vides, des univers virtuels.)
> 
> But it certainly does not make me want to kill myself, why would I want such a silly thing?
> I may want it one day if I am in unbearable pain, but not now, thanks.
> For if life is senseless I, for one, am not so, and my senses give me a lot of pleasure.
> Life is enjoyable and unique, I feel the utmost awe and respect for other beings' existence; as a human I also enjoy playing games amongst which language games, I also love other beings, life is wonderfuly fulfulling in itself.
> If you despise apes, go ahead and despise me, for I am a talking godless ape.



Besides the despising apes topic (that I still don't know where it came from), 2 individuals expressed 2 opinions on the concept of sense and its applicability to life. I agree wholeheartedly with JLanguage but from a Christian perspective



			
				JLanguage said:
			
		

> I cannot believe that the world is pointless. God''s existence justisfies my own. It's as simple as that. I have yet to find a rational secular justification for why we exist. Believing that we are random occurrences, brought about by some system of the universe, is not true justification.



I'm a believer. Therefore, God's existence justifies my own and gives absolute meaning and sense to my life. eguelle is a non-believer and thinks that the word sense is an empty one. I state that if God didn't exist, life wouldn't be worth living and I would kill myself. eguelle thinks that killing oneself for that reason is silly and maybe pointless. She finds that the rich experience of the sensorial gives her a reason to live and to remain alive. I don't. I also enjoy all my senses but I just see them as the icing on the cake. That wouldn't be enough, at least in my dictionary!  

My 4 cents!


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness, thank you very much for putting this in simple and clear terms.  

un saludo,
Cuchu



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Let's put things in perspective. This was the post that originated the other posts.
> 
> 
> 
> Then egueule responded:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the despising apes topic (that I still don't know where it came from), 2 individuals expressed 2 opinions on the concept of sense and its applicability to life. I agree wholeheartedly with JLanguage but from a Christian perspective
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a believer. Therefore, God's existence justifies my own and gives absolute meaning and sense to my life. eguelle is a non-believer and thinks that the word sense is an empty one. I state that if God didn't exist, life wouldn't be worth living and I would kill myself. eguelle thinks that killing oneself for that reason is silly and maybe pointless. She finds that the rich experience of the sensorial gives her a reason to live and to remain alive. I don't. I also enjoy all my senses but I just see them as the icing on the cake. That wouldn't be enough, at least in my dictionary!
> 
> My 4 cents!


----------



## Like an Angel

I shouldn't have got in here! but here I'm... 

As a Catholic one I would say that they are compatible, but as a human being I can't, at least now... I have been for so long a person that believe strongly in God, I have made promises when I felt the need, and everything seemed work just as God's plan... but now I'm not sure it is like this, my life is great, I consider myself a blessed one, but why do I deserve it? a kid doesn't have choice when some day suffer any abuse, then where is God at those times? if there are guardian angels, are some of them _absent-minded _and let some childs die when it supposed they are protected?... the most that I think about it the most that I believe that God doesn't exist and that's simply killing me. 

Sometimes I think that -as someone said- religion exist to keep people under control, to keep them frightened about some things, if it's like that I may say that it works and religion st**k... from what I heard the last pope asked for being canonize in his will, isn't that vanity? as vanity is a sin wouldn't be refrain to ask for it?... I'm sorry if I'm off-topic, as I said I'm passing through a hard period as a believer and I'm trying to find the way again. 

Freud said something like "people creates religion or a God just because of the need of something to believe in, something that help them to pass through hard times", saddly I can't think anything different from what Freud had said, and -as I said- this is killing me.


----------



## lizzie chen

I think logic and religion could not be separated.
everything has certain underlying logic, so it is with religion.
faith plays an important part in religion, but ppl need to use logical thinking to convince faith.
what do you say?


----------



## Benjy

mmm... the reason that the who freudian line of reasoning is so seductive (same thing with marx and his "religion is the opium of the masses") is because a lot of people have abused religion in the worst ways to do some pretty aweful things. its easy to be cynical. it seems to me that its a lot easier to be cynical than it is to be inspired. maybe thats why you have a lot of arm chair art critics but very few gifted artists. ultimately it comes down to a choice. you have to choose what evidence you want to put your trust in, how you want to live.. the way you want to see the world. choices choices choices 



			
				Like an Angel said:
			
		

> I shouldn't have got in here! but here I'm...
> 
> As a Catholic one I would say that they are compatible, but as a human being I can't, at least now... I have been for so long a person that believe strongly in God, I have made promises when I felt the need, and everything seemed work just as God's plan... but now I'm not sure it is like this, my life is great, I consider myself a blessed one, but why do I deserve it? a kid doesn't have choice when some day suffer any abuse, then where is God at those times? if there are guardian angels, are some of them _absent-minded _and let some childs die when it supposed they are protected?... the most that I think about it the most that I believe that God doesn't exist and that's simply killing me.
> 
> Sometimes I think that -as someone said- religion exist to keep people under control, to keep them frightened about some things, if it's like that I may say that it works and religion st**k... from what I heard the last pope asked for being canonize in his will, isn't that vanity? as vanity is a sin wouldn't be refrain to ask for it?... I'm sorry if I'm off-topic, as I said I'm passing through a hard period as a believer and I'm trying to find the way again.
> 
> Freud said something like "people creates religion or a God just because of the need of something to believe in, something that help them to pass through hard times", saddly I can't think anything different from what Freud had said, and -as I said- this is killing me.


----------



## germinal

I believe that the science genie is out of his bottle and has been growing for centuries. 

Nothing the various religions can do will put it back.

Knowledge is in the hands of the people now and the days of blind faith and obedience to the priest are gone in the west and numbered elsewhere. 

Even in those countries dominated by fundamentalist reactionaries, reason and pragmatism are slowly changing the minds of men. 

Most people who look at the world experience a deep sense of awe and wonder and feel the need for some sort of explanation - What's it all about? Why am I here? 

In the earliest times, having few means of investigating scientifically, the more curious and inventive would naturally muse about the stars and planets, the vagaries of climate, the origins of man an animals, the nature of the sea and solid earth, and they would come up with stories that seemed to explain these things.

Once these stories were in circulation, the elders of any tribe would see how useful they could be in directing or manipulating the efforts of the people towards ends that they considered to be useful to all the members and controlling damaging individual selfish actions.

Over the years these stories could be tweaked to keep up with changing conditions, new gods and other bogeymen recruited to a band of enforcers, living (conveniently) in a world a secret step away, who could however smite any transgressor through the curtain, or await him in the afterlife with a pointy stick.

So religion carried out a major and important role in reinforcing the opinions and authority of the elders except on those rare occasions where a canny youngster would claim some special revelation, some epiphany that put him in direct contact with god - going over the heads of the tribal bosses and usurping their power or creating a split and a new and dangerous sect.

It is a commonplace remarks that religion is used by politicians to control the people. The opposite of this is not always appreciated - that the followers of a religion which sets their god above everyone, including the King or other tyrant, are usually able to exercise some restraining influence on him, either by calling upon him directly to abide by the rules or by using the priests to intercede for them or to agitate for a change at the top.

So apart from promoting some weird and wonderful beliefs, religion has had, and continues to have, a mostly positive and useful effect on society. 

The downside to this includes the great slaughters of the past which had religion at their core - mostly the result of battles between groups who have hived-off from the same religious tradition as in the crusades by christians against the muslims. 


The truth is that we just don't know what the origins of the universe are and the various religions can only be, at best, guesses made by recently evolved ex-apes trying to explain things to themselves. 



Some say that religion and science are converging - that as the scientists approach the limits of their investigative procedures in studying the quantum world, they will find themselves faced with the ultimately unknowable Demiurge who holds the strings of the universe and there human knowledge will stop.

Maybe some will switch off their brains and worship - others will continue to probe - and maybe find another answer...


----------



## Benjy

> The truth is that we just don't know what the origins of the universe are and the various religions can only be, at best, guesses made by recently evolved ex-apes trying to explain things to themselves.



the only possible way to objectively know this wold be to recieve some kind of revelation from a power higher than our own  contradiction.


----------



## germinal

And any such revelation might be understood as a sign of insanity - we are in a mess!


----------



## Benjy

so i guess logic just got kicked out of the conversation.


----------



## cuchuflete

germinal said:
			
		

> And any such revelation might be understood as a sign of insanity - we are in a mess!



Yes, revelation has long been called insanity by those who have power and feel threatened by another's revelation.

