Religious Dogma is Speculation. Discuss

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by sinohptik

 

Why is it sad? What definitions are you using?

I like you

It is sad to me, given my own personal definition of the terms, which likely do not line up with others views (and is why i asked what the definitions were). i feel they are experiential, so i had to think a bit before putting them into words. I think there are many levels, but basically, something that is so far beyond our understanding and perspective that it is awe-inspiring. That experience, and specifically that sensation/emotion/feeling, are what i "point to" in regards to spirituality and, to a lesser extent, mysticism. At least in this context. They are quite nebulous terms really..

reply to post by sinohptik

That is a fantastic question, to me! One is simply thinking about their arm moving (it never will), and the other is waving it about wildly and is liable to get smacked in their own face (if you didnt read the posts referencing this, ill clarify).

And then there is that other spooky experiment where they electronically stimulate part of your brain and you think that you are the one moving your arm, but it was caused by the electrical stimulus.

Another very interesting aspect: www.consciousentities.com...

reply to post by sinohptik


What extraordinary claim did i make? Then maybe i will understand your joke.

That's my exact point thought regarding Theists and Atheists extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the metaphysical claims of Holy doctrine are extraordinary claims, so far the evidence has been found wanting. We don't make any irrational claims.

I'm not sure what your answer was to my question. Which person is more humble?

reply to post by sinohptik

...something that is so far beyond our understanding and perspective that it is awe-inspiring. That experience, and specifically that sensation/emotion/feeling, are what i "point to" in regards to spirituality and, to a lesser extent, mysticism.

Yes, they are nebulous terms. So when I saw the question, my first response was also no, I haven't had a spiritual or mystical experience as I relate those terms to religious or other-wordly respectively.

By your definition - awe-inspiring in perspective or understanding, then yes, I have had that - and they are triggered by very non-other-wordly and non-religious things, typically various beauties in nature. But other things as well.

Im a Christain was doing some studying in Genesis and just was thinking maybie where having trouble finding out what happened in the past , could it be God re created the earth or more than once. Ill expain subject of interesting study. In the beginning refers to the beginning of creation or at least the creation as it refers to this universe God unformed unmade uncreated had no beginning Hw always was always is and always shall be God . The phrase in the beginning expains the first cause of all things as it regards creation created the heaven and earth could be translated the heavens and earth because God created the heavens and earth. The earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. God did not originally create the earth without form and void it became that way after a cataclymic happening that was the revolt of lucifer against God which took place sometime in the dateless past. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep . the moving of the spirit of God signified the beginning of life. Something to think about could things and mysteries of the past dynosaurs early man and other mysteries happenin in a different earth age

reply to post by mikethebike82


How are you performing this study? Are you looking at other documents or evidence, from other religious and non-religious sources?
I can't tell for sure, but it sounds like you are reading Genesis and are either filling in the gaps with your own story or coming up with a new interpretation for the existing words. Which is really more speculation than study.

reply to post by mikethebike82


Again, just because "the bible says so" doesn't qualify it as truth. We we supposed to believe that it was God who consciously flooded the earth? Or just climatic change? or a cataclysm that melted the ice caps for example?

Simiarly, are we supposed to note that God "made" earth in 6 "days", despite an Earth "day" being a full rotation on it's axis? It's like saying this distance is 7 metres, before the metric system was invented.

It's easier to understand that the earth was developed by cosmic evolution, not as the result of some giant, supernatural super deity. Especially a deity who intervenes in human affairs.

If we are to believe that God is intervening then you have to consider the following:



Now is this really an act of "GOD" or just the unpredictable, random effects of nature.

Terrable things happen in the world because of sin . Because of sin dealth comes to all men there is no such thing as a good person , we lost the image of God at the fall . We lie cheat steal kill commit adultery and so on . God gave us a second chance by sending Jesus his own son to pay are sin debt so those that choose accept Jesus in there heart can be born again and be reconciled to God . Jesus was here to die for us but also show us what God was like . Jesus said u seen me u seen the father . God gave man a free will and can do anything u want . Jesus cleary states He is the way truth and life and nobody comes to the Father exept by him. Repent be born again or perish and go to hell. When ure phsical body dies the spirt or living part is going to 1 of 2 places

reply to post by mikethebike82

Terrable things happen in the world because of sin

Basically your blaming terrible things on Sin? Homosexuals, wearing mixed fabrics, not respecting the Sabbath day - These things cause destruction and suffering of others?

You're just playing duality, Good and "Evil" - It's completely subjective. Muslims say eating pork is evil, and a sin, Christians are more than happy enough to eat a bacon sandwhich without fearing hellfire.

