Well, I think that if you believe there is your God, his God, their God, my God, then that God is simply not the real God who is supposed to be for all humans.
Sometimes I wonder why we need to have religions, why can't we simply believe in God?
Doktor S wrote:I think all ways of postulating the absurd are equally erroneous.
Hey Doc, how the hell are yah? The exception I would suggest to your generality would be some types of humor whereby you postulate the absurd and through satire infer truth.
But back to the thread's question, it's seems pretty funny to place a value judgement on a belief, when there is no substantiation for said belief. I'm not talking about the results of said belief.
cello wrote:Sometimes I wonder why we need to have religions, why can't we simply believe in God?
Nothing is stopping you from entertaining any belief you wish, in any fashion that tickles your fancy! Well that's not precisely true but.......
Well doc, I couldn't care less.
But at least I'm not a coward.
Frank.
For my part, the concept of god must be taken with a certain degree of apprehension. I have my own understanding of what the big G-word means, and in that context it is an abstract metaphysical model far removed from any religious application of the word, though consistent with what is said about god in the various religions.
To put it short, my idea of god is the notion of "everything as a singular entity". Nothing mystical about it, and nothing suprenatural.
Cyracuz wrote:Well doc, I couldn't care less.
But at least I'm not a coward.
But you are, in fact, an idiot. I'm glad to see you don't dispute that.
Good day.
JLNobody wrote:Frank, I shouldn't speak for others, of course, but in my judgement "religious" ambitions must be very private; it's what happens within our minds, not within congregations. I prefer meditation just to let "religious" things happen within. That isn't everyone's bias, and that's fine.
But is there a right way to mend a broken shoulder, and are you following that way?
Actually...I have recently discovered that the only right way to mend one is to allow time to pass. Doctor said I should keep it in a sling for a while...but even that was not necessary if I were careful not to jostle it around. No casts...no other special treatment. There was a minor amount of displacement with the break...but therapy was allowed to begin damn near immediately. (I am told this is usual...although old geezers like me are supposed to go a bit more slowly than I am)
I've gotten quite a bit of range of motion back already...and the new x-rays show the mending going nicely. Doctor said I'd be ready for March golf.
Quote:
Given that I have finally recovered from months of rotator cuff tears, a broken shoulder sounds very uncomfortable.
As I am sure you know from your injury...sleeping can be a bitch. But...being stuck in the house does give you time to catch up on stuff you've been putting off for several years.
doc
And I'm glad you don't dispute the fact that you lack the guts (or perhaps wits) to engage in a proper debate.
This was fun
"There is no right way..."
"There is no wrong way..."
Took a while for someone to finally say that. Was waiting for it
.
Here is a nice quote from Joseph Campbell:
"CAMPBELL: Heinrich Zimmer once said, "The best things can't be told; the second best are misunderstood; the third best have to do with history." Now, the vocabulary through which the best things are told as second best is the vocabulary of history, but it doesn't refer to history; it refers through this to the transcendent. Deities have to become, as one great German scholar said, "transparent to the transcendent." The transcendent must show and shine through those deities. But it must shine through us, too, and through the spiritual things we are talking about. And as long as you keep pinning it down to concrete fact, and declare something isn't true because it didn't happen, you're wrong. We don't say that about fairy tales, and so we get the truth of them. We should read our religions that way."
The "best things" are the transcendent and the "second best things" are talking about the transcendent, which, of course, are all metaphors. In other words, when we refer to an experience, any experience, it's always second hand. Any religion is second hand and is the next best thing to the transcendent, or experience.
But remember, the "second best thing", the metaphor, is always misunderstood. Therefore, belief if always a misunderstanding of the transcendent. Just saying the word "god" is a misunderstanding of the transcendent, the eternal, so saying "I believe" or "I don't believe" is irrelevant.
Funnily enough I have received two copies of Campbell's book "The Power of Myth" as gifts. Funny given my fave genre is Hard SF, then again maybe not......
Frank Apisa wrote:
Is there a right way?
QFE
God should not be a belief, but an understanding. And if you realize that your God doesn't make sense, you should reform your ideas- not cling dogmatically to them and scramble to find evidence to back yourself up.
If you find out you have made a mistake in any other aspect of life, you fix it. With religion, though, people seem more content to believe than to try to actually figure out life- isn't that more destructive than constructive?
Foley wrote:
God should not be a belief, but an understanding. And if you realize that your God doesn't make sense, you should reform your ideas- not cling dogmatically to them and scramble to find evidence to back yourself up.
If you find out you have made a mistake in any other aspect of life, you fix it. With religion, though, people seem more content to believe than to try to actually figure out life- isn't that more destructive than constructive?
Understanding, one of my favorite words
Great point, I'd have to say pressure is a good excuse, especially if circumstances would destroy you if you thought something other than the what people tell you.
Truth seems to never be easy these days. Good reason for that too.
I haven't read the other posts, but...
I believe that to believe in a god just because he offers you comfort for the afterlife is silly; it only breeds mental laziness.
babemomlover wrote:I believe that to believe in a god just because he offers you comfort for the afterlife is silly; it only breeds mental laziness.
That's sadly true for many people. That's why I view religion the way I do a science: always developing, always changing- and always (hopefully) getting closer to the truth.
So nobody gets bored with my same Mencken quote about religion, here's another:
It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of gods. If such a board actually exists it operates precisely like the board of a corporation that is losing money.
Most people in the past have had their beliefs inculcated into them as children, and they accept the authority of the church leaders as sacrosanct. Usually the religious symbols are meant to be taken literally, and with the advent of universal education and modern science, many of these symbols, such as the virgin birth, butt up against science. So many people are forced to make spiritual journeys of their own to discover what underlies these metaphorical icons of the church, and, therefore, find that they no longer need the church, and the church through its own fault, is slowly disintegrating.
Add to that the many disgusting crimes committed by the clergy and their protection by their leaders, the church is getting a negative connotation.
Spirituality is rapidly evolving in the U.S., and took a radical departure from church authority in the 1960s due to experimentation with hallucinogins. Even though the country has regressed and stumbled spiritually due to increased notoriety from childish fundamentalist fanatics, such as Jerry Falwell, and G. W. Bush, I believe that we will regain our footing and step around these guttersnipes of spirituality.
Do you mean to say that without "experimentation with hallucinogens" US citizens would adhere to "church authority" more than they do now?
Chumly wrote:Do you mean to say that without "experimentation with hallucinogens" US citizens would adhere to "church authority" more than they do now?
Are you kidding me? A huge part of our population consists of people who have experimented with hallucinogins, and their religion/spirituality is deeply personal and private. We don't shout our beliefs from soapboxes. I think the right wing religious fundamentalists, expecially the fanatical ones, the Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertsons, and the George W. Bushes are very much the minority.
