otherone
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,636
Guiness yet, or the supermarket swill, still?
Why is the religion that you practice superior to all other religions?
- Thread starter MarieColvin
- Start date
Guiness yet, or the supermarket swill, still?
eduardo89
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 21,295
2 pints of Guinness, and 4 litres of German beer
(so far)I love beer. But it makes me pee so much. I'm going to go pee.
Muwahid
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
God is infinite not his creation
The religion is to control people line, to me sounds like a cop-out. Because parents control you, grandparents, aunts uncles, the law of the land you agree to abide by controls you, social norms govern your behavior, fashion dictates what you wear in the street. But for some reason when religion has a say in anything people think it's this evil mass population controlling device.
Can it be used to control people? Sure... has it been? Sure, is that it's main purpose? Nah.
It reminds me of when people say religion causes war when more people in our history anyway have been killed by atheist marxists, and most wars are fought over money and imperialism, but if religion stirs up one conflict all of a sudden it's evil.
I happily obey the tenets of my faith; there is no compulsion in religion 2:256
The same way you obey whatever it is you obey in life.
God is infinite not his creation
The religion is to control people line, to me sounds like a cop-out. Because parents control you, grandparents, aunts uncles, the law of the land you agree to abide by controls you, social norms govern your behavior, fashion dictates what you wear in the street. But for some reason when religion has a say in anything people think it's this evil mass population controlling device.
Can it be used to control people? Sure... has it been? Sure, is that it's main purpose? Nah.
It reminds me of when people say religion causes war when more people in our history anyway have been killed by atheist marxists, and most wars are fought over money and imperialism, but if religion stirs up one conflict all of a sudden it's evil.
I happily obey the tenets of my faith; there is no compulsion in religion 2:256
The same way you obey whatever it is you obey in life.
If God is infinite, then we are infinite as well.
How can you being arguing for a creator and infinity at the same time? If infinity exists, there is no creator.
Not exactly, but it can be explained.
Sri Isopanishad: Invocation said:
http://vedabase.net/iso/invocation/en
Last edited:
Muwahid
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
What I mean is we were created by something.
sevin
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,648
Okay. I'm not trying to insult you or anything. I just like to ask these questions to Christians. I'm curious what kind of answer I'll get.
It's interesting because all you're saying is, "God opened my eyes and told me the Bible is His word." But anyone could say that about any religious book.
You might believe you know the truth, but you don't know.
You mean something created us, or something created the universe?
eduardo89
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 21,295
I'd say both.
"Originally Posted by Sri Isopanishad: Invocation
The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."
This quote doesn't explain anything. Its a bunch of gibberish.
Beorn
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 523
Not just religious books, but any books or basis of knowledge have the same basis in presuppositions.
"God opened my eyes and told me the Bible is His word" is not that different from saying "Reason opened my eyes and showed me that what Dawkins has written is reasonable."
WilliamC
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 6,682
I agree, and that's why I am an agnostic atheist.
Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I can prove god does not exist, and why some are so caught up in trying to do so is beyond me.
Unless, as I've mentioned, you are content to define god as love in which case I'm happy to agree 'cause when it comes to love I've been there before and I'm a believer.
Yea, I remember love...
Can one come to love the memory of love more than the love itself?
Why do yesterday's gains seem worth more than any current wealth?
Can the past be kept alive in the heart without endangering current mental health?
Must history be forgotten so that the future can still be felt?
Today I spoke to a friend of mine who had recently spoken to you.
You did not recall his acquaintance with me and he didn't let on he knew.
He said that you were looking fine and had had a drink or two,
You were enjoying the party, having fun, I was glad to hear it was true.
Of course you didn't mention me, why should you it's been so long?
Though I swear again as he spoke to me your voice I heard it's song.
Just for an instance I was taken back in time to when you to me belonged,
The moment passed I could not believe these emotions were still so strong.
Later on that same evening I ran into a couple from our old scene.
