Religion

[GreenGuy]

I'm hoping to elicit a discussion of religion, preferably without emotive flareups. Not this religion vs that one, and hopefully without preaching. I hope I can express my thoughts clearly here....

I know that Avalonians represent a variety of beliefs. I've seen that there are some Christians here, and there are probably many who aren't. Probably some atheists, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans and who knows what else.

For myself, I deeply believe in the Divine, in God. I don't think I mean the same thing when I use the word God that Christians do, but it's not so different. I have known great people in different religions. I would have to say that I don't believe in religion. I don't like dogma, for one thing. I observe that religion creates separation more often than not. I don't think religion is a bad thing per se, any more than money. But like money, religion can be used for bad purposes and it can twist people toward the dark side.

What I'm wondering is, can religion be used to create unity or is it something that must always separate peoples? Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? Please, no preaching.

[Abhaya]

A religion must have the following footnote to be ultimately viable in my opinion

My way is not the only way. It is one of many ways to view and worship/interact with the infinitely multifaceted absolute.
It is not the best way but it is the best for me.

You can even argue why your religion is best. But it should come from the heart free from ultimately inadequate logic. It should be like the arguing over a son by his mother and his lover. They argue over which way to love him is better. But actually they are friends and even family and in arguments brought forth by true spiritual feeling they would both be right. And such an argument would actually only put forth amazing praise on the absolute and each worshipers different taste for loving the absolute as well.

Religions I think are like starter kits to get us going on any multitude of ways to love that which is the absolute god,energy,personality,friend. Eventually u may leave them behind. But free from human imposed divisive dogma (which sadly is rarely the case) they are an amazing and IMO essential tool.

In every path out there today, Christian and Muslims included of course, there are those who understand the essence of the path. And who are developing a true spiritual taste according to said path, a way in which they will love the absolute, whether they will be his lover his mother or his energy. Each one is perfect

[Robin]

I know you don't want preaching, but I can't think of any other way to express my thoughts! I'm sorry! I'll try to answer the question in you original post when I think about it more...:o

Quite a heavy topic! I'll never get tired of expressing my opinion on the matter, however.

I think that we need to establish first that religion is a figment of our massive egos. In addition, religion could mean anything. By definition, I could say that my religion is "happiness" because it is something that I personally create for my own deportment. Organized religion, on the other hand, is completely different. Organized religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been created with a set of guidelines for followers.

Organized religion is a rather enclosed system that does not cater to the individual, but rather the collective. This is why it is so easily corrupted, unfortunately.

I think that it is OK for people to believe what they want to believe as long as it meets three criteria:

It truly makes you happy.
It does not infringe on the rights of others and does not harm anybody else.
It is not indoctrinated on you and you do not indoctrinate it on others.

The majority of organized religions do not meet these criteria, unfortunately. They have the capability of meeting them, but have been purposely manipulated.

Organized religion is a system that people create so they feel well taken care of. It is a natural tendency for people to lean on something out of comfort, such as organized religion or government. Looking inwards and battling one's inner demons is the toughest challenge anybody can face. Most people choose not to do so.

Many organized religions purposely teach against looking inwards, and instead focus on teaching people to live their lives a certain way so they can be saved or redeemed. Often a tactic of fear is implemented to seduce people into believing they will be punished by a higher being.

The most frustrating aspect about organized religion is that it centers on "belief." What more is belief than a term we give to "the unknown"? I myself choose not believe in anything. I base my viewpoints and ideals on evidence and common sense. It is my duty as a human being to shed my theories if they are disproved by science. And I am more than glad to so!

But most people are not. The older one gets while clinging to the same paradigm, the more they become defensive and paranoid about their belief. If someone tells another that the belief they have been actively following their entire life is false, in which case they've been living a lie (often times harming themselves and others), then the more upset the person gets.

Who wants to learn that they've been worshiping a false lie for sixty years? It is heartbreaking, and rightfully so.

Science is something that, in my opinion, needs to be emphasized to all children above anything else. When people do not study science--whether academically or privately out of pure curiosity--they begin to feel scared. They begin to feel lonely. They begin to feel confused. Eventually they turn to the notion of superiority, or God.

The concept of God is carved out of the mental faculties of the individual. When we do not understand something, do not have good role models growing up, or do not want to take responsibility for our actions, we create a God, Goddess, or other entities to lean on.