Also, the pure "logical empiricists" who think all religion and faith are nonsense are very often found tossing insulting names at those who are not limited to a scientific experience of the universe.

For me, a closed mind is a fate worse than insanity.  That is not a defense of any religion, or the vile practices often committed in the name of religion.  I accept that faith is not dependent on logic.  Whether faith is inherently logical or otherwise is a parlour-game question.


----------



## abc

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> but now I'm not sure it is like this, my life is great, I consider myself a blessed one, but why do I deserve it? a kid doesn't have choice when some day suffer any abuse, then where is God at those times? if there are guardian angels, are some of them _absent-minded _and let some childs die when it supposed they are protected?... the most that I think about it the most that I believe that God doesn't exist and that's simply killing me.



I'm married to the Catholic Church, but I don't agree with everything the Mother says, and I don't like everything I see daily, but I believe in God and continue to hope...  Hang in there, Angel.  Life is a box of chocolates.  So is religion.


----------



## gotitadeleche

> Some say that religion and science are converging - that as the scientists approach the limits of their investigative procedures in studying the quantum world, they will find themselves faced with the ultimately unknowable Demiurge who holds the strings of the universe and there human knowledge will stop.



Or perhaps "reverging" since for much of man´s history science and religion walked hand-in-hand.


----------



## germinal

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Yes, revelation has long been called insanity by those who have power and feel threatened by another's revelation.
> 
> Also, the pure "logical empiricists" who think all religion and faith are nonsense are very often found tossing insulting names at those who are not limited to a scientific experience of the universe.
> 
> For me, a closed mind is a fate worse than insanity. That is not a defense of any religion, or the vile practices often committed in the name of religion. I accept that faith is not dependent on logic. Whether faith is inherently logical or otherwise is a parlour-game question.


 
That was my point about insanity - the persons in power who feel threatened are often the leaders of religion at the time. I expect that the mental health of Jesus would have been brought into question - and well it might since he was making the radical claim that he was the son of god. Anyone making similar claims today would certainly be condemned by the churches or ignored as insane.

As to closed minds - aren't all our minds closed to the extent that the universe itself is closed - or appears to be - that is why I mentioned the limits of knowledge. 

Inside the universe I appear to have the power to reason and if I use that abitlity to attempt to make sense of my surroundings, why should anyone, whether they have faith or not, feel threatened? 

If I am not convinced by religious arguments that may rely on a suspension of disbelief and a blind acceptance of their particular version of the word of god (transmitted to us with all the distortions, additions and subtractions due to the various sects and schisms) then I may burn in hell or I may not - I think not - but that's just my opinion - you are all welcome to yours.

Having said that, I think the great religions hold in their teachings a large and very valuable store of human thought and knowledge, gathered over centuries and most seem to share the virtue of tending to further the desires of people to live and work together for the common good. 

I think it may be that there is an innate drive in people towards those things which everyone recognizes as beneficial to the continuance of the human race - this knowledge of what is ''good'' - that enables religious belief to emerge and to continue.


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> For me, a closed mind is a fate worse than insanity.


A closed-mind is also as common as common sense is uncommon. 

Gaer


----------



## Benjy

germinal said:
			
		

> If I am not convinced by religious arguments that may rely on a suspension of disbelief and a blind acceptance of their particular version of the word of god (transmitted to us with all the distortions, additions and subtractions due to the various sects and schisms) then I may burn in hell or I may not - I think not - but that's just my opinion - you are all welcome to yours.



this has been pretty much the crux of the whole thread. the point is is that religions do not ask for a suspension of disbelief.. any more than a scientist does when he asks people to be open minded about his propsoals when stepping into new territory. they ask you to try something out. what man can honestly say that islam is a pile of crock without having read the quoran? or at least had a look at their doctrines and ideas. my facination with all things religious has taught me a million times more about the way people are than if i had restricted myself to "secular" studies 

how many people have seen electrons....


----------



## germinal

Benjy said:
			
		

> this has been pretty much the crux of the whole thread. the point is is that religions do not ask for a suspension of disbelief.. any more than a scientist does when he asks people to be open minded about his propsoals when stepping into new territory. they ask you to try something out. what man can honestly say that islam is a pile of crock without having read the quoran? or at least had a look at their doctrines and ideas. my facination with all things religious has taught me a million times more about the way people are than if i had restricted myself to "secular" studies
> 
> how many people have seen electrons....


 

Well thousands of scientists have seen the paths taken by electrons in their passage through cloud chambers and we would not be able to communicate in this way if they did not exist. In fact we would not exist at all as they are a vital part of our structure. 

If you argued that perhaps electrons are a manifestation of god and that their detection by science might be proof that god exists then that would, for me, be a sounder argument than asking me to believe some of the conflicting, doctrines of the different religions. 

Religion is a great comfort in times of trouble and not feeling able to believe in a god is quite a lonely position as you have only your own ideas to support you through difficult times. 

There is, however, a feeling also of strange relief at the thought that, in reality, the human race is left free and unsupervised in the wonderful vastness of the cosmos - free to work out for ourselves the codes which will govern our conduct in relation to others - and in relation to all the other manifestations of life on this planet, which, after all, are ourselves in different forms. 

I think, if there really is a god, then he or she or it might be pleased to see us getting rid of the stabilisers and wobbling off by ourselves.


----------



## Everness

germinal said:
			
		

> Religion is a great comfort in times of trouble and not feeling able to believe in a god is quite a lonely position as you have only your own ideas to support you through difficult times.
> 
> There is, however, a feeling also of strange relief at the thought that, in reality, the human race is left free and unsupervised in the wonderful vastness of the cosmos - free to work out for ourselves the codes which will govern our conduct in relation to others - and in relation to all the other manifestations of life on this planet, which, after all, are ourselves in different forms.
> 
> I think, if there really is a god, then he or she or it might be pleased to see us getting rid of the stabilisers and wobbling off by ourselves.



Nicely put, Germinal! Gracias!


----------



## Benjy

tee hee  thats exactly my point. noone has seen an electron. touched it. felt it. smelled it. we have seen a lot of evidence that suggest that there are electrons. electrons are fuzzy, that they exist in anyone space at a given time is nothing more than a mathematical probability. the universe isnt newtonian. and yet the average man in the street has unshakeable faith in electrons. he KNOWS objectively that they exist, and like little solar systems they orbit their atoms in nice fixed patterns. just like he is 100% sure that his body is made of little building blocks called atoms each being a distinct seperate object. tell him that the universe is much closer to a collection of strings or that all the particles that he thinks are distinct are somehow all connected and he will probably laugh at you. and yet thats exactly what phycists are showing/have shown. we dont realise how bent the yardsticks that we use for measuring truth really are.


----------



## germinal

Benjy said:
			
		

> tee hee  thats exactly my point. noone has seen an electron. touched it. felt it. smelled it. we have seen a lot of evidence that suggest that there are electrons. electrons are fuzzy, that they exist in anyone space at a given time is nothing more than a mathematical probability. the universe isnt newtonian. and yet the average man in the street has unshakeable faith in electrons. he KNOWS objectively that they exist, and like little solar systems they orbit their atoms in nice fixed patterns. just like he is 100% sure that his body is made of little building blocks called atoms each being a distinct seperate object. tell him that the universe is much closer to a collection of strings or that all the particles that he thinks are distinct are somehow all connected and he will probably laugh at you. and yet thats exactly what phycists are showing/have shown. we dont realise how bent the yardsticks that we use for measuring truth really are.


 
Can't agree more! - the passage below from my earlier posting included a reference to string theory. (it is one theory amongst others - as you will know)

Some say that religion and science are converging - that as the scientists approach the limits of their investigative procedures in studying the quantum world, they will find themselves faced with the ultimately unknowable Demiurge who holds the strings of the universe and there human knowledge will stop. etc...


----------



## la grive solitaire

Beautifully put, benjy (_My facination with all things religious has taught me a million times more about the way people are than if i had restricted myself to "secular" studies...We dont realise how bent the yardsticks that we use for measuring truth really are._) and cuchuflete (_For me, a closed mind is a fate worse than insanity.) _Rationality is not enough. And why settle for less?

