Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Except when the poster is of the Damien Hurst school of communication:

I sometimes feel that I have nothing to say and I want to communicate this.

But in that case not posting or Sacred Silence is for sure the better option. ????

Having often got too much time on my hands, i have to challenge the notion of the sacred silence by saying that there is no progress without doing mistakes ????

Yet, I am in doubt if it's better doing a lot of little mistakes, or just a huge, disastrous one ????

[MRToMRT]

I am a believer in my god. Its just a general guide to us all living a better life together. Sadly some need the pomp of ritual to enforce their belief and even worse some reduce it to tribalism. 

 

I donate to my church's local projects but I never attend. As an older (than 99% of this forum) person it gives me comfort when considering my mortality. That there is something more than just "this".

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

donate to my church's local projects but I never attend. As an older (than 99% of this forum) person it gives me comfort when considering my mortality. That there is something more than just "this".

In other words, we have a physical body, but through good thoughts, and doing good deeds, we become creators of "spiritual bodies" which have a much longer, if not eternal lifespan.

[thaibeachlovers]

26 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

I bet you just picked up that phrase somewhere and decided to run with it, without giving it any thought. It's hard to believe a non-religious person (atheist or agnostic) would read enough of the Bible to even give an opinion on it.

 

People can twist the meaning of the Bible a thousand different ways, but I'm pretty sure any of these so called contradictions you speak of can be well explained too, not that you would be interested in hearing the explanations. How about naming one of these contradictions so we can explore it.

 

 

You know nothing about me at all, so you don''t know how religious I was, or how much of the Bible I've read.

 

To get you started, if every human ( except those on the Ark ) on the planet died in the flood, who did Noah's children marry to repopulate the planet with people, or are you claiming they committed incest, which is against God's law, according to religion, and if Adam and Eve were the only people, who did they have children with if they didn't commit incest?

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You know nothing about me at all, so you don''t know how religious I was, or how much of the Bible I've read.

 

To get you started, if every human ( except those on the Ark ) on the planet died in the flood, who did Noah's children marry to repopulate the planet with people, or are you claiming they committed incest, which is against God's law, according to religion, and if Adam and Eve were the only people, who did they have children with if they didn't commit incest?

Right, either something was lost in translation, or someone has been telling porkies ????

[Tagged]

3 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

@mauGR1 was only referring to your command of the english language.  I am not a native english speaker myself but have to admit that I also often have some problems trying to figure out the meaning of some of the things that you wrote. 

Maybe try writing your response first in your native language and then do a google translate.  Yes, that will obviously result in a garbled version of what you meant but you can use that as starting point to amend/clarify the english text.

 

Your posts - when decyphered - often provide some food for thought, so it's no critique but rather

Thank you

 

well, I know it is mostly my writing speed, and thinking, and not taking my time to look over, read and correct. I do not use any google translation ???? write touch, and let if flow, and hope for the best ???? 

 

However, I feel, he sometimes could have understand the essens instead of always repeat the same over and over. But I take one In sympathy for the ADHD and dysletix. I might have a lighter version of both. 

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The God you see described in the bible, in the koran in the torah etc is an approximate description (of something indescribable) that reflects the understanding of the people of that time. 
Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course! Good point! But doesn't that apply to everything that everyone tries to understand, at whatever time in history and whatever the circumstances?

 

Our understanding of any thing, or concept, or theory, or experience, is dependent upon our parental upbringing, cultural background, education, general experiences and contemplation of issues, and innate abilities which are influenced by genetics.

 

That which is 'indescribable' cannot be described and therefore cannot exist from the human perspective. Dark Matter exists to the extent its qualities can be described. The Bible is a fairly lengthy description of the characteristics of the God Yahweh, therefore Yahweh must obviously exist as a concept and understanding in the human mind, and that understanding is associated with a pattern of neuronal activity in the brain.

 

Every thought about anything, whether imaginary fiction, or based on sound scientific evidence, must exist as a pattern of neuronal activity in the brain, otherwise there would be no thought. The same applies to all perceptions of sight, taste, smell, hearing, and feeling.

