How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Just Who Is This God   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Just Who Is This God

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


0 posted 08-25-2007 07:20 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

weíre supposed to be worshiping?
Sometimes I get the impression of
a cosmic Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Science has gone countless miles and
not found him.  Millenniums have gone
without credible miracles to evidence his existence.

What apart some faith in fear of absolute death
convinces anyone He or She who or what ever
is even there?

Would a compassionate Vulcan do as well?


.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


1 posted 08-26-2007 03:44 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

God is God.

What more do you want?    

Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


2 posted 08-29-2007 08:54 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion

God is who ever you want it to be.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


3 posted 08-29-2007 09:38 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Yeah right.  He needs your permission.
MegMeg
Member
since 05-14-2007
Posts 85
Virginia


4 posted 09-17-2007 05:59 PM       View Profile for MegMeg   Email MegMeg   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for MegMeg

God is a trinity of three persons, who are vastly beyond our comprehension. He created everything, God was God is God will be, He made man in his own image. He tries to help us out by sending the bible, if you would like the complete answer i would suggest reading between genesis and exodus. I'm not trying to be snotting just trying to help you out, the bible can give a better and more complete defintion or idea than i can.
MegMeg
Member
since 05-14-2007
Posts 85
Virginia


5 posted 09-17-2007 06:07 PM       View Profile for MegMeg   Email MegMeg   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for MegMeg

Aww... but science has not not found him either. Unfortanitely, andjust because science has not fouind him does not mean that others have not found him, I for example, have a good idea where He is.

"What apart some faith in fear of absolute death convinces anyone He or She who or what ever is even there?"
Well first off God is a He, or least that's how He is referred to in the bible. again He is beyond human comprehension.
There has to be God or some source of ultimate power, th ebig bang for instance, what made atoms that collide? God. hello. The human body and all nature is just amazingly fantastic that something or someone had to have created or made it or whatever. seriously look at your hand for a moment see all lines on your slin, it's truly amazing.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


6 posted 09-18-2007 02:08 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

It's pretty tough to talk rationally about a delusion.  All one can do is add yet another gloss on a fantasy.  Explications of the nature of "God" fail because they require an untenable apriori assumption.

And yet (and here come the famous caveats) it is possible to experience an epiphany, or awakening.  It's hard to say for certain what that's all about.

Second, if you ask yourself the question "What creates?" it leads you down some intersting rat holes.

If I remember correctly, Kurt Vonnegutt's Tralfamadorians had a habit of raising their arms over their heads, waggling their fingers, and saying "Busy Busy."  It was their way of acknowledging that there's a whole lot of stuff going on out there that we don't know too much about.

How about a compassionate Tralfamadorian?

Jim
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


7 posted 09-18-2007 03:38 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Explications of the nature of "God" fail because they require an untenable apriori assumption.


Not if God has acted within time-space-history.  If so, then concepts like divine character become game for rational discourse.  And by the way, atheism is also a presupposition which many are sure is untenable.  The a priori assumption that the non-personal gave rise to the personal, presents quite a difficulty to "rational" thought as well.  


Ravi Zacharias was speaking with a particular group of scientists who confidently referred to their own particular cosmology as "scientific", and the religious worldview as "unscientific".  Of course the predominate "sceintific" view is that everything originated from a singularity which exploded giving rise to our universe.  When Ravi asked them if a singularity is where the laws of physics break down, they responded "yes".  "Then technically your starting point isn't scientific either." Ravi repied.  After some awkward silence, one of them said "We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don't."  That says it all.      


A presuppositional circle is unavoidable.  The question is, which circle is right.  Which circle makes most sense of the data we have, and who we are?  G.K. Chesterton put it this way, "A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity".


I would just like to put to rest the idea that the Christian worldview shamefully involves "circular reasoning" while the secular is open and quite evidentiary.  The truth is, something has to be tacitly accepted, before anything else can be tested.