They disapproved of our relationship, you know the one's I mean.
We talked and chatted of this and that and a variety of things,
Not once did your name come up nor a word about you did I glean.
Do you know there isn't a single photograph of you that I possess?
Not that I should have one at all look how easily I became obsessed
With just a fading image of the most beautiful face I ever caressed,
Never think that I still miss you or that I love you any less.
I only want for the best in your life and for you to be happy and free.
Keep going forward and face all your trials with courage and dignity.
Never look back with guilt or remorse about things that weren't meant to be.
When you do recall all you've been through smile and be well pleased.
Can one come to love the memory of love? Of course but never forget
That what lies behind is just the beginning of all that's not happened yet.
The road you have traveled to get here is closed, it's choices forever set,
But if you are willing to cherish your past the future will aid and abet.
Last edited:
otherone
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,636
It explains quite a bit, but I admit that with the wording used in this translation you may have to think about it for a while before you get it.
All of it makes sense to me. The only part that it looks like might be hard to read is the last sentence, which is trying to say that because God is purnam, or absolutely complete and whole, the fact that he creates new things such as the universe and living beings does not diminish Him or His energy in quality or quantity.
It might help to know the word for word translation.
Once the verse is understood, it answers the question you posed, and others.
I will try to answer this from another scriptural perspective using the concept of sanatana, or eternity.
Sanatana means "that which has no beggining or end". God is sanatana, and so are we.
But how can we also be sanatana? Because the Lord exists beyond time, and we are a part of His eternal nature, being His creations. Being from His nature, we have the qualities that God does, but in minute quantity.
sevin
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,648
I think it's a little different. One requires faith, the other requires logic. Now if you think logic itself requires faith, then there's nothing more to discuss.
moostraks
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 9,640
I believe both sides believe they are employing logic to come to their conclusions.
Beorn
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 523
I believe they both employ faith and logic.
Can you prove logic doesn't rely on faith?
That is, can you prove that logic is reliable without disobeying its own laws of circular reasoning and relying on logic to prove it?
I know you can't. I just want to be clear as to exactly why you think there is nothing more to discuss.
For me, it boils down to these.
(1) For me, it is self-evident that the things in nature have a Creator.
I appreciate that atheists and skeptics do not see it this way, even though they will accept that everything else in life has a creator. In other words, they use, say, an Apple computer knowing it was created, yet they will eat an apple and assume it simply came about as a result of random chance over a huge period of time.
Actually, the apple WAS produced... by the tree. The tree was produced... by God. But who produced God? Skeptics and atheists have the same problem with the Universe. They believe the Universe had an origin, a "First Cause" if you will... yet what caused that?
So really, skeptics and believers have the same problem in relation to the First Cause. The difference is, believers (like myself) point to design as evidence of a Designer.
And ironically, the more advanced we get scientifically, the more advanced we see the design. We see that our bodies, on a large scale, seem fairly simple... yet go down to the molecular, cellular level... and we see incredible complexity and machine-like, precision design that would have made Darwin raise an eyebrow or two
(2) The Hebrew God (YHWH) claims to be that Creator.
Many gods do not even claim that. The Hebrew God claims it, which at least means his claims are worthy of a bit more attention. I know that ardent atheists spend a bit more time over YHWH than, say, Zeus
(3) The Hebrew God has left an indelible imprint of His activities with humankind
It's interesting that we here are not really talking about Zeus, or Hermes... and yet all through history, this YHWH keeps cropping up and being talked about, even though his religion often seems on the brink of destruction at times. If Zeus were really God, I would have thought his worshippers would be making a defense of him by now.
(4) The Hebrew God has told humankind in advance what He intended to do.
For example, the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53, who dies and comes back to life to bear the sins of many... 800 years in advance of Christ. While this could be seen as a prophecy, it is also a statement of INTENT.
(5) The Hebrew God was the God of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ lived and died exactly like the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53. He also claimed to be the Son of God, and was put to death for it.