Once again, understanding science can fill that emptiness inside of you that organized religion cannot. Science:

provides new exciting theories about the existence of life that are constantly being researched, updated, or disproved.
gives you an understanding of the totality of the wonders of the universe that organized religion cannot provide. Quantum physics, though very confusing, suggests that the idea of superiority is human ego and nothing more. Why can the totality of the universe not be God and every human be a fractal of Creation?
shows the individual that nature functions through love. The constant flux of cycles of energy changing to keep the system alive and healthy is beyond our comprehension.

The first law of Thermodynamics states: Energy in a given system cannot be created or destroyed. Well...since we are made entirely up of energy, we cannot be destroyed! Only our physical bodies disintegrate.

Science is my religion. :thumb:

Buddhism is my philosophy. :thumb:

[Abhaya]

Actually science and religion in a truly advanced culture would be one and the same. They should never have to disagree with one another. It is interesting that perhaps due to the lack of much fulfilling comprehensive religious cultures, at least in the main stream, people put their faith in science. Science is only another form of religion. Some scientists are as dogmatic and fundamental as the worst Christian. Putting faith in what our physical eyes and brains can record and understand even with the help of advanced machines still requires a leap of faith. Our eyes and minds are imperfect. We make mistakes. You cannot ultimately measure the infinite. And perhaps when a scientist comes to realize this they can go deeper by letting go of the need to physically grasp infinity in their logical Brian, which is impossible of course , and being ok with not needing to know every answer. And then the same holds true for those in traditional religions as they struggle with needing to feel that their way is the best way when they need to realize that it only need to be the best for themselves and be ok with that.

We naturally begin to question why. Why am I hear. What is the meaning to life. This is consciousness taking its first real breath. It is as natural an occurrence in the evolution of a species. As natural and fundamental as when we first learned to walk on land.As this happens a culture springs forth around how we go exploring and looking for answers to that why. For instance maybe the first people gathered in a circle and passed the stick around and sang certain songs about their longings for understanding why or what not. These traditions may be passed on for generations. Religious traditions like these can and should be a very natural progression. And are quite ok IMO. Also IMHO when one is sincere in asking the absolute for answers he will get them. These revelations can then be honored and added to by other sincere seekers. Never should a cap be put on said revelations as some kind of final story. As the story is never done being told. It is an infinite story. And IMO sincerity is the key to everything from receiving true answers, deciphering truth from not. A sincere soul can never fail. If there is any purpose to this reality and one sincerely wants to know and be his true potential then said reality will make it happen.imo. Well I'll stop there for now turned into a bit of a ramble

[Milneman]

Here I had this big long post typed out, and I've just deleted it.

Religion can act as a unifying principle among people if, and only if, people are willing to accept the truth that the religious principle teaches without attempting to modify it. You change a recipe, and you potentially ruin the muffins....look at the mess Catholicism is in. Nuff said.

Or to put it another way, being a representative of Christianity here at Avalon:p

The reason Christianity is having such a hard time being readily accepted by people in the world today is not because of the core teachings of Christianity, but because of the primary activities of Christendom over the last 2000 years.

I practice quietly. I don't boast. I don't brag. I pray, I meditate, I read scripture, I practice my values in my every day life. I won't try and convert you: it makes more sense for you to come to your own understanding of the Divine than for me to drag you to it. If you want to know what Christianity is to me, you'll ask me. I don't have to push it down your throat.

[Abhaya]

I think in conclusion that what religion should be is the natural traditions and activities that spring up in a culture when it's conscious level had taken its first step of asking WHY. These would take on different flavors on different continents but would/should only compliment each other. It is a great trick of power to say that your tradition is capped off in its revelation and is the only way. This allows for control of the masses, wars and all kinds of mess. Of course most religions have been hijacked in this way.

I also want to further point out that "science" is simply another organized culturally flavored attempt at asking why. IMHO and not that there is one single thing wrong with that. Because so many of today's religions are hijacked it is hard for many thinking folks today to put much faith into them. So they choose to use their own eyes and the logic in their brains as a deity. These are 100 proven to give some answers of course. But I can't remember what I ate for breakfast and I can't see all the colors in the visible spectrum. And what I can see is getting blurrier by the day. Point being we are talking about the infinite here. In the grand scheme of the universe our current material eyes and Brian are laughable, considering there are highly elevated beings who can keep track of every aspect of the going ons in a galaxy, and even they cannot grasp all of infinity with out making mistakes. So it is as much a leap of faith to trust in the findings of science as it is to trust in the revelations realized by some sincere soul in meditation. And there again lies the key, What ever way you go about asking why, sincerity is the only hope. If the finite is to know/merge with the infinite then the infinite must reach out/rejoin with said sincere finite (at the moment) part.