"[R]ationality of thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of his relation to the cosmos." _John Forbes Nash_
From Les Prix Nobel. The Nobel Prizes 1994, Editor Tore Frängsmyr, [Nobel Foundation], Stockholm, 1995 
http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/1994/nash-autobio.html


----------



## germinal

la grive solitaire said:
			
		

> Beautifully put, benjy (_My facination with all things religious has taught me a million times more about the way people are than if i had restricted myself to "secular" studies...We dont realise how bent the yardsticks that we use for measuring truth really are._) and cuchuflete (_For me, a closed mind is a fate worse than insanity.) _Rationality is not enough. And why settle for less?
> 
> "[R]ationality of thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of his relation to the cosmos." _John Forbes Nash_
> From Les Prix Nobel. The Nobel Prizes 1994, Editor Tore Frängsmyr, [Nobel Foundation], Stockholm, 1995
> ]
> 
> 
> 'We all have the capacity to be rational and also to be irrational but not usually both at the same time.'' _Germinal - just now! _


----------



## danzomicrobo

Religion, Philosophy and Science all use logic.  If there is a conflict between two fundamental premises, religion usually goes to the most extreme logical explanation, philosophy attempts to determine all logical explanations and science attempts to find the logical explanation that best fits what is known through experimentation.

On any issue, the three disciplines follow their mode of operation and any one of them can be right.

Over time, science should be better at explaining things, but even scientists would agree that all they have at any time is the explanation that best fits the data.

At its core, religion seems to me to be about faith, philosophy seems to be about logic that is inclusive (any explanation) and science is about logic that is exclusive (only explanations that are likely).

In the end, I don't think that we, as humans, can exclude logic from any discussion of our situation, because it is probably hard-wired into our brains.


----------



## gaer

danzomicrobo said:
			
		

> Religion, Philosophy and Science all use logic. If there is a conflict between two fundamental premises, religion usually goes to the most extreme logical explanation, philosophy attempts to determine all logical explanations and science attempts to find the logical explanation that best fits what is known through experimentation.
> 
> On any issue, the three disciplines follow their mode of operation and any one of them can be right.
> 
> Over time, science should be better at explaining things, but even scientists would agree that all they have at any time is the explanation that best fits the data.
> 
> At its core, religion seems to me to be about faith, philosophy seems to be about logic that is inclusive (any explanation) and science is about logic that is exclusive (only explanations that are likely).
> 
> In the end, I don't think that we, as humans, can exclude logic from any discussion of our situation, because it is probably hard-wired into our brains.


I like your thoughts. They sum up things in a way that seems flexible. I have not followed most of the conversation here (it's become very long), but it seems to me that science and religion separated to the greatest degree in the 1800s and have been moving closer since then. By "religions" I am thinking of the mystery of what life is all about, not the dogma. I think other people have mentioned that physics (which I wish I knew more about) has really pushed the whole concept of "logic" in a new direction, requiring much more wonder about why many things are true that don't seem at all logical.

Gaer


----------



## jakkaro

Benjy said:
			
		

> is there a place for logic when discussion things concerning god/religion etc etc?
> are all beliefs in a higher power illogical?
> 
> play nicely



Haha, that's about the same question for politics.... personnally I hate these discusisons in Forums, as finally personal attacks seem to be inevitable ... even though they are not meant to hurt anybodys feelings...   
Well ... good   luck


----------



## cuchuflete

jakkaro said:
			
		

> Haha, that's about the same question for politics.... personnally I hate these discusisons in Forums, as finally personal attacks seem to be inevitable ... even though they are not meant to hurt anybodys feelings...
> Well ... good   luck



You may be surprised, however if you read the entire thread, there has been very little or nothing in the way of personal attacks.  People has strongly disputed one another's ideas and beliefs, which is not the same thing.

If you hate these discussions, please feel entirely welcome not to read them.
Pain and suffering are optional and in no way requirements for participation in the forums! 

I would appreciate your thoughts on the topic.

regards,
Cuchuflete


----------



## Silvia

Everness said:
			
		

> I have a question. Don't Dominicans emphasize rigorous thinking too?


 Yes, I think so. I don't think it's a matter of embracing this or that community and its peculiar rules, each one has its own priorities.

Edwin, since you talked about Vedantism... what about Sai Baba? He along with others like Vivekananda claims he's an incarnation of God, just like Jesus Christ and says Christianism is not different from Vedantism, the beliefs have many things in common. In other words... two birds with one stone or, as I would say it in Italian (in a nicer way), due piccioni con una fava.

Also, about the Bell's theorem, were you trying to support religion or confute it? Because, as I see it, it can only support it.


----------



## Edwin

Silvia said:
			
		

> Edwin, since you talked about Vedantism... what about Sai Baba? He along with others like Vivekananda claims he's an incarnation of God, just like Jesus Christ and says Christianism is not different from Vedantism, the beliefs have many things in common. In other words... two birds with one stone or, as I would say it in Italian (in a nicer way), due piccioni con una fava.



There are a lot of different kinds of vedanta and I don't claim to be an expert on any of them. As I understand it there are basically three branches:

*Advaita:* there is only one entity --we are all god.
*Dvaita:*  there is one god and the separate souls created by god (us, I guess).   
*Vishishtadevaita:* there is one entity, but it is split into many different parts. 

I tend to favor advaita. That is, we are all god--not gods, but manifestations of the same entity. So I wouldn't argue with the divinity of Jesus or Sai Baba. But,  I would say that you, I, everybody and everything are just as divine.  It is only the maya, the illusion of our senses,  that keeps us from recognizing this and makes us think we are separate.



			
				Silvia said:
			
		

> Also, about the Bell's theorem, were you trying to support religion or confute it? Because, as I see it, it can only support it.



I was only trying to say that our universe is an exceeding strange thing.  Bell's Theorem seems to imply that everything is connected to everything else in some essential way. And perhaps the idea that we are not separate entities is true after all.


I want to add that using the logic of Occam's Razor, advaita would be preferred. It is certainly the simplest model that one can imagine.


----------



## germinal

Edwin,   Does advaita say that this unity includes all living creatures or does it refer to the unity of everything - all matter & energy also?     Sounds an interesting concept.
Also, when you refer to the illusion of the senses - does this mean that the senses create the illusion or that the senses are themselves an illusion in some way?    Or is this too big a subject for an easy answer on this thread?
Germinal.


----------



## Edwin

germinal said:
			
		

> Edwin,   Does advaita say that this unity includes all living creatures or does it refer to the unity of everything - all matter & energy also?     Sounds an interesting concept. Also, when you refer to the illusion of the senses - does this mean that the senses create the illusion or that the senses are themselves an illusion in some way?    Or is this too big a subject for an easy answer on this thread?



Germinal, everything means everything.  And, perhaps I should have just said "illusion" rather than "illusion of the senses."  

I think the best way to describe the advaita vedanta (as I learned it from Alan Watts) is to quote a few passages from his book:  *The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are*:  (The word "God" below should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps it might be better to replace it by  ''The Universe''.) 

"God ... likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear.
       "Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that's the whole fun of it--just what he wanted to do. He doesn't want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self--the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever."

The above is from Chapter I of the above mentioned book. Someone has put the entire first chapter on the web at http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/watts/05ch1.htm in case you would like to read a little more. But the idea is really simple once you wrap your mind around it.  And when you get the idea, there is really no need to read the rest of the book.


----------



## nikolaj

logic is the science how to use a set of rules to infer(deduce) theorems from some fundamental statements(non provable, axioms).
the limitation is  that you may not be able (reach every corner in the set af statememts in a finite amount of steps)to prove  every statement to be either true or the oposite is true.


----------



## germinal

Edwin said:
			
		

> Germinal, everything means everything. And, perhaps I should have just said "illusion" rather than "illusion of the senses."
> 
> I think the best way to describe the advaita vedanta (as I learned it from Alan Watts) is to quote a few passages from his book: *The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are*: (The word "God" below should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps it might be better to replace it by ''The Universe''.)
> 
> "God ... likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear.
> "Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that's the whole fun of it--just what he wanted to do. He doesn't want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self--the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever."
> 
> The above is from Chapter I of the above mentioned book. Someone has put the entire first chapter on the web at  in case you would like to read a little more. But the idea is really simple once you wrap your mind around it. And when you get the idea, there is really no need to read the rest of the book.


 
Thanks Edwin - I will take a look at that site. 
I was interested because this concept chimes with some thoughts I have had myself about the nature of reality. The trouble is you never know whether you have picked up the idea from elsewhere and recycled it. Certainly I have come across this idea of a dreaming god before but was unaware of its origin.

Thanks again - Germinal.


----------



## JazzByChas

Excellent analogy in post #46, Cuchu!

Of all the posts in here, I like Cuchu's approach here the best:

A teacher can impart knowledge to his students, but how much they learn depends upon whether they want to learn or not, and upon their capability to learn.

This does not make the information the teacher is teaching any less relevant, nor the teacher any less knowlegeable...just means that the students can be limited in their understanding of/ability to learn the material.

God does not create us to love him like a robot. He creates us all uniquely, with differing capabilities and gifts and talents. Unfortunately, with a free will, we can choose to do harmful things to others. God is not a cruel heartless being...He just cringes at how cruel and heartless we are, mostly by (selfish) choice.

Is live worth living in a fallen world, where so many awful things happen? I say, yes...not because of our being "flawed creatures" with a free will, but because of God's ability to help us overcome our flawedness by His power and wisdom. But this, like faith in gravity or atoms, only comes with a willingness to receive that help. Jesus Christ (or whatever savior you have) left Heaven to come to earth, and pay for our "flawedness," but we don't have to accept that payment...we can reject it. We can, in my opinion, choose to live this life for ourselves, and the sensory input it provides, but I have always realized there must be more...or as Paul says in Ephesians 15: 31-33, _"If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus [or engaged in any seemingly pleasurable or profitable thing] for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised [there is no life after death or meaning beyond the immediate], "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."[_

Believing in things you can't see or touch has to be taken by faith...see Benjy's argument about atoms. Or gravity. You can't see it, but you know that if you jump off of a building, you will fall and hit the ground. But to discount them, even when their effect and the evidence thereof, is indisputable, might be unwise.

(Two more cents to the WR advertsing fund...  )


----------



## maxiogee

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> God does not create us to love him like a robot. He creates us all uniquely, with differing capabilities and gifts and talents. Unfortunately, with a free will, we can choose to do harmful things to others. God is not a cruel heartless being...He just cringes at how cruel and heartless we are, mostly by (selfish) choice.
> 
> Is live worth living in a fallen world, where so many awful things happen? I say, yes...not because of our being "flawed creatures" with a free will, but because of God's ability to help us overcome our flawedness by His power and wisdom. But this, like faith in gravity or atoms, only comes with a willingness to receive that help.



You sure know a lot about how an unknowable God works.

We can not know how God acts in human affairs (or if God reacts to human actions).
Our concepts of God impute Love, Justice, Goodness, and other things to God. These are all human concepts. Why should the God who created us 'act' justly or fairly to us when it would appear quite obvious that God's 'actions' with other creatures - what does a lion know of justice, or a robin of fairness? Can a mouse be aware of a loving creator?
We create God in our image and likeness and impute our higher moral ideals to this creation.

We are players in a game, the rules of which have not been explained to anyone. We take our cues from what we see others do, and what we see happen to them. We let others tell us what they believe the rules to be, but we see others break these rules with impunity, and often without obvious 'penalty' - we see others 'penalised' who do not appear to have broken any rule we can imagine - and so we try to work out logically what rules there might be. Some are for self-preservation, and some are to ease our interactions with our fellow-players. Some 'feel' right, and so we try to go wiith them and heed them, but it can be difficult to hold ourselves to these as others seem to be playing to totally different rules - in fact they seem to be playing a totally different game.


----------



## *Cowgirl*

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You sure know a lot about how an unknowable God works.
> 
> We can not know how God acts in human affairs (or if God reacts to human actions).
> Our concepts of God impute Love, Justice, Goodness, and other things to God. These are all human concepts. Why should the God who created us 'act' justly or fairly to us when it would appear quite obvious that God's 'actions' with other creatures - what does a lion know of justice, or a robin of fairness? Can a mouse be aware of a loving creator?
> We create God in our image and likeness and impute our higher moral ideals to this creation.
> 
> We are players in a game, the rules of which have not been explained to anyone. We take our cues from what we see others do, and what we see happen to them. We let others tell us what they believe the rules to be, but we see others break these rules with impunity, and often without obvious 'penalty' - we see others 'penalised' who do not appear to have broken any rule we can imagine - and so we try to work out logically what rules there might be. Some are for self-preservation, and some are to ease our interactions with our fellow-players. Some 'feel' right, and so we try to go wiith them and heed them, but it can be difficult to hold ourselves to these as others seem to be playing to totally different rules - in fact they seem to be playing a totally different game.


 
We humans were created by god with a mind so that we can think and reason, mice were not. The Bible says we were created in God's image, not vice-versa. Our God is loving yet he gives us free-will. Our choices may effect others and they may be "penalized as you you so bluntly put it" not by God but because of human choices. As a Christian, I *know* God exists, if he didn't why and how would we be here in the first place. There is a greater power that knows all of us by name ans cares for us so much that he sent his only son to die a common criminal's death so that we may live.


----------



## Zahab

i believe in logic but sometimes logic is small in front of the faith, i think the humans need logic and need faith to live, logic for the natural and faith for the supernatural things, i think that both of this aspects are important for us.

thank you.


----------



## I.C.

_Battleground God_, a quiz dealing with consistency:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm


----------



## germinal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You sure know a lot about how an unknowable God works.
> 
> We can not know how God acts in human affairs (or if God reacts to human actions).
> Our concepts of God impute Love, Justice, Goodness, and other things to God. These are all human concepts. Why should the God who created us 'act' justly or fairly to us when it would appear quite obvious that God's 'actions' with other creatures - what does a lion know of justice, or a robin of fairness? Can a mouse be aware of a loving creator?
> We create God in our image and likeness and impute our higher moral ideals to this creation.
> 
> We are players in a game, the rules of which have not been explained to anyone. We take our cues from what we see others do, and what we see happen to them. We let others tell us what they believe the rules to be, but we see others break these rules with impunity, and often without obvious 'penalty' - we see others 'penalised' who do not appear to have broken any rule we can imagine - and so we try to work out logically what rules there might be. Some are for self-preservation, and some are to ease our interactions with our fellow-players. Some 'feel' right, and so we try to go wiith them and heed them, but it can be difficult to hold ourselves to these as others seem to be playing to totally different rules - in fact they seem to be playing a totally different game.


 

A clear and concise summary of our situation in this Universe - I'll go for intelligence over blind faith every time Maxiogee.

Germinal.


----------



## maxiogee

*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> We humans were created by god with a mind so that we can think and reason, mice were not. The Bible says we were created in God's image, not vice-versa. Our God is loving yet he gives us free-will. Our choices may effect others and they may be "penalized as you you so bluntly put it" not by God but because of human choices. As a Christian, I *know* God exists, if he didn't why and how would we be here in the first place. There is a greater power that knows all of us by name ans cares for us so much that he sent his only son to die a common criminal's death so that we may live.



The Bible was written by humans - a wide variety of them, each with different agendas.
Humans say that we are created in God's image.
I am not arguing that God doesn't exist - my point is that we foist our own standards and aspirations onto our concept of God.
You say that God sent his only son - where does that leave monotheists who say that God cannot be divided - are they worshipping a God which doesn't exist, or are they worshipping the same God but with a different set of insights?


----------



## *Cowgirl*

Have you ever heard of the holy trinity. God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit. 3 in 1, 1 in 3. Yes the Bible was written by humans, but it was divinely inspired. You can't tell me that Moses just *decided* to come up with ten rules to live by. More later, I've gotta go.


----------



## germinal

*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> Have you ever heard of the holy trinity. God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit. 3 in 1, 1 in 3. Yes the Bible was written by humans, but it was divinely inspired. You can't tell me that Abraham just *decided* to come up with ten rules to live by. More later, I've gotta go.


 

Abraham?


----------



## JazzByChas

germinal said:
			
		

> Abraham?


 
Confer with Genesis 17-25.

Also, consider:
"...and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is _*inspired by God*_ and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
 
I don't think you could advance your own agenda when you give credit to God for writing the scriptures, and have them point to Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God.  If you want to advance your own agenda, you would talk about yourself, and your ideas/theories.


----------



## cuchuflete

Back to the topic of the thread...All Scripture is *said by some and believed by some* to be inspired by God.

Of course there is no logical proof of this.  You either choose to believe it or you choose not to or you wrestle with the question.

Is L. Ron Hubbard's scripture inspired by God?  How do you know?

Is the Quran inspired by God?  How do you know?

To say that something is true because it's in a book, and that the book is inspired by God, proves nothing, logically, about whether the statement is true or false.  It simply shows that the speaker or writer accepts the source as divinely inspired.

The statement, logically, may be either true or false.

Who decides what is "sacred writing"?


----------



## germinal

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> Confer with Genesis 17-25.
> 
> Also, consider:
> "...and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is _*inspired by God*_ and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
> 
> I don't think you could advance your own agenda when you give credit to God for writing the scriptures, and have them point to Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God. If you want to advance your own agenda, you would talk about yourself, and your ideas/theories.


 

So these ten rules to live by are all about having your own, your male descendant`s (or your slave`s foreskin trimmed?)   -  Come on Jazzy!!

By the way - how many uncut Christians will be excluded (cut off from my covenant)  by this?


----------



## JazzByChas

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Back to the topic of the thread...All Scripture is *said by some and believed by some* to be inspired by God.
> 
> Of course there is no logical proof of this. You either choose to believe it or you choose not to or you wrestle with the question.
> 
> Is L. Ron Hubbard's scripture inspired by God? How do you know?
> 
> Is the Quran inspired by God? How do you know?
> 
> To say that something is true because it's in a book, and that the book is inspired by God, proves nothing, logically, about whether the statement is true or false. It simply shows that the speaker or writer accepts the source as divinely inspired.
> 
> The statement, logically, may be either true or false.
> 
> Who decides what is "sacred writing"?


 
Actually, I must agree that logically, you cannot prove faith...and if your faith says the your god wrote your holy writings, then that would be a matter of faith. I imagine that the logic only comes into play when we try to say that something other than men created the universe, or that the universe did not happen accidently. No one was there to see the creation of the universe, nor can one prove (conslusively) how it was created. 

One can only logically assume that something with a vaster intelligence and power must have set into motion all that is in the universe with such an intricate make-up and such profound beauty. I, for one, find it logically difficult to think that something came from nothing by pure accident. Or that which has intellegence and reasoning ability (speech, emotion, intelligence) was put into place by something which had/has none of the afforementioned.

There are things which logically make sense, even though you can't see them, like gravity, wind (or atoms, yet again). You can't see these things, but you can see the effects of these phenomena, so we can conclude they exist. So, logically speaking, just because it can't always be seen or understood, does not negate its existence. "Faith" is defined, at least by one definition, as "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."  So in a sense, you embrace these things by "faith."

(another 2 cents to the WR dictionary fund)


----------



## JazzByChas

Germinal said:
			
		

> So these ten rules to live by are all about having your own, your male descendant`s (or your slave`s foreskin trimmed?) - Come on Jazzy!!
> 
> By the way - how many uncut Christians will be excluded (cut off from my covenant) by this?


 
Ummm, in a word, "NO." Circumcision is not a factor in being "included." That was (and is) an ancient Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli tradition. I don't believe the issue by cowgirl was that circumcision or the 10 commandments was the means of "inclusion." I believe she was just saying that it makes no logical sense for a guy to write 10 rules to live by that include worshipping a god (and not himself...kings were regularly "worshipped" in those days), especially when there were very many cultures (including Abraham's) around that had all sorts of "rules" and traditions already in place, including worshipping of a god or many god(s). I believe one of the commandments is "Have no other gods before me..." which presumes that this god of which Abraham speaks wants exclusivity, and not to share the throne with all of the other gods of that day.


----------



## Zahab

i think that God is not a complex person, i think that he like to revelate to the people using logic things, that help us to know him, i think that the faith is expectacular because permits to you to dream and to have vision in the life, but logic is the base of the human possibly things and faith is the base of the impossible things that only God could do it. i think that God in simply things show us his presence and love.

excuse me guys for my english.
thank you.


----------



## germinal

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> Ummm, in a word, "NO." Circumcision is not a factor in being "included." That was (and is) an ancient Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli tradition. I don't believe the issue by cowgirl was that circumcision or the 10 commandments was the means of "inclusion." I believe she was just saying that it makes no logical sense for a guy to write 10 rules to live by that include worshipping a god (and not himself...kings were regularly "worshipped" in those days), especially when there were very many cultures (including Abraham's) around that had all sorts of "rules" and traditions already in place, including worshipping of a god or many god(s). I believe one of the commandments is "Have no other gods before me..." which presumes that this god of which Abraham speaks wants exclusivity, and not to share the throne with all of the other gods of that day.


 

I don`t think Cowgirl had the covenant with God or circumcision in mind when she ascribed the conveyance of the Ten Commandments to Abraham - I think she probably meant Moses - don`t you?     And Moses appeared with the tablets of stone at a very difficult time politically when his followers were reverting to the worship of the golden calf and threatening to abandon belief in Jehova - The rules from above arrived just in the nick of time - whew!


----------



## JazzByChas

Germinal said:
			
		

> I think she probably meant Moses


 
My bad..you're right there...

Just substitue "Moses" for "Abraham" in all the references to the giving of the 10 Commandments...


----------



## maxiogee

The Bible was inspired by God?
All of it? Every single word? The authors had no free will? There are known to have been many authors of the various books of the "Old Testament" - how does the old inspiration compare to the new? When Jesus was alive how come nobody was inspired to write then? The "Gospels" all date from quite some time after his death?

The translations - how about them?
(Goodness knows we quibble about the precise meanings of words here - words we all use in English every day - and we can't agree on a precision. Yet you would have me believe that tghe ancient translators of Aramaic into Greek had a full command of both languages and kept the divine meaning intact, and that the many and various translations which have been done into English are all accurate reflections of God's inspiration?

Of course I've heard of the Holy Trinity - that doesn't mean it is true. Ancient Greeks had all heard of Zeus and Apollo, Hera and Juno - the weren't true - even though their literature says they existed.

Which Biblical books are accurate - all the ones the Vatican has suppressed? 

How about Revelations? Now there's a book to challenge a believer in the theory of Divine Inspiration. There is, I believe, much evidence which points to the author having been going through ergot poisoning at the time that was written.

You think Moses couldn't have come up with rules to live by? Where the israelites too dense to formulate rules for governing a society? They needed divine intervention to do so? When were the Ten Commandments handed down in relation to the Code of Hammurabi - there were rules for living by which are seriously ancient and nobody claimed they were 'inspired'.

You claim to "know" these things, but in fact you "accept" them - and I don't have a problem with that. I'm extremely liberal and allow people to believe/accept what they want to. But I fail to see how you can use the word "know" about beliefs. And this brings us back to logic again.
Deductive reasoning may lead me to believe certain things, but I cannot claim that I know them. I can say that Fred told me and that I accept that 'he' knows, but it doesn't mean that 'I' know.

Did the God who inspired the Bible you read inspire any other books? Is the Quran 'wrong' when it clashes with the tenets you hold to? Is the Book of Mormon inspired or not? Many say it is, but you probably don't agree - who decides? What about the teachings of Buddha, or the rituals of Shinto, or the writings of Guru Nanak, or Zarathushtra?

Is not the Trinity of Christianity a retrograde step, from the absolute monotheism of the Jews and other Middle Eastern religions, towards a semi-polytheism so that the polytheists of the Greek and Roman worlds would not have to make too big a step when being converted, a sort of monotheism-lite?


----------



## Devoted-Deserter

Hello everybody;
Before we can argue such a question, we should discuss some logical and algebraic stuff. People tend to think that logic is incompatible with religion; we shall first know what logic is and what religion is. If by religion you mean belief in God, then you should give us example of incompatibilities, don’t you?
A significant part of people think that the opposite of black is white, whereas according to logic everything that is not black is opposite of black.
We shall also clarify some fallacies like; no one can prove the existence of god than he doesn’t exist! Because no one also could prove he doesn’t exist! Or could you?
Time: Many people do believe that no one is beyond time. Every thing has a beginning and an end, it sounds logic. Though numbers do not have a beginning or an end! (Numbers are also considered as Values).
Think about the universe. Do you believe it is constant, does it sounds logic over there? Or do you believe it is the product of in explosion and it is constantly moving? Where is the end where is the beginning. Provided: E=MC². Time is space speed relation. The body gets old as a sign of usury. For the mind, getting old is getting experience, hence we learn and we go on. An hour of algebra is a five minutes pleasure for me, whereas for others it was like the never ending story.
What about matter, could any one prove it exists?
Before arguing on Koran or any other religions we shall first and foremost argue the existence of god and figure out who is god and how he is, then and only then we could discuss the books.
Please, give us examples of incompatibilities. Voulez vous bien nous montrer comment vous avez fait votre calcul pour arriver à ce résultat (religion+logic=2).
Yours,


----------



## cuchuflete

Devoted-Deserter said:
			
		

> If by religion you mean belief in God...


 No, I do not believe that God and religion are the same thing at all. God, Allah, or whatever very man-made name anyone wants to apply to a creator, either does or does not exist, whether or not religions exist.

Here is a simple proof:  If your notion of a deity assumes that 
God is all powerful, then God could abolish all religions.  That would not eliminate God.  Likewise, the creation and existence of religion is not a necessary pre-condition for the existence of God.  

Whatever good or bad religion accomplishes, it is not sufficiently powerful to create God, nor to abolish God.


----------



## Zahab

i think

that God do not need religions and persons for be God, if we do no exist he is God and if we exist he is God, i see God like the most powerful,eternal,and perfect person in the universe and out of the universe. according to this thread this affirmation is no t logic becuase according to my logic nobody can be bigger than the universe, but my faith let me think and see God more bigger than the universe that is infinite.

i am agree with the third paragraph from cuchuflete.

but i want to know somothing which is the concept of the people about religion. i will open this interesting thread.

thank you folks for your time.


----------



## Devoted-Deserter

An all-powerful God could abolish religion, but unfortunately he doesn’t want earth to stand without a religion, but this is how he wants Heaven, there will be no religion.
The notion of all powerful:
Although I am not ready to discuss such a topic such as materialism and idealism, we shall keep in mind the fact that the existence of the matter that contains all the physical limits some could just put to god, has by any mean been proven.
I have heard many people saying: Oh, we definitely believe that God exists, such a wonderful world could not exist without a creator, but please do not talk about reincarnation, this is beyond the possible. 
Well, they believe that there was nothing, than God created LIFE. He created an amazing universe, a beautiful earth for humans, and made them a body and a spirit. They think he needed the body to create the mind without whom a mind could not exist.
He need the body, _that he created from nothing,_ to create the mind, _that has been created from nothing too!_
Beside the fact that if I am to do something the first time would be the most difficult.
In one word; If there God created the universe than he is not subject of what he created.
Hence an all powerful God is a god who created LIFE and is able to change it the way he likes. The fact that he does not change it, do not mean he cannot. In case he want LIFE to witness religion, we will do so.
Devoted-deserteR


----------



## cuchuflete

Devoted-Deserter said:
			
		

> An all-powerful God could abolish religion, but *unfortunately he doesn’t want earth to stand without a religion*, but this is how he wants Heaven, there will be no religion.



How does one know what God wants?  Through the teachings of a religion?  That, from a logical viewpoint, is circular reasoning,
or a lack of reasoning.

God wants religion.  How do I know that? My religion says so.
God created my religion, thus it must be correct.
This brings to mind a line from a poem by E. E. Cummings:

"a bird flies into a mirror"


----------



## maxiogee

You do the man an injustice, cuchuflete.
You do not belittle him sufficiently!
It is e.e. cummings!!


----------



## Devoted-Deserter

First, this is too philosophical and you shall read it as it. I never stated that I know what god wants. I just commented your sentence. 
*God is all powerful, then God could abolish all religions.*
The fact that he could do not mean by any mean that it is necessary so. Heaven was just to tell you that I am aware that he could abolish religion.
Well, your nice comments are always the welcome.


----------



## cuchuflete

D-D,
Sorry for the confusion.  Don't worry about Maxiogee.  He has a special sense of humor.  Mr. Edward Estlin Cummings liked to sign his own name in lowercase letters.  That doesn't give me the right to do so.

Back to the topic...I am intrigued by the notion that God would not have any religions in heaven.  Invoking logic, which will probably be unnecessary in heavan, religions seem to be the cause of much pain here in the physical world, so perhaps they will be limited to hell, if there is such a thing.
Those who join their creator surely would have no need of religion.
Maybe religion is just a penance humans--including atheists and agnostics-- must suffer to achieve a place in heaven.


----------



## Zahab

i think that the problem here is that many people used the name of God for their own benefit,  and because of this some people may have bad ideas or concepts about God, in this present year some persons have the obligation to display a different God, the religion sometimes try to use logic arguments to explain God behavior and when logic can not answer this question, the person make himself or herself agnostic or atheist. this is the hypothesis that i deducted from this topic this my personal argument. 

according to many religions the faith is the one that sent you to the heaven not logic, the question that i do in front of this case is faith in who?


----------



## Outsider

Some Muslims seem to insist that there is only one God. I suppose they mean that the God of Islam, Christianity and Judaism is the same. Does your statement that there is no religion in Heaven mean that, according to Islam, people from each of these three faiths will be accepted in Heaven, *Devoted-Deserter*?


----------



## Zahab

ok my opinion about this is:

this is the reason that told to foreros that names, knowledege, are not the access to heaven, is only the faith that can sent you to the heaven, i will clarify this ALAH is not the same God of the Judeochristians, this what some theologians said about this topic, in think that there is only one God and one heaven, and one faith that can sent you directly to the heaven to the unknown God(for somepersons)

this are the arguments that the logic can hold and the only way to beleive in tis is using faith, this my personal concept about this.


----------



## *Cowgirl*

Oh my gosh guys! As I was reading through to see what I had missed I came across the Araham-circumsion thing. You should have seen the lovely shade of red on my face.  Yes I meant Moses and I went back and fixed it.

_Organized religion_ is an invention of man, but my God, is not. Islam and Christianity are different _faiths_ our core beliefs are quite different.

Yes, man did write the scriptures, but God works in mysterious ways. I believe that the authors were divinely inspired.

maxiogee, Revelations does seem scary/weird if you take it literally. In fact much of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. You have to dig deeper to get the true meaning.

To get back to the thread topic, logic and faith are very compatible. Isn't it logically to believe that there is some power greater than ourselves. How do we logically explain the cancer patients given 2 weeks to live, chemo and radiation are stopped. The doctors have seemingly no hope. Yet this person lives another 40 years cancer free. It wasn't a wonder drug, it was God, that person's work on Earth was not yet complete. How did the universe come into being. It may surprise that I believe Big Bang was probably the case, but I believe that God created that atom and made all the conditions right for the universe to form. Yeah, I know you're gonna say I'm contradicting Genisis 1, but I'm not. What's a day to God? It's surely not comprehendable to humans with our tiny brain capacity.


----------



## Zahab

*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> Oh my gosh guys! As I was reading through to see what I had missed I came across the Araham-circumsion thing. You should have seen the lovely shade of red on my face.  Yes I meant Moses and I went back and fixed it.
> 
> _Religion_ is an invention of man, God, is not. Yes, man did write the scriptures, but God works in mysterious ways. I believe that the authors were divinely inspired.
> 
> maxiogee, Revelations does seem scary/weird if you take it literally. In fact much of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. You have to dig deeper to get the true meaning.
> 
> To get back to the thread topic, logic and faith are very compatible. Isn't it logically to believe that there is some power greater than ourselves. How do we logically explain the cancer patients given 2 weeks to live, chemo and radiation are stopped. The doctors have seemingly no hope. Yet this person lives another 40 years cancer free. It wasn't a wonder drug, it was God, that person's work on Earth was not yet complete. How did the universe come into being. It may surprise that I believe Big Bang was probably the case, but I believe that God created that atom and made all the conditions right for the universe to form. Yeah, I know you're gonna say I'm contradicting Genisis 1, but I'm not. What's a day to God? It's surely not comprehendable to humans with our tiny brain capacity.



i believe in these miracles, i believe that in all the parts of the universe and out of the universe there is a powerful God that love the all the people, and he can make these miracles, i have faith in this God.

in these cases that logic does not work, or does not have any argument to explain these situations.

thank for your time.


----------



## *Cowgirl*

Zahab said:
			
		

> i believe in these miracles, i believe that in all the parts of the universe and out of the universe there is a powerful God that love the all the people, and he can make these miracles, i have faith in this God.
> 
> in these cases that logic does not work, or does not have any argument to explain these situations.
> 
> thank for your time.


 
Simple scientific logic can't explain it, so *logically* these miracles must be controlled by a higher power.


----------



## lsp

*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> Simple scientific logic can't explain it, so *logically* these miracles must be controlled by a higher power.


I am not saying I agree or disagree, just that this logic seems illogical  because we know that what scientific logic can explain_ today _is nowhere near all that can/will ever be explained.


----------



## maxiogee

*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> Yes, man did write the scriptures, but God works in mysterious ways. I believe that the authors were divinely inspired.



All 'scripture authors'? or just the Christian/jewish/Islamic?

You are neatly sidestepping my point - are all religions other than yours 'wrong'? They each claim that they have the truth.
They certainly call for their followers to believe different things, and they forecast different endings to 'life'. They also seem, frequently, to be mutually exclusive.




			
				*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> maxiogee, Revelations does seem scary/weird if you take it literally. In fact much of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. You have to dig deeper to get the true meaning.



But that introduces human choice and human opinion into the word of God. Until very recently most branches of Christianity said the Bible was literally true. How is one to know what is literal and what is not. It is on the interpretation that the branches differ - and to them it seems to be a big thing.




			
				*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> To get back to the thread topic, logic and faith are very compatible. Isn't it logically to believe that there is some power greater than ourselves. How do we logically explain the cancer patients given 2 weeks to live, chemo and radiation are stopped. The doctors have seemingly no hope. Yet this person lives another 40 years cancer free. It wasn't a wonder drug, it was God, that person's work on Earth was not yet complete. How did the universe come into being. It may surprise that I believe Big Bang was probably the case, but I believe that God created that atom and made all the conditions right for the universe to form. Yeah, I know you're gonna say I'm contradicting Genisis 1, but I'm not. What's a day to God? It's surely not comprehendable to humans with our tiny brain capacity.



My mother lived for over thirty lears after a six-months prognosis from the doctor for lung-cancer.
I believe that the medical profession knows feck-all about a lot of what they speak of. Cancer isn't the only disease which they mis-prognosticate about. I haven't bothered to do so, but I imagine a web-search for the phrase "medical experts are baffled" and similar would produce numerous hits.


----------



## I.C.

*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> Isn't it logically to believe that there is some power greater than ourselves.


No.


> How do we logically explain the cancer patients given 2 weeks to live, chemo and radiation are stopped. The doctors have seemingly no hope. Yet this person lives another 40 years cancer free.


 1. Scientific knowledge is neither complete nor always accurate. 
2. Selection bias. 

Each day on earth a vast number of events occur. There will be unusual occurrences. If one searches for such, finds some and now, without keeping in mind or mentioning the large mass of data scanned previously, goes on to proclaim theses as miraculous, for they are seemingly improbable or currently inexplicable, - that is faulty reasoning (or dishonesty, if it's done deliberately).


----------



## *Cowgirl*

maxiogee said:
			
		

> All 'scripture authors'? or just the Christian/jewish/Islamic?
> 
> You are neatly sidestepping my point - are all religions other than yours 'wrong'? They each claim that they have the truth.
> They certainly call for their followers to believe different things, and they forecast different endings to 'life'. They also seem, frequently, to be mutually exclusive.
> Truthfully, that is not for me to say. Some people believe that the different faiths are all different roads to the same place. I don't know. That is for God to decide. For me though, the only way to eternal life is through Jesus Christ the son of the Most High.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that introduces human choice and human opinion into the word of God. Until very recently most branches of Christianity said the Bible was literally true. How is one to know what is literal and what is not. It is on the interpretation that the branches differ - and to them it seems to be a big thing.
> 
> If you want to take the Bible literally, fine. But I do not. You can make the Bible say anything you want, truly. But if we infer, we can get a message that in my opinion, is closer to the truth. If we take it literally, does that mean we should all run away and waste our fortunes in prostitution; then go eat with the pigs. After we've had enough we can go home and have a party. In my interpretation, it means that Gods arms are always open for us and he loves us and will forgive all sins no matter how great. Yes, even ax murderers.
> 
> My mother lived for over thirty lears after a six-months prognosis from the doctor for lung-cancer.
> I believe that the medical profession knows feck-all about a lot of what they speak of. Cancer isn't the only disease which they mis-prognosticate about. I haven't bothered to do so, but I imagine a web-search for the phrase "medical experts are baffled" and similar would produce numerous hits.


 
As for miracles, you can believe whatever you want. You say it's a scientific fluke; I say it's a gift from God.


----------



## Zahab

it is very hard for the people, to recognize this but science is limited to the logic, but miracles are limited to the faith. i think that the obstacle of some group of persons to understand the Bible, is that always they read it in a logic way and i know that in the bible there are some divine arguments that are very ilogic, foe example Moses(using cowgirl argument) with the power of God open the red sea, this is avery ilogic action, this events are the ones that only faith can explain it.

another personal opinion is that there are some things that can not be proove and the only way to believe it or explain it is using faith.

thank you folks.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Zahab said:
			
		

> it is very hard for the people, to recognize this but science is limited to the logic, but miracles are limited to the faith. i think that the obstacle of some group of persons to understand the Bible, is that always they read it in a logic way and i know that in the bible there are some divine arguments that are very ilogic, foe example Moses(using cowgirl argument) with the power of God open the red sea, this is avery ilogic action, this events are the ones that only faith can explain it.
> 
> another personal opinion is that there are some things that can not be proove and the only way to believe it or explain it is using faith.
> 
> thank you folks.


Hi Zahab,
Moses opening the sea can't be another than an metaphor, an example, a story or a symbol. If we take it as such, we can gain some guidance maybe from the story, if we take it literally, what guidance can we extract from it?
Faith doesn't explain it, faith is requiered to believe it because it can't be proven.


----------



## Zahab

hi ana raquel

many times for logic maby things are metaphor, the people that believe in a power God, can believe that is not impossible to God to open a sea, but if some people think that here is a huge and powerful God, but they do not believe completely in his power.

as a revelation the sea means the problem, when moses pray to God the sea opened, when we pray God the problems are opened its means that God help us to defeat the problems when the israel people passed to the other side of the sea its means that in the way of the live when you have goals but probably appears obstacles(red sea) that try to stop it, but eventhough this problems appears you can pass to the other side.

in this miracle of faith this are the teachings of God, in this case logic can not make this conclusions, because is truly ilogic that some invisible God open a SEA.

thank you folks


----------



## Ana Raquel

hi back zahab 


			
				Zahab said:
			
		

> hi ana raquel
> 
> many times for logic maby things are metaphor, the people that believe in a power God, can believe that is not impossible to God to open a sea, but if some people think that here is a huge and powerful God, but they do not believe completely in his power.
> 
> as a revelation the sea means the problem, when moses pray to God the sea opened, when we pray God the problems are opened its means that God help us to defeat the problems when the israel people passed to the other side of the sea its means that in the way of the live when you have goals but probably appears obstacles(red sea) that try to stop it, but eventhough this problems appears you can pass to the other side.
> 
> in this miracle of faith this are the teachings of God, in this case logic can not make this conclusions, because is truly ilogic that some invisible God open a SEA.
> 
> thank you folks


Of course God can do whatever thing, but the question is, does God do those things? open a sea for israel people in old times and not now for other nations when the tsunami? and they were probably praying too.

Seas don't open, nature laws, God's laws don't change, stories work as examples, metaphors, as real literal events, don't. 
 I think you are taken the episode as a metaphor too, aren't you?


----------



## Zahab

ok i respect your personal opinion.

the tsunami could have destroyed many lives than 120.000 persons but God save many people, this are the things that i see that are important. this are natural risks  that we have to afront, i am sure that in the tsunami died many people that beleive in the love of God, but they died.

ana raquel i think that these things are not metaphor i believe that God can do this kind of things (open seas).

logic said in this tsunami case God is bad.
faith said in this tsunami case God permit somethings for a good purpose eventhough it look like bada things.

thank you ana for your post.


----------



## Ana Raquel

_ok i respect your personal opinion._ It is ot opinion Zahab, it is something I witness and experience every day, that seas don't open = God's laws don't change, it is verified every day.

_ana raquel i think that these things are not metaphor i believe that God can do this kind of things (open seas)._ I also believe God can open seas, but does He do it?

_thank you ana for your post._ Welcome   Thanks to you too.


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:
			
		

> My mother lived for over thirty lears after a six-months prognosis from the doctor for lung-cancer.





			
				*Cowgirl* said:
			
		

> As for miracles, you can believe whatever you want. You say it's a scientific fluke; I say it's a gift from God.



You do me a grave injustice to imply that I see the extra years of my mother's life as "a scientific fluke".

I'll leave this thread now.
Tony.


----------



## germinal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You do me a grave injustice to imply that I see the extra years of my mother's life as "a scientific fluke".
> 
> I'll leave this thread now.
> Tony.


 


Can't say I blame you - do you ever get the feeling that the world has begun to slide backwards?


Germinal.


----------



## Zahab

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> _ok i respect your personal opinion._ It is ot opinion Zahab, it is something I witness and experience every day, that seas don't open = God's laws don't change, it is verified every day.
> 
> _ana raquel i think that these things are not metaphor i believe that God can do this kind of things (open seas)._ I also believe God can open seas, but does He do it?
> 
> _thank you ana for your post._ Welcome   Thanks to you too.



i think that he do not break laws he reform or change laws.


----------



## GenJen54

Even sometimes science attempts to come up with "plausible" or "logical" explanations for occurrences found in the bible.  Here is one such example.


----------



## Zahab

hello

faith suppot logic but logic sometimes can not support faith.

religion sometimes are additions of the truly gospel of Christ, for this reason the biblie says that nobody can write more of less words than the words that was written in the bible.

to day some people or religions put words in God that he never said and all this actions, turning some people confused, this is another reason why the people want to be agnostic or atheist, this is my very very personal idea.

thank you


----------



## Benjy

Zahab said:
			
		

> religion sometimes are additions of the truly gospel of Christ, for this reason the biblie says that nobody can write more of less words than the words that was written in the bible.
> 
> thank you



no it doesn't and anyone who has half a brain will realise that. you might want to check the most accurate chronolgies of the books that john wrote. you might also want to read deut 4:2. i guess by your logic you ought to burn everything after moses.


----------



## Zahab

thank you benjy for the brain remark.

what i am trying to tell you is that logic have a limit but the faith is ilimited, faith cames from God. God is eternal it is means that our faith have eternal consequences, logic is limited because there are some things that logically we or any one can explain it, for exaple miracles.

this is only but only mi personal opinion.
thank you so much


----------



## mariovargas

Benjy said:
			
		

> is there a place for logic when discussion things concerning god/religion etc etc?
> are all beliefs in a higher power illogical?
> 
> play nicely


I think it is highly illogical to believe in a world where there is no God than to believe in a world where there is a God and Who is in control. I choose the latter. Life without faith is dead. And faith without works is dead also. 

Come on. Think about it. There is no point in living if there isn't anything after death. But believing in what's next is grace to live in the now AS GOD WANTS YOU TO LIVE and look forward to the next.


----------



## cuchuflete

mariovargas said:
			
		

> Come on. Think about it. There is no point in living if there isn't anything after death. But believing in what's next is grace to live in the now AS GOD WANTS YOU TO LIVE and look forward to the next.



OK. I've thought about it.  I am astounded that those who believe in an afterlife cannot comprehend that there are millions of people--perhaps many hundreds of millions-- who don't share that belief, yet find lots of good reasons to be alive.

Perhaps the believers in an afterlife have their own special version of logic, which dictates to them that their viewpoint is the only one that provides a "point in living", and leaves them
bewildered by those who find plenty of value in living without a belief in an afterlife.  This demonstrates that there are logical systems informed by faith and those that are free of such influences.  

There's no particular right or wrong to any of this...just vast differences in perception.


----------



## mariovargas

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> OK. I've thought about it. I am astounded that those who believe in an afterlife cannot comprehend that there are millions of people--perhaps many hundreds of millions-- who don't share that belief, yet find lots of good reasons to be alive.


I am not ignoring that and I see what you mean. I used to be one of those. 



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Perhaps the believers in an afterlife have their own special version of logic, which dictates to them that their viewpoint is the only one that provides a "point in living", and leaves them
> bewildered by those who find plenty of value in living without a belief in an afterlife. This demonstrates that there are logical systems informed by faith and those that are free of such influences.
> 
> There's no particular right or wrong to any of this...just vast differences in perception.


I don't know how to put this. I am not going to convince you of anything because this will go on in circles and reach no point. If your logical thinking tells you, "there is no God and I can live my way. Others believe what I do." then that is your response to that "calling". The "sin" (and I am not meaning this in a religious sense) of impartiality and indifference (that any church or doctrine is fine as long as you believe in Jesus), the sin of relativism (that your views and my views are fine as long as we believe them so), religious pluralism, our attempts to logically and scientifically explain everything around us and so many others only prove our need and thirst for the real Truth. There is truth. The number PI has an infinite number of decimals. The Earth orbits the Sun. One year is 365.25 days. Gravity is real yet invisible. The world is real. The Universe is vast and it had a beginning. We exist. We are born, live, reproduce and die and life keeps going. There is good and evil in this world. You don't need to debate with me about these few truths because it would be illogical, right? So I see no point in debating the same thing about faith or religion because it takes faith to believe in God, love to act, and hope for the good and bad things that come our way and for the afterlife.

Everyone has free will and is free to choose to believe in God or not, just as everyone has free will to do good or evil. There are millions upon millions who believe in God. Some people see them as dumb and those who have faith wonder, "How could someone live without faith?" I can't understand how they would. People lose hope and end up committing suicide (despair.) People kill each other for lack of love of neighbor. Some of those who have no faith look for ways to disprove the belief of others or just don't do so, but they ignore the fact that it takes a lot of faith and a lot of courage not to believe. We need faith, hope and love, but especially the latter. Then the rest will fall into place.


----------



## la reine victoria

> Originally Posted by* Cuchuflete*
> OK. I've thought about it. I am astounded that those who believe in an afterlife cannot comprehend that there are millions of people--perhaps many hundreds of millions-- who don't share that belief, yet find lots of good reasons to be alive.


 

I am a firm believer in an afterlife but this in no way affects my daily life - in fact I rarely give it a thought.  I am indifferent as to whether or not my belief is right or wrong.

It is not a prerequisite of life that one needs to believe in an afterlife in order to live in a meaningful and fulfilling way.

LRV


----------



## cuchuflete

Mariovargas, in post #166, appears to be saying that belief in an afterlife is one and the same with belief in a god.

Sorry, this isn't a matter of being politickly kerrect, and acknowledging that all viewpoint are equally valid and let's all be sweet and nice to one another.  That is quite simply Wrong.
It's nonsense.   Logically it doesn't hold up to any measure.
Spiritually it shows the vacuousness of a religious viewpoint that won't even acknowledge the existence of other religious viewpoints, or of spiritual stances free from and free of the 
bounds of theology.  

It is a falsehood and an absolute absurdity to insist that belief in a deity requires belief in an afterlife.  It is quite possible to have the former without the latter.  

In the spirit of a good and lively debate, I don't take offense that the gentleman hasn't read my post carefully, and imputes to me the lack of belief in a god.  That's his erroneous reading, apparently informed by an inability to conceive of a god without an afterlife.  I have no interest in circular arguments, nor do I wish to persuade him that his posture is any better or worse than someone else's.  I just continue to be amazed that some "religious" folk are unable to even conceive of approaches different from their own.  

Does religion require one to be close-minded?  I don't think so.  And yet, these forums provide ample proof that there are a fair number of people about who have difficulties accepting the very existence of a range of beliefs.

It's not so simple as, "Do you believe in God?" Yes/No.
There are Gods, gods, nature, Nature, and all of the foregoing both with and without assumptions of any sort of afterlife.  

If you believe in a *G*od, and an afterlife, you may live a perfectly meaningless existence.  You may believe in a force you call Henrietta, no afterlife, and have a very meaningfull existence.  Et cetera....

LRV said it so well:



> It is not a prerequisite of life that one needs to believe in an afterlife in order to live in a meaningful and fulfilling way.


 and she believes in an afterlife!


----------



## mariovargas

Hmmm... Perhaps I misunderstood your post, cuchuflete.

As for me imputing or even implying your lack of belief in a "deity", I only figured that from your posts. And I am sorry if I offended you. I am not perfect and once in a while a word or two may slip from my tongue and set a forrest on fire without my immediate knowledge. But I also found the way you referred to me in post #168 a little demeaning. Yet I take it as a blessing and makes me hold dear my belief. So thank you.

I'd like to add one last thing. I think that logic and faith are compatible when you put God in the middle. After all, I believe He is the One who gave us the capacity to think logically.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Zahab said:
			
		

> what i am trying to tell you is that logic have a limit but the faith is ilimited, faith cames from God. God is eternal it is means that our faith have eternal consequences, logic is limited because there are some things that logically we or any one can explain it, for exaple miracles.


 
You meant "can't", didn't you?

Faith doesn't explain miracles either. If there is an explanation, there is no need of faith.


----------