Of course, skeptics have attempted to attack and/or demolish the "Jesus" story from every possible angle...
(a) Jesus never existed, but his story is really a rehash of pagan myths and legends. ["Zeitgeist"]
(b) Jesus was mistaken. [Dawkins]
(c) Jesus was deluded.
(d) Jesus was a magician. [the Jewish Talmud]
(e) Jesus existed but his story was later edited to include miracles, etc [Skeptics]
None of these, upon closer scrutiny, hold up.
Most of the pagan myths do not bear the same resemblance to the life of Jesus, and the ones who claim this lack SOURCE MATERIAL to demonstrate this, but usually quote other writers who themselves don't have the source material to back up their claims... or where such material exists, it usually comes much later than Jesus anyway (as in the case of the supposed Mithra connections). And in the few connections, i.e. December 25th, the birthday of the Sun... well, Jesus wasn't even born in the middle of winter anyway! So the connection has nothing to do with the Jesus story in the New Testament.
Was Jesus mistaken? Possibly, but his statements do not sound like somebody who is simply mistaken. Besides, he was NOT mistaken in his pronouncements about his destiny, and the destiny of his nation. He said he was going to be put to death... and that his nation would fall by the sword and led captive into all the nations. Clearly he was not mistaken there, so something more was probably going on.
If Jesus was deluded, then let's face it, he was an incredibly wise deluded man This also means his apostles and disciples were deluded, yet the apostles also claimed to perform miracles and also lost their lives in the fervent belief they had witnessed Jesus' resurrection. Paul was also independently deluded, because he had a vision of Christ outside of the circle of the apostles... a vision that resulted in him converting huge numbers of non-Jews to Christ!
The Jewish Talmud claims Jesus [using a cryptic name for him] was a magician, justifying why they put him to death. But this demonstrates two things: that (a) they knew he existed, and (b) that the man performed things that appeared to them as magic tricks.
But if Jesus were a magician, then that would make him a false prophet... a deceiver. Yet their own scriptures foretold a "suffering servant" who would die on behalf of the sins of the people. Daniel [chapter 9] foretold a Messiah, or "anointed one", who would be cut off... prior to their city and temple being destroyed.
Given that their city and temple WERE destroyed (as foretold by their own prophet Daniel) [in 70AD]... the Jewish Messiah must, of necessity, have arrived prior to 70AD. And while there were several who claimed to be prophets and messiahs in that time, only Jesus stands out as foretelling the things that came upon the Jews, and whose words are immortalized even today.
Thus, this suggests Jesus was a TRUE prophet... and therefore not merely a "magician". Indeed, their ancient prophets also performed similar miracles to Jesus... so that same generation would have stoned their own prophets, had they lived among them!
Thus, their claim that Jesus was a magician does not hold water, because he demonstrated all the qualities of being a PROPHET... including, ironically, being put to death by his own people, as some Old Testament prophets were.
Was Jesus' life story edited to include miracles, at a later date? This means that Jesus did no miracles... but then, why would the original disciples believe him to be the Messiah and a prophet? The miracles were one of the SIGNS and proofs of his identity. Without them, the apostles and disciples would have had no compelling reason to believe Jesus' claims... and certainly not to die for him.
Indeed, why would there be ANY compelling reason for a Jew in the mid 30's of the 1st century to become a Christian, if there were no miracles? Jesus had been put to death... end of!
Yet the apostles and early disciples staked their lives and reputations on the belief that they had seen Jesus perform miracles, and had also witnessed his resurrection. This was also true of many of his earliest disciples. The Christian congregation itself was also founded on a claimed miracle... that of 120 disciples speaking in tongues to the Jews from all nations in Jerusalem. [Acts 2] If none of these things were true, wouldn't it be much more likely that the Nazarene "sect" would have simply fizzled out after a time?
And even if not, we have to ask where their momentum came from... especially when they did not have a "New Testament" to refer to!
