God..YES Religion..NO.

OK first of all,

what the hell was this:

It's too bad you're an asshole, because I LOVE thought-provoking discussions and lively debate, but I won't usually debate a prick.

BUT what the hell, I'm having fun..........

I DO think that there is one true answer and that we just don't understand it and are all trying to describe it differently. I think someone can know god through patterning his life after Jesus and I think Jews have their own way of worshipping God, which doesn't include Jesus. I think that both are valuable, important, meaningful --but different-- ways in which to worship
whatever God is. Knowing the one true answer and the existance of one true answer are two seperate deals.

 

Lets try this:

Katie is in kindergarden. She sees an advanced algebraic equation. Just because she doesn't know the answer to it doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. Get me? She may understand bits and pieces of it... Hey, that's a 2!!! But she doesn't get the whole equation, or see the big picture, she has a limited understanding of part of the whole.

I'm gonna reply to some other of your stuff, too, but I'm trying to reply quickly since you're online.

 

Jatom

Incorrect.. occam has no 'religion'
Do not call occams method a religion.
A religion is a set of beliefs based in precontemporary writing.
[literature or handed down beliefs]
Occam does not base his opinions on any ONE set of thouhts.
His thoughts on higher direction are WHOLEY based on BASE
information about reaity.
That information is empirical and also conceptual.

You say empirical information fails by it's own criteria
Yes . By certain standards it does.
But those standards are ALL we have to chose by.
One must say WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE MATRIX

If we do not. Then empirical observation is


VALID


Occam

 

"also - why can't there be one absolute religion? Is it not possible to be wrong? In natural scince and math there is only one correct answer - also in history - why not religion? Why is it different? What if my religion centered around killing every 10 year boy on the third tuesday of each month and your religion told you it was wrong to kill in the first place? Are they both true? are they both false? is one true and one false or vice-versa? How do you reconcile this. More realistically, and i think Jatom will agree, What if i'm a jew and i say Jesus was not the messiah and you're a Chrsitain and you say he was? We both can't be right can we? Certainly either Jesus either was or he wasn't. Is there a third possibility? Oh, yeah, right - we're all God and i'll accept that to a certain extent - but that is either/or both/and theism/pantheism thing is a whole other dilema -"


Occam asks the exact same questions

Religion is RIFE with contradiction.
Contradiction means...LIES

Religion is ABSOLUTELY POPULATED WITH LIES.

The Bible is a book of contradictions. Lies

The first LIE IS.. That it is the word of god.

CRAP
The bible is the word of god because it says it is??????
Thus god wrote the bible because the bible said he did???

That is a circular logical position

HUMANS wrote the bible
We know they did.and only a fool would say we did not.

No human can show that god wrote it,
Thus it is a story for the foolish.
As is most religion.
Stories for those that cannot tell a story from reality

THAT, is the general level of human cognitive abillity

Occam

 

"How can a religion be new? Is this to say God is new? No, you must be saying God is always God, but the new religion, is finally the true way of seeing it? Are you saying there is one absolute true religion? Or are they all true?"

By 'new,' Hikaru meant that he now believes in this religion. Though Hikaru is hesitant to call it a religion ... as it is focused around spirituality, and it is likely that few other people believe as he does.



"Oh wait, you are a pantheist. So you are God, right? So then, you must know the answer. Please enlighten me. Am i God also?"

No. Hikaru is not a pantheist.

Pantheist, no.
PanENtheist, yes.

You claim that pantheists are God, as they believe that the entire universe is a/the manifestation of God. In this case, a pantheist would only be a very small, finite part of what may very well be an infinite God. Thus, this description of a pantheist *being* God is inaccurate.

A panentheist is similar to a pantheist; however, panentheists believe that while their bodies may very well be created from 'God' him/herself, there is a latent sentient spiritual presence that exists everywhere in this universe (an omnipotent spirit), and that presence is 'God,' whereas our spirits are separate from 'God.' Thus, we are NOT in fact 'God.'

Hikaru refuses to further call this entitiy 'God.' Calling the entity such leads to many misconceptions. Hikaru prefers to call this entity Gaia, named from the Greek goddess of the Earth.



"Of course a religion can be new. THere are always going to be new ways of trying to describe God and new systems to help offer solutions to the complexities of life and issues that face mankind."