And if there is any meaning, purpose, or beauty to this existence. Then if u call out why loud enough and with enough sincerity you will get answers.

[LivioRazlo]

I personally identify as a Christian, although I know deep down that organized religion is not needed in my case to know who and what the concept of God is. I understand the reasons why religion was created - to control the masses as well as give hope to those wanting more that what life offers after death. I have a friend on Facebook which I have known for the past three years and never had an issue with her identifying as an atheist - until recently. I feel that she is going on her own personal crusade to attack religion - Christianity in particular. Everyday my Facebook feed is consumed with memes bashing Christianity and I feel that she is just spreading hate. I have other atheist friends, we coexist well, and they do not go to this level to proclaim their hate. I explained to her that at one time in our history, religion and science were one in the same and actually worked together to solve life's most intriguing mysteries. This did not go over well with her and I'm to the point now where I feel I need to remove her as a friend for her lack of understanding and compassion towards others.

[Tony]

The word Religion may describe many points of view, due to capacity of understanding.

For some it is belief and ritual, for others it is study and philosophy, and for some it is experiential,
...and yet others it is logic, a knowing, even a science.

I have been in many spiritual 'organisations' and we just have to accept that other see things differently.
We can converse to a certain level, and then it is a personal matter, beyond the words.

The words God, Absolute, Universal Principle, Essence, Pure Awareness may mean the same thing or something different.




Tony

[Zanshin]

If one looks at the etymology of the word Re/ligion would not the implication be to align again, thereby implying to align away from the original source?
By extrapolation then, to what new liege/lord would one be aligning with away from the original creator source? Biblically speaking many point out the different references to the Creator God and the Lord God

If one were to label the creator with a name -God,Allah,Yahweh,Jehovah -would that not
have the effect of attempting to quantify the unquantifiable - of limiting the unlimitable?

How many know of the 501c(3) corporation - a not for profit entity?
How many know that most religious organizations are structured this way?
This model does not lack the ability to receive funds - just not record a profit.

When the pope claims to hold legal title to the world, it's people and their souls in trust for the return of The Redeemer as the Vicar of Christ -
where does tending the faithful become controlling the masses?

[Lifebringer]

Now that's practicing Christian principles, or walking the walk and talking the talk. Actually I do that but also try to live the life of compassion towards others because, there but for the "grace of God" could it have been me. That's what I get out of Christianity's teaching from Yeshuah while he dwelled among us.

I've taught my children to explore and ask the Creator to reveal itself in their lives, and to always give respect for the endless wisdom of knowledge of the ages, that you'll learn and experience. The plan and being part of it at this particular time of new beginnings.

[Camilo]

History speaks for itself about this issue.

[GreenGuy]

Wow, what great responses! Each of you has made points I agree with, and stated them better than I could have. This helps me to clarify my own thinking, and I thank you. Hopefully we can keep this going for a while.

My own upbringing was in the Christian tradition, and my parents took religion seriously enough that we had many scriptures from various faiths and in various languages in the house. I grew up reading these. Unfortunately, being a sensitive kid, I knew what hypocrisy was many years before I knew the word for it. I was married for many years to an atheist, and we had spirited discussions and occasional bitter arguments over it. I have belonged to various Christian denoms. I was a Quaker for many years. As with many other faiths, I discovered that while I loved the revelations of the faith, I found the historic execution to be deeply disappointing.

Fellowship is a good thing. I have no problem with ritual, as it focuses intent and provides a framework for unity. I deeply distrust dogma of any kind, and that includes scientific dogma. I think that while there may be a certain tension between science and religion - which may even be a good thing - if the two are deeply in conflict the problem is bad religion, bad science or both.

And the world is not lacking in either.

