Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

30 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

no time to doubt other people

(Post 3486) 

 

Do you see the problem?  

 

Next... 

 

 

Things change, ya know ?

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Hummin said:

As you say, paradise is only for those who is the true believer, and isnt that a treath? If not you end up in hell, turtured forever

Hell, IMO is an invention of men, and I certainly hope I won't be burnt for all eternity, along with most.

I do believe that nirvana, paradise, whatever one wants to call it awaits those that deserve it.

For all we know, those not achieving enlightenment keep coming back till they do, or become nothing. No one alive knows.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Surely it's not my concern, in the big picture it's not important imho.

Exactly. In secular society the law says whether two men or two women can marry or not, so that's up to the government not the church. If the church won't marry them, that's their business, and atheists should have no business telling religions what to do. Their rules for their members.

I don't think any of us are straying into the realm of Hinduism, Jainism or any other notable religion to be concerned about what they dictate. Just Christianity in it's many variations is enough of a quagmire to be getting into.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hell, IMO is an invention of men, and I certainly hope I won't be burnt for all eternity, along with most.

I do believe that nirvana, paradise, whatever one wants to call it awaits those that deserve it.

For all we know, those not achieving enlightenment keep coming back till they do, or become nothing. No one alive knows.

Yes, no one knows, but i don't believe in eternal damnation.

We have clues of countless states of existence, someone is theorising reincarnation, but as you say, nobody knows.

Surely we are here to learn and evolve.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

There's a small debate going on in my hometown because some high ranking clerical said he (as a representative of the church) is against scattering the ashes in the sea or a mountain. They should be interred on holy soil.

In my opinion, neither church nor state should interfere with something as personal as this (or choosing who to love).

I also believe we should be free to choose the way we die and make assisted death fully legal 

And getting rid of half of the unjustly imposed taxes that cripple the middle class and the economy!! (Europe, not Thailand ????)

Vive la révolution! Vive la resistance! ????????????

That cleric is a great example of everything that is wrong with organised religion.

Dead people are just dead, whether as a body or as ashes. What happens after is for the living that miss them. Makes zero difference to the departed soul.

I guess even clerics make mistakes.

Is he saying that people who's bodies are not available to be buried in holy ground go to hell? His opinion is silly.

 

IMO western governments back in the dark days colluded with the church to ban suicide else many of the population would have offed themselves as their lives were so <deleted>, and the lords would have run out of peasants to fight their wars for them.

I know of no saying from Jesus that banned suicide.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly. In secular society the law says whether two men or two women can marry or not, so that's up to the government not the church. If the church won't marry them, that's their business, and atheists should have no business telling religions what to do. Their rules for their members.

I don't think any of us are straying into the realm of Hinduism, Jainism or any other notable religion to be concerned about what they dictate. Just Christianity in it's many variations is enough of a quagmire to be getting into.

Well, i am born Catholic, but when i went to India at 19, i embraced some of the Hinduist beliefs, which is where Buddhism come from.

Esoteric Christian philosophers, like R. Steiner which is my favourite, are deeply influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism.

A few scholars are convinced that Jesus himself was studying Hinduism and Buddhism, and if we get a bit deep, under the surface, we can recognize the similarities.

"You reap what you sow" is a principle which every religion agrees with.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, i'm against any injustice, religion motivated or not, yet i value my life, and i'm not going to sacrifice myself for a lost cause, like eradicating the evil from this planet.

A valuable lesson that Jesus, and others, taught me, is that if you say the truth, the system will eliminate you.

I am paying already a high price, in my little world, for not being a hypocrite.

Jesus did not come to the world to banish injustice- "the poor are with us always". He came to give a message that paradise awaits those that live according to the will of God, as given in the Bible, and those that followed his teachings.

IMO "God" is not concerned with the way men live, other than they find the path to enlightenment.

If "God" was actually concerned with injustice, he/she/it could banish it today, but he/she/it is only, IMO, concerned with our souls, no matter what terrors we live under. Untold billions since man separated from ape have suffered under terror and injustice and "God" has done nothing to prevent it, which means something if we think about that.

Far as I know, Jesus offered a better world after death, and said nothing about a better life in this world.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If we believe, or have faith, that reducing our CO2 emissions will prevent extreme weather conditions, such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes, then we will spend our money on developing 'so-called' clean energy alternatives,

Agreed, but we have had the technology to do so for a very long time and done nothing, because we allow bad people to control us, and they only do what makes them rich. When clean energy makes them rich we will have clean energy.

What is broken is not the way we make energy, but the way we allow the rich to control everything. As long as the present political system exists, don't expect much change.

