View Full Version : Evolution vs. creation
Hey, if there is a God and you don't believe in him then you will go to hell. So if I was you I would just give it up. If there isn't a God then your OK, but why even take the chance? If there is a god and you believe in him, and worship him you will go to heaven. Now tell me would you rather burn FOREVER or would want tolive happily forever.
Snappy
This is the ever-wonderful Pascal's wager.
The problem is, if you are just "covering your ass" rather than truly believing in God (whatever that entails), you would think an omniscient God would catch your trickery and send you off to hell.
Read: <A HREF="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/text/james/will/will.htm">The Will to Believe (William James)</A>
CMPHONEIX
06-22-99, 02:42 AM
I believe, that it is a good idea to consider the "wager", but I agree 100% you can't just be a Christian only because you're scared of hell. It's gotta be because you want to change. God isn't exactly an idiot. He sees your heart and knows what's in it.
---------------------------------------------
*ENLIGHTEN ME*
>CMPHONEIX-----------------------------------
Rip-ley
06-22-99, 03:54 AM
These are good things to ponder because at least (maybe) it will give people a chance to look into their own hearts.
poser boy
06-22-99, 04:10 AM
cmphoneix
what do you really think about the "wager" ?
isn't it important to consider the fundamental truth, rather than 'sourcing' (ones)
expectations from what we tend to call reason? should we not be open minded;
the Spirit (as well as the brain) is not in a simple universe, perhaps our reasoning
is in fact our very source of limitation, even when considering aspects of Faith.
I feel the admin here gets to the core here. You can't just cover your ass in trying to evade hell. You have to have a sincere belief in him, though you might not understand him.
When pondering upon that question, people who believe in God, but declare them as "religion independent" as i do, will they go to heaven or hell?
I believe in God, but Christianity and all of its denominations are false *this is my belief, and so you dont have to flame me for that* and i have to say that i really dont believe in any big religions on this planet either. God is Nature, nature is God, accept that as he created us, man within nature itself...
------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :-p
Ok, DaveW, you have a point. But how does
one come to believe? Also, how does one
keep their intentions in seeking god right?
Why seek god to begin with? How will a
person know when they have found him?
If someone is seeking him out of desperation..then is that wrong?
Forgive your parents. That's where I started, and it gave me a super-charged kick in the butt towards religion. The notion of absolute vs relativity regarding right and wrong and good and evil is enlightening too, and can be seen all around, every day, and in every instance. It is the "line" between each little decision we make every day. You can see God and the truth wherever you look, you just have to know what you're looking for. In any given topic you can see the consequences of right and wrong decisions. There are those who think that it is relative; that WE decided what is right and wrong, and if you really think about it, I think it's pretty obvious that we did not decide. That's why I think that humility is the key to understanding.
------------------
God loves you and so do I!
Well Flash,
It would seem to me that anyone who believes in a judgemental god (as opposed to an indifferent & thus irrelevant god - I may be in this category) must always be aware that they must prove something to their god. They know that when their time is up, they will be evaluated based on some criteria that will determine their future eternal life. Since every believer in a judgemental god accepts this, there is a tremendous motivating factor right there. I do not think that you can isolate true belief from that which is (probably unconsciously) motivated through fear.
In other words, only those who are unconstrained by the fear of a judgemental god may be truly (ie. with justification) believers in him.
This again can be disputed. The solution lies in the will to believe. ie. Are beliefs that are motivated out of practical necessity justified?
[This message has been edited by DaveW (edited June 22, 1999).]
CMPHONEIX
06-23-99, 01:27 AM
Dave:
you cannot prove yourself through deed. God doesn't look at deeds. Atleast not the deed itself. The ways of the wicked are deceitful. Anyone can say one thing and think another. How hard is it to beleive one thing but be deceptive in your actions?
God knows your heart. It doesn't matter if you were a derranged serial killer. That's the whole point of God forgiveness. Why waste forgiveness on those who don't need it? "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" we all need God's forgiveness, including the serial killer. If he sees his evil deeds, and his heart is truly repentent, God will see that, and judge him according to his heart, not his deeds. No one can prove to God why we should get into heaven. It is by God's grace alone that we are saved. it is the hardest thing in the world to reach out and except that gift, because so few people on earth would give you an extremely valuable item, without expecting something in material or deed from you. God only asks that you love him and share his love with others. If you do that you'll do what's right anyway.
poser boy:
i'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Like I told Dave. It is your heart God sees. Check out my post on the topic "is God benevolent." That should clear up any doubts you have on my feelings toward God.
H-kon:
I can't tell you if you'll go to hell or not. I don't know you. Even then I probably couldn't tell you. I'm not the type to run around declaring whose dammned and whose not. Pray about it.
Flash:
How do you start believing? There's no official ceromony. Just decide to live your life with a new purpose. Try to put yourself in the positions of others, that always helped me know what i should do.
---------------------------------------------
>CMPHONEIX-----------------------------------
CMPHONEIX
06-23-99, 01:35 AM
PS> Flash:
Seeking God out of desperation, isn't wrong. Sometimes it takes a lot for people to realize thay can't do it on their own. Just make sure you don't use him as a wishing well, to come to ONLY when you're in trouble, he deserves better than that. But I think we can all be held accountable for that at some point in our lives. Why seek out God? I think there's a point in our lives when we realize this life is so short. We can't spend our whole lives trying to deal with the world's trials on our own. There are bigger fish to fry.
---------------------------------------------
*ENLIGHTEN ME*
>CMPHONEIX-----------------------------------
you cannot prove yourself through deed. God doesn't look at deeds. Atleast not the deed itself. The ways of the wicked are deceitful. Anyone can say one thing and think another. How hard is it to beleive one thing but be deceptive in your actions?
I should first note that I am speaking of a generalized 'god' & not the Christian god, so any mention of god's ability to forgive etc. is not terribly relevant.
I am trying to say that it is possible for one to be deceitful in one's beliefs, if not intentionally. It is especially easy to be deceitful when a specific framework of "acceptable" beliefs is quite properly laid out, as it is in organized religion. The simple adoption of this framework (eg. the serial killer who repents) does NOT constitute a justified belief (ie. a genuine belief), especially when failure to adopt this specific framework will result in eternal hell.
An all-knowing god must be able to differentiate an individual who 'naturally' believes (and who does so without fear of reprisal) and one who falsely believes (ie. does so under fear of reprisal from a god who judges everyone).
It thus follows that anyone who believes in a God who judges MUST at some point understand the consequences of failing to believe. This instant makes him a false believer, as his beliefs are thereafter molded by his insight, rather than his true instinctive feelings.
btw...what does any of this have to do with "Evolution vs. creation" ? :)
[This message has been edited by DaveW (edited June 22, 1999).]
CMPHONEIX
06-23-99, 03:14 PM
Dave:
You misunderstand. Certainly if you were ONLY covering your butt, you would have an insincere beleif. But, when there is a desire to better oneself, to benefit others, to be willing to put someone else's will before your own, that's true belief. And though when you know the consequences, you are no longer innocent, the will to change your heart, and the attempt to men your ways is what makes you a belever. The serial killer, who though more then likely is scared of the law and hell, is able to repent, and be forgiven. God is all-knowing, he WILL see the innocent from the guilty. Only he can judge that, but in your view we are all going to hell.
Are you the person who thinks God is this mighty being who will reap judgement and wrath at your every slip-up, and that everything that happens to us is a reward or punishment of our own actions?
God is benevolent. Check out the topic: "Is God Benevolent."
---------------------------------------------
*ENLIGHTEN ME*
>CMPHONEIX-----------------------------------
I know the first message I put was a bit harsh, sorry
CMPHEONIX,
Just wanted to give you a high five, and say that you seem to be pretty frickin' enlightened already. So keep up the good work!
I also wondered if I could interject a notion that was presented to me at some point while reading the Bible, or at church, I really can't remember, but anyway...
There is a story or a message in the Bible somewhere that says (paraphrased of course) that even if you do commit a sin against God, if it is done out of love and caring for another, and out of good will, then God will see your intentions in your heart, and reward you for this. Does that make any sense? Like, Robin Hood kind of, you know? But the message, I think, IS that it is not just your works that are judged, but the intentions behind your works. It's like some "church people" who go every Sunday, and hoot and hollar, and say, "Look at me, look at me! Aren't I great?! Look, I'm praying! Look, I'm speaking in tounges! Isn't everyone really impressed with me?" That's not the point. Are you doing it for your own ego's sake, or because you love God, and wish to worship him? Because, as it points out in the Bible, you can worship him in a closet with the door closed, and no one will ever know, except the One who counts.
------------------
God loves you and so do I!
CMPHONEIX
06-23-99, 10:20 PM
Lori:
I want to return the copmliment, seems like you were kicking butt before long before I found this site.
Couldn't have put it better myself!
Though actions speak louder than words, God sees the intentions behind them!
---------------------------------------------
*ENLIGHTEN ME*
>CMPHONEIX-----------------------------------
The Seer
06-23-99, 10:43 PM
Hokay. Think. Why is it that there are many different religions, but yet all societies relate to there own through the same values as all others. Consider that it may be that there are many different names for the same religion, and regardless of what ones religion is named, all serve the same God. HINT-God and Way (in this case) are one and the same) The term "God" is merely an ancient term for "Way".
the will to change your heart, and the attempt to men your ways is what makes you a belever.
This will is what I dispute. I do not see the belief as justified.
A man who is tortured may claim to believe almost anything to stop the punishment- in fact he often will, subjectively, truly believe what he is being told to believe. The same may be of the serial killer who repents under the pressure of guilt & loneliness. I think you will agree that (at least in the first case), the beliefs are not justified and are thus false beliefs. What holds in the extreme case must also hold for lesser forms of persuasion (ie. a judgemental god).
The serial killer, who though more then likely is scared of the law and hell, is able to repent, and be forgiven.
You claim forgiveness to be a quality of your god. This is not terribly relevant to the subject. You have no evidence that he is as such. In the interest of fairness and equality, you should avoid spitting on the 90+% of humans who do not share your view of god.
Hey everybody, I just had a delightful, wicked little idea!
What if the God you are supposed to love and fear is actually Satan? You know, he wants to be loved or something... Vanity or some such sin. So he makes up the bible, and plays the big 'old man in the sky' game, and sends his messenger to impersonate God?