SingflowerCat brings up a good point. Religions are ALWAYS new, as they are concoctions of mankind. No religion is exactly the same for two people; not even Christianity. Every person has their own interpretation. In this sense, a religion is "new" every time their interpretation of a "religion" changes.



"You'll have to lose the attitude to become enlightened. True enlightenment comes from earnest seeking... you may not come to the same conclusions as I have, but you'll never hear me making snide remarks about your beliefs like you just did in your post, something about it really showed your true character."

Enlightenment is not taught. Enlightenment is found. To ask for enlightenment from another person is like asking for money from a homeless person; it cannot be given, only found or perhaps bestowed by Gaia/God/what-have-you.



"SingflowerCat, I find this utterly impossible. How is one to seperate "religion" from God? Any atempt to speak or even conceive of God is one's way of trying to explain Him, and thus he or she would be following some sort of religion be it institutionalized or personal. But, perhaps you can clear this up?"

I shall clear this up, Jatom. Religion has a concoction called 'God. 'Spirituality without bias towards religion can ALSO lead to believe in a so-called 'God.' Thus, God is not partial to religion alone, and is separate; though religion and God are always found together. Religion is lower on the heirarchy; 'God' exists in all religion, but religion does not exist in all that we discuss about 'God.'



"Absolute Truth, or Absolute truths?"

Jatom, he is talking about collective truth, not just "a truth" in general. =)



"In natural scince and math there is only one correct answer - also in history - why not religion? Why is it different?"

In science and mathematics, there is only one correct answer. In history, there is only one correct answer. In religion, THERE IS ALSO ONLY ONE CORRECT ANSWER. =)

I could walk up to you and say that 2 + 2 equals 5. This is INCORRECT. However, for me to say this, when I truthfully know that 2 + 2 is equal to 4, that would make me a dogmatist.

However, nobody knows TRUTH, when religion is concerned.

It is "the never-ending math problem" that nobody has been able to solve.

Billions of people have said that x + y (religion) is 6, 7, 22, 1678, and even 0. However, we do not know what the correct answer to this problem is, as nobody has been able to solve it to find out what the correct answer.

This is why religion seems not to have a single correct answer.

 

Thats funny, because I think that a person who believes that a man died and three days later rose from the dead and ascended from earth up into heaven sounds like a nimrod. (Of course I don't run around telling every christian that. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs)

Also, insulting people because they are different than you makes you sound like a nimrod.


To me, both Razorofoccamand Hikaru Zero have been carrying on interesting conversation, and have made some thought-provoking statements. Far from sounding like nimrods.

And I think his point about the Bible is...it was written by humans 3,000+ years ago, who had far less knoweldge of science and the universe/earth as a whole. It is bound to be fallible. It is also so vague and filled with so many contradictions that it can be interpreted however one would like, allowing it to minupulate socities, regardless of their place in time. (but please, occam, correct me if this was not your point.)

But all that is slowly fading as science moves further.

 

You said to proceed, does this mean that I convinced one or both of you to seperate God and religion and that they are not one and the same?

I sort of need a yes here to proceed with my arguments. But I'll offer them anyway....

Most Christians (or at least the fine print in their particular denomination's systems of belief, or religion) believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired, infallable, word of God. That is, that it was written by men, but under direct inspiration from God, he told them in some way what to say and therefore the Word of God is perfect and can not possibly contain any contradictions or untruths.

I don't really get into the Bible debate of whether is was written through divine inspiration or not. I think it could have been... maybe these men were men who thought so much about god and spiritual matters, that they had a burning need and desire to write it down for others, and God (my definition-- the loving and creative force of the universe that is a part of us all) was with them as they listened to their own spirit/heart/innervoice and were thus inspired as they wrote. I've definately written before and felt "inspired." Who knows. anyway this particular debate over who wrote the bible, god or god-inspired men doesn't really even matter to me. It's one of those things that seems relatively unimportant to me.

Regardless, I think that Jesus was definately a man who came into the world to show us all by example a wonderful way of life that included love for everyone, even the outcasts of society...