Faith in Jesus is Gods new covenent with man we cant get to heaven with laws or good works or tradtions what we eat dont eat wear etc God says man rightousness is as fithly rags before the Lord . God came to earth in the form of a man Jesus to die and take mans place and punishiment and drop the charges of sin so u could be with him all he asks his u except and belive in him and cover u in his blood offering. Evetything in the old testiment was a foreshadow of the future. The slaying of animals for sin sacrifices for sin was the foreshaow of Jesus to come to die to take the sins of the world away Lamb of God.

Its faith in Jesus and what he did that makes u rightous to God not what we try to do . Where not perfect just forgiven.

reply to post by mikethebike82


.....Really?

The new testament was written to fulfil the old one, it's self-fulfilling. The bible also states that people will not believe, they certainly predicted that right about me.

Genocide, slavery and racism are advocated in the Old Testament, by your "GOD" no less - that doesn't make them right.

Vicarious Redemption - the scapegoating of sins. Your God waited at least 95, 00 years of human existence before introducing a savior to human kind, and wash us of our "SINS". And not to the educated parts of the world; China for instance, this religion was started in the less-educated parts of the middle east.

Can you honestly type what you type and never ever question your doctrines? You seem to have surrendered to this theory, you don't seem to have any questions.

reply to post by mikethebike82


I don't believe in Jesus, i'm willing to grant you his existence, but not the metaphysical claims that he was the "SON" of God or that a omnipotent, intervening, intelligent deity exists or created the universe.

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

Can you define more about this spirit that only humans can have a relationship with and only those humans who read and believe the death and resurrection stories in the gospels?

What is this spirit?
What evidence leads you to believe it exists?
How did you determine these "rules" of relating to the spirit?

I can not define the Spirit any more than I can define where wind comes from or goes...
...but I have known the Spirit in some form since a child although I didn't undertand until I was much older.

The evidence is necessarily subjective because there is no external means of 'seeing' the Spirit...
...but I have learned much from the writting of John, Paul, Peter and Luke...
...who also knew this Spirit and whose experiences mirror my own.

But the key to 'seeing' the Spirit is the resurrection stories...
...it seems that as you read and understand the written histories...
...it is the Spirit that enables you to 'see' that the person who rose was quite real...
...and as you contemplate it you begin to realize that the Spirit is present and personal.

This realization effects a paradigm shift and a new dynamic of your spirit and the Spirit commences...
...and engages with you in the minutae of daily life.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by sinohptik

 

What extraordinary claim did i make? Then maybe i will understand your joke.

Reading past the smiley face should clear that up. If that fails, i guess just think about it. you are claiming that a non-existent entity (sic) has specific attributes.

That's my exact point thought regarding Theists and Atheists extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the metaphysical claims of Holy doctrine are extraordinary claims, so far the evidence has been found wanting. We don't make any irrational claims.

I'm not sure what your answer was to my question. Which person is more humble?

edit on 20/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Neither one, or perhaps both. I do not view humility in anything other than actions and behaviors towards others. As such, their driving intent behind those actions, and how they came to those conclusions, is irrelevant to me when determining whether one is "humble" or not. We all make conclusions on "what is," and they tend to vary drastically. We all hold our individual beliefs to be true, at least to an extent. In that regard, we are all arrogant. What we do with those beliefs is more relevant to me personally than what the beliefs themselves are. Ive met atheists who are humble, ive met atheists who are arrogant. Ive met "religionists" that are humble, and ive met "religionists" that are arrogant. I have met equal numbers from both camps that will never admit they are wrong. Both are subjecting themselves to others beliefs on their own experience though. Just a though, but in this day and age, i would personally never use religion as a form of control or shaping perception, i would use mass, generalized science. Who questions science?

Either way, the original question was who was more "open-minded" and my answer, though steeped in metaphor, was "neither one." Another way i see those questions:

"who is open-minded.....

someone that believes the doctrine of modern man has a better chance than knowing the TRUTH of the causation of the universe?

someone that believes the doctrine of ancient man has a better chance than knowing the TRUTH of the causation of the universe?"

Given my posted "definition" of God, neither one has more direct access to all that is than the other. that was a ton of words, i hope that clarified the answer a bit My guess is it didnt!

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by sinohptik
By your definition - awe-inspiring in perspective or understanding, then yes, I have had that - and they are triggered by very non-other-wordly and non-religious things, typically various beauties in nature. But other things as well.

Agreed vic. However, i hold that feeling and experience as very special. as i see all that is as Dumplings, catching a glimpse into the endless complexities that are performed all at the same time, and through repeated cycles, is my definition of experiencing the "divine." For me, i saw that it was so easy for every day life to lose that awe-inspiring quality since i experienced a relative constant and grew accustomed to the experience, despite how spectacular it really was.