And the *real* God is annoyed beyond belief by the constant praying and praising? Maybe he's just too modest, or doesn't have time for all that bs. So, Christianity is then the religion of the Devil, and all *believers* are going to hell!!!
<hr>
I guess what it comes down to is this. You must all admit there's absolutely no ground for your belief, and it could be 100% opposite from the truth!!
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
The Seer
06-24-99, 02:33 PM
Boris, you,re close, but not close enough. You're half right.
Richilin
06-24-99, 03:16 PM
Hi babes, boy have I got news for you?!!!!
There is no hell!
If you read the bible , and the WHOLE bible, as I allways say, you´d see that the hell is another word for death. Even Jesus has been to hell, but after three days he was woken up by his father.
So, you see... Hell is nothing more or nothing less than a state, like sleeping, beeing dead you know...
For an example, Job prayed to go there...to sheol, which is the same as hell. Job 14:13
But the bible also talks about Gehenna which is another kind of death. Eternal death.
Do you all read me?
The Seer
06-24-99, 04:59 PM
Now yer loggin. Death is no different then when before one was concieved. Hell = destroyed life.
Boris,
Your wicked little idea is perverse to say the least, and really makes no sense to me at all.
As far as hell is concerned, I have read about many near-death experiences, and the way that they all describe it is like an earth-bound state following death. It seems that it's this simple...if you believe in God and Jesus and a life after life, you will get it. If all you believe in is this world that we all live in now, then you will never get out of it. For example, Howard Stern's hell would go something like this...he's dead, and he's roaming around on the earth in spirit form with his big hair and all. And he's trying desparately to get attention from us by say making fun of retarded people, or making fun of women with big titties, or saying look at my big hair and nose, aren't I funny, and NOBODY'S LAUGHING! Nobody's laughing cause we can't see him or hear him anymore. Now, wouldn't that be hell for him? I mean, to any of us, wouldn't it be hell to be roaming around this earth, with no purpose whatsoever, can't eat, can't drink, can't socialize, no one knows you're there, no one can hear you or see you, you can't express love or hate or anything because no one really cares cause you're dead. It seems that from the stories, there are different levels of hell as well, depending upon what your focus was while alive. It could get worse and worse if you don't realize what is happening to you. For example, the scientist who rejects God, and is all obsessed by the natural and physical laws, may spend the afterlife in some perpetual lab, furiously conducting experiment after experiment, and proving absolutely nothing whatsoever, while the rest of us believers are having the time of our "existences" with Christ in heaven. That would be a type of hell. I think that hell is what you make it to be for yourself based upon what you believe to be true. I've also heard a story of a man who once he was in hell, and realized where he was (as he was an atheist in life) called out to Jesus to save him. And guess what? Jesus came down and pulled him right outta there! Isn't that great!!! So I guess that's why "faith" is so important, because if you don't believe that Jesus is what He is, then He can't save you. Does that make sense? I would urge anyone to read up on some of the near death experiences that have been published. They are very interesting, that's for sure. Remember though, that the experience when you come back is open to interpretation. I think that some have interpreted things that they saw inaccurately. It seems that each was shown a little "piece of the pie", and instead of focusing on their interpretations of their little piece, I think it's safer to just focus on the descriptions of what was shown, and then make your own interpretations.
------------------
God loves you and so do I!
Lori
How about that woman who was a true believer, i think she worked for the salvation army. She had been going to church all her life, and had little money, helped the poor, did everything what a true Christian would do.
One day she got hit by a car, she flew 60 feet in the air, before she landed on the asphalt, she then had a Near death experience, and she went to hell, where she found lots of people running around screaming for mercy, being tortured and all.
So i can see where Boris is going with his post. No one knows if that could be true or not, no one can prove if that is right or wrong, and no one can prove if the Christian God is right or wrong.
The point is.. no one knows before we die, it doesnt matter if you accept God or not. She did, but she went to hell..
------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :-p
Hey Lori.
I don't see any difference between heaven or perpetual lab. Both are equal hell. When you exist *forever*, can *never* die or get hurt -- there's no adventure, there's no excitement. There's only perpetual boredom.
Even if you are surrounded by divine beauty, after a few millennia all that splendor will end up making you puke.
So I'll believe in no afterlife whatsoever, and I sincerely hope that's what I'll get.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Same thought here, eternity is to long for any conscious being (this includes god himself I'm afraid) to stay sain.
But then if you claim that time doesn't excist for god or the 'life after death' then there really is no difference between that and nothing now is there ? Because no time means no change, means no thought means nothing at all !
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
Richilin
06-26-99, 04:53 PM
Your totally right Plato.
When a person dies, there is NOTHING, according to the bible. Got that?
The bible talks about a resurecion (how about my spelling????) for the dead people, sometime in the future, not about life after death. Because God is able to do anything.
Someday in the future when the earth has turned into what it was ment to be, than the people who has died will wake up, and get a fair chans to choose a happy life in a paradise on earth, not in heaven.
And its not gonna get boring. There´s not gonna be any pain or unjusice. Everyones will be young and healthy. Thats how it was ment to be.
Kisses
dumaurier
06-27-99, 04:38 AM
This is all very interesting. But i believe that it would be best if you people first defined "God" since you all seem to be talking about somebody you know very well. Any takers?
------------------
dumaurier
When you die you are meat for the worms and nothing more. So live your life now, because it isn't going to last forever.
If you knew you were going to live forever, would you be happy or rather dissapointed?
MaTTo
[This message has been edited by MaTTo (edited June 27, 1999).]
The Seer
06-28-99, 04:15 AM
I did define God. God=Way, they are one and the same. Is there an everpresent God in the likes of what religions claim, absolutly not. If you consider carfully the claims made as to what God is you'll see that the one describing God is generally describing themself. The overall effect of the prescribed beliefs in religions always revert to the fact that the beliefs keep the religious leaders leading the flock. the overall result is followers, and the following is invaiably people following people. When religious leaders teach God the end result is that god is claimed to be one thing but the leaders are another. And if there are followers, the followers are formed in the likness of the leaders regardless of any leaders claim of God. Think about this- Jesus said, I am the son of God, but he also referes to himself as the son of man, and if man is the image and likness of God, then one must consider "what" image and likness, of what. One must have particulars to understand the "image". But if their are no particulars taught by religions then what is one to believe in. Adam was also made in this image and likness, therefore the image in what Adam was made must also be the same as Jesus. An apostle points out that Christ is the image of God, and we are all made in that same image. That means that if we are made in that same image then we are God, which one can arrive at a solution in which one can understand that God=image. The question then becomes, what image, or, what is this particular image the likness of. If religions cannot discribe this image and likness then it is still not understood, which in turn means they're going nowhere. In order to solve the puzzle they must first find and discribe said "image" and what it is the likness of. So far there is no religion with such a discription or teaching. It is apparent that one must first know or understand this particular image and likness so it can be taught to the masses. One then must conclude that this particular image is something that we already posses but is not understood. One then must also conclude that it's the knowledge of that image that is lacking, because if it weren't we would then be like God as the knowledge would give insights on changes needed in one's person. If Adam was made in that image, and christ "is" the image, and if we still have within our makeup the image, then it stands to reason that all that is needed is to find "what" that image is, or what is it the likness of. Oweing to the fact that everything in the universe has it's opposite then there must be an opposite image, that in turn leads to the conclusion that the world must be endevoring in the opposite image and dosn't understand either one. The image must ultimatly lead to one being of a particular way, and whatever way that is, is God. And if one were to know the way and become it, that person or persons would have to be God. But being that there is an opposite, then the opposite must also be God, or a God. The question then becomes, which one is which, and if no religion has any discription of either of these two there is no way to know which "way" the world is presently under or how to change it. From that then, one must conclude that there is no one that knows for sure if their beliefs can be valid other then through blind belief, and there is nothing in the bible that requires blind belief as faith is of no kin to blindness. Faith must also have something solid to be established on or it is also invalid. An apostle points out that very thing, that faith without fact is of no value. And all fact must lead to, and extend from, that IMAGE.
dumaurier
06-28-99, 06:48 AM
The Seer:
In my opinion, noone can define God. God is the Unknowable Essence. If the greatest minds were to strive for a million trillion years to try to understand God they would fail miserably. But we can use analogies. similes, metaphors in our attempts to understand that which is not comprehensible in its essence. Therefore, by way of example, we can say that God is the Painter and creation is His painting. Now, can the painting understand its creator, the painter? The painting contains attributes, qualities, which are inherent within the painter. The qualities reflecting in that painting are inifinitismally insignificant in relation to the essence of the qualities that make up the painter. However, the painter had to have those qualities a priori in order for him to have shared these through his painting. So, in existence we see that there is intelligence. So, the creator had to have intelligence. But the intelligence that this creation reflects is in the utmost degree of imperfection relative to the intelligence of He who manifested it in His creation.
Can a stick of bread understand the baker? Can an ant comprehend the infinite subleties of man's mind?
In my opinion, noone can define God. God is the Unknowable Essence. All attempts at trying to comprehend that which is beyond comprehension are doomed to failure.
Nice talking to you
------------------
dumaurier
Dumaurier:
I will not dispute your statement concerning impossibility of defining God.
However, your 'painter' analogy is a circular argument. You start out with an assumption of a creator, use that assumption to posit that the creator's personality is embedded in reality, then alluding to the complexity of reality and thus concluding that the creator had intelligence.