BTW,

It's good to see you around again Jim.



Stephen.  
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


8 posted 09-18-2007 06:21 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Stephen  "Not if God has acted within time-space-history."  Thats the untenable assumption.

"And by the way, atheism is also a presupposition which many are sure is untenable."  To which one can only reply, "So What?"  A problem with one presupposition doesn't negate a problem with another.

Ravi Zacharias is a tough sell.  With his blend of Eastern/Western mysticism, he's one of the more interesting radio preachers, but his thinking isn't exactly up there with Kant or Schopenhauer.

"The truth is, something has to be tacitly accepted, before anything else can be tested."  The only thing that has to be tacitly accepted is that something can be tested.

It's hard for me to accept atheism as well, but it would be ludicrous to throw out science in favor of superstition. Science can often be wrong, but superstition can only be wrong.

In the end, it's pretty much whatever gets you through the night, and we're free to choose our own favorite fairy tales.  Pragmatism can be pretty appealing.

You have the patience of a saint, Steven, except there aren't any.   Jim

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


9 posted 09-18-2007 08:07 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jim:
quote:
Hi Stephen  "Not if God has acted within time-space-history."  Thats the untenable assumption.


It's not an assumption.  History (even divine history) can be spoken of like any other history, with its ambiguities and certainties.  I wouldn't believe the New Testament to be true if I thought it was merely made up by some over zealous Jew (the most unlikely type of person who would make such a thing up).  So I'll ask you specifically why you think (for example) that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are untenable, and if you're willing to discuss that you may have a point.  Until then "untenable" is an allegation.

quote:
"And by the way, atheism is also a presupposition which many are sure is untenable."  To which one can only reply, "So What?"  A problem with one presupposition doesn't negate a problem with another.


Agreed.  Only I'm not conceding that the two are equally problematic.  And, I'm willing to discuss why.  Actually, my only point to you was that your statement about "untenable" presuppositions is an easy thing to say.  I just wanted to make sure you are aware of the difficulties involved with the alternatives.

And no, that's not an admission of egalitarianism of world-views.

quote:
Ravi Zacharias is a tough sell.  With his blend of Eastern/Western mysticism, he's one of the more interesting radio preachers, but his thinking isn't exactly up there with Kant or Schopenhauer.


With all due respect, I'm not trying to "sell" Ravi.  Though he's a choice thinker and Christian apologist in my opinion, I used him to communicate an idea.  You didn't respond to the idea, but rather made an unwarranted comparison to two humanistic philosophers.  And while those two you mentioned have my respect for their legacy, I tend to respond to their ideas one by one rather than making generalizations.  And to be honest, if someone like you or even Brad (wink) made a statement that was correct where Kant or Shopenhaur was wrong (and believe me, their works are vulnerable to criticism), I wouldn't point out that they were more renown than us lil ol pipsters.  I would address the thought, giving assent where assent is due.  Ravi is a formidable thinker ... but let's say I concede he's no more than a swine with a microphone.  Ever heard the saying that "even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and again"?  Let's talk about ideas.

quote:
"The truth is, something has to be tacitly accepted, before anything else can be tested."  The only thing that has to be tacitly accepted is that something can be tested.


Ever looked into "Philosophy of Science"?  Much more than that is tacitly accepted ... such as uniformity of nature.  The only way science can answer David Hume's devastating critique is to admit that science also (rightly) has preconditions that are simply accepted rather than proved.  In fact, without this we can't even be sure if "something can be tested".

quote:
It's hard for me to accept atheism as well, but it would be ludicrous to throw out science in favor of superstition.


I agree.  The question here is whether the Biblical God is tenable, whether or not the Judeo-Christian religion is superstition, or more substantive.  The Scientific age, as a whole, flourished under Christian Scientists (Pascal, Bacon, etc ...) who believed God personal and rational enough to fashion a creation that is at least partially comprehensible to the human mind.  No, Christianity in it's better moments has not advised any to "throw out science".  There is, however, a proper sphere for science, and a proper sphere for theology.  They have their own respective fields which overlap, but are not the same.  

quote:
Science can often be wrong, but superstition can only be wrong.