Individuals don't even care about reducing their pollution output. It's easy enough to do if we care, but most don't. Most, far as I can see want more stuff, even if obtaining it creates slaves in poor countries where the stuff is made, pollutes the seas with the waste products, pollutes the air with ship fuel, and the land with transport trucks, then it's all wrapped up in plastic which goes to landfill, and when the product is used or broken it is dumped. An endless chain of waste and pollution. We can stop it, but we all want cheap stuff, even if we don't need it.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Thanks mate, respect.

Of course i agree with your last line, but again, it's difficult to eradicate the evil from humankind; undoubtedly religion failed in that regard.

Religion wasn't invented to eradicate evil when many of the leaders were themselves evil men. It was invented to control people and enrich the leaders of the religion.

Mohammed was barely dead when they started to kill each other so one man or another could be the leader.

 

While it was perhaps inevitable that religion would be brought into a thread about "God", it's really nothing to do with religion per se, as religion is more about control and wealth than man's soul, and "God" is only an excuse for the men in funny hats to gain control.

 

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Jesus did not come to the world to banish injustice

Well, this is debatable imho.

Surely it's impossible for me and you to sit at the table and have a chat with Jesus..

..But we have for example, the story of the woman who was going to be stoned to death for having sex outside of the marriage ( at least that is my interpretation )

Then Jesus came and said the famous words : "Who is without sin, can throw the first stone".

Of course there was no throwing of stones, but i suspect that the bigoted priests were hating Jesus for that.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Religion wasn't invented to eradicate evil when many of the leaders were themselves evil men. It was invented to control people and enrich the leaders of the religion.

Mohammed was barely dead when they started to kill each other so one man or another could be the leader.

 

While it was perhaps inevitable that religion would be brought into a thread about "God", it's really nothing to do with religion per se, as religion is more about control and wealth than man's soul, and "God" is only an excuse for the men in funny hats to gain control.

 

Again, there is some truth in what you say, but not all the leaders were evil, and religion was a tool to create unity among the tribes, without unity we don't have empires, without empires we have no civilisation etc.

I debated that already few months ago in this thread.

"Sapiens" is a good book which has detailed explanations about the evolution from tribal society to civilisation.

You can argue that civilisation is not perfect, but neither was tribal society, and there's no going back.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, this is debatable imho.

Surely it's impossible for me and you to sit at the table and have a chat with Jesus..

..But we have for example, the story of the woman who was going to be stoned to death for having sex outside of the marriage ( at least that is my interpretation )

Then Jesus came and said the famous words : "Who is without sin, can throw the first stone".

Of course there was no throwing of stones, but i suspect that the bigoted priests were hating Jesus for that.

I think Jesus hated the hypocrisy of the priests and was pointing out that they were all sinners.

I don't think he was able to stop all stoning thereafter. 

The priests did indeed have him killed for just such, as he threatened their position as leaders when people saw them for what they were. 

Life of Brian had an excellent skit about stoning and the priests.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Again, there is some truth in what you say, but not all the leaders were evil, and religion was a tool to create unity among the tribes, without unity we don't have empires, without empires we have no civilisation etc.

I debated that already few months ago in this thread.

"Sapiens" is a good book which has detailed explanations about the evolution from tribal society to civilisation.

You can argue that civilisation is not perfect, but neither was tribal society, and there's no going back.

Of course not all the leaders were evil, but many were. The popes of the middle ages were pretty bad dudes.

The Inquisition was all bad people.

I personally know some really good religious people- my school chaplains were good, and a bishop I went on a trip with was a great guy.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

there's no going back.

Well that's an inescapable truth.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well that's an inescapable truth.

Well, i case of a major catastrophe, and a complete disruption of society, extermination of people etc.

It would start all over again... First bands, then tribes, then kingdoms... Humans are wired that way.. It's easier to sustain a group of people working together than hunting and gathering alone.

Lots of things to discuss, we may not agree on everything, but i appreciate your good will.

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, i am born Catholic, but when i went to India at 19, i embraced some of the Hinduist beliefs, which is where Buddhism come from.

Esoteric Christian philosophers, like R. Steiner which is my favourite, are deeply influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism.

A few scholars are convinced that Jesus himself was studying Hinduism and Buddhism, and if we get a bit deep, under the surface, we can recognize the similarities.

"You reap what you sow" is a principle which every religion agrees with.

The flip side of that is that there are Christians that believe the the Buddha had a divine revelation and this is why many of his teachings are mirrored in the teachings of Christ. But in the time between the Buddha and the first written recordings of his words, some 500 years, much of his teachings were influenced by the Hindu culture and the monotheism and the salvation aspect was left out or distorted as it was too different.