I'm going to touch on this one again just to make sure I've gotten it out of the way.... Please also see previous post

It is possible and one true religion must exist if God does exist (one true religion = the right way of describing and worshipping God) but mankind as a whole hasn't yet stumbled upon it, in my opinion. We are just putting together the puzzle, and someday all of the pieces may fit and we'll be able to see the whole picture.

Peace out, my crazy homies...................................................
CSF

 

Not sure if I agree. Who's to say that if some sort of "god" exists, that it even cares about religion. You don't see other forms of life around us practicing anything like religion. What makes you think that the "god" made us more important to him, or that we have the obligation other life doesn't.

I think you are getting the very basic christian belief that Humans are made in the image of god, or basically that humans are some sort of stand-out in the universe mixed into the idea of a universal god.

Basically, why worship?

 

I didn't say that god cared about religion, which I define once again according to Websters as

,
we are just talking about the existance of religion. For example, we can try to accurately describe and scientifically discern facts about the wind, but I'm sure the wind doesn't care. Just because it doesn't care doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that I can't try to understand or describe it. By the same token, perhaps God doesn't care and perhaps he/she/it does, but whether or not God cares can't stop us from trying to understand and describe the phenomenon.

 

But by your own definition then, one true religion cannot exist.

My point is, religion and god are two completely seperate things. Scientifically discerning facts about the wind isn't religion.

 

It's very frustrating sometimes trying to put my thoughts into words,.

I'm gonna try to anyway:

You said that by my own definition one true religion cannot exist.

I still hold that if God exists then there must be one "true" way to describe him, her, it, whatever. Right:? Do you agree with this?

And if there is one true way to describe God, then by very definiition there must be one true religion.

My thoughts are that most religions today are simply attempts to grapple with the issue of what God is. Many hold iimportant lessons for people, but the one "true" religion, at least to me cannot be kjnown because we CANT know at this point what God is.

Does this make sense? Do you still think I'm contradicting myself, because I honestly don't think that I am.

Peace.

 

Religion is a cop-out for ppl who are too lazy or too scared to talk to God themselves.

 

I sho 'nuf tend to believe that too! I think we should outlaw all churches and make it illegal to talk to any about God and force the people who have a yearing to know God figure him/it/her out for themselves!!!!!!

'course I'm only kidding about outlawing churches and taking away free speech.

:sunglasse

 

yeah i really dont like the idea of .. like churches and stuff. They piss me off , because I used to go to them, and they were just messed up. I do believe in god though.. just not in the way that churches do..

 

"PS - why the hell do you two insits on referring to yourselves in the third perons - you sound like a pair of nimrods" - Karl Hungus
and
"Also, insulting people because they are different than you makes you sound like a nimrod." - Sera Michele

Karl: If you wish to know why Hikaru and Occam refer to themselves in the third person, send Hikaru a private message and he will explain all.

Hikaru also wants to point out that arguments, statements, and questions all have the same meaning whether or not they are put into a particular point of view. If you are having trouble distinguishing the meanings behind this "nimrod" speech, perhaps you are not meant to be on this particular thread.

Hikaru also suggests that you do not discriminate based on the point of view that people refer to themselves in. There is a good reason for such a point of view, and before dismissing it as nimrodic (if that is a word ...), perhaps you ought to find out the answer. For Hikaru believes that discrimination based on point of view is equally nimrodic.

"Regardless, I think that Jesus was definately a man who came into the world to show us all by example a wonderful way of life that included love for everyone, even the outcasts of society..." - SingflowerCat

Jesus existed. This is very probable.

In fact, may other faiths that do not worship him as the Saviour even agree that he did exist; just not that he was the Saviour. They also agree that he did many miraculous things.

Hikaru believes similarly that Jesus is not a "Saviour," but is more of a Buddha-figure, in that he was a wise man with a strong will to do good things. Hikaru has much respect for Jesus due to this, despite the fact that he is not Christian.

 

SingflowerCat, I was merely using your definition of religion. You said:

"Learn to seperate RELIGION from GOD. God is the higher power, or the creative force of the universe. Different religions are man's way of trying to explain it."

I was pointing out that what you ask is imposible. Let me put it this way:

1. All attempts to explain God in any way are a form of religion (see your quote above)
2. The concept that God can be seperated from religion is an explaination of God (namely, that He can be seperated from religion)
3. Therefore the concept that God can be seperated from religion, is itself a form of religion.