Word of mouth therefore clearly played a part... and the authority of the apostles. But again...the authority of the apostles was an unusual anomaly in history, because most authority is wielded for a somewhat selfish purpose, while the apostles expended themselves for, and even died for, their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
If the apostles "made up" some or all of the miracle stories... then they are liars. But then, when you read their warnings about God, they do not sound like liars but very sincere people.
So what is left? That they were mistaken? They could have been... but then, they were also able to perform miracles themselves... so if they were making that up, then they were liars. And yet they do not sound like liars. What was their motivation? Money, power, fame? Possibly... but if so, it would be the most contradictory set of beliefs ever. Their congitive dissonance would have been through the roof
Or maybe... just maybe... they were telling the truth. Maybe Jesus was who he claimed to be... the Son of God. And maybe... just maybe... the apostles were witnesses of him, and his resurrection.
This is the best hypothesis in my opinion, and the one that I accept.
(Of course, what I've said here isn't a COMPLETE account of why I believe what I believe, or a complete attempt to refute all possible counter-arguments... but it's a good outline and a decent start )
(1) For me, it is self-evident that the things in nature have a Creator.
I appreciate that atheists and skeptics do not see it this way, even though they will accept that everything else in life has a creator. In other words, they use, say, an Apple computer knowing it was created, yet they will eat an apple and assume it simply came about as a result of random chance over a huge period of time.
Actually, the apple WAS produced... by the tree. The tree was produced... by God. But who produced God? Skeptics and atheists have the same problem with the Universe. They believe the Universe had an origin, a "First Cause" if you will... yet what caused that?
So really, skeptics and believers have the same problem in relation to the First Cause. The difference is, believers (like myself) point to design as evidence of a Designer.
And ironically, the more advanced we get scientifically, the more advanced we see the design. We see that our bodies, on a large scale, seem fairly simple... yet go down to the molecular, cellular level... and we see incredible complexity and machine-like, precision design that would have made Darwin raise an eyebrow or two
(2) The Hebrew God (YHWH) claims to be that Creator.
Many gods do not even claim that. The Hebrew God claims it, which at least means his claims are worthy of a bit more attention. I know that ardent atheists spend a bit more time over YHWH than, say, Zeus
(3) The Hebrew God has left an indelible imprint of His activities with humankind
It's interesting that we here are not really talking about Zeus, or Hermes... and yet all through history, this YHWH keeps cropping up and being talked about, even though his religion often seems on the brink of destruction at times. If Zeus were really God, I would have thought his worshippers would be making a defense of him by now.
(4) The Hebrew God has told humankind in advance what He intended to do.
For example, the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53, who dies and comes back to life to bear the sins of many... 800 years in advance of Christ. While this could be seen as a prophecy, it is also a statement of INTENT.
(5) The Hebrew God was the God of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ lived and died exactly like the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53. He also claimed to be the Son of God, and was put to death for it.
Of course, skeptics have attempted to attack and/or demolish the "Jesus" story from every possible angle...
(a) Jesus never existed, but his story is really a rehash of pagan myths and legends. ["Zeitgeist"]
(b) Jesus was mistaken. [Dawkins]
(c) Jesus was deluded.
(d) Jesus was a magician. [the Jewish Talmud]
(e) Jesus existed but his story was later edited to include miracles, etc [Skeptics]
None of these, upon closer scrutiny, hold up.
Most of the pagan myths do not bear the same resemblance to the life of Jesus, and the ones who claim this lack SOURCE MATERIAL to demonstrate this, but usually quote other writers who themselves don't have the source material to back up their claims... or where such material exists, it usually comes much later than Jesus anyway (as in the case of the supposed Mithra connections). And in the few connections, i.e. December 25th, the birthday of the Sun... well, Jesus wasn't even born in the middle of winter anyway! So the connection has nothing to do with the Jesus story in the New Testament.