Edited November 12, 2019 by canuckamuck

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

The flip side of that is that there are Christians that believe the the Buddha had a divine revelation and this is why many of his teachings are mirrored in the teachings of Christ. But in the time between the Buddha and the first written recordings of his words, some 500 years, much of his teachings were influenced by the Hindu culture and the monotheism and the salvation aspect was left out or distorted as it was too different.

Well, that's a lot of wood in the fire, and it's difficult to discuss it in few lines.

But let me tell you first that Buddha was born Hinduist, so the influence is obvious.

Secondly, Buddha did not approve at all of the spreading of rituals, like sacrificing animals to gain divine benevolence, and the worst of all, "Sati" which means, if the husband dies, the widow was supposed to burn alive on the pyre, willingly or not.

My very personal theory is that Buddha recognized that official religion, having worked well for the creation of a civilisation, i.e. a common language, an established hierarchy of power, a tax system etc., was not longer useful for human evolution, and possibly damaging the evolution by abuses of power by the priests, superstitions, bigotries etc.

In fact Buddha demonstrated that it's possible to reach the enlightenment without even talking about God. So Buddha didn't deny the existence of God, he just let it out of the equation.

 

I told you that it's not easy to discuss it in few lines ????

[Hummin]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hell, IMO is an invention of men, and I certainly hope I won't be burnt for all eternity, along with most.

I do believe that nirvana, paradise, whatever one wants to call it awaits those that deserve it.

For all we know, those not achieving enlightenment keep coming back till they do, or become nothing. No one alive knows.

Believe and hope is two different things, but can be combined ???? 

 

I do believe we live like a fuse, when times up, everything goes blac, and we are recycled. But our soul? I dubt it, but good for those who need to believe such a thing as afterlife. 

 

If we should believe in Budda, we get another chance at earth, and for some it will be hell, and for some others it will be paradise. 

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, that's a lot of wood in the fire, and it's difficult to discuss it in few lines.

But let me tell you first that Buddha was born Hinduist, so the influence is obvious.

Secondly, Buddha did not approve at all of the spreading of rituals, like sacrificing animals to gain divine benevolence, and the worst of all, "Sati" which means, if the husband dies, the widow was supposed to burn alive on the pyre, willingly or not.

My very personal theory is that Buddha recognized that official religion, having worked well for the creation of a civilisation, i.e. a common language, an established hierarchy of power, a tax system etc., was not longer useful for human evolution, and possibly damaging the evolution by abuses of power by the priests, superstitions, bigotries etc.

In fact Buddha demonstrated that it's possible to reach the enlightenment without even talking about God. So Buddha didn't deny the existence of God, he just let it out of the equation.

 

I told you that it's not easy to discuss it in few lines ????

I did not say all of Jesus teachings, I said many. And Jesus only referenced to sacrifice, as it pertained to himself. he came to bring an end to sacrifice. He was also opposed to empty ceremony.

The teachings that are mirrored are the teachings of humility and casting off the love of possessions (attachment). Being in harmony with neighbors. Acting not in violence, charity and so fourth. Basically having good dharma, or right living.

And I was not suggesting that the Buddha did not come from Hinduism. But that the Hindu influences on Buddha's adherents after his death, caused some changes to the original teachings. Monotheism would be an awfully hard thing for a Hindu to swallow.

Edited November 12, 2019 by canuckamuck

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I did not say all of Jesus teachings, I said many. And Jesus only referenced to sacrifice, as it pertained to himself. he came to bring an end to sacrifice. He was also opposed to empty ceremony.

The teachings that are mirrored are the teachings of humility and casting off the love of possessions (attachment). Being in harmony with neighbors. Acting not in violence, charity and so fourth. Basically having good dharma, or right living.

And I was not suggesting that the Buddha did not come from Hinduism. But that the Hindu influences on Buddha's adherents after his death, caused some changes to the original teachings. Monotheism would be an awfully hard thing for a Hindu to swallow.

Well, first of all, i was in no way opposing your view, which i would have a really hard time to differ with.

Regard monotheism, Hinduism is strikingly similar to Christianity, both recognise an absolute principle and a Holy Trinity.

Personally i find the Hindu trinity explanation ( creation, preservation and destruction (which implies further creation) much less cryptic than the Christian explanation (father, son, and holy spirit).

If you consider the devotion of Saints, first of all Jesus himself and his mother Mary, in theory one observer might conclude that also Christianity is a polytheistic religion.