Right.  The only caveat is that when superstition is not wrong, it ceases to be superstition.  Tolkien and Lewis had no problem calling Christianity a myth, with all the emotive and aesthetic power of other myths, with the difference of being historically true.  That might explain why myths speak to us one one hand, and disappoint us on the other.  Perhaps they were shadows, intimations, and portents.  Intriguing thought.

quote:
In the end, it's pretty much whatever gets you through the night, and we're free to choose our own favorite fairy tales.  Pragmatism can be pretty appealing.


The night is much longer than 12 hours, and I have no problem thinking that truth turns out to be pragmatic as well.  I'm not poking fun here, I do understand.  

quote:
You have the patience of a saint, Steven, except there aren't any.


Is that scientific?  Like you said, you're free to believe your own fairy tale.  Would you really want to believe that one though?  I'm not suggesting desire is indicative of truth.  But sometimes it is.  Appetite sure presupposes nourishment, as thirst does water.  Why do you even want to believe that people have more purpose here than biding their time until personal then cosmic extinction?  


Stephen.    

oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


10 posted 09-19-2007 04:22 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Stephen!  Shoot!  I just deleted an absolutely brilliant response.  Maybe God's mad at me.  

Here's the short form:  

1.  Jesus was a historical person and a great teacher.  The divinity part is still up for grabs.  You know the arguments:  you have to believe, suspending rationality, in something along the lines of the Nicean Creed, the a priori thing, to accept the Virgin Birth for starters, and it doesn't get any easier from there.

2.  I do think people do have a purpose beyond killing time before the inevitable.  We're here to help each other out. Not everybody "gets" that one.  A whole bunch of people seem to think we're here to knock each other off.

3.  Hume was a dour old Scot who got ticked off at his Presbyterian heritage, and couldn't let it go.  He was great at ticking off everybody else in return.

4. You do yourself a disservice in otherwise excellent arguments by limiting your world view in these discussions.  Most of the people on our planet think Christians are malignant crackpots.  The Chinese and Ottoman Turks for example, had a straightforward approach.  They just killed 'em.

5.  I think people are hard wired to create mythologies.  In archeology, one of the ways of  trying to determine when hominids got human-er, is to notice burial artifacts an indication of systemized ritual.  Myth making probably predates these as well since ephemeral artifacts rot quicker than bones.  This relates back to an implication of Johnís original posts.  Weíre one of the few species aware of our own mortality, and it doesnít seem particularly fair.  Myths speak to us because weíre all in the same boat.

6.  If this life is all there is, and nobody is keeping score, why is that so scary to so many people of so many different faiths?  I donít know, but it seems pretty pervasive.  

7.  When you and I allude to philosophers, Christ-centered or otherwise, without quoting chapter and verse, itís shorthand between people who have read beyond the comic book stage.

8.  I think I was pretty clear that I have a wee bit more respect for Ravi Zacharias than some of the other radio ranters.  I was tempted, as a joke, to send you an 33rpm copy of Billy James Hargis carrying on.  He loves Jesus so much he just canít help hating everybody else.  But then, heís a dead  horse, or at least the dead hind end of a horse.

9.  When I seem to be flippant, I am.  Itís just an attempt to cut through the clutter.

10.  On the TV chat show, The View, one of the hosts stated flatly that she didnít  believe in evolution.  Another host asked her if she thought  the world was flat.  The response:  ďWell, I really havenít thought about it.Ē  One of TVís more surreal moments.  Unfortunately, these troglodytic notions and basic ignorance persist, and  cause even a lot of mainstream Christians to rend their garments in despair.