I would love to see human beings approach true tolerance. Since I do believe in the Divine, it makes sense to me that God and man have always sought a meeting. This is one reason I can't believe in Hell, other than the one we make for ourselves right here in our lifetime.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ8hefESt7c

[ghostrider]

Religion is the root cause of ALL wars ... everyone thinks they are doing the will of their master and on the other side they will be rewarded ... We can't be different expressions of the one giant spirit that lives in everything that is alive , now can we ??? Treading carefully I would say religion is a tool created by man to enslave people to a particular way of thinking ... freedom of thought is poo pooed on , they say follow what is written on paper , or stone , or crystal ... Nature can't read yet lives in harmony and balance, it takes care of it's own , and generally stays away from humans ... hmmmmmm , just my two cents ...

[Vitalux]

What I'm wondering is, can religion be used to create unity or is it something that must always separate peoples? Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? Please, no preaching.

Religions divide human beings against each other.....Spirituality joins human beings with each other...It is that simple. :cool:

Religion did not become corrupted, it has been corrupted since it's inception.

[Milneman]

If one looks at the etymology of the word Re/ligion would not the implication be to align again, thereby implying to align away from the original source?
By extrapolation then, to what new liege/lord would one be aligning with away from the original creator source? Biblically speaking many point out the different references to the Creator God and the Lord God

If one were to label the creator with a name -God,Allah,Yahweh,Jehovah -would that not
have the effect of attempting to quantify the unquantifiable - of limiting the unlimitable?

How many know of the 501c(3) corporation - a not for profit entity?
How many know that most religious organizations are structured this way?
This model does not lack the ability to receive funds - just not record a profit.

When the pope claims to hold legal title to the world, it's people and their souls in trust for the return of The Redeemer as the Vicar of Christ -
where does tending the faithful become controlling the masses?

Apostolic succession is not a guarantee of truth, in the Roman Catholic sense, or ANY sense.

Here's the way I bounce around this one Zanshin. See if it works for you, a lot of people (particularly atheists, and especially empiricists) go BONKERS when they read this. :D So if you go bonkers.....

1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.

That's St. Anselm's solution.

I like Plantinga's.

"... (H)ere we must be careful; we must ask whether this argument is a successful piece of natural theology, whether it proves the existence of God. And the answer must be, I think, that it does not. An argument for God's existence may be sound, after all, without in any useful sense proving God's existence. Since I believe in God, I think the following argument is sound:

Either God exists or 7 + 5 = 14

It is false that 7 + 5 = 14

Therefore God exists.

But obviously this isn't a proof; no one who didn't already accept the conclusion, would accept the first premise. The ontological argument we've been examining isn't just like this one, of course, but it must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise -- that the existence of a maximally great being is possible -- will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability. And hence it accomplishes at least one of the aims of the tradition of natural theology."

Full article here. I recommend it in this discussion at least as a contribution towards the rationality of religious/spiritual belief. And...Plantinga is quite possibly going to be one of the greatest contributors to Philosophy in the 20th century.

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html

¤=[Post Update]=¤




What I'm wondering is, can religion be used to create unity or is it something that must always separate peoples? Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? Please, no preaching.

Religions divide human beings against each other.....Spirituality joins human beings with each other...It is that simple. :cool:

Religion did not become corrupted, it has been corrupted since it's inception.

Or, to look at it another way:

Human Beings divide human beings against each other....Spirituality joins human beings with each other. Then, it is that simple. :)

Human beings did not become corrupted, we have been corrupted since our inception.

And now, where is the proof?

I ask you...any of you who are parents....have your children, from the minute they have been able to walk and talk, not exhibited the proofs of this? :)

[Milneman]

Religion is the root cause of ALL wars ... everyone thinks they are doing the will of their master and on the other side they will be rewarded ... We can't be different expressions of the one giant spirit that lives in everything that is alive , now can we ??? Treading carefully I would say religion is a tool created by man to enslave people to a particular way of thinking ... freedom of thought is poo pooed on , they say follow what is written on paper , or stone , or crystal ... Nature can't read yet lives in harmony and balance, it takes care of it's own , and generally stays away from humans ... hmmmmmm , just my two cents ...

Human Beings are the cause of ALL wars. To indicate this is purely religion behind this all is putting blinders on, ghostrider.

Yes! I believe it is rational to believe that we are expressions or emanations of a greater being, namely God. Or to be more precise, that we are ideas in the mind of God that are moving towards a more perfect understanding of those ideas, or a more perfect understanding of the ideas we want to have of ourselves.