 

It is the 'methodology of science' which attempts to separate those imaginary, fictional beliefs, from a non-fictional reality which is consistent with repeated experimentation and can be appreciated by those who are capable of logical and rational thought. ????
 

[mauGR1]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

is the 'methodology of science' which attempts to separate those imaginary, fictional beliefs, from a non-fictional reality w

....I can see there's still a lot of work to do...science is never settled by definition, lots of surprising facts are waiting to be discovered.

[Peter Denis]

31 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

...

The same applies to all perceptions of sight, taste, smell, hearing, and feeling.

 

It is the 'methodology of science' which attempts to separate those imaginary, fictional beliefs, from a non-fictional reality which is consistent with repeated experimentation and can be appreciated by those who are capable of logical and rational thought. ????

I might not be capable of logical and rational thought, but received your S.O.S. loud and clear! ????

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

I might not be capable of logical and rational thought, but received your S.O.S. loud and clear! ????

Why should I want my soul to be saved if I don't believe in the existence of a soul? ????

However, I do believe in the transmission of characteristics through one's genes to one's children, and epigenetic inheritance which is the passing on of certain bad habits of the parents to their children, such as the tendency towards obesity.

 

Epigenetics:

"the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself."

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course! Good point! But doesn't that apply to everything that everyone tries to understand, at whatever time in history and whatever the circumstances?

 

Our understanding of any thing, or concept, or theory, or experience, is dependent upon our parental upbringing, cultural background, education, general experiences and contemplation of issues, and innate abilities which are influenced by genetics.

 

That which is 'indescribable' cannot be described and therefore cannot exist from the human perspective. Dark Matter exists to the extent its qualities can be described. The Bible is a fairly lengthy description of the characteristics of the God Yahweh, therefore Yahweh must obviously exist as a concept and understanding in the human mind, and that understanding is associated with a pattern of neuronal activity in the brain.

 

Every thought about anything, whether imaginary fiction, or based on sound scientific evidence, must exist as a pattern of neuronal activity in the brain, otherwise there would be no thought. The same applies to all perceptions of sight, taste, smell, hearing, and feeling.

 

It is the 'methodology of science' which attempts to separate those imaginary, fictional beliefs, from a non-fictional reality which is consistent with repeated experimentation and can be appreciated by those who are capable of logical and rational thought. ????
 

I agree with the first part of your interesting post. Yes, every experience is seen through a very particular lens that is tinted or clouded by many factors. The "impurities" in the lens corrupt and distort the original image. That lens however doesn't have to be clouded and the impurities can be cleaned away by applying focused effort. 

Once you've done that, you'll be able to see yourself, the world and "God" for what they really are: one and the same, undivided and undistinguished.

 

You then make a conclusion I can't follow. 

"That which is 'indescribable' cannot be described and therefore cannot exist from the human perspective."

While it's true that the full nature of God is beyond our capacity of understanding or describing in words, we do however have the innate ability of experiencing him directly. Translating that experience in words is then clearly a big challenge...like a caveman trying to describe a spacecraft, times a trillion trillions.

Jesus, Buddha, saints and gurus have done it and described their visions in words that could be understood by those living at the time. 

If Jesus had met Buddha, words wouldn't have been necessary at all to communicate. Words were only for the benefit of the unenlightened followers, which in turn used their clouded lenses to interpret those words....and made a mess out of them. 

 

"Dark Matter exists to the extent its qualities can be described."

Yes, nice analogy. What are the qualities of God? Can they be described? And in doing so, does the presence of an ultimate cause transpire?

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last paragraph. 

Only what can be described by the methodology of science is real and worthy of consideration? 

Also, I think it's a dangerous attitude to attribute "logical and rational thought" only to those in the scientific field. It implies that all others must be irrational and intellectually underdeveloped. 

I hope that's not what you mean. 

 

[Sunmaster]

7 hours ago, Tagged said:

Thank you

 

well, I know it is mostly my writing speed, and thinking, and not taking my time to look over, read and correct. I do not use any google translation ???? write touch, and let if flow, and hope for the best ???? 

 

However, I feel, he sometimes could have understand the essens instead of always repeat the same over and over. But I take one In sympathy for the ADHD and dysletix. I might have a lighter version of both. 

I admit I've been left scratching my head a few times, but I think I got the essence of your posts.

I may not always agree with them, but I do respect your point of view and your contributions to the thread. 

Keep 'em coming! ????????

[mauGR1]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I agree with the first part of your interesting post. Yes, every experience is seen through a very particular lens that is tinted or clouded by many factors. The "impurities" in the lens corrupt and distort the original image. That lens however doesn't have to be clouded and the impurities can be cleaned away by applying focused effort. 

Once you've done that, you'll be able to see yourself, the world and "God" for what they really are: one and the same, undivided and undistinguished.

 

You then make a conclusion I can't follow. 

"That which is 'indescribable' cannot be described and therefore cannot exist from the human perspective."

While it's true that the full nature of God is beyond our capacity of understanding or describing in words, we do however have the innate ability of experiencing him directly. Translating that experience in words is then clearly a big challenge...like a caveman trying to describe a spacecraft, times a trillion trillions.

Jesus, Buddha, saints and gurus have done it and described their visions in words that could be understood by those living at the time. 

If Jesus had met Buddha, words wouldn't have been necessary at all to communicate. Words were only for the benefit of the unenlightened followers, which in turn used their clouded lenses to interpret those words....and made a mess out of them. 

 

"Dark Matter exists to the extent its qualities can be described."

Yes, nice analogy. What are the qualities of God? Can they be described? And in doing so, does the presence of an ultimate cause transpire?

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last paragraph. 

Only what can be described by the methodology of science is real and worthy of consideration? 

Also, I think it's a dangerous attitude to attribute "logical and rational thought" only to those in the scientific field. It implies that all others must be irrational and intellectually underdeveloped. 

I hope that's not what you mean. 

 

I was nearly missing this post, and it'was really worth to read.

Needless to say, but i agree with every word, and it's well written.

[luckyluke]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

it's well written

Indeed.

 

A  well written work is something which attract/charm.

 

As a result, some will have the tendency to more believe the content of it.  

[Sunmaster]

27 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Indeed.

 

A  well written work is something which attract/charm.

 

As a result, some will have the tendency to more believe the content of it.  

What was mildly amusing and mildly annoying before, is turning out to be a major embarrassment now. 
 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

36 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Indeed.

 

A  well written work is something which attract/charm.

 

As a result, some will have the tendency to more believe the content of it.  

you are on your right to be suspicious of everything, but my agreement stops there.

We live in a world of lies, that's for sure.

But @Sunmaster is not selling watches or used cars here, and he has the same chances to be praised or attacked for writing posts about God on internet.

 Sometimes, what is beautiful is also true and good, in my extremely personal and subjective opinion ???? 

 

 

[luckyluke]

18 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

What was mildly amusing and mildly annoying before, is turning out to be a major embarrassment now. 
 

I don't try to embarrass you on purpose.

I expressed an opinion about well written works and their influences.

If you wish,  just see my posts as a way to increase my Community Reputation, as you don't pass up any post of me without granting me an emoticon.

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I don't try to embarrass you on purpose.

I expressed an opinion about well written works and their influences.

If you wish,  just see my posts as a way to increase my Community Reputation, as you don't pass up any post of me without granting me an emoticon.

The embarrassment is certainly not on my side. ????????

I'm not surprised you don't feel it though.

[luckyluke]

17 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sometimes, what is beautiful is also true and good, in my extremely personal and subjective opinion

I am completely agree with you here, well written pieces can also been good and true.

We all have our own approach of it, and each of us in particular must determine for his own if

something is

well written with,

or without,

an agenda.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last paragraph. 

Only what can be described by the methodology of science is real and worthy of consideration? 

Also, I think it's a dangerous attitude to attribute "logical and rational thought" only to those in the scientific field. It implies that all others must be irrational and intellectually underdeveloped. 

I hope that's not what you mean. 

Right on.

Human science is IMO too primitive and lacking in the necessary tools to have any understanding of the nature of God. Perhaps in a million years if humans manage to survive that long.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

That which is 'indescribable' cannot be described and therefore cannot exist from the human perspective.

Love is pretty indescribable, IMO. What we all think is love would be different with every person. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

18 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The Bible is a fairly lengthy description of the characteristics of the God Yahweh, therefore Yahweh must obviously exist as a concept and understanding in the human mind, and that understanding is associated with a pattern of neuronal activity in the brain.

The God described in the Bible is according to the beliefs of those that wrote the words. Being somewhat primitive in their understanding of the world and the supernatural, no doubt they applied human characteristics to "God", which is, IMO, a nonsense. How could a being that could create life the universe and everything be "jealous", which is a human emotion?

[BritManToo]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

The God described in the Bible is according to the beliefs of those that wrote the words.

More like the beliefs of the guys that translated it to English.

Edited October 6, 2020 by BritManToo

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

More like the beliefs of the guys that translated it to English.

For, I believe, hundreds of years, the church service was in Latin, so the congregation didn't know what was written and were dependent on the men in funny hats to inform them as to the commands of God.

[OmegaRacer]

1 hour ago, luckyluke said:

Indeed.

 

A  well written work is something which attract/charm.

 

As a result, some will have the tendency to more believe the content of it.  

Are you calling us guillable?
At least sunmaster putting himself out there and expressing his viewpoint, unlike others who just criticize without saying anything (nudge nudge). That he does so in a clear and understandable way is just an added bonus. 
Sometimes jealousy gets the best of us... 

Just my opinion, of course. 

[luckyluke]

5 minutes ago, OmegaRacer said:

Just my opinion, of course. 

Of course,

 

that's the way I consider your post.

[a269652]

Quote

Do you really believe in him or any of the other Gods ?

I would surely consider becoming a believer if '1 Timothy 2:12' was an internationally recognised and enforced law.

 

“I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent”

[luckyluke]

Maybe everything is a big misunderstanding,

after all we are in Thailand where it is current.

 

I assume that Sunmaster believe in a kind of creator.

I consider it myself as a possibility.

 

Sunmaster is an adept of yoga, wo-in he finds happiness and serenity.

I think that is great for him, it is however not appropriate for everyone.

There are other ways.

Each of us must find for himself the most adequate way.

One particular way is not superior to another.

 

Sunmaster has a significant  knowledge in certain matters, and an ability to express himself easily.

Which I value.

But here it comes,

Sunmaster pretend, due to the previous, that his opinion what concern God, gods, creator...has more value than anyone else.

I pretend that this being a subjective matter, not measurable, every opinion about this particular matter has the same value.

 

That's simply it.

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last paragraph. 

Only what can be described by the methodology of science is real and worthy of consideration? 

 

Everything that affects us is worthy of consideration, but some issues are so complicated with so many influencing factors, even the most rigorous application the methodology of science cannot solve the problem or achieve certainty.

 

Also, I think it's a dangerous attitude to attribute "logical and rational thought" only to those in the scientific field. It implies that all others must be irrational and intellectually underdeveloped. 

I hope that's not what you mean.

 

In a sense, we're all in the 'scientific field'. We use scientific products daily. Our modern lifestyles depend on them. One doesn't have to be a professional scientist in order to appreciate logic and rationality.

 

I'll try to explain what I mean using the following analogy. Imagine the situation of a woman who has recently lost her husband whom she dearly loved. She is constantly thinking about their past experiences together, including the wonderful dinners they had together and with others, at their large dining room table.

 

One day she invites some of those friends for a meal at the same table. One of the chairs where her husband used to sit is empty. As the meal progresses, she can't help thinking about her late husband, then suddenly he appears in the empty chair across the table. She feels great joy and announces to everyone, 'My husband has returned. He's sitting in the chair opposite me. Can't you see him?'

 

The other people at the table are very perplexed and tell the woman they cannot see anyone in the empty chair. The woman insists that she can see him clearly and can even hear him. So one of the guests next to the empty chair swings his arm across the chair to demonstrate that there's no material body there (a very basic example of the methodology of science).
The woman becomes confused, rises from her chair, walks to the opposite side of the table, and moves her own arm across the empty chair. The hallucination of her husband disappears and she realizes that it really was an hallucination and just a projection from her own mind.

 

Now this analogy is not a completely fictional story. Such events do happen. An ancient example is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He died on the cross and was laid in a tomb after being confirmed as definitely dead. Three days later he is claimed to have been resurrected and walked around speaking to various individuals for a period of time. This seems to me a perfect example of hallucination, and/or an exaggerated and fictional account to promote the belief in Jesus. It's not difficult to understand that a few people who wholeheartedly believed in Jesus and who had heard of the predictions of his arising from the dead after 3 days, would have had an hallucination to confirm that predicted resurrection. Their belief depended upon it.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_812.cfm

 

This belief is so essential, if I had written the above about 600 to 700 years ago, I would have been burned alive at the stake for heresy. Thank God  ???? I'm living in the 21st century. 

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, luckyluke said:

I am completely agree with you here, well written pieces can also been good and true.

We all have our own approach of it, and each of us in particular must determine for his own if

something is

well written with,

or without,

an agenda.

Well, why anyone writing on this thread would have an agenda ?

Of course we all have an ego, i, you and everyone else here.

So apart from boosting our  own ego, what would be the agenda which not too subtly you are implying some of us are having ?

I am really curious to know, yet not holding my breath for a straight answer.

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Everything that affects us is worthy of consideration, but some issues are so complicated with so many influencing factors, even the most rigorous application the methodology of science cannot solve the problem or achieve certainty.

 

 

 

 

In a sense, we're all in the 'scientific field'. We use scientific products daily. Our modern lifestyles depend on them. One doesn't have to be a professional scientist in order to appreciate logic and rationality.

 

I'll try to explain what I mean using the following analogy. Imagine the situation of a woman who has recently lost her husband whom she dearly loved. She is constantly thinking about their past experiences together, including the wonderful dinners they had together and with others, at their large dining room table.

 

One day she invites some of those friends for a meal at the same table. One of the chairs where her husband used to sit is empty. As the meal progresses, she can't help thinking about her late husband, then suddenly he appears in the empty chair across the table. She feels great joy and announces to everyone, 'My husband has returned. He's sitting in the chair opposite me. Can't you see him?'

 

The other people at the table are very perplexed and tell the woman they cannot see anyone in the empty chair. The woman insists that she can see him clearly and can even hear him. So one of the guests next to the empty chair swings his arm across the chair to demonstrate that there's no material body there (a very basic example of the methodology of science).
The woman becomes confused, rises from her chair, walks to the opposite side of the table, and moves her own arm across the empty chair. The hallucination of her husband disappears and she realizes that it really was an hallucination and just a projection from her own mind.

 

Now this analogy is not a completely fictional story. Such events do happen. An ancient example is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He died on the cross and was laid in a tomb after being confirmed as definitely dead. Three days later he is claimed to have been resurrected and walked around speaking to various individuals for a period of time. This seems to me a perfect example of hallucination, and/or an exaggerated and fictional account to promote the belief in Jesus. It's not difficult to understand that a few people who wholeheartedly believed in Jesus and who had heard of the predictions of his arising from the dead after 3 days, would have had an hallucination to confirm that predicted resurrection. Their belief depended upon it.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_812.cfm

 

This belief is so essential, if I had written the above about 600 to 700 years ago, I would have been burned alive at the stake for heresy. Thank God  ???? I'm living in the 21st century. 

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying.
For you, the vision of that dead husband must be a hallucination produced by the grieving wife, because you have no other way of explaining it.

For me, the event can be looked at from another point of view that includes the scientific field, but also takes into account another, wider framework. In this framework, consciousness is not bound by a body and can appear to a person who is in tune with that consciousness. I would have no problem believing that woman.
I think that the religious or spiritual visions of the saints are not just hallucinations produced by unstable minds. (Wouldn't that be awfully condescending?) They are very powerful and profound messages that can change one's life forever. Their authenticity can't be denied by the subject, the same way you can't deny the pain in your hand when you punch a wall.