11.  Because I grew up as a practicing and involved Christian -- well, as involved as Presbyterians get, not a lot of speaking in tongues there -- I canít get past my own belief that there is something which creates.  But I donít think its something which we think it is.

12.  Iím not much of a fan of agnosticism either.  Smacks too much of hedging oneís bet.

13.  For years, Iíve been pondering Godís self description, ďI Am That I Am.Ē  If that ainít a mental backbreaker, I donít know what is.

14.  And to quote another grand scoundrel, Werner Erhardt, ďUnderstanding is the booby prize.Ē

15.  An appropriate response to this post might be:  ďThank goodness you lost the  long form.Ē


Very best as always, Jim

[This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (09-20-2007 01:33 AM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


11 posted 09-20-2007 02:16 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."


Stephen Crane


.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


12 posted 09-22-2007 02:31 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jim,

Whew, I just missed the long version eh?  My hand is already sore.  Quit it already!      

quote:
Jesus was a historical person and a great teacher.  The divinity part is still up for grabs.  You know the arguments:  you have to believe, suspending rationality, in something along the lines of the Nicean Creed, the a priori thing, to accept the Virgin Birth for starters, and it doesn't get any easier from there.


Actually if Jesus said anything like the things the gospels report him as saying, he was anything BUT a good teacher.  C.S. Lewis (and others) cover this in the Trilemma of Liar, Lunatic or Lord.  A good man wouldn't claim to be God.  A megalomaniac perhaps.


About the "suspending rationality" part, I must disagree.  Believing miracles are possible and that they have happened is not to "suspend rationality".  Not a few thinkers (among them Hume) have pointed out that there is no rational or logical necessity to the laws of nature as they stand ... only a recognition of repetition.  It could have been a whole lot different.  If this is so, then there is no real breach of logic involved in believing in miracles.  Now there is the important question of plausibility.  (all claims are not equally plausible)  For example, if the miracle of the Resurrection hadn't occurred, would it be reasonable to think that those who knew it didn't would die for such a hoax?  Second generation martyrs may die for a trifle (being indoctrinated), but not first who are privy.  Does the historical knowledge of how the Christian Church spread, fit the historical notion that these men stole a corpse and then went around proclaiming a bodily resurrection?  There are many other historical difficulties with the revisions that various skeptics have suggested.  It really is easier (though of course not without problems itself) to believe it happened as written.  But if we're really not neutral on the question of God, and heart-motives are involved as much as reasoning, it's not surprising that the intellectually difficult path of historical revision is chosen.  Freud recognized that our decisions are greatly attributed to the "irrational".  In this sense, Christianity agrees with him.  Rational snafus are no barrier to unbelief, any more than they are to belief.  That doesn't mean I'm an anti-rationalist.  It's just that logic, like everything else, has its place and limitation.  It's only reasonable to think so.         

quote:
I do think people do have a purpose beyond killing time before the inevitable.  We're here to help each other out. Not everybody "gets" that one.  A whole bunch of people seem to think we're here to knock each other off.


I, of course, agree with you.  But it does seem you are willing to impose your purpose on others, whether or not they are aware of it.  You're getting a bit transcendental aren't you?  Is purpose totally subjective or not?  I've got a feeling you'd like to say that murderers are being (really) immoral, not just choosing a different "purpose" according to themselves.


quote:
Hume was a dour old Scot who got ticked off at his Presbyterian heritage, and couldn't let it go.  He was great at ticking off everybody else in return.


I was referring to Hume's critique of science, not his critique of religion.  And, by the way, his thinking is sharp enough that his critique on either shouldn't be answered with a shrug and comment about his discontent.  That of course may be true, but his ideas are still ideas to be refuted or defended.  He's as sharp a thinker as Kant or Shopenhaur, judging from his influence in the world of philosophy.