Nothing wrong with that, we need something tangible to hang our devotion on, so to conclude, as i'm carrying the spark of God in my spiritual body, i am the first object of my own devotion, and my neighbours should come next, a special devotion is for those that, through hard work, have been able to reach some enlightenment etc.

( i try to be as succinct as i can, so pls forgive if it appears a bit confused)

[canuckamuck]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, first of all, i was in no way opposing your view, which i would have a really hard time to differ with.

Regard monotheism, Hinduism is strikingly similar to Christianity, both recognize an absolute principle and a Holy Trinity.

Personally i find the Hindu trinity explanation ( creation, preservation and destruction (which implies further creation) much less cryptic than the Christian explanation (father, son, and holy spirit).

If you consider the devotion of Saints, first of all Jesus himself and his mother Mary, in theory one observer might conclude that also Christianity is a polytheistic religion.

Nothing wrong with that, we need something tangible to hang our devotion on, so to conclude, as i'm carrying the spark of God in my spiritual body, i am the first object of my own devotion, and my neighbours should come next, a special devotion is for those that, through hard work, have been able to reach some enlightenment etc.

( i try to be as succinct as i can, so pls forgive if it appears a bit confused)

A couple of points: The concept of trinity is referred to as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it is more easily conceptualized as God, God's physical aspects, and God's spiritual aspects. All the same God. Just like you are body, mind and spirit.

I am not very familiar with the Hindu version of the trinity, So I can not comment on the parallel. Would like to know more though.

 

The deification of Mary is something developed by the Catholics, and I think also the Orthodox.

The Bible has no reference to Mary having any divinity and she was not given any special recognition in the Bible. There are no prayers to Mary in the Bible. She only is referenced in 15 verses. 

Protestants are quite offended at the thought of Mary being worshiped. It breaks the first and the second commandment.

So you can lay that on organized religion. 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

So you can lay that on organized religion. 

That's absolutely correct.

Yet, it's undeniable that i can interpret the Holy Scriptures ( or what of them we are able to peruse )

and you can have your own interpretation and a third person may have a different one.

So, in fact there are 100 religions for every 100 humans.

The work i've been doing for years, for my own curiosity, is to find the similarities among the various cults, and to play down the differences as folklore rituals, which i don't consider very important.

Going to the root is important, so if we look at the basic principles, like "Do good and good will come back to you", all religions put the emphasis on this simple principle.

So for me it's not really important if you go to church or not, or if you work on Sundays, or if you don't believe in God or if you adore a tree, it's important to know (or believe) that one way or another there is an afterlife, and there is a justice ( which is sometimes hard to find in the material world )

 

[Skeptic7]

6 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Things change, ya know ?

Yeah they do, but for you...literally from one post to the very next! And this isn't nearly the only time. ????

 

 

[mauGR1]

16 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Yeah they do, but for you...literally from one post to the very next! And this isn't nearly the only time. ????

 

 

If that does really disturb you, i'll do it more often

[Skeptic7]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

If that does really disturb you, i'll do it more often

Doubtful being any more fickle is possible, but if anyone can do it! ????

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Doubtful being any more fickle is possible, but if anyone can do it! ????

Oh, just because i can

[Sunmaster]

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

That's absolutely correct.

Yet, it's undeniable that i can interpret the Holy Scriptures ( or what of them we are able to peruse )

and you can have your own interpretation and a third person may have a different one.

So, in fact there are 100 religions for every 100 humans.

The work i've been doing for years, for my own curiosity, is to find the similarities among the various cults, and to play down the differences as folklore rituals, which i don't consider very important.

Going to the root is important, so if we look at the basic principles, like "Do good and good will come back to you", all religions put the emphasis on this simple principle.

So for me it's not really important if you go to church or not, or if you work on Sundays, or if you don't believe in God or if you adore a tree, it's important to know (or believe) that one way or another there is an afterlife, and there is a justice ( which is sometimes hard to find in the material world )

 

I would say that everything involves interpretation. Especially the eastern religions. Very hard to pin down any actually hard and fast tenants of faith. At least in my opinion. Sort of a build your own ethereal reality.

But we are humans and we will see everything in our own way regardless, and nothing wrong with that.

My personal opinion is that the godly can be seen in order and harmony and in life itself. Also in truthfulness and humble introspection. But when you are seeking empowerment you will usually find deception. And the biggest liar will be your own self.

Buddhism and Christianity have some harmony on these points. But Hinduism to me is chaotic.

Edited November 12, 2019 by canuckamuck

[Don Chance]

God has no religion.

[oldhippy]

2 minutes ago, Don Chance said:

God has no religion.

Surely he believes in himself?

Unless he is too smart to believe in his own existence.