Of course going off of this, it can be taken deeper:

1. All religions are manmade
2. Any concept of God is a form of religion
2. Therefore any concept of God is manmade.

So any talk of God becomes a form of religion, including the sentences "Learn to seperate RELIGION from GOD" and "God is the higher power, or the creative force of the universe." since they are both explaining something about God.

Samething here SingflowerCat, any talk about God, or about x, y, or q, becomes a form of religion and it becomes impossible to seperate God from religion.

You'll have the explain this one further.

 

I don't think all authority rests with webster, but it helps to have definitions for words because words are all we have. If we can't agree on the meaning of words, then debates have a hard time moving forward. It just seemed easier to go to the dictionary for the definition, then move on.

Once again I say (lovingly ) that you're a prick.

You must really have some issues with loving yourself because usually only people with poor self esteem continually lash out at others. And with that, I am done responding to you. If there is anyone else out there that wants to carry on civil debate, I would love to.

P.S. and I'm no guy, I'm 100% woman. Just to let you know.

 

"how is Jesus more like a Buddha-figure?" - Karl Hungus

This is merely Hikaru's opinion. Not in that Buddha and Jesus preached the same thing, but in that both were and still are inspirations to humanity because of the things they both said and did. And both ought to be respected for such.

"great - i'd love to email hikaru - do you have his email address?" - Karl Hungus

You may reach Hikaru at hikaruzero@snine.net. He will be much obliged to answer any questions. =) You may also send him a private message on the forums, if that is easier for you.

"Quote:
Macro/Micro... One Absolute Truth with many truths within it? Maybe?
I lean towards Truth, singular.
I don't profess to have it all exactly figured out. I'm enjoying thinking about your questions.

You'll have the explain this one further." - Jatom

What is being asked here is whether this is a reference to Truth, or to a few truths. That is, whether the reference is towards one or more truths, or the collective body of all truths that is "Truth."

 

Look the post I made right above yours.

P.S. I'm glad to see you're 100% woman, and not 50/50 or something like that...

 

Jatom,

I stillsay that God and religion are 2 seperate entities that are closely related, but not one and the same.

In my very first response to this thread I wrote:

Just because 2 things usually go together doesn't mean that they are the same thing. (Love and marriage for example) Religion is definately created by man, do you agree with this? TO take it a step further, Do you believe that we created God? You may, if you believe he exixts as only our perception of him (I use the "he" here just out of habit and from my very strict fundamentalist upbringing, I could just as well use she or it, 'cause we really don't know do we?). I believe a higher force exists outside of our perception of it. And if we did not create god as we created religion, they are 2 separate things. (The word separate is driving me crazy, I don't know if I've been spelling it right....!!!!!!!)

I like the idea of thinking that some sort of energy of perfect love is the sustaining force of everything... the controlling glue that makes things tick and evolve.

I don't know how actively involved in our lives this force is... but I think that if we try to quietly listen and attune ourselves with it and try to become sincerely, genuinely altruistic, then we begin to see the 'oneness' of things. At least things for me began to click when I began thinking this way. Jesus and Buddha were both people who we so in tune with this energy of perfect love that they sparked major religions. I'm sure both would be so grieved to know the religions of man based on their lives had caused so many wars and deaths.

I believe in tolerance for ALL religions... OK, OK, I know someone will say what if my religion says to kill, blah,blah,blah... you know what I mean. Some things we have to know are wrong. And I guess knowing exactly where to draw the line would be troublesome.

I really do see what you're getting at here. I guess my original statement about separating God and religion was to say that many people automatically discount or despise God based on the things modern religions have done-- or specifically, religious people. It's not god's fault that people have done some crazy things in his name. So hate organized religion if you want, but don't hate god. 'cause I think they are separate. One god, soooooooooooooooooooooo many different religions.

OOhh since I'm talking about god, I guess that's my new religion! I like it.

You're saying that you can't seperate them because they invariably always end up together, and I'm saying that you can separate them because even thought they always end up together, they are still two separate things, Something, and A Way To Describe Something.

Peace. I really enjoy reading everyone's ideas, and sorry I got so frustrated with Karl Hungus.

And Sorry this is the longest thread ever!

Y'all have a good day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!