My point was, that thanks to him, we see that science has presuppositions which were not ascertained scientifically.  Hume would ultimately doubt the propriety of this, and become an utter skeptic not even being assured of his own existence apart from sensory data.  I would differ and say that presuppositions are unavoidable, though we can choose the wrong ones.  


quote:
You do yourself a disservice in otherwise excellent arguments by limiting your world view in these discussions.  Most of the people on our planet think Christians are malignant crackpots.  The Chinese and Ottoman Turks for example, had a straightforward approach.  They just killed 'em.


Um, I don't understand what you're getting at here.  What do you mean by "limiting your worldview in these discussions"?  I thought that the subject of this thread was "Just Who is this God"?  A question begging for boundaries.  If you are simply saying that you think my view to narrow, I would respond with an Epigram from Chesterton ... that the object of opening the mind, like the mouth, is to close it again on something solid.


It would be good to ask why "most of the world" think Christians to be malignant Crackpots, and whether that is justifiable.  And if it is, based on their observations and experience, were the taken exemplars really practicing Christianity?  


quote:
I think people are hard wired to create mythologies.


Yes, but why?  Hard-wired is an engineering term, impying intent.  And that was my point.  From the Christian view of things, its easy to understand why the human heart is inclined to create things of beauty (even strange beauty) purpose, and meaning.  It is the hunger that presupposes food, even if men sometimes eat what is bad for them, or what simply gets them by, until something better is found.


quote:
Weíre one of the few species aware of our own mortality, and it doesnít seem particularly fair.


An imposition of justice upon an unguided evolutionary schema?  Or an admission of a real standard of justice, whether human or divine?

quote:
If this life is all there is, and nobody is keeping score, why is that so scary to so many people of so many different faiths?  I donít know, but it seems pretty pervasive.


Its not just "scary" to people of faith.  Have you delved much into existentialist literature, written by those who took Enlightenment humanism seriously enough to logically follow the conclusion?  They just substituted the traditional telos of "justified" with words like "authentic", but it's very much the same.  Whether you call it "angst", or the religious dread of Kirkigaard,  There's always been the unsettling (sometimes comforting) idea of a score-keeper.  Why should atheists pine over how they've lived, toward the end of their lives?  They're anxious about their own scorecard, which they say is temporal.  Something within seems to impress on them that its just a ragged copy of another, intractable.  Again, what is pervasive is by design, basic to humanity, and not at all limited to the religious.            

    
quote:
When you and I allude to philosophers, Christ-centered or otherwise, without quoting chapter and verse, itís shorthand between people who have read beyond the comic book stage.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  That we don't really know about the philosophers we are quoting or the opposite?  A quote, "without chapter and verse" can denote familiarity as well as a disguised unfamiliarity.  But I'm still unsure what you meant here by what you said.


quote:
I was tempted, as a joke, to send you an 33rpm copy of Billy James Hargis carrying on.  He loves Jesus so much he just canít help hating everybody else.  But then, heís a dead  horse, or at least the dead hind end of a horse.


I don't know who you're talking about, but I can relate.  I think it was Ravi who said you don't cut a man's nose off in order to try and get him to smell a rose.  

quote:
For years, Iíve been pondering Godís self description, ďI Am That I Am.Ē  If that ainít a mental backbreaker, I donít know what is.


Yeah, I think this reaches into the mystical and quite beyond the mental.  Again I am not an irrationalist, but the intellectual has its limits.  We need the mysticism of God.  Doctrine without it, is dead.  It's the difference between the "Logos" of John, and words as we know them, "clumsy and inflexible bricks" as Malcolm Muggeridge called them.  If a master painter of words can recognize their futility apart from experience, how much more a paint spiller like myself?


Enjoying the interchange,

Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


13 posted 09-22-2007 02:48 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

John, Christian Theology makes a distinction between God and the universe (or nature).  But even nature shouldn't be thought of so coldly.  The most pagan of thinkers and poets have noted how much she provides, and the strange fact that every good we've ever known has been mediated through our mother (even if she seems a step-mother).  Whether this comes of obligation or graciousness is another question.  