Was Jesus mistaken? Possibly, but his statements do not sound like somebody who is simply mistaken. Besides, he was NOT mistaken in his pronouncements about his destiny, and the destiny of his nation. He said he was going to be put to death... and that his nation would fall by the sword and led captive into all the nations. Clearly he was not mistaken there, so something more was probably going on.
If Jesus was deluded, then let's face it, he was an incredibly wise deluded man
This also means his apostles and disciples were deluded, yet the apostles also claimed to perform miracles and also lost their lives in the fervent belief they had witnessed Jesus' resurrection. Paul was also independently deluded, because he had a vision of Christ outside of the circle of the apostles... a vision that resulted in him converting huge numbers of non-Jews to Christ!The Jewish Talmud claims Jesus [using a cryptic name for him] was a magician, justifying why they put him to death. But this demonstrates two things: that (a) they knew he existed, and (b) that the man performed things that appeared to them as magic tricks.
But if Jesus were a magician, then that would make him a false prophet... a deceiver. Yet their own scriptures foretold a "suffering servant" who would die on behalf of the sins of the people. Daniel [chapter 9] foretold a Messiah, or "anointed one", who would be cut off... prior to their city and temple being destroyed.
Given that their city and temple WERE destroyed (as foretold by their own prophet Daniel) [in 70AD]... the Jewish Messiah must, of necessity, have arrived prior to 70AD. And while there were several who claimed to be prophets and messiahs in that time, only Jesus stands out as foretelling the things that came upon the Jews, and whose words are immortalized even today.
Thus, this suggests Jesus was a TRUE prophet... and therefore not merely a "magician". Indeed, their ancient prophets also performed similar miracles to Jesus... so that same generation would have stoned their own prophets, had they lived among them!
Thus, their claim that Jesus was a magician does not hold water, because he demonstrated all the qualities of being a PROPHET... including, ironically, being put to death by his own people, as some Old Testament prophets were.
Was Jesus' life story edited to include miracles, at a later date? This means that Jesus did no miracles... but then, why would the original disciples believe him to be the Messiah and a prophet? The miracles were one of the SIGNS and proofs of his identity. Without them, the apostles and disciples would have had no compelling reason to believe Jesus' claims... and certainly not to die for him.
Indeed, why would there be ANY compelling reason for a Jew in the mid 30's of the 1st century to become a Christian, if there were no miracles? Jesus had been put to death... end of!
Yet the apostles and early disciples staked their lives and reputations on the belief that they had seen Jesus perform miracles, and had also witnessed his resurrection. This was also true of many of his earliest disciples. The Christian congregation itself was also founded on a claimed miracle... that of 120 disciples speaking in tongues to the Jews from all nations in Jerusalem. [Acts 2] If none of these things were true, wouldn't it be much more likely that the Nazarene "sect" would have simply fizzled out after a time?
And even if not, we have to ask where their momentum came from... especially when they did not have a "New Testament" to refer to!
Word of mouth therefore clearly played a part... and the authority of the apostles. But again...the authority of the apostles was an unusual anomaly in history, because most authority is wielded for a somewhat selfish purpose, while the apostles expended themselves for, and even died for, their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
If the apostles "made up" some or all of the miracle stories... then they are liars. But then, when you read their warnings about God, they do not sound like liars but very sincere people.
So what is left? That they were mistaken? They could have been... but then, they were also able to perform miracles themselves... so if they were making that up, then they were liars. And yet they do not sound like liars. What was their motivation? Money, power, fame? Possibly... but if so, it would be the most contradictory set of beliefs ever. Their congitive dissonance would have been through the roof
Or maybe... just maybe... they were telling the truth. Maybe Jesus was who he claimed to be... the Son of God. And maybe... just maybe... the apostles were witnesses of him, and his resurrection.
This is the best hypothesis in my opinion, and the one that I accept.
(Of course, what I've said here isn't a COMPLETE account of why I believe what I believe, or a complete attempt to refute all possible counter-arguments... but it's a good outline and a decent start
)Similar threads
- Featured