The point is: just as one can't define God, one simply cannot demonstrate the validity of the creationist worldview.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
The Seer
06-28-99, 08:39 PM
OK. The first problem is, what does one want for God. What the world is lead to believe in is an external entity other then ones self or others. The reason that one believes that God cannot be explained is, the God that is assumed by the religions presently does not exist. How can something that dosn't exist be explained. God is represented in a very simple fact, "US". Religious leaders always play the same belief games with the people. As long as YOU cannot explain God and THEY can't, they can use this criteria to make anything believable, as long- as you follow them and are willing, or have been led to follow them. What it all reduces down to is that the concept of civilization is everyones religion presently. If all believe in civilization then there is no point in claiming to belong to any religion of any name as the concept of civilization rules regardless. Civilization was the next religion after Adam whereby leaders arose and made themselves God, determining the WAY of all process from then on. Through the centuries this concept has been modified to various forms in the seeking to find a WAY that will work. But no matter the modification the result is always the same, and that is, a few rule over the many and it is these few that are God, and God is anything or anyone that determines the WAY. The present concept of God is only an excuse for the leaders to be excused from the blame of failure. As long as YOU believe that the thoughts of the leaders are directed by an unidentifiable entity, and if that entity remains unexplianable the determinations of the leaders cannot be held in question as the unknown entity is held to blame, and then the entity is falsely determined to be flawless making the determinations of the leaders and the leaders themselves blameless, leaving the people no where to turn but to accept the determinations of the leaders. (a circle of futility) The only place to find God/Way is within yourself as you can prove to yourself that you exist. Leaders cannot prove that their concept of God exists, but they cannot prove that you do not exist, and your very existence proves that a way of being exists from the mere fact that you "are". We are all made up of spiritual characteristics aquired without the permission of the leaders, and as long as YOU accept their authority over you, they are God as it is they that deternime the WAY one is to be. God/Way is nothing other then the way YOU are at any given moment, and if that WAY has been determined by the leaders then THEY are responsible for the world the WAY it is, not the people. When one understands "self" then he can no longer be led by leaders as "ONE" can then compare "Self" with the leaders, and if there is a difference then ONE can determine whether it is the leaders or self that is wrong or on a path of circular futility. Natural spiritual characteristics are inheirent in everyone, and it is the leaders goals to adjust and condition those characterisics to meet the goals of their own will rather then the owners personal will. Leaders adjust the individuals to mainly serve the central ideals of their own preferences which is nothing more than to serve the center, which is mainly their own kind. In central government it is force of law, in what is considered religion it is force of belief. If you look carefully you will see that "both" steer all of the population to serve the same center, and that being the case then both are religion as both must proceed on belief and belief is religion as belief and religion are one and the same. If belief/religion consructs central government then central government is the religion, and religion is what constructs God as God is the item which exerts the main forces in ones life. That leaves that whatever is considered religion but not central government the steering wheel that turns all toward central government and that in turn means that the guiding power and God are nothing more then central government. Adam was before central government which means that civilization is nothing more then a preference of a few to rule the many and to make themselves greater then the masses of their time. When civilization began, the only means to install it could only have been by deception and force as the people of that time had no need for rulers, and when there became rulers then THEY replaced God as the way and installed their own Way and a simple trick to replace the present WAYS of that time with themselves. A system of greaters and lessors was installed and from that time it has been the WAY rather than the way of Adam who was under internal self control of the invisible things of self clearly seen and understood rather then external control by those who set themselves as greaters. In the process the true meaning of "self" became lost and was replaced by external/central government which made all to it's specifications for it's purposes which can be for no other reason but to serve the center and those in it. It can be eaiser to understand if one realizes that God is nothing more then what controls you. Once the leaders made themselves God/Way the meaning of "God" was also changed and it's original meaning became lost.
Way to keep up the argument guys! I can't believe the kind of stuff they're trying to take on against science! lol! This is getting to be ludicrous (but isn't it almost always?)!
Time to lay down some facts...
<hr>
<u>Science</u> is the cataloging of data and the seeking of understanding of the natural world that surrounds us. It's about answering the questions that everything else fails to explain and it only offers the facts of what is and no more.
<hr>
<u>Religion</u>, on the other hand, is much harder to define by a simple 2 sentence statement...
Before I really start to get into what Religion is as a whole, it is necessary for me to get into different kinds of the more popular religions all around the globe (don't worry I'll make this as short as possible).
<hr>
Christianity, the most widespread religion in the world with 840-some million followers. It is the religion based upon the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (God's only son sent to die for our sins). The followers of this religion believe in God, Jesus Christ, and a Holy Spirit. They follow the 10 commandments and the teachings in the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is made up of The New and Old Testaments. They also believe that God can forgive them for their mistakes (ie "sins"). Ethical teachings are very much like the Jews but not in so much damned details (i.e. you can eat pork if you want). The Holy Bible teaches us the difference of right and wrong and is most popular with 10 laws followers call "The Ten Commandments," that teaches us to follow the Sabbath (Sunday) and keep it holy, and honor your father and mother. It's also against worshipping idols, misusing God's name, murder, adultery, and stealing, false testimony, coveting, and putting other gods before God himself.
Judaism was one of the first religions to establish ethical monotheism (belief of a God that is just and does right). The religion lack's the belief in Christianity's Jesus Christ (which Christians claim they killed). They consider Palestine their religious home and tend to be the most "ethical" about ways of life (i.e. you can't eat pork, even if you want to).
Islam was a faith taught by Mohammed. The word Islam means peace and submission, and is usually taken to mean "peace through submission to God." Muslims believe that Mohammed was God's Prophet (they call God Allah) and follow a book called the Koran, from the Arabic word meaning "the reading," which is made up of teachings by Mohammed, and is the book Moslems follow. Parts of the Koran are known to resemble the Bible, the Apocrypha, and the Jewish Talmud. It has many of the same stories about the prophets that appear in Old Testament and New Testament, and even includes stories about Jesus. The Koran teaches the absolute unity and power of God, the creator of the whole universe. It teaches that God is just and merciful, and wished man to repent and purify himself wile on earth so that he can return to Paradise after death. Like the Bible the Koran forbids lying, stealing, adultery, and murder. Punishment is based on the Old Testament, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." The Koran also teaches the virtues of faith in God and man, patience, kindness, honesty, industry, honor, courage, and generosity. It condemns such evils as mistrust, impatience, and cruelty.
Hinduism is the traditional religion of Indian. Hindus call their God "Brahman," who is the goal of all human life to be united with. But only before you can be united with "Brahman," a man's soul must be reborn again (transmigration of the soul). Hinduism worships three gods which are "Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Siva (the Destroyer). Hinduism teaches that the essence of every living thing is "atman," its spirit or soul, which comes from Brahman. Followers treat animals with great respect and most even vegetarians because they don't believe in killing animals for food.
[A rather funny (and a little ironic) fact with Hinduism is that the followers consider the cow sacred and a symbol of man's identity with all of life! A cow! Moo!]
Buddhism was developed from Hinduism. The word Buddha means "Fully Enlightened" or "Awakened One." Basically followers worship a big statue of a man named Siddhertha Gautama, that has impressivly withstood earthquakes, storms, tidal waves, but however has failed to escape the bird shit (it deserves).
Like Buddhism, Jainism grew out of Hinduism. This religion stresses ethical purity, love, and kindness. It forbids the loss of life to anyone or anything, from man to fly. The followers believe that after the soul has inhabited many bodies, it frees itself and lives happily and peacefully. Both Jainism and Buddhism are more concentrated on the after life topic than how to act and behave.
I consider Confucianism as a system of ethics other than a religion itself, because it instructs individuals how they should live accordingly instead of teaching about anything of a god. (Perhaps a religion everyone could use a good looking at).
Many religions exist among the tribal peoples of Africa, Asia, Australia, North and South America, and the Pacific Islands. Most of these tribal religions center the fertility and health of crops, animals, and people. Tribal peoples do not worship the sun or the rain, but worship images that symbolize spiritual or ethical principles. Tribal religions often express the same truths as the great major religions express on a wider scale.
<hr>
I could keep going with some less popular beliefs, but I decide to spare the innocent reader who is just looking for some kind of honest answer.
Grant it that religions are very widespread, different, and even opposing they all have one thing in common other than the believe of an after life, which is...
Codes of Conduct
Some religions tell people how to act toward God. Some tell even what to eat. Some tell to pray five times a day. Some forbid the worshiping of idols, and others tell people how to relate to your fellow man.
But they all have one real thing in common, <u>codes of conduct</u>, systems of ethic code which tell us how to live our short meek lives accordingly for an all greater purpose of "meaning" in the world.
All of the great religions agree on most of the ethical matters. All of them condemn murder, theft, adultery, and dishonesty. They teach that selfishness is evil, and love is the goal of human relationships. Also, they all give off some form of the golden rule, "treat others as we would have them treat us."
Religion gives us a moral code to abide by and binds humanity together, and I believe in the moral codes Religion provide for us, and to follow them is one step closer to "perfection." Other values I see in it include people's fear of hell and spiritual punishment, which prevents a whole lot of sin in this world. Another one is the idea of hope; that everyone thinks they're going to live forever. And last but not least; everyone feels "loved" by an omnipotent God and feels like he/she has meaning. These are all good, necessary things.
But that's all the real value I see in Religion. Its explanation for the creation of everything is way outdated and useless. If you really believe that the earth was created in 7 days, given the facts at hand today, you have my pity. One should simply look on religion it as a guide to life.
When it comes to figuring out how things work and why, I turn to science. But then science lacks moral code completely and doesn't exactly bind us like religion does.
I don't really see why both have to be "verses" eachother, when I see science as simply about discovering and religion is about believing and way of life.
I wish there was something that would bring together both factors but I guess things are the way they are. I really can't see humanity prosper without some form of ethics, but then again I really see no way for humanity to prosper at all without science. So, in my eyes, no side really wins the vote for "best," or however you want to put it. If you seek codes of conduct and ways to live your life to a full extent of goodness, I direct you to religion. If you seek truth and the facts, I direct you to science.
MaTTo
"Dare to discover."
[This message has been edited by MaTTo (edited June 28, 1999).]