Stephen.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


14 posted 09-24-2007 02:47 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Stephen!  Not addressing anything in particular, thank goodness, but I also enjoy our exchanges because, at the very least, they speak to the possiblites of civilized discourse and amiable disagreement, which is possibly the point of P101.

Two side notes:  There's a chance I shouldn't be in here while on serious painkillers.  Or maybe i should only be in here while on serious painkillers.

The Reverend Billy James Hargis was a hyper-conservative preacher who thought, among other things, that the National Council of Churches was a communist front group.  You'll notice I didn't say "Christian," just "preacher."

Best, Jim
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


15 posted 09-24-2007 06:19 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Hi Stephen!  Not addressing anything in particular, thank goodness


This time, I think I'm glad.  My typist hands are recovering.  

I was going to respond earlier to your quip about God being mad at you, and say "nah, he was just being particularly kind to me."  


quote:
I also enjoy our exchanges because, at the very least, they speak to the possiblites of civilized discourse and amiable disagreement, which is possibly the point of P101.


That's no small thing, I'll agree.


Later,

Stephen
FatesWarning
Junior Member
since 12-27-2007
Posts 31


16 posted 12-30-2007 12:49 PM       View Profile for FatesWarning   Email FatesWarning   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for FatesWarning

Good morning all

If God (however defined) does exist, I don't think He or She or It would even care for any of us to worship Him or Her. To me, that is what a human would want.

Also, I believe that if this God would want us to behave a certain way, it all comes down to what is inside one's heart, not the following of any particular religious beliefs.

It is often too easy for people of different religions to judge others based upon what they believe through what they hold to be "God inspired" writings.

Let's all love each other without the labels.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


17 posted 12-30-2007 02:29 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Fateswarning:
quote:
If God (however defined) does exist, I don't think He or She or It would even care for any of us to worship Him or Her.  To me, that is what a human would want

Good afternoon!

Usually when a person "wants" worship (There were historical examples of this very thing, such as in the Emperor worship of the Roman Empire), we feel a distaste because of the incongruency of it all.  Humans pretending to a divine status of worship, is offensive because we all know they are fallen humans like ourselves.

However I think that to worship God would be different by nature of who he is, and his attributes.  In your opening statement you said "however defined".  But God has revealed himself as Holy, Righteous, Just, and Merciful.  These things in their superlative degree should warrant a worship that is not incongruent or unreasonable.

But it does depend upon a revelation of that divine character, otherwise a call to worship seems  pompous and conceited.  If you don't believe in such a revelation of God, then worship to you must be questionable.

quote:
Also, I believe that if this God would want us to behave a certain way, it all comes down to what is inside one's heart, not the following of any particular religious beliefs.


So if it is inside someone's heart to kill their neighbors and cannibalize them, would this be okay?  My point is, if you draw lines, then God is permitted to as well.  And you most definitely do.  Its not hard to conceive that God might communicate "particular religious beliefs" as his will, much in the same way you might communicate particular beliefs as what is moral and right.

quote:
It is often too easy for people of different religions to judge others based upon what they believe through what they hold to be "God inspired" writings.


Judging someone as wrong, or mistaken, is not necessarily the same thing as despising them.  And anyway, what you describe is not unique to those who believe in "God inspired" writings.  It seems to be a common malady of human nature to despise others.  But one need not become a relativist to avoid despising others.  Heck, I've met some relativists who were just as capable as anyone, of contemning people who happen to disagree.      


quote:
Let's all love each other without the labels.


Congratulations.  You just shared your first bit of ethical (if not religious) dogma.  Does telling people that all their "labels" (or distinctions) are meaningless really amount to love?


PS ... you're right about the "love" part.  I'm just pointing out to you that your disapproval of labels, leads to another kind of labeling.  You're either going to be a relativist indeed (and make no distinctions even about love or hate or anything else), or you're going to insist on a better path, which amounts to moralizing.  Sometimes there's nothing wrong with doing so.