I think what interests me most about this discussion is that, in general (not talking about you specifically), when talking about things that are greater than us, i usually use the persons belief system i am talking with to relate how i personally see things. When speaking with a christian, i will use christian ideologies. When speaking to a buddhist, i will use buddhist idealogies, and so on. Those waiting for evidence for things that are far beyond our understanding do not have a stance on the issue, and usually greatly limits where the conversation can go.

reply to post by sinohptik


It is a special feeling - I really think it's just semantics what we call it or not. It is definitely easy to lose the awe that is present in every day life.

Without even trying I re-found it a couple years ago when I had a life-changing (almost ending) event. Afterwards I had a great feeling - enjoyed simple, mundane things like the wind, and wondered how I hadn't noticed them before. I swore I'd never lose that feeling and perspective again.

But I found that even after that event, to keep it up over time it takes work! I guess it's natural. One of human's great capabilities is adaptability, and I think it's just that adaptability that leads us to accept whatever we see day to day as normal, and lose, as you say, the recognition of how spectacular it really is.

And so I go, continuing to strive to keep my promise to myself - enjoying everything and trying not to get lulled into not seeing how special everything really is.

Oddly enough, this event didn't change my general ideology (still a skeptic, still not "religious") much at all, as it does with alot of folks. Not sure what that means, or whether it means anything at all.

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by sinohptik

 

It is a special feeling - I really think it's just semantics what we call it or not. It is definitely easy to lose the awe that is present in every day life.

Yeah, it definitely is semantics. I am actually of the mind that all "debates" on these things tend to come down to people getting stuck in the semantics of it all.

Without even trying I re-found it a couple years ago when I had a life-changing (almost ending) event. Afterwards I had a great feeling - enjoyed simple, mundane things like the wind, and wondered how I hadn't noticed them before. I swore I'd never lose that feeling and perspective again.

But I found that even after that event, to keep it up over time it takes work! I guess it's natural. One of human's great capabilities is adaptability, and I think it's just that adaptability that leads us to accept whatever we see day to day as normal, and lose, as you say, the recognition of how spectacular it really is.

And so I go, continuing to strive to keep my promise to myself - enjoying everything and trying not to get lulled into not seeing how special everything really is.

Oddly enough, this event didn't change my general ideology much at all, as it does with alot of folks. Not sure what that means, or whether it means anything at all.

It can take a significant amount of work, but that is why i think the bible says "the way of the righteous is straight and narrow, and the path to oblivion is broad and easy" Or something similar to that, cant remember verbatim and dont have one to reference For me, the more effort i put in, the further away from it i got. Similar to trying to grab some debris in water. It can get frustrating. A moment of realization for me was the aforementioned "arm movement" lesson i learned. I was thinking about staying in that state in the past, instead of simply being whatever state i am currently in.

Beyond that though, i feel that specific "awe-inspiring" moments are so influential, that we try to re-live it, but i dont feel that is quite how it works for me. As a cycle, it has its ups and downs and some may say even its lefts and rights When trying to feel how i did during moments of "enlightenment" and "awe" that piece of debris in the water just continued to evade my grasp endlessly.

reply to post by peacevic

I was thinking about staying in that state in the past, instead of simply being whatever state i am currently in.

Yep - mindfulness!

Beyond that though, i feel that specific "awe-inspiring" moments are so influential, that we try to re-live it, but i dont feel that is quite how it works for me.

I agree, and I probably didn't say it as I meant it. For me, it's more a matter of trying to maintain the perspective than re-live the feeling.

reply to post by sinohptik

Reading past the smiley face should clear that up. If that fails, i guess just think about it. you are claiming that a non-existent entity (sic) has specific attributes.

The accompanied smiley face didn't help. I am only using attributes to define the Theistic proposition of a God.

Super mario does not exist, but i can still characterise him or form an opinion on him.

My specific concern is with someone claiming to define God, when they don't know God exists or what the desires of this "GOD" are if he does exist. This is wrong, this is not humble, this is guesswork passed of as "truth"

You state that Agnosticism is not humble well i postulate that Agnosticism is as humble as it gets, if we were willing to accept everything on faith then we would get nowhere in science.


My concern is with Theists only - They claim to know what "GOD" is and how he/she/it works. I say this is not humble, and my "i don't know but i'm not willing to guess" approach is much more humble.

If you can't agree to this, we will never agree. That's the way it is. Unless God comes out from hiding and reveals himself to me and also that he is the God of Christianity, and not all the other religions.

This picture shows my exact concern with Theism and why i am against it.




Peace