The problem with naturalism, or the idea that the universe simply exists without intervention of a divine being, is this: when you take the point of view of naturalism, you can't then logically hold the position of Darwinian evolution. Now you have a big problem on your hands. :) I can elaborate on this if you're interested.

[Milneman]

Greenbuddy,

I've said this a couple of times about a few people here, and I'm going to say it about you too. I enjoy your thinking, I like your mind. :)

Here's something that might help you understand the tension you're feeling between science and religion. Plantinga says the problem isn't between science and religion. It's between naturalism and science. That's a significant difference! A really significant difference! I can try and track down his paper, or re-listen to the lecture I have and try to elaborate on this for you if you're interested.

Part of this problem I think (here he goes again quoting philosophers) is because of a misunderstanding of the points that David Hume made, specifically in regards to miracles. The common belief, or interpretation of Hume, is that a miracle is the violation of a law of nature and therefore impossible. Hume defines a law of nature basicly (I'm going from memory here, someone may be able to point out a clearer or more precise quote here) that which our experience shows us to be the consistent repetitive behavior of past events.

So pick up an object on your desk, preferably one that isn't fragile, and drop it. It fell right? That's an example of the "law of gravity". But here's the problem with the misinterpretation of Hume. There is nothing in assuming a law that says the law will occur the exact same in any set of given circumstances. Hence, it's not irrational to believe in miracles. There is, in fact, no real conflict between scientific reason and religious rationalism.

I'm a Christian. I accept basic Darwinian Evolutionary theory. And there is no conflict between these theories in my world view.

I'm getting a head-ache. You're making me think too much LOL :D

[Orph]

For myself, I deeply believe in the Divine, in God. ........ I would have to say that I don't believe in religion.

Sounds about right to me. This is my perspective, ...... God is. .... Use what ever word or concept you wish to use to portray what you believe is God, but, .... God is. ... On the other hand, religion is a man-made concept. Which means you have to follow, or abide by it's rules and regulations. Ehhhhhhh, no thanks. I'd rather follow my
self. My perceptions are mine. My life energy is mine. My God is mine. Why should I bow down to anyone, or any religion. That doesn't mean that I'm right and everybody else is wrong. It's up to each person to find their own God within. I'm saying that no one should give up the sanctity and blessedness of who they are to any religion.

[Mike]

Of course if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, you're all going to hell. Haven't you heard?

I'll see you there.

[Snowflower]

Once the creator is named, that reality is therefore limited by comprehension of the namer. One title of God is "The Unknowable Essence." Over the years, I have stopped referring to "God," and have started saying, "the Creator," "the Great Spirit," or "the Point of Singularity," not as a Name, but as a characteristic, because I understand that as the created being, I have no comprehension of my creator. If I had comprehension, I would be the creator, but since I am not, I recognize that if I were to give that Essence a name, I would be applying the limitation of my level of comprehension on that reality, thereby limiting it.

I have become cynical about the institutions called "religion" and today, see them as instruments to control the perceptions of humans, their actions, and their behavior. Perhaps each began with true spiritual desire to share wisdom, but at some point, each was co-opted by the "power-hungry." I suspect psychopathy plays an enormous role in this process. What better mechanism for abusing the power over others than in a system that carries the ultimate promise of eternal life or eternal death?

The indigenous cultures on the planet do not carry this ultimate promise, based on good or bad behavior. The spiritual paths of those cultures give guidance for behavior, but it is guidance based on THIS world and current life in this world, not as a promise of reward or punishment in the NEXT world. The promise of something else ahead of us, good or bad, puts all kinds of delicious power into the hands of a human who has no conscience, to manipulate and control through fear. Someone who is afraid of eternal damnation will do anything to avoid it, including the act of killing others in the name of their own personal "god." Thus, the creation of war in the name of "god."

Because the indigenous culture spiritual paths do not carry fear of retribution, they also do not carry the potential for power to manipulate the actions and beliefs of others, so there has not been the attraction of power over others from psychopaths. Unfortunately, there has been so much pollution from the mainstream religions into those cultural paths that it is very difficult to sift through the chaff to find the wheat: the garbage to find the truth.

The only path I can now choose for myself, after 20 years in a Protestant family, followed by 35 years as a Baha'i, then another 10 years just plain confused, is a personal quest for greater spiritual connection with the unseen world, a seeking of oneness with all creation, and a focus on the love emanating from the Unknowable Essence.