The Seer
06-29-99, 05:45 AM
I can't find conflict between science and God/religion in my understanding of things. It's all a matter of interpretation. For one thing, the bible commonly is read in terms of English literature, but the ancients did not write of express themselves in English terms. Old English/European terms are basicaly what defines the understanding of the bible today. In the ancient bibical times the writers expressed their thoughts more in line with spiritual terms. Even their children were mostly named in spiritual context. English, or European terms are mostly in material terms which is misleading the intent of the original writers or story tellers. Moses initiated the writing of the old testament and he was taught in Egypt as a boy under the tutoring of the Pharoh's daughter. What Moses learned was from the Egyptian archives which were quite extensiv and highly accurate in the records of times before Egypt. Ancient writings and stories were heavy with symbols and metaphors and can be interpreted with such. The evolution and creation debate has no founding in proper reasoning in comparing the two. On the material side evolution seems to be on the right track. It's the creationist that is going to have to do some rethinking. Being that the ancients were more spiritual and symbolic in their endeavors then one needs to look at the bible from their perspective. Bearing in mind that they were closer to the begining then we it seems that they would have different insights and understandings then what the masses are aware of. What has been discovered is that creation in the bible is not the creation of material things at all, but rather an insight of things from a spiritual mentality. What we do know is that the material came first and then the spiritual (according to the apostles)and there's nothing in the bible that states how long the material was and what processes were entailed to bring about any planets or stars, and it is known that these existed before man was made. So, let's look at things from an ancient mans perspective. The ancients at the time of Adam were spiritually mentally enclined so this is what they say. In the begining God/Way created the spirit and the soul, and the soul was without form and void (not formed as man, void of proper being as human) and ignorance was upon the face/image of the mind, and the spiritual stirred upon the images of the mind, /and the spirit said/caused let there be enlightenment and they/people became enlighted, and the enlightenment was seen as Good/God/Way, and there came knowledge of two ways and one way way was called light and the other was called night, and the understanding of these two was the first of the knowledge. Now, what's wrong with that. Might i point out that bibical creation has nothing to do with material, as all 7 days/enlightenments are the 7 spirits of God/the ways of being, that make one human rather then animal, which produces ADAM. Amimal mentality is the darkness, and human mentality is the light. Before creation there was only animal mentality at work and creation takes place by the knowledge of both and electing only one, as all are made by nature containing these two sets of traits and only by one of these can one be human, from the understanding that there are only two possible beings that can universally exist. It must be man or it must be animal and the physical itself cannot possibly be either as man or animal is each it's own state of mind/being. Intelligence is neither man or animal, and is a compulatory process that can be applied to either or both. The application of intelligence to the will to be humane, and the accompishment there-of makes man, not your bod. There is no such thing as a human body as the body cannot be human because the body is not a state of mind, you are, and you are not the body but rather the person within, and that person cannot be anything other then either man or animal. The 7 days of creation is your human side, which is Adam, which is christ, which is Adam the second. He said he was in the begining, the invisible things of creation that can be clearly seen, of which we are all made of on ONE side of our entity, man,Adam. If there are invisible things of creation then creation is of the spiritual not the material, as spiritual things are not matter.
dumaurier
06-29-99, 08:22 AM
MaTTo, great post!
Basically you are saying that "religion" and science go hand in hand. I read a beautiful analogy not too long ago about the interdependence of religion/science. The author stated that science and religion are like the two wings of a bird; this bird represents humanity. He goes on to say that if the bird flew only with the wing of science, it would go round and round until it would crash into the deepest depths of materialism. On the other hand, if the bird flew only with the wing of religion, it would likewise fly in circles until it would crash into the murk and mire of superstition and baseless beliefs that served absolutely no purpose. However, if this bird flew with both wings and these were balanced, serving each other, as it were, that bird would sore into the heavens of heavens and great things would be accomplished.
I believe it would, perhaps, be interesting to get the definition of "religion" from the posters here. I have my definition but will refrain from posting until a future time. This message is long enough as it is.
------------------
dumaurier
Dumaurier, thanks for the reply.
The metaphor for science and religion, like the wings of a bird, are very well written and further the point of the message I was trying to spawn.
Thanks,
MaTTo
Dumaurier, thanks for the reply.
The metaphor for science and religion, like the wings of a bird, are very well written and further the point of the message I was trying to spawn.
But there is a problem within religion that I didn't really talk about in the message, and that was about opposing religions, and war.
The stuff going on in Palistine and the places over there is really starting to scare me. People directing hate on others for stuff their ancestors did over thousands and thousands of years ago. People dying over useless causes and it is all rediculas, and must cease.
It appears as though the only way to stop this non-sense it to elimenate religion, but from what I have pointed it in my postings, a civilization that lacks religion and all the "good things" is in for some trouble.
Where do we go from here?
Thanks again Dumaurier for the meaningful analogy,
MaTTo
MaTTo:
You are about at the point where I was some 10 years ago. Here's the final leap:
We don't need religion to tell us how to live!
Science *can*, and *does* specify moral codes -- the particular science I'm talking about is called 'Sociology'. Science can study relationships and behavior, and determine what works best and what makes people happiest. Then, it can generalize those observations and present them as recommendations for conduct in general. So you see, good behavior can be encouraged by pure science -- with personal happiness being the ultimate motivator.
And you're quite right -- once we discard religion (not any particular religion, but the very notion thereof!), then we are likely to have far fewer fanatics in the world -- and far less misery, and far more reason.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Hmmm...10 years is all, eh Boris? hehehe.
Ok, so some are saying give it a couple generations and see what happens...all the elderly will be gone and we'll have new generations of minds in an age for the future and not the yesterday.
But I don't think it's working the way some of us have hoped. There are still the same amount of dumb people out there (young or old) who just are not getting the idea and still believe in spirituality, creation, and all that bull.
It is a fact that on of the most dangerous elements that make up our world today is the "right" to be ignorant. The system is definatly screwed up and getting more by the day, and how much life span does it the system have? 100 years at best maybe?
Any suggestions how to eliminate religion other than to take up where Hitler left off?
MaTTo
dumaurier
06-30-99, 04:34 AM
Matto, i truly enjoy your courtesy---and your wonderful ideas, of course.
Please allow me to provide you here with my definition of "religion."
You spoke about there being a problem with religions and war. Then you exopressed your fear of the atrocities occuring in the Middle East, blaming such hatred between humans on the foundation of ancestral prejudices handed down generation after generation. And you voice your profound opinion that the cause of such differences which brings about the destruction of mankind is ridiculous. You add that, seemingly, the solution to the cessation of all such vile calamities that strike down and destroy people would be to "eliminate religion." Finally, you ask the very meaningful question, "Where do we go from here?"
Let us, to begin with, consider the word "religion," itsel. The Merriam Websters tells us it has Latin and Middle English (ME = French) roots. Besides the meaning of "supernatural constraint, sanction," (from the Latin) the other meaning is "to restrain" "to tie back" (from ME). I presume religion exists to "restrain" man, to hold him back, through belief in goodness, from commiting such actions which are irreligious or, in other words, restrain him from immorallity; since "religion," as defined in the dictionary, is "a system of moral principles."
Now we must consider the true purpose of religion. Moses, Christ, Buddha, Mohammad, all had one singular purpose in submitting themselves to their enemies' cruel treatment (persecution). These great men who founded Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam, had one singular purpose, and that was to bind together, to make to come together, to unite mankind into one common bond. They had no other purpose but to bring together the sincere and truthful under those splendid banners of peace and love. To this testify all Holy Scripture. Now, since these founders established such once great social systems with the power of unifying peoples of divers races and opposing opinions, we may infer that the purpose underliening "religion" is to unite people. But a cursory glance at the state of the followers of these ancient religions reveals the pathetic truth that they are not united under one common faith. My question is, why? Please allow me to continue....
Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islamism are all divided into many sects. A sect is a branch that has diviated from its source. But let me make this clearer and use Christianity as an example.
Christ revealed His religion and for three years planted the seed thereof in the hearts of those who loved Him and understood His Words. This seed in time grew into a stalwart tree; the tree of Christianity. However, soon men appeared who claimed to be "Christians" but who disagreed with certain items of faith (the Holy Trinity, Baptism, Ressurrection, etc.). Thus it was that Luther separated himself from the Faith by founding Protestanism with items of belief that differed from Christianity as practised by the majority. Others did the same. Today we have the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholics (Catholisism itself is divided into yet smaller divisions, as well), and a hundred others. Thus, from that original seed that Christ planted, a mighty tree grew. But with the mighty tree branches started to appear. And these branches are what we term "sects." Catholism, for example, is not a true "religion" but a sect, a branch stemming from the tree. Christ founded Christianity, not Catholicism. Similarilly, Mohammad founded Islam, not the Shiite or Sunni sects. These are branches from the original tree.
We see today that Christians fight among themselves, as we see Muslims and Buddhists and Jews, etc., do the same.
My conclusion is that we must not rid ourselves of true "religion." Religion is not the problem. The problem is in man himself when he becomes arrogant, conceited, blind to all spiritual matters, and seeks to dominate others with those vile and contemptible powers borne of his limited and ephemeral selfish imagination. No! Religion, TRUE religion, is absolutely not the problem. On the contrary; we should turn in all meekness to the true founders of religion but let go, nay, shun! all those worthless idols invented by the ill-minded who firmly hold their sect as the only truth!
Please forgive me the length of this post.
------------------
dumaurier
The Seer
06-30-99, 04:56 AM
Science and Religion definetly go hand in hand. But, it's the science of the mind that's what pretains to Religion. The bible is a book of history of the consequences of how people think. Psyhciatry is the study of the mind, and the state of mind is the being, and if the being is made by God/The Natural Ways, then psychiatry is the study of God. As there are only two basics concepts operating in the universe, the ways of the material and the ways of the spiritual, that leaves only two possibibilities from which to recognize life, those are, from a material point of view, or a spiritual point of view. Thus also, that leaves only two possible prospects for interpretation of the bible, and they would be from the perspective of the only two basics that are possible, materially or spiritually. Now then, the fact of the situation is that what has been promoted through the centuries is the material points of view because in the fall of man the interpretation of "person" was changed to physical where-as before the fall it was spiritual. The changes that took place on account of the fall is that "person" began to be recognized according to physical abilities . In the European ideals is where one can see these changes in a more prominent discription with names such as Miller, Carpenter, Smith, Farmer, Woodman, Cutter, Tinker, Etc. It is the present interpretations of life toward the physical that is causing us all our problems as we want to see the affects and effects of the existance of others and benefit from them in terms of their labors. If it can be agreed that this physical interpretaion of self and others is what's the basis of our problems the the only other alternative is the spiritual insights to solve the problems. When one realizes that there is no person without the physical (as there must be a fuctioning brain in order for there to be person)he can see that the material/physical and spiritual go hand in hand. The body is a tool of the person, and in turn the person at some point must be the tool of the body, but regardless, each is not the other just as the hand is not the wrench and both are needed to bring about a result. Everything presently is a result of something which was before it. Material came from its direction and from the material there formed a brain. And in the brain is where is the person. At the outset the brain contained mere inference, and inference is an automatic process of forageing and survival. Inference is what a baby has at birth when it is hungary and wants to feed. It is not taught nor is it cognitively aware but it still does the things to promote it's own physical life. After a while the baby learns to grasp things without being taught as the situation "inferes" that process as no one needs teach it to grasp. Inferences are the basics to remain alive and do the necessary simple things to live, and that is also a God of type. Before the bibical beginning other things become added to the inferences and a slight ability of cognitives developes that allow life to proceed with more direction and will begins. And along with will, "person" is formed and all the traits of being inhumane and humane appear and become intact. In our case, at a certain point intelect becomes acute by which one gains the ability to comprehend and connect facts in which an acute cognitive decision can be extrated to bring about a predetermined or prospective result. Comprehension of facts can be applied to understand both the material connections and also the spiritual ones. Bibical Creation is that very process of cognitive beings sorting out the traits of the inhumane (animal traits) from the humane traits, and electing to proceed with life according to the humane traits only, which makes man. The 7 days are the process of enlightenment to arrive at that decision. The waters above the firmament are the animal traits which were divided off from the waters below, human traits, both understood as states of mind/waters. The reason that the waters above are the animal traits is because the animal is a superiority seeker to be "above" others. Before bibical creation there was only animal and it was from creation that came man/the human. "God/Way, is the inner powers of those at that era used to bring about the result, of course along with the powers of reasoning. As events pass a longing and an attraction developes to return to the former (the other trees in the garden, commonly refered to as an apple) and so they did, returning to that from whence they came, animal mentality, (Animal being/soul-dust of the ground)(earth= soul) It was at the institutions of Babylon the Great where everything of our time began. The tower of Babylon in material form was never built. It took the place of the waters above the heavens and they began to tower above each other as before creation, and recreated themselves to their preferences of the animal in the world of force and counterforce, greaters and lessors. And that's the world we still have today, and will be so until once again we refigure ourselves back to creation of which the man Jesus was representative of. No, he's not phoney, he was true man, only. And he is now present once again on the earth.
Dumaurier:
Wishful thinking, my friend. While it would be just awesome if all religious people really upheld the original ideals of their religion -- you must realize that such a thing is just as impossible as Communism. People are not perfect, and people are not innately good -- they are lazy, and they are selfish. That is why communism didn't work, and that is why religious brotherhood will never be a reality. And, as long as you give people excuses to segregate into sects, they will do so, and they will hate each other's guts. But what's even worse, they will be doing it for arbitrary reasons -- over disputes between mythologies, of all things! That's why I say: out with religion! Take away yet another major excuse for sectarianism, force people to think critically about the world -- and perhaps they would be less likely to behave irrationally. That's, of course, also an ideal -- but I think we can approach my ideal much more readily than we can approach yours.
<hr>
Seer:
Not quite sure what you're leading up to, with the discussion of 'humane' vs. 'inhumane'. If you define indulgence and selfishness as inhumane, then you are talking about very human traits indeed. On the other hand, higher animals possess many of the virtues one would call 'humane'.
But regardless, the issue debated here is the worthiness of religion. While it might help you form a metaphorical interpretation of reality, I don't see where you go from there.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 30, 1999).]
Dumarrier, thanks for the comments in your last posting -- although I do pick up the sarcastic vibes, they are none the lees true.
I'd like to clarify something from my last message, which, to me not that I look upon it again, seems a little bizzare.
I'm not a Nazi and I'm against violence unless it's a last restort thing. My last sentence stating about picking up where Hitler left off was composed of dry sarcasm.
In my last message, I wanted to point out something that my origional message lacked. This whole religious war bit needs to be named. If religion can get credit for the good then it shall indeed get credit for the negative.
However I lack the knowledge required when it comes to current religious wars, and I really don't care whats happing over there at this moment; simply because I think it's all pointless. As far as I can tell, religious loonies are running around with machine guns claiming the land they stand on is divinly theirs and the death toll rises daily.
So I guess what I was trying to say was that the whole "package" of religion isn't all good. But then some of you could argue that it isn't good at all.
Anyways, my apoligies for the "profound" message back there. The way I put it into context was unneccessary.
MaTTo
[This message has been edited by MaTTo (edited June 30, 1999).]
Also, another thing, Boris has shown me that maybe can get by without religon. I'm not sure what to think.
All I see is, that we don't have any real problem right now as I speak with religion, so who needs to make it into something that could turn out worse?
MaTTo
Boris, what has turned you into such a cynic?
If giving up religion, as you have, means looking at the world with such contempt, as you do - I'll keep my religion!
Bev :(
Matto:
You express a conservative viewpoint. I.e. if we can get by with what we have, why try to risk it all and strive for more? But you see, if all we ever do is sit on our butts and never risk anything, then we will get nowhere. Trying new things always involves risk, and it always involves making mistakes, and paying for them -- but that's the only way you can ultimately improve.
Bev:
I'm not a cynic. I like to depict myself as a realist -- i.e. I try to never express or support clearly idealistic, groundless claims or goals. My philosophy is this: if it can *never in principle* be achieved, if it can *never in principle* be known or conceptualized, if it can *never in principle* even be validated, it's useless and pointless. There's got to be at least a small grain of credibility. Religion's got none.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
dumaurier
07-01-99, 04:53 AM
Boris, your reply to my post is well taken.
Your opening sentence, "Wishful thinking, my friend," conveys, in my estimation, the thought of someone who has not quite understood my post. My whole point was very simple, really: people use the word "religion" too loosely without understanding its meaning and label all sects as "religions" and conclude that religion is no good when the culprits are the sects. I must ask you, Boris, to be honest and authentic in your response to the following question: What crime did Christ commit that we should say He was no good? For, you see, Christ was the founder of Christianity and by blaming Christianity (a religion) for the atrocities committed by the Pope (the Crusades, for example, where millions died for one of the vilest causes in existence) would be a true mark of the lack of insight and perception.
I am of the profoundest conviction that religion is the light of humanity and without it you and i would not be able to continue living as noble, respectful and dignified human beings. It was the Ten Commandments of Moses that allowed generations to learn how to apply spiritual principles in their social behavior in contrast to their prior habits of being. Now, if a jew murders another jew, or anyone else, is Moses to blame? This is my point. If someone who calls himself a "Christian" commits adultery is Christ to blame? For did not Christ expressedly tell His followers to abide by the rule of Moses with regards the item, "Thou shalt not commit adultery"?
It is man's disobedience of Divine Law which causes misery for himself and in the world. Such disobedience has given sway to the creation of millions of sects.
The other point you suggest is that it is impossible for "...religious people [to uphold] the original ideals of their religion," and that this impossibility is "...just as impossible as Communism" because people are imperfect [and] that is why religious brotherhood will never be a reality."
On the surface, dearest Boris, the impossibility of religious brother sounds like a good arguement for no one could argue the point that human beings are imperfect and certainly it is not with an imperfect instrument that we may bring about the creation of a perfect one. The imperfection of the human being is an obvious and evident fact. However, let us return to the mention of Christ (we could use Moses or Muhammad or Buddha as examples here and it would bring forth the same result). You will agree, if you've ever read the accounts of Jesus' life in the New Testament, that Christ was a poor man. He had no army, no material wealth of any kind; he was poor and destitute and laid his head on a rock each evening to use as a pillow. He had no home but was a wanderer from place to place preaching what He said came not from Himself but from God. He was meek, lowly, humble. A cursory understanding of the life and Teachings of this man of God would readily bring to the perceptive mind the contradiction to your statement. Christ was perfect!!! (as were Moses, Mohammad, Buddha). Within the embrace of His divine perfection this man, alone and unaided, poor and armyless, in all His meekness and humbleness, brought to their knees the wealthiest, most powerful and most reknown kings of the earth. Millions of people of different racial, cultural and political backgrounds did Christ unite under one banner of love for Him. He, solely with His Word, brought into existence a religious brotherhood the likes of which humanity had not experienced before Him!
As time passed, men interpreted the Teachings of Christ, adding their own limited understanding and sharing this with believers. The Holy Scriptures were tampered with. This is when the power of cohesion inherent within the Teachings that issued from a perfect Christ lost its effect. When man turns his heart to the vain imaginings invented by the arrogant and power-hungry mongrels, the sheep are scattered, not reunited. Yet, my point is that Christ did create that religious brotherhood (as history testifies). In like manner, Moses, Buddha and Mohammad also created this religious brotherhood. God will most certainly bring another Prophet who will do the same thing once again. "The time is nigh!" :)
In your closing remarks you state, "...force people to think critically about the world --and perhaps they would be less likely to behave irrationally. That's, of course, also an ideal -- but I think we can approach my ideal much more readily than we can approach yours.:
I believe we need to combine both your ideal and mine and create a balance, Boris. Man cannot live on reason alone, much less on religion alone. A balance of the mind and heart are necessary--and moderation is a wonderful virtue! You'll agree with me that most of the greatest men the world has known balanced their belief in a Divine Creator with their rational faculty. Einstein was one of these. Socrates was another. There are countless others. Balance is needed. Without it the universe would collapse.
------------------
dumaurier
[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited June 30, 1999).]
dumaurier,
I can't agree with your definition of religion at all I'm afraid. You narrowed 'true' religion so far down to the point it has no meaning at all anymore. What kind of foolishness is it to proclaim that the only true religion is the one that is founded by figures as Mohammed, Boedda, Jezus,...
First of all their lives have not been recorded on a impartial device, neither wrote anything themselves, others did and they got their information from again others or had to remember the words of their teachers.
Also you are implying as if these guys had the actual intend to found something like a religion, with the possible exception of Mohammed (but then again his real purpose was to unite the tribes of Arabia) this was clearly not the case.
I propose therefor a different definition of religion :
A religion is a set of ideas founded and constructed around a basic amount of dogmas.
A dogma is a proposition founded on a certain autority. This autority can be a person, an institution, a habit or a scripture which itself is based on one of the tree previous but can become an autority of its own.
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
[This message has been edited by Plato (edited July 01, 1999).]
Plato,
I do not intend to speak for others, so this post is a response to your proposition concerning the dogma of religion. what u propose is that written history is the source of consideration of the three named above; it is the principals that are of relevance. what u are relaying is the fact that man, as witness, is likely to distort
teachings as they apply to conditions implied upon them. this is the impartiality u speak of, these events are entagled with political strife and revolutionary thought. actions speak for themselves under these circumstances. as you purport authority and idea to be the definition of religion, a construction of dogmas, this is not entirely
incorrect; however it does not discount the
three aforementioned. it is a matter of detail
in context of existing text. sometimes one is left unsatisfied simlpy because what is read does not apply to oneself at the given time.
just as Dumairier proposes, why not try a bit of a mix? is everyone so afraid that they will lose their own principles of individuality? could it be that this is the
cause of our stalemate? perhaps we find 'strength' in feeling that we are correct and others need 'our' enlightenment. is it that we hold on to our dreams because they get us through the day, turning away from valuable insight that poses a challenge to our dear
perceptions. throughout life, we become conditioned through our associations. we relate to matters in the way we see fit. if something is uncomfortable, we recognize this immediately sometimes we 'react', other times, we allow another to contribute to our personal process of learning/expansion. at times we edit this input, and begin (once again) to find a sense of partiality. something along the way has been lost, and something gained. the sensation one is left with becomes the interpretive dogma, as extracted from the process of our own insight and relationship to apprehensive reaction.
in a drawing, any two points may exist in any given location, connect them and now there is a relationship directly applied between them,
add another point and connect these, who knows what forms may be created this way; the more we experiment, the more shapes we can find.
I think it is you who misunderstood my post. But let me reply to your reply.
Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha are not on trial here; religion is. As in a set of dogmas, rules, rituals and preconceptions about the world that is supposed to be internalized without question and submitted to with all due sheepishness.
I would like to counter your claim that "man cannot live on reason alone". Unless you are going to proclaim that I am not a man, you've got an obvious counterexample right in front of you.
Balance is not any kind of reason to accept religion. For example, history has always been composed of peace and war, alternating in a 'balance' of sorts. Would you now argue that war is therefore acceptable?
I imagine many smart people proclaimed themselves religious because:
1) they were afraid of persecution (either from Christians, or later from Communist-bashers)
2) they were raised with their religion and couldn't picture an alternative mindset.
3) they simply didn't care enough about atheism vs. religion to commit any serious thought to the virtues and vices of each, or to join vigorous discussions on the issue.
4) they were quite brilliant within their area of expertise, but rather less proficient in the topic of interest here.
5) they were forced into religion by peer-pressure.
I could go on...
In truth, people have indeed lived with religion alone, and with reason alone. The question is, who was better off. And contrary to the repeated claims of the hordes of reconciliationists on this board, religion and reason are not compatible! In fact, by and large religion defies reason, and vice versa!
Also (and I'm tired of having to repeat this again and again) we should realize that neither the Q'ran, nor the Bible, nor even the Torah laid the grounds for ethical or moral behavior. These behavioral principles are inherent in us; they are what you may call instincts; they are what makes any human (or non-human) tribe hang together. These moral principles can be derived by pure mathematics, if one assumes that a coherent group of distinct, about equally capable, selfish individuals, endowed with a semi-free will, is to hang together. Aside for our natural tendencies toward some moral-correctness, the various morals and ethics can be upheld purely based on the principle that they make societies coherent, and individuals happy on the whole. No religion is necessary to enforce or promote the various morals; they can be promoted by reasoned argument, and enforced by both parental upbringing and laws. Note that such an arrangement would leave ethics flexible, and adaptable to unforseen developments -- so one wouldn't have to use a stone-age ethical framework to reason about such things as human cloning, or animal experimentation. And, as long as ethical frameworks evolve within the bounds of reason and critique, they are likely to remain robust and relevant to their time period -- contrary to what many religious people seem to assume.
Finally, let me say that I do not condemn or in any way belittle Christ, or Buddha, or whomever. They were indeed outstanding individuals, and role models to imitate. However, they were role models only as far as behavior, life goals, and relationship to other people -- they were not even by a long shot valid conveyors of world-knowledge. And on religious side of things they were as full of it as any other layman.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
dumaurier
07-02-99, 02:25 AM
Boris, thank you for your reply.
As much as i would like to continue debating with you, i must cease doing so. The seeker after truth has ceased playing with toys long ago.
Your statement that
"...neither the Q'ran, nor the Bible,
nor even the Torah laid the grounds
for ethical or moral behavior. These behavioral principles are inherent
in us; they are what you may call instincts..."
bakes a cake and eats it too (no offense). I'm afraid i will have to call it quits.
The sun is visible for all to see but the blind, though they strive for a hundred thousand years, will never be able to see its splendour.
Please do enjoy yourself with your rational debates.
------------------
dumaurier
Boris : Don't stop just because dumaurier gave up , your posts are some of the few that I can read with out yawning , your understanding of human behavior and ability to convert your thoughts into words are refreshing and in my humble opinion , your statements are valid .
learner
07-02-99, 05:01 AM
Boris,
if you have read the response i have given about reincarnation, none of these men were layman. one would find it dubious to place ones terms of vital integrity into the face of inequity. what remains is what has not been burned to ashes in the attempts of revolution. should we seek to realize the messages of these important lives, we should sift through these applications of 'dogma' .
the convictions of a people united under a
'dogmatic' cause can bring considerable commotion, though the validity of their claims may lie in subjegation and naivety.
there are men such as Julius Ceasar , leaders
of great eras, but in the end it was a mark of power. an attempt to 'right the wrong' by
influencing or consuming the surroundings into submission. 'let the people be mine' -so to speak. an important message from the great three is 'let the people be themselves' . without these three, this world would surely not be the same, three less 'laymen' could not have changed the world . one could say that mankind has succeeded in obscuring these
messages over time, as the general populace chuckles at the monk who has understood his life.
another time . .
I would plead for a different approache to religion and its relations to moral and happiness.
First of all I must agree with Boris, moral codes are clearly a natural outcome of the evolutionary process withing herd animals. There are computer simulations and life examples in nature to confirm this point. This however also applies to technological and scientific evolution of humans. It is a bit harder to proof but since every human society (and it appears also higher primates like chimps) has develloped some kind of technology and science to explain how the technology works, one could say that the formation of technology and science are as natural to an intelligent species as moral codes.
In order to progress into fields like religion, technology and science one needs people entirely devoted to them. Hence the importance of people like Boedda, Mohammed, Socrates, Aristotle, Newton, Descartes, Edison, ...
These are examples of people who really excelled in their field and took it several stages higher but they were also a child of their times. History works in two stages, one slow and steady pace and one with swift revolutions. These revolutions happen when certain critical points are met then at these times of revolution suddenly, figures emerge who lead the way to a new period of steady pace. One could compare it with the changing of aggregate state of water with changing temperature. Ice warms up slowly up to a certain point where temperature and outside pressure suddenly make it melt, during the melting process there is no change of internal temperature but once everyting is melted the temperature begins to rise again.
Religion addresses questions as :
Why are we here ?
Where do we come from and where are we going ?
These are profound questions that are clearly outside the domain of science but must be solved anyway. Our curiousity simply demands it...
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
[This message has been edited by Plato (edited July 02, 1999).]
Plato:
Religion indeed addresses the very important questions of why and what we are. However, aside from addressing these questions religion certainly doesn't do much. For example, how about actually *answering* these questions to everybody's satisfaction?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Boris,
Do you mean something like one religion for everyone ? That is a bit difficult since religion doesn't use objective criterea as science does. Still it furfills a certain longing in the human nature so there lies its purpose. It's one might say the outing of the irrational in the human spirit. People want the magic and as much they want the mystery, they are afraid of it. There lies the true attraction of religion, therefor I dare say that everyone has some form of religion.
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
dumaurier
07-05-99, 12:15 AM
An absurdity has been posted here which requires clarification.
The absurdity is stated thus:
"...neither the Q'ran, nor the Bible, nor even the Torah laid the grounds for ethical or moral behavior. These behavioral principles are inherent in us; they are what you may call instincts..."
This is one of the greatest absurdities of the century. Its utterance could only originate within a mind neglectful of careful contemplation. Its roots are firmly grounded in the labyrinth of imagination.
Let us look deeper into the meaning of the three keywords used in the above statement:
ETHICS: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation;
MORALITY: a doctrine or system of moral conduct teaching a moral lesson;
INSTINCT: a) a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason; b) behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.
Source: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dict. 10th Ed. 1997
Ethics and Morality require conscious thought whereas "instinct," as the Webster's clearly explains, is behavior not requiring conscious thought. In psychology we know that the quality of human actions and reactions are based on thought (not on our instinctual responses as the withdrawing of your hand from fire). Take away thought and we are no better than animals that are devoid of thought! The quality of human actions and reactions is determined by morallity and ethics (by what we believe). Animals do not think before acting or reacting; they use instinct and instinct does not require conscious thought.
Now, concerning the affirmation about the Holy Books, this is a very sad statement. All Holy Books have been revealed for the sole purpose of leading man "to the right path" of virtuous behavior; of ethical and moral conduct. It is the only reason why the Holy Books are given to mankind. Without such guidance man is lost and no better than an animal. Mohammad, addressing the Jews, said, "We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright."
Anyone eager of sincere investigation may search any Holy Book himself to discover the truth of what is said here. I shall simply provide brief extracts to prove the point.
I begin with several extracts from the New Testament and follow this by quotes from the Qur'an and Buddhist Scripture. My point is to prove that all Holy Books are the foundation upon which are laid the grounds for ethical or moral behavior.
From the New Testament, Christ said:
1. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
2. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
3. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
4. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
5. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
6. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
7. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
8. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
From the Qur'an, Mohammad said:
1. O ye people! Adore your Guardian-Lord, who created you and those who came before you, that ye may have the chance to learn righteousness (AL-BAQARAH)
2. And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).
(AL-BAQARAH)
3. ...show patience, Firmness and self-control; who are true (in word and deed); who worship devoutly; who spend (in the way of God); and who pray for forgiveness in the early hours of the morning. (AL-I-IMRAN)
4. To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their substance (by mixing it up) with your won. For this is indeed a great sin.
5. If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (AN-NISA)
6. If ye (but) eschew the most heinous of the things which ye are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of you all the evil in you, and admit you to a gate of great honour. (AN-NISA)
7. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good). (AL-MA'IDAH)
8. O ye who believe! stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (AL-MA'IDAH)
9. It is no fault in the blind nor in one born lame, nor in one afflicted with illness, nor in yourselves, that ye should eat in your own houses, or those of your fathers, or your mothers, or your brothers, or your sisters, or your father's brothers or your father's sisters, or your mother's brothers, or your mother's sisters, or in houses of which the keys are in your possession, or in the house of a sincere friend of yours: there is no blame on you, whether ye eat in company or separately. But if ye enter houses, salute each other - a greeting of blessing and purity as from God. Thus does God make clear the signs to you: that ye may understand. (AN-NUR)
From the Buddhist Scripture:
1. To speak or act with a defiled mind is to draw pain after oneself, like a wheel behind the feet of the animal drawing it.
2. Whoever does harm to an innocent man, a pure man and a faultless one, the evil comes back on that fool, like fine dust thrown into the wind.
3. All fear violence, all are afraid of death. Seeing the similarity to oneself, one should not use violence or have it used.
4. Even if richly dressed, when a man behaves even-mindedly and is at peace, restrained and established in the right way, chaste and renouncing violence to all forms of life, then he is a brahmin, he is a holy man, he is a bhikkhu (true Buddhist monk).
5. Where is that man in the world who is so restrained by shame that he avoids laziness like a thoroughbred horse avoids the whip?
6. If one would only apply to oneself what one teaches others, when one was well disciplined oneself one could train others. It is oneself who is hard to train.
And in conclusion, my dear friends, i'd like to present to you a little gift. It's called the "Metta Sutta":
The Buddha's Words on Kindness
This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech.
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied.
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful,
Not proud and demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born,
May all beings be at ease!
Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings:
Radiating kindness over the entire world
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.
Peace be upon the sincere of heart
------------------
dumaurier
dumaurier,
you do hold animals in very low estime don't you ? You make them look like computer programs who only react according to their programming.
Do you have a dog ?
If so have you already observed its behavior ? Haven't you sometimes found it peculiarly intelligent ?
Yet you say :
Animals do not think before acting or reacting; they use instinct and instinct does not require conscious thought.
Do you think that man is freed from his instincts ? He is as submitted to them as are animals, this is normal because he is an animal ! They are the basic drive to almost everything that man does. Conscious thoughts provide for us as well as animals a way to canalise these drives and ajust them to their surroundings. Humans have proven to be the most succesfull in this, they develloped languages which enabled them to communicate and refine those thoughts.
All Holy Books have been revealed for the sole purpose of leading man "to the right path" of virtuous behavior; of ethical and moral conduct. It is the only reason why the Holy Books are given to mankind. Without such guidance man is lost and no better than an animal.
Why is it then that dolfins are known to resque humans at sea ? Or why a dog would give it's life to protect his love ones ? Or that orphaned chimps are raised by other members of the group ? Or that primitive tribes found in the jungle of Borneo or the Amazone have their moral values and codes ?
You must realise that the holy books that you talk about are the result of intense thought and debate over more then a thousand years. Of course they show a higher standard of moral then what is custom around chimps but you must realise they both are very similar and therefor have the same root. The holy books rules are ajusted to our more complex form of existance and are therefor much better elaborated.
Same thing goes for the sticks that chimps use to scoop up termites while we use forks and knifes (or chopsticks) to scoop up our food.
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
Before you go and call objective fact obsurdity, Dumaurier, please ask yourself what world you are living in.
The very definition of instinct that you quoted should have shown you the light. Quoting your quote: "behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level." If you are going to claim that that our higher cognitive functions are not affected by subconscious processes, I would have to conclude that you are a ghost of some monk who died in seclusion several centuries ago and now came back to spread his 'wisdom' among us mortals. Give it some thought. Give it some actual thought, and stop citing from scriptures and holy writings -- they are dogmas; they are not the sources of Truth! It is the world around you that is a source of truth. Take your eyes off that religious caleidoscope, and take an unhindered look at reality, with an inquiry in mind.
I also assume you have not ready any posts in my Evolution vs. Creation (note the capital 'C') thread. There, I have explained at length the connections between physics, evolution, instincts, ethics and morality. Go ahead, take a look. See how open your mind really is.
In conclusion:
Read Plato's post, observe animals, pick up a cognitive psychology book, and pay attention to science. You are undoubtedly a great scholar of anscient religion; however your knowledge of the more modern findings is sadly lacking.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
dumaurier
07-10-99, 06:49 AM
Plato, I just wish to confirm my love of animals. One should be kind to animals. This is my conviction. Of course, one cannot be kind to the vicious beasts, as you well know. But to most animals one should be kind.
As to what you say concerning man's instincts, of course this is true, for man has both the animal (senses) and human (rational faculty) within him. But man is much more evolved than the animal, as you well know. Man's intelligence cannot be compared to that of the animal. If animals had "true" intelligence, they would have developed societies and science, as we did. Animals will forever remain animals for this station has been assigned to them by their Creator.
Please note that when i use the word "inferior" or "superior" i do not at all insinuate any sort of pejorative nuance, implied or otherwise. I refer simply to rank and level of existence.
I must ask you a question: If the purpose of Holy Books is not to guide man to the path of righteousness, what is their purpose?
------------------
dumaurier
dumaurier
07-10-99, 08:08 AM
INSTINCT:
What really is "instinct"?
Supposing you were driving in your car and approached a red light. Suddenly the car behind you slams into yours from behind. Your response is probably any of the following:
a) anger;
b) self-control.
Now, anger comes about as a result of fear (in this example). Fear makes us "freeze" for some seconds but soon we "defreeze" from the state of fear and the energy released into the nervous system has to have an outlet. The uncontrolled expression of this energy is called "anger". Anger is a neurological response (a nervous reaction) uncontrolled by the mind. If one has never trained himself in the art of self-control, the nervous reaction will take over and color a person's behavior (his response to outside stimuli).
Self-control, on the other hand, indicates that a person is sufficiently self-taught in recognizing physiological impulses and exercises a willing control over them. In order to recognize such impulses one needs a power beyond that which all ranks below man (mineral, vegetable, animal) possess.
Now, animals do not have such a power. Because it is within their nature, they promptly react to all situations according to the physiological responses to outside stimuli. In other words, they have no self- control.
In brief, to be "human" means to have self-control. To be "like an animal" is to base one's reactions (and actions) on instinct alone which thing is proper for animals but not for man.
Now, having said all this, i must add that animals do have intelligence. However, when compared to the intelligence of man, it is not true "intelligence" for intelligence alone isn't enough. One needs another faculty which helps the mind synthesize knowledge and draw conclusions. Some people call this power of synthesis the "soul" but whatever it is called, it is far superior to all the mental faculties combined!
I must allow Abdu'l-Baha to continue this exposition:
"Though man has powers and outer senses in common with the animal, yet an extraordinary power exists in him of which the animal is bereft. The sciences, arts, inventions, trades and discoveries of realities are the results of this spiritual power. This is a power which encompasses all things, comprehends their realities, discovers all the hidden mysteries of beings, and through this knowledge controls them. It even perceives things which do not exist outwardly--that is to say, intellectual realities which are not sensible, and which have no outward existence because they are invisible; so it comprehends the mind, the spirit, the qualities, the characters, the love and sorrow of man, which are intellectual realities. Moreover, these existing sciences, arts, laws and endless inventions of man at one time were invisible, mysterious and hidden secrets; it is only the all-encompassing human power which has discovered and brought them out from the plane of the invisible to the plane of the visible. So telegraphy, photography, phonography and all such inventions and wonderful arts were at one time hidden mysteries. The human reality discovered and brought them out from the plane of the invisible to the plane of the visible. There was even a time when the qualities of this iron...-- indeed of all the minerals--were hidden mysteries; men discovered this mineral, and wrought it in this industrial form. It is the same with all the other discoveries and inventions of man, which are innumerable.
"This we cannot deny. If we say that these are effects of powers which animals also have, and of the powers of the bodily senses, we see clearly and evidently that the animals are, in regard to these powers, superior to man. For example, the sight of animals is much more keen than the sight of man; so also is their power of smell and taste. Briefly, in the powers which animals and men have in common, the animal is often the more powerful. For example, let us take the power of memory. If you carry a pigeon from here to a distant country, and there set it free, it will return, for it remembers the way. Take a dog from here to the center of Asia, set him free, and he will come back here and never once lose the road. So it is with the other powers such as hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch.
"Thus it is clear that if there were not in man a power different from any of those of the animals, the latter would be superior to man in inventions and the comprehension of realities. Therefore, it is evident that man has a gift which the animal does not possess. Now, the animal perceives sensible things but does not perceive intellectual realities. For example, that which is within the range of its vision the animal sees, but that which is beyond the range of sight it is not possible for it to perceive, and it cannot imagine it. So it is not possible for the animal to understand that the earth has the form of a globe. But man from known things proves unknown things and discovers unknown truths. For example, man sees the curve of the horizon, and from this he infers the roundness of the earth. The Pole Star at Akká [Israel], for instance, is at 33-- that is to say, it is 33 above the horizon. When a man goes toward the North Pole, the Pole Star rises one degree above the horizon for each degree of distance that he travels-- that is to say, the altitude of the Pole Star will be 34, then 40, then 50, then 60, then 70. If he reaches the North Pole the altitude of the Pole Star will be 90 or have attained the zenith--that is to say, will be directly overhead. This Pole Star and its ascension are sensible things. The further one goes toward the Pole, the higher the Pole Star rises; from these two known truths an unknown thing has been discovered--that is, that the horizon is curved, meaning that the horizon of each degree of the earth is a different horizon from that of another degree. Man perceives this and proves from it an invisible thing which is the roundness of the earth. This it is impossible for the animal to perceive. In the same way, it cannot understand that the sun is the center and that the earth revolves around it. The animal is the captive of the senses and bound by them; all that is beyond the senses, the things that they do not control, the animal can never understand, although in the outer senses it is greater than man. Hence it is proved and verified that in man there is a power of discovery by which he is distinguished from the animals, and this is the spirit of man.
"Praise be to God! man is always turned toward the heights, and his aspiration is lofty; he always desires to reach a greater world than the world in which he is, and to mount to a higher sphere than that in which he is. The love of exaltation is one of the characteristics of man. I am astonished that certain philosophers of America and Europe are content to gradually approach the animal world and so to go backward; for the tendency of existence must be toward exaltation. Nevertheless, if you said to one of them, "You are an animal," he would be extremely hurt and angry.
"What a difference between the human world and the world of the animal, between the elevation of man and the abasement of the animal, between the perfections of man and the ignorance of the animal, between the light of man and the darkness of the animal, between the glory of man and the degradation of the animal! An Arab child of ten years can manage two or three hundred camels in the desert, and with his voice can lead them forward or turn them back. A weak Hindu can so control a huge elephant that the elephant becomes the most obedient of servants. All
things are subdued by the hand of man; he can resist nature while all other creatures are captives of nature: none can depart from her requirements. Man alone can resist nature. Nature attracts bodies to the center of the earth; man through mechanical means goes far from it and soars in the air. Nature prevents man from crossing the seas; man builds a ship, and he travels and voyages across the great ocean, and so on; the subject is endless. For example, man drives engines over the mountains and through the wildernesses, and gathers in one spot the news of the events of the East and West. All this is contrary to nature. The sea with its grandeur cannot deviate by an atom from the laws of nature; the sun in all its magnificence cannot deviate as much as a needle's point from the laws of nature, and can never comprehend the conditions, the state, the qualities, the movements and the nature of man."
Salutations and peace be upon all who possess discernment
------------------
dumaurier
I have only one small thing to say..
Your posts look like "Galatacica Religioinalis"
I love these threads.
------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :\
I want to bring up an important issue that popped along after my posting over the value of religion.
<hr>
Exerpts from an old post by Boris...
We don't need religion to tell us how to live!
Science *can*, and *does* specify moral codes -- the particular science I'm talking about is called 'Sociology'. Science can study relationships and behavior, and determine what works best and what makes people happiest. Then, it can generalize those observations and present them as recommendations for conduct in general. So you see, good behavior can be encouraged by pure science -- with personal happiness being the ultimate motivator.
And you're quite right -- once we discard religion (not any particular religion, but the very notion thereof!), then we are likely to have far fewer fanatics in the world -- and far less misery, and far more reason.
<hr>
Boris, I'm not sure how it Sociology would be as effective as Religion is today. Religion keeps the world from going sociopathic, and I'm not so sure if any kind of Sociology could replace what Religion prevents.
MaTTo
Sociopathy is a psychological phenomenon; it has nothing to do with world views. In fact, there are such extreme sociopaths within religious and sectarian folds, that they rather belong in a mental institution before they decide to burn alive in the name of armageddon.
I claim that mental balance and psychological strength can be derived with greater fidelity from sources that have a demonstrably clearer message and obviously solid foundations. Religion is, and always will be, a presumptious attempt at mind-control; as such it will never succeed. I believe that character and virtue can be built by argument alone -- because when someone is convinced through an argument of a certain behavioral virtue, they ought to take the advice more seriously than someone who has been irrationally indoctrinated through metaphysical handwaving and pseudo-divine authority -- with seemingly arbitrary, and often culturally biased, beliefs.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Dumaurier:
It is a strange claim indeed that all animals who are not already sentient are doomed forever from reaching the heights we have reached. It is also rather questionable to assume that we ourselves have reached the pinnacle of evolution. Time has not stopped; and neither has the evolutionary process. The very existence of different skin colors, blood types, body factors and genetic peculiarities among various (until recently secluded) populations of the globe attests to the on-going process of genetic reshuffling and evolutionary branching. Although the recent advances in technology have breached the geological barriers that have kept the various populations apart, and thus are even now helping to annul the genetic variability homo sapiens has obtained over the last few dozen millennia, there is no reason to assume we shall stop evolving -- even because a rather obvious new evolutionary route has been opened to our species by the very technology that is bringing an end to the natural human evolution. It is my belief that our species will continue to evolve through self-modification, and even possibly also through cybernetic enhancement.
I do not contest your claim that presently humans are the most sophisticated species on the planet. However, that still leaves our status suspect at larger scales (e.g. our galactic, or perhaps even stellar, neighbourhood). Also, even now our status could change drastically. It has been shown that in the case of nuclear war, or massive astronomical disaster, we would likely become extinct -- and the insect species will inherit the earth from us, just as the mammals once did from the dinosaurs. Thus, even now the possibility cannot be ruled out that within another 500 million years the Earth wouldn't be teeming with sentient and rather self-important descendants of the modern cockroach...
<hr>
Self-control is not unique to humans. Higher primates have been known to suppress their feelings in social circumstances; for example, it has been observed that chimps engage in self-conscious deception -- i.e. they can rather purposefully deceit somebody else, being fully aware of what they are doing. They also are able to subsume anger or hatred, for example when they are playing submissive to the pack leader. (By the way, this latter degree of self-control is even present in such lowly animals as wolves.)
What is unique to us is the <u>degree</u> of our self-control. But what truly sets us apart is not self-control; it is our ability to rationalize the world, as well as our actions. (Though I must say I am not entirely correct. You see, as far as evolutionary advances go, there is never a clear black/white delineation between abilities. Rather, what one observes is a steady ramp. So, I would think it reasonable to suspect that certain higher animals as well are able to rationalize the world and their own life to a certain extent, albeit not in words, and by far not to the esoteric degree that we can.)
But self-control is not the central issue here; it is the foundations of moral behavior that initially triggered this digression. My claim is that self-control has nothing to do with morality; it is our emotions (behavior modulated by the more anscient parts of our brains -- instinct if you will) that encourage mutual benevolence. Those of us who are aggressive and antisocial tend to find themselves isolated, which is not emotionally satisfactory. There is a rather natural tendency toward compassion and reciprocity, at least within a certain circle of friends or relatives, in order to be accepted into the group and have company.
Self-control in itself plays no role in generating moral principles (although unquestionably it is a useful tool for enforcing those principles). Certain serial killers, brutal dictators and unethical scientists, to wit, have been known to exercise a good deal of self-control, nevertheless woefully failing in their moral stature. Neither religion, nor self-control, nor punitive law could ever exterminate the moral deviants from our midst -- we can force them into hiding, or into wearing masks, but we cannot change what they are. It is my hope that socially harmful behavior stems from lack of comprehension of the bigger picture, from lack of vision beyond the self, and lack of empathy for others. While the last could only be hoped to be cured with drugs in a general case (and psychological intervention within a more limited range), the rest could potentially be countered through reasoned confrontation and forced self-reexamination.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
learner
07-13-99, 03:22 AM
boris,
this is why religion has a role as these are matters not exclusive to the brain. on one hand religion purports the model of ethic -
it is also a matter of the Spirit. often a reference to god is a reference to harmonious action with the Spirit (however the interpretation usually is obscured) ; this biding by the principal which you have stated -consideration of others rather then mainly the self. it is true that some practices are dogma however zen buddhism is nondogmatic. this is an approach which is very much like your 'ascertained' hope. it is funny ... the diversity of religion is quite like terminology - in that definitions may weave in and out of a particular context. however, the ultimate goal is enlightenment.
and this is the foundation of the 'term' faith. faith in god, faith in numbers .
dumaurier
07-13-99, 04:08 AM
Boris,
Please excuse my redundency: please, when objecting to my posts, or underlining any particular issue with which you invite me to participate in its further elaboration, quote my words so that i may know exactly what you are referring to.
This would really be appreciated. Thank you.
------------------
dumaurier
dumaurier
07-13-99, 04:52 AM
Matto:
I recall in one of your posts you seemed to be saying that science and religion go hand-in-hand to which i responded by applauding this excellent of ideas.
Now, in response to one of Boris' posts, you shed further light on this by stating that "Science *can*, and *does* specify moral codes -- the particular science I'm talking about is called 'Sociology'."
Again, i must applaud your keen observations!!! It goes without saying that where religion is practiced without science it becomes superstition, and where science is practiced without religion, it becomes gross materialism with absolutely no meaningful goal for the human race in general. Sociology, Psychology, Social Work and the general helping sciences are all in favour of bringing a balance in people's lives. Their purpose is lofty, noble, and these scientists all work for the betterment of mankind (yes, i know there are bad apples in every basket, but we must look to the good, not the bad).
You are quite right when you say that
"...once we discard religion (not any particular religion, but the very notion thereof!), then we are likely to have far fewer fanatics in the world -- and far less misery, and far more reason."
What humanity requires is that sort of belief that is reasonable, accords to reason, is devoid of superstition, beliefs which do not disrupt the general order with sensational outburst of fanatical claims, and is based on empty and illusory gods come from the ephemeral imaginations of the ignorant! We need lofty principles upon which to base our beliefs---principles like: the unfettered investigation of truth; the oneness of mankind; universal peace; the abandonment and elimination of racial, religious, worldly and political prejudices, prejudices which destroy the foundation of mankind; righteousness and justice; the betterment of morals and heavenly education; the equality of the rights between men and women; the diffusion of knowledge and education on a world scale; fairness and justice with regards economic questions; the creation of an auxiliary universal language taught in every nation of the world; and so on and so forth.
Now, none of these things can come about through the power of religion alone. Nay! Religion and science are to come together that all these wonderful aims may be realized in the world of being.
In the world today there is a religion with about 5 million adherents scattered in every country of the world which actually believes and strives to concretize just such beliefs. These people call themselves "Baha'is" and their religion is called the "Baha'i Faith." This relatively new world religion is founded upon the unity of science and religion and upon investigation of truth. They uphold the principle that religion must be the cause of amity, union and harmony among men but that without the assistance of science these things cannot be. They establish the equality of both sexes and propound economic principles which are for the happiness of individuals. They diffuse universal education, that every soul may as much as possible have a share of knowledge. They abrogate and nullify religious, racial, political, patriotic and economic prejudices and the like. Such teachings, i believe, are the cause of the illumination and the life of the world of humanity.
------------------
dumaurier
dumaurier
07-13-99, 05:43 AM
learner,
In your post you write that &q