Stephen.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


18 posted 12-30-2007 03:26 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
However I think that to worship God would be different by nature of who he is


So worship is different depending on he nature of god and who he is, but who is he Stephen? What is his nature exactly?

I donít mean what do you think his nature is or what some dead essayist or biblical scholar thinks God is, I donít mean what you believe heís like either, I mean what do you know beyond a reasonable doubt about your god?

How do you know how to worship a god whose nature you do not know?

TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


19 posted 12-30-2007 06:05 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

Hi, Grinch, Happy New year to you!
"How do you know how to worship a god whose nature you do not know?"

You always ask brilliant questions.

Worship is a behavior coming from genes.
Human worships all kind of things..
Up there, down there and around  here.

We, in general, don't know what we worship such as an atheist does not really know what he is worshiping as an atheist  because there is not a thorough knowledge or enough evidence to build  an atheist un-divine un-god  but he still proudly worship the un-divine un-god.

Human worship natures without even  the first scientist was born.

and worship Gold before first bank coming out.

why, we intend to  be controlled by anything because we are so incapable and have so many fears and we also worship heroes who saved our lives  and ancestors who pass life to us....which all brings out "humble".

John 4:22 "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."


Fateswarning, a warm welcome to this wonderful place and happy New Year to you!  

"Let's all love each other without the labels."

Can you do that? Can you turn your left cheek after being slapped on the right cheek?

You have to do a lot to love a loved one but what do you expect to love an unloved one?

[This message has been edited by TomMark (12-31-2007 01:06 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


20 posted 12-30-2007 06:07 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

If a man has thoughts or beliefs about something, then he must have knowledge about it to some extent.  For without knowledge about something, a man can't hold it in his mind and have thoughts or beliefs about it.  First he must know about something and hold it in his mind, and then he has special thoughts and beliefs.  Therefore ruling out thoughts and beliefs I think is a wrongful approach, for they are what reflect knowledge in one way or another.  To study thoughts and beliefs is also to see reflections of the kinds of knowledge they are based on, and therefore I think thoughts and beliefs are very relevant to any question about knowledge.


TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


21 posted 12-30-2007 06:16 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

Sir Essorant, You are not allowed to kill the cow in India. Do you think that they have not the knowledge that it is edible?   But when people worship a tree, a star, lightning, or a statue they have absolutely no knowledge of them.

[This message has been edited by TomMark (12-30-2007 07:34 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


22 posted 12-30-2007 07:01 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Tom,


No, I am just saying that people need to know about something first in order to have a belief about it too.  For example two men need to know about a cow in order to have beliefs about the cow.  But both knowing about the cow and that it is edible doesn't mean that both shall believe they should eat it.


TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


23 posted 12-30-2007 07:34 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

Sir essorant
"have beliefs about the cow" ? beside the milk and meat? and bone and horn? and skin? and what? tail?

Human gives anything a meaning then worship it.
This is man-made logic but not rationale logic.

now, you have knowledge of it, will you worship it?  

[This message has been edited by TomMark (12-31-2007 12:53 AM).]

FatesWarning
Junior Member
since 12-27-2007
Posts 31


24 posted 12-30-2007 08:02 PM       View Profile for FatesWarning   Email FatesWarning   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for FatesWarning

TomMark,

Thanks for the welcome.

I don't know if I can turn other cheek in every situation that would call for it, but I have done so in the past.

Sure, it easy to love those who love you. What I said was quite vague. What I am saying is that I don't believe in any particular religion, and that if there is a God, that God would make Himself/Herself be known to all the human race via a myriad of ways. What counts is what is inside one's heart.  

Stephanos,

Upon reading your replies in different threads, including this one, you seem to have all of the answers. Do you think that to be true?



 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Just Who Is This God   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors