0
   

Belief in God......

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 01:42 pm
@fresco,
I agree with that thesis; there's nothing wrong with spirituality without the attachment of any religion.

I will say in defense of the religious though that when they pray for their recovery from surgery or illness, they seem to recover at higher rates.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 02:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes it does seem that placebos do work as scince has seem to prove it so.

It is amazing how a suggestion can effect a biological outcome.
Maybe it is like a virus! "at times and the only thing that can help is rest and no stress. Maybe the placebo effect of sugestion helps to calm the person with the illness.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 02:15 am
Clearly there is a relationship between what we call "mind" and "body" as shown by the effectiveness of "curses" in some cultures. We often forget that both are "concepts" or products of "consciousness". Knowing that "the body" can be partially described by mechanical models does not exclude possible non-mechanistic aspects. (Maturana for example argues for "the intelligence" of some aspects of the immune system)
0 Replies
 
john2054
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 07:34 am
@fresco,
Hi Fresco, I wonder if in their pursuit for factual excellence if either of these two has ever set foot, and sat down in the inner sanctums of a temple other then a church, in their pursuit of the inner wisdoms of the different faiths. And by the way yeah I have visited both a mosque and hindu temple on a couple of occasions, and so yeah I am not a hypocrite. Of course these two already know enough about the religions without needing to study them from the insides out so to speak. Infact their knowledge is shallow as much as it is weak. It is easy to criticise something which one knows little about. Much harder to take apart something that one knows and loves. For that matter, Buddhism is a tremendously enlightening subject of interest to be studied alongside the Biblical Jehovah father figure. But I'm going on again. Peace.
0 Replies
 
john2054
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 07:41 am
@reasoning logic,
Hi reasoning, thanks for watching the vids. There are plenty more where they came from you know. The buildings were built specifically designed to withstand such a kind of attack. The fact that they fell, and in such a controlled manner, suggests that the internal steel support pillars in the buildings had been removed by internal demolition prior to the planes hitting them, so that when they did the buildings crumbled down like a house of cards. Obviously the perpetrators of this terrible crime should be caught and brought to justice, but the observant amongst us will quickly realise that there is more to meet the eye then the 'official' version of events. And the more you look into it, the creepier it gets. Take it easy John.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 09:34 am
@john2054,
john2054 wrote:

Hi reasoning, thanks for watching the vids. There are plenty more where they came from you know. The buildings were built specifically designed to withstand such a kind of attack. The fact that they fell, and in such a controlled manner, suggests that the internal steel support pillars in the buildings had been removed by internal demolition prior to the planes hitting them, so that when they did the buildings crumbled down like a house of cards. Obviously the perpetrators of this terrible crime should be caught and brought to justice, but the observant amongst us will quickly realise that there is more to meet the eye then the 'official' version of events. And the more you look into it, the creepier it gets. Take it easy John.



This is a high resolution photo that shows your quote [The fact that they fell, and in such a controlled manner.

This photo will blow up very large so that you can see most all the destruction



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Wtc-photo.jpg
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 09:37 am
@john2054,
The only God I believe in is the reverse of god to DOG. I love and believe in my two doggies, Dolly and Madison.

BBB
john2054
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2010 06:33 am
@reasoning logic,
Hi reasoning, thanks for the photo. It was a bit grainy but i think i get your point. John.
0 Replies
 
john2054
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2010 06:37 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Hi BumbleBeeBoogie, i like dogs too. And i just love cats. Especially my dad's next door's neighbours Ben and Rolo (a boy and girl respectively). Are your dogs cool then or what? And what kind of dogs are they? I used to live in a house where they had a black lad called Jess (she was also mentally ill the same as me and some of the other lads who lived there at the time). That was cool. John.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2010 08:48 am
@john2054,
I names my two dogs to honor James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution.

Dolly, named for Madison's wife Dolly, is a Shih Tzu, a breed of small but very ancient dog originated in China. She is a brindle color and I keep her fur short instead of the type of long show dog fur.

http://www.abreedabove.net/Coatcolorsofashihtzu.html

Madison is a Bichon Frise. He is white. I keep his curly hair short.

http://www.akc.org/breeds/bichon_frise/

Bichon Frise are descended from the Barbet or Water Spaniel and the Standard Poodle. The word bichon comes from Middle French bichon ("small long-haired dog"), a diminutive of Old French biche ("bitch, female dog"), from Old English bicce ("bitch, female dog"), related to Old Norse bikkja ("female dog") and German Betze ("female dog"). Some speculate the origin of bichon is the result of the apheresis, or shortening, of the word barbichon ("small poodle"), a derivative of barbiche ("shaggy dog"); however, this is unlikely, if not impossible, since the word bichon (attested 1588) is older than barbichon (attested 1694). The Bichons were divided into four categories: the Bichon Malteise, the Bichon Bolognaise, the Bichon Havanese and the Bichon Tenerife. All originated in the Mediterranean area.

I rescued both Dolly and Madison as puppies from terrible breeders and spent a lot of money to restore them to good health. The are devoted to each other and can't stand to be separated. They enrich my life with joy.

BBB
john2054
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2010 02:39 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Hi BBB, thanks for showing me pictures of your dog's breeds. They are cute. My friend's daughter has a Shar-Pie. I like hearing stories about dogs. And as I think I told you already, my dad's next door neighbours have a couple of black cats called Ben and Rolo, who are very affectionate to me as they let me stroke them when I visit. Animals are cool. Thankyou for responding. John.
0 Replies
 
john2054
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 06:40 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
With relation to God, well it says in the Bible that God is love. On these grounds it is through the motions and meaning of a loving act, and a sincere one at that, that we are actually holding His hands and joining his faith. Presumably the love here meant is the unconditioned and honest process of giving from the heart without hope for return. Although true love with usually eventually find itself rewarded/returned eventually from welcoming sources. At least that is my experience of it anyway. So by loving your dogs and them loving you, you are sharing the grace of god with them, all be it in some small way. Thanks John.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 07:20 pm
Shouldn't the question be about if any gods exist? The impatience to discuss a single specific deity that is apparently male seems intellectually lazy to me.

A
R
T
john2054
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 11:13 am
@failures art,
Hi failures, when I ask the question using the singular I am just in fact following the convention of language, and simultaneously nodding to the mono-theistical heritage on which our nations were founded on. And for me that's both England AND Kenya (my wife's heritage). I could've said her, as in mother nature or the Christian Sophia even, I could've said them as in the Hindu deities Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu, or him as in Buddha. The fact is that I didn't but I could've. Semantics maybe, but with a little bit of seasoning makes the meal or that more sweeter wouldn't you agree?
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 03:47 pm
@john2054,
john2054 wrote:

Hi failures, when I ask the question using the singular I am just in fact following the convention of language, and simultaneously nodding to the mono-theistical heritage on which our nations were founded on.

No. You're not following the convention of language, you are bypassing it.

If we were discussing if soda pop was healthy, and I asked the question such that is only referred to one of the many brands/flavors, it would hinder our ability to discuss the actual question. The question should not be is Diet Coke healthy? That assumes too much about Diet Coke, and it's representation amongst sodas.

john2054 wrote:

And for me that's both England AND Kenya (my wife's heritage). I could've said her, as in mother nature or the Christian Sophia even, I could've said them as in the Hindu deities Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu, or him as in Buddha. The fact is that I didn't but I could've.

These examples would have been equally wrong. The point should be to ask if any god can exist, and then if you can establish that they can, the individual merits of them.

If I asked what the national anthem of Utopia is, you'd have to first have to prove Utopia existed before discussing the anthem.

john2054 wrote:

Semantics maybe, but with a little bit of seasoning makes the meal or that more sweeter wouldn't you agree?

If you wish to make this analogy semantics are more like some nutritional component in food. We should strive to get it in our diet. I'd say your haste to get to a discussion on judeo-christian mythology is much like putting a cherry on top of clam chowder. No doubt you find the cherry sweet.

A
R
T
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Sep, 2010 04:19 pm
john2054 wrote:
With relation to God, well it says in the Bible that God is love.


That is a disingenuous statement, and i suspect you know it. The "god" of the old testament is about stern insistence on ritual and submission, about the slaughter of innocents, about slavery, about vengeance. You are picking and choosing among the components of scripture to come up with a touchy-feely message which sounds nice, but is not in fact representative of the entire biblical message.

All of that taken aside from FART's reasonable objection to your particularism.
john2054
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 08:06 am
@failures art,
Hi people,

firstly to Failures, you said that I am bypassing language? How would that be possible exactly? By using God in the singular rather then the plural, and also describing Him in the masculine rather then the feminine, is paying homage to the traditions of spoken English which we as a community follow. It is true that there are female Gods/desses, as I have already described, but that is besides the point. So you are arguiing that God in general does not exist? Hold on, you are NOT arguiing that because you have already told me that you believe in some kind of deity? Oh boy, I am confused.

Let's start again shall we? You want me to ask 'Can any god exist?' Well can they? But I think that this is a question which we have to each come to terms with on our own. And so because I believe in God, the merit of this is what? But surely isn't that the thing about the holy spirit.... It is largely undefinable as much as it is pure.... And Sophisticated as it is good... Something both beyond the reach of man, and simulatenously manmade. Now there's a contentious issue, and please don't try to trip me up over that one. That is just my own personal view.

Sometimes analogies can be useful failures in describing a complex idea to somebody you is having trouble with grasping the full significance of the issue. However they can be -overdone- so to speak.

But the thing about Judeo-Christian mythology, is that they ARE a collection of stories. Even the good reverend who I know admits this. They were originally handed down by the oral tradition, and do have significance beyond the immediate literral and often understood apparent meanings to them. This is where the phrase God is love comes in. Kinda like an original and obtusely brilliant right angle to Nietzsches maxim 'God is dead', only without the reference to pain and annihilation, and instead in its place a warmth and fuzzy feeling, much like you get after reading a good book.

So where is this unconditional love we are talking about? Between friends, neighbours, family or partners even? Perhaps a little bit of all of them. I don't claim to be an expert in this issue, I am only playing with the spectrums as it were.

john2054
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 08:13 am
@Setanta,
Hi Setanta, disingenious maybe, but then who are you to tell us that one phrase in the Bible has less signifigance then any other? So as it is generally accepted that the New Testament is more pressing shall we say, then the old, doesn't it make sense that this phrase, God is Love, is binding and correct nevertheless. I realise that this is a bold claim I am making, and is somewhat against much of conventional Christian teaching, but I have never claimed to be a conventional Christian by any sense of the word. And if we can leave the semantics aside for one minute and try to tap into the source of the matter, for love to be as precious and holy as anything, would imply unconditional love, more then that it would imply a reciprocated love, to be honoured and respected the world over. And I'm not just talking about sex, although that is a part of it. Something sometimes cool, at others firey, which gives us colour to this barren landscape which makes up our lives on the most part. That's just my take on it anyway.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 11:17 am
@john2054,
john2054 wrote:

firstly to Failures, you said that I am bypassing language? How would that be possible exactly?

I said you're bypassing convention, not language. Perhaps more accurately, you're applying your own convention which is hasty and disregards others. Language as a means of communicating ideas is kind of wasted if you're speaking Spanish and I'm speaking Korean.

john2054 wrote:

By using God in the singular rather then the plural, and also describing Him in the masculine rather then the feminine, is paying homage to the traditions of spoken English which we as a community follow.

Incorrect. This is not paying homage to English. Male monotheistic normative language has nothing to do with English.

john2054 wrote:

It is true that there are female Gods/desses, as I have already described, but that is besides the point.

Theses proposed gods stand on equal ground with the god you proposed. It is not beside the point.

john2054 wrote:

So you are arguiing that God in general does not exist? Hold on, you are NOT arguiing that because you have already told me that you believe in some kind of deity? Oh boy, I am confused.

You have me confused with someone else. I am an Atheist.

john2054 wrote:

Let's start again shall we? You want me to ask 'Can any god exist?' Well can they?

Yes. Yes. I don't believe there is reason to believe they do.

john2054 wrote:

But I think that this is a question which we have to each come to terms with on our own.

People will come to whatever conclusion they want to. They are free to do this, but it doesn't mean that it is reasonable or logical.

john2054 wrote:

And so because I believe in God, the merit of this is what? But surely isn't that the thing about the holy spirit.... It is largely undefinable as much as it is pure.... And Sophisticated as it is good... Something both beyond the reach of man, and simulatenously manmade. Now there's a contentious issue, and please don't try to trip me up over that one. That is just my own personal view.

How if this is beyond the reach of man, do you have such a conclusion? You're contradicting yourself.

john2054 wrote:

Sometimes analogies can be useful failures in describing a complex idea to somebody you is having trouble with grasping the full significance of the issue. However they can be -overdone- so to speak.

Your point?

john2054 wrote:

But the thing about Judeo-Christian mythology, is that they ARE a collection of stories. Even the good reverend who I know admits this. They were originally handed down by the oral tradition, and do have significance beyond the immediate literral and often understood apparent meanings to them. This is where the phrase God is love comes in. Kinda like an original and obtusely brilliant right angle to Nietzsches maxim 'God is dead', only without the reference to pain and annihilation, and instead in its place a warmth and fuzzy feeling, much like you get after reading a good book.

Sure. I agree that these stories have literary significance. The Judeo-Christian mythologies are no more literary than any other religion. I'd say that the Greeks and their stories of the pantheon are perhaps the best, but just because they are the best, it doesn't grant the claims of the stories any validity.

john2054 wrote:

So where is this unconditional love we are talking about? Between friends, neighbours, family or partners even? Perhaps a little bit of all of them. I don't claim to be an expert in this issue, I am only playing with the spectrums as it were.

I'm not sure where you're coming from. When did we start talking about unconventional love?

A
R
T
john2054
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2010 08:20 am
@failures art,
Hi Failures, I had a look at the 'secret book of John', and I thought that it is cute. I especially liked the quote that God is... "He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. He did not lack anything, that he might be completed by it; rather he is always completely perfect in light. He is illimitable, since there is no one prior to him to set limits to him. He is unsearchable, since there exists no one prior to him to examine him. He is immeasurable, since there was no one prior to him to measure him. He is invisible, since no one saw him. He is eternal, since he exists eternally. He is ineffable, since no one was able to comprehend him to speak about him. He is unnameable, since there is no one prior to him to give him a name.

To me that is both unusual and quite a charming definition. I actually like personally trying to relate the understandings of this epic work with the happenings of my own personal life. And to be quite honest with you the pieces fit the gaps quite well. Thanks.
 

Related Topics

What is the most valuable thing you own? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Has there been a roll call? - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
Here's another Trump thread... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Should I be offended? - Question by the prince
How desperate can a christian get? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Is A2K A Religion? - Question by mark noble
Top o' the Mornin' to Ya! - Question by Transcend
8/31/05 : Gas Prices - Discussion by Ken cv
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 04:19:26