[Robin]

What I'm wondering is, can religion be used to create unity or is it something that must always separate peoples? Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? Please, no preaching.

I think I now know how I want to address your enlightening question.

No, I do not think that religion can create unity. Everybody on this forum who follow aspects of Christianity, for example, may be an exception because they seem to be more self-aware and understanding of other belief systems. But this is not the case when you have a planet of 7 billion people! :eek:

In my opinion, there are two main factions of thought when it comes to God:

There is one Creator, superior to all of man, who oversees everything.
The entire universe, including humans, is Creator experiencing itself in unique ways.

A humanity that supports the first faction is endowed with an aura of superiority. They allow superiority to exist, because if there is a superior God, then there must also be other forms of superiority amongst men and women. This tends to lead to tyrannical governments, worshiping of celebrities, and inner self-loathing because of low self-esteem.

On the other hand, a humanity that supports the second faction is endowed with an aura of oneness. There is no such thing as superiority, because every action you take directly and indirectly impacts your fellow neighbor (human or otherwise). Everything is intimately tied to one another and every human being is a fractal of one unit of being, so there lacks any disparity between individuals. This tends to lead to self-governance, citizen equality, and an overabundance of inner peace and freedom.

If many religions exist, where each worship a different God, therefore a different form(s) of superiority, then how could peace exist? The concept of superiority infiltrates all societal structures in an infinite amount of possibilities.

I stand firm when I say that if humanity is going to enter an era of peace, it needs to shed all religions.

:peace:

[Mike]

What I'm wondering is, can religion be used to create unity or is it something that must always separate peoples? Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? Please, no preaching.

I think I now know how I want to address your enlightening question.

No, I do not think that religion can create unity. Everybody on this forum who follow aspects of Christianity, for example, may be an exception because they seem to be more self-aware and understanding of other belief systems. But this is not the case when you have a planet of 7 billion people! :eek:

In my opinion, there are two main factions of thought when it comes to God:

There is one Creator, superior to all of man, who oversees everything.
The entire universe, including humans, is Creator experiencing itself in unique ways.

A humanity that supports the first faction is endowed with an aura of superiority. They allow superiority to exist, because if there is a superior God, then there must also be other forms of superiority amongst men and women. This tends to lead to tyrannical governments, worshiping of celebrities, and inner self-loathing because of low self-esteem.

On the other hand, a humanity that supports the second faction is endowed with an aura of oneness. There is no such thing as superiority, because every action you take directly and indirectly impacts your fellow neighbor (human or otherwise). Everything is intimately tied to one another and every human being is a fractal of one unit of being, so there lacks any disparity between individuals. This tends to lead to self-governance, citizen equality, and an overabundance of inner peace and freedom.

If many religions exist, where each worship a different God, therefore a different form(s) of superiority, then how could peace exist? The concept of superiority infiltrates all societal structures in an infinite amount of possibilities.

I stand firm when I say that if humanity is going to enter an era of peace, it needs to shed all religions.

:peace:


Indeed sir - shedding religion is crucial. Any positive progression of mankind is dependant upon it. But we can't simply yank their toy away from them, as much as I'd like to. They have to *outgrow* it first. Meanwhile we wait...

And wait...

And wait...

(And hope humanity survives all the damage religious dogma has created while we're waiting)

[Abhaya]

There is one Creator, superior to all of man, who oversees everything.

The entire universe, including humans, is Creator experiencing itself in unique ways.

Great points Sam.

One thing I would like to throw into the mix.




While these are often the paths people choose. There is another way which incorporates both. Some think that there is a condensed supreme personality, not necessarily ruling, but enjoying. And then there are all the individual parts of him also creating. Different in quantity but not quality.

Actually both the paths listed are prone to inflating the ego (not always of course!) as often people can focus more on the fact that they are a "creating god", and forget that everyone else is too.

[Chester]

I find religion serves one purpose only... and that is to prevent as best as possible a human being from disovering who/what they are.

If one day we find we are alive in a world sans religion, I have no doubt that world will be a thriving world filled with immeasurable true peace and harmony.

[panopticon]

The problem with naturalism, or the idea that the universe simply exists without intervention of a divine being, is this: when you take the point of view of naturalism, you can't then logically hold the position of Darwinian evolution. Now you have a big problem on your hands. :) I can elaborate on this if you're interested.

Yes thank you.
Please explain how Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is reliant on the existence of a personified deity.

-- Pan

[Milneman]

This is kind of exciting for me Pan because I haven't had a chance to expound on this...I've read a lot about it, but I haven't had a chance to attempt to explain it...so Thank you! Appreciate the opportunity to test myself! ;)

There is nothing in classical Darwinian evolutionary theory that is in conflict with mere Christianity, or vice versa. In fact, it's quite reasonable to consider the possibility that natural selection can be a tool used by a Divine Being to create creatures in His image. The key here is to understand that creating a creature in His image does not necessarily have to indicate "man" or a bipedal being that resembles homo sapiens sapiens, but can signify a being which reflects the values of that Being which created. In this aspect, it's completely plausible that even if the beings created, should we wind back the evolutionary clock, would only be bacteria...but in some aspect and in some way, one could argue, there would still be creatures in that Divine Being's image.

Some like to emphasize the point loud and long that as we know there is no evidence of a Divine Watchmaker, a Divine Watchmaker cannot exist.

Which is akin to saying that Bill Ryan is going to give me a million dollars. And you ask, why is that? And I reply, there is no proof that he will not.

[Milneman]

Samwise,

(I really think this is why our fathers and mothers taught us never to discuss religion and politics in polite company LOL)

No, I do not think that religion can create unity. Everybody on this forum who follow aspects of Christianity, for example, may be an exception because they seem to be more self-aware and understanding of other belief systems. But this is not the case when you have a planet of 7 billion people!

Thank you for the compliment!!! (I hope!!!)

I agree, with a twist of lime. Here's my twist of lime.

From your post I'm understanding there are three possible world views, namely belief that the Creator is superior to man and oversees everything, belief that the entire universe, including humans, is Creator experiencing itself in unique ways, or the perfect world which would be nobody believes anything religious.

Run them all through the square of opposition, and we're left with this one as the most plausible solution to this situation: Namely, belief that the entire universe, including humans, is Creator experiencing itself in unique ways.

So let's try and define what this being is like.

Let me pick your brain, and buy you a brew the next time we're in the vicinity of each other. ;)

Is this being experiencing itself as the entire universe because it's trying to expand it's conscious awareness, or is it already consciously aware of everything?

When you say that humanity (humans) who support the second faction are endowed with an aura of oneness, which faction are you referring to? Is this a hypothetical group, or a group that actually exists?

How would you define the clear differences between a political system that resembles what you're describing, say a Marxist one, with other systems that are more theocratic, say the former system of government in a place like Tibet, which was clearly religious, if not hyper religious? (To be clear, I have a great deal of respect for Tibet and her people.)

[Milneman]

Of course if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, you're all going to hell. Haven't you heard?

I'll see you there.

Dear Chinaski,

Allow me to congratulate you for being the first person in this thread to preach.

Going to look at this statement in a thread all on it's own. See you there!

Sincerely,

Milneman

[panopticon]

This is kind of exciting for me Pan because I haven't had a chance to expound on this...I've read a lot about it, but I haven't had a chance to attempt to explain it...so Thank you! Appreciate the opportunity to test myself! ;)

There is nothing in classical Darwinian evolutionary theory that is in conflict with mere Christianity, or vice versa. In fact, it's quite reasonable to consider the possibility that natural selection can be a tool used by a Divine Being to create creatures in His image. The key here is to understand that creating a creature in His image does not necessarily have to indicate "man" or a bipedal being that resembles homo sapiens sapiens, but can signify a being which reflects the values of that Being which created. In this aspect, it's completely plausible that even if the beings created, should we wind back the evolutionary clock, would only be bacteria...but in some aspect and in some way, one could argue, there would still be creatures in that Divine Being's image.

Some like to emphasize the point loud and long that as we know there is no evidence of a Divine Watchmaker, a Divine Watchmaker cannot exist.

Which is akin to saying that Bill Ryan is going to give me a million dollars. And you ask, why is that? And I reply, there is no proof that he will not.

G'day Milneman,

In no way does this relate to your earlier statement:


when you take the point of view of naturalism, you can't then logically hold the position of Darwinian evolution.

Please try again.

BTW I could prove that Bill Ryan either was or was not going to give you a million dollars by firing off a PM and asking him.

-- Pan

[Milneman]

You are correct! However if you look at your question, you asked me to "Please explain how Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is reliant on the existence of a personified deity.", which I believe I have addressed. If you'd like me to go into the conflict between naturalism and Darwinian evolution, I'd be happy to try!

PS: On the off chance he will give me the million, I'll give you 25%...go ahead and send the pm. ;)

[panopticon]

You are correct! However if you look at your question, you asked me to "Please explain how Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is reliant on the existence of a personified deity.", which I believe I have done.

PS: On the off chance he will give me the million, I'll give you 25%...go ahead and send the pm. ;)

In no way have you proven anything like that.

What you have done is said that there is no way for a person of belief to preclude the existence of a personified deity.

Which is fairly obvious really.

If you believe in a God that created all things AND accept Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection then you believe in a God that created natural selection.

This in no way proves the existence of a God, merely proves that some people believe in one.

-- Pan

[Milneman]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

:twitch:

Of course I could also demonstrate it's perfectly rational to believe in God...but that's O.T. :)

PM me. I think we have a lot to talk about!

[obaefun]

Hi every one,
It is my opinion, if I may, that Religion is a system of believe, invented by some to control every body else, I fail to see how this is not obvious to every one, to say I believe in God, to me is to say "I think there is a God but I am not sure". So as to anwser your question, Religion was invented to Unite those under one control, and to separate the rest.
There is no dought of this when we see in how many denominations is the christian religion fragmented, or when we hear "Convert or die" to use a couple of systems as an example.
I have met very few people that can tell me anything about the spiritual world, without using some kind of reference to any known so called Religions.
As in general people look outside themself for this kind of anwsers, is like if as for them "thinking" hurts.
Hope I could help.

[Milneman]

It is my opinion, if I may, that Religion is a system of believe, invented by some to control every body else, I fail to see how this is not obvious to every one, to say I believe in God, to me is to say "I think there is a God but I am not sure". So as to anwser your question, Religion was invented to Unite those under one control, and to separate the rest.

Hey Obaefun!

Try this one on for size. For me, it's not only logically probable, but rational, to believe that God exists.

Ready?

And you can thank Dr. Alvin Plantinga for this one.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If it exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.



There is no dought (doubt) of this when we see in how many denominations is the christian religion fragmented, or when we hear "Convert or die" to use a couple of systems as an example.

The same could be said of Marxism. In fact, if you want to compare the denominations of Marxism, there are in fact just as many fractions of so-called Marxism that exist today. Cuba is one example of a very few number of Marxist countries that still exist. Does this make the core teaching of Marxism any less valid? By your argument, it would. What's even more interesting is that the so-called splinter groups of Marxism...say, Leninism, Maoism, the major Marxist theorists, who created revolutions in agricultural economies "prior" to what Marx himself even believed, are in fact...well no longer really Marxist. Isn't that interesting?

As far as the convert or die argument, this can be linked to types of radical fundamentalism that is a kind of thought, similar to a philosophical kind of thinking, that when looked in context to religious belief, really has more to do with politics than religion. In fact, I believe this would be right in line with the kind of Marxist beliefs that led to the exact kind of thing "believe or die" that happened in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and even Castro-ist Cuba, no?

I agree that people do look for easy answers, be it in religion or politics. I believe that they do this, as you say, because to think it through hurts...it means you have to accept that in taking on certain beliefs, you may have to sacrifice certain things that were beneficial to your previous way of thinking...say the way a collectivist socialist state would ask you to.

By the way, isn't there a greater freedom of religion happening in Cuba now? Isn't that contrary to Marxist doctrine? Hmmm!

[obaefun]

Hi Milneman,
For some reason you misunderstud my stament, I was talking about Religion, not God, or Our creator, which I have no dought exist, I am not in Cuba and I am NOt a marxis, is a matter of Fact I am a Priest of The Yoruba Tradicion of Nigeria, and I may say I know just enough of spiritual matter to say what I said. Please read my statement again that you may undestand what I ment.
Politics, Organize Religion, Monetary Systems, Wars, Territorry Control, are some of the Systems use by some few, to control the rest, Hope you can see that my friend, it is cruel, I understand it is hard to acept, but is the truth.

[pugwash84]

I have seen many good charitable things come from religion but I have also seen bad things ie child abuse come from religion. I notice the media only concentrate on the bad things, you never see all the religious workers handing out food at soup kitchen making big news.xxxxx