Do you believe in God and why

[ThaiBunny]

8 minutes ago, notmyself said:

Likely some helium too.

God farts helium doesn't He?

[wgdanson]

2 hours ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

Please stop preaching. I find your assertions absurd and dismissed such silliness from my life when I was 12.  I have no interest in religious extremism,  which for me includes promoting the absurd idea that the bible is the word of god or that it offers a route a bearded sky fairy and the after life. The bible is sexist, anti gay, patriarchal, judgementtal and brutal.

Sorry Sunny, you got the wrong end of the stick. I was saying to the the poster that the Bible is good for HIM, HIM alone in his eyes. I totally agree with you. 

[CMNightRider]

I honestly feel sorry for everybody who chooses to mock God because there will be severe penalties for that person and God will make that person eat those words. 

 

All over the web you see people writing blasphemous things about Christ and when the time comes they’re going to wish they had a time machine.

[Sunmaster]

I don't care what anyone says about God or Christ. Why would God punish anyone for making use of his/her free will, that God gave them in the first place?
"I give thee free will, for you to do and chose what you want"......and in the fine print...."but if you chose not to believe in me, well, you're royally <deleted>!"
Doesn't make sense.

I would rather feel sorry for those who have never experienced God, yet talk as if they have and think they can preach to others.

It's like asking a priest for advice on marriage and sex. ????

 

[Puwa]

By God I assume you mean a particular historical application of that term, probably referring to "Yahweh" in the Abrahamic religions, also known as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions, rather than any other gods conceived by so many other cultures, from the Hindu pantheon to Micronesian cargo cults. I was not raised and programmed to accept as given that a god or gods exist. Personally, I think it is an absurd concept for which there is zero evidence, though a fascinating one in explaining the human psyche. Like most monotheistic religions, Christianity in particular runs into trouble with circular logic and convoluted theological premises, such as the trinity, in an effort to reconcile some fundamental inconsistencies. Prime among these is what is known as theodicy-- the problem of evil in the world: if god is good and all powerful, why so allow so much pain and suffering in the world? The response, from the Book of Job to the preacher on the corner is just "shut up and pray." I guess that satisfies some; it will never satisfy me. 

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Puwa said:

By God I assume you mean a particular historical application of that term, probably referring to "Yahweh" in the Abrahamic religions, also known as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions, rather than any other gods conceived by so many other cultures, from the Hindu pantheon to Micronesian cargo cults. I was not raised and programmed to accept as given that a god or gods exist. Personally, I think it is an absurd concept for which there is zero evidence, though a fascinating one in explaining the human psyche. Like most monotheistic religions, Christianity in particular runs into trouble with circular logic and convoluted theological premises, such as the trinity, in an effort to reconcile some fundamental inconsistencies. Prime among these is what is known as theodicy-- the problem of evil in the world: if god is good and all powerful, why so allow so much pain and suffering in the world? The response, from the Book of Job to the preacher on the corner is just "shut up and pray." I guess that satisfies some; it will never satisfy me. 

If you're asking me, I can say that for me the word "God" is just an inconvenient word that tries to define the "energy soup of all-there-is", that "thing that lies with-in and with-out", the Supreme, the Ultimate, the converging point, as well as the underlying substance that makes up everything. 

The God of the Abrahamic religions as well as all other descriptions of GOD, are just feeble attempts to describe the indescribable, and they all use metaphors, parables and visual imagery to somehow make sense of it all. It goes without saying that all those attempts are extremely limited, simply because words are a big limiting factor. In addition, the cultural idiosyncrasies of a specific place in time, will paint the same idea in many different colors. This is where the confusion comes when you compare this god to that god. They all describe the same thing, but using different "colors".

So, you're quite right in not being satisfied.

[Puwa]

29 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

If you're asking me, I can say that for me the word "God" is just an inconvenient word that tries to define the "energy soup of all-there-is", that "thing that lies with-in and with-out", the Supreme, the Ultimate, the converging point, as well as the underlying substance that makes up everything. 

The God of the Abrahamic religions as well as all other descriptions of GOD, are just feeble attempts to describe the indescribable, and they all use metaphors, parables and visual imagery to somehow make sense of it all. It goes without saying that all those attempts are extremely limited, simply because words are a big limiting factor. In addition, the cultural idiosyncrasies of a specific place in time, will paint the same idea in many different colors. This is where the confusion comes when you compare this god to that god. They all describe the same thing, but using different "colors".

So, you're quite right in not being satisfied.

Yes but the problem with your position is that it assumes a priori that there is an "ultimate" or "supreme" or "converging point" and an "underlying substance that makes up everything." But how do you know? This again is a supposition without evidence. Once you take this position, then it is easy enough to claim that different religions or conceptions of god are merely culturally determined takes on the same basic, fundamental truth. It's the old saying that various religions are just different paths up the same mountain. But in fact each religion posits its own mountain. In Christianity, humanity's fundamental problem is facing judgement upon death. In Buddhism, the problem is not death but rebirth. In one, salvation comes through faith in a savior. In the other it comes from perfection of wisdom; the idea of a savior is incompatible. 

[Sunmaster]

How do I know? How can anyone know?

I've said it before: the only way to truly know is through direct experience. Everything else is just meaningless chatter.
How to gain such a direct experience? Well, there are countless paths, some are more effective than others and it very much depends on your own willingness to let go.

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

How to gain such a direct experience? Well, there are countless paths, some are more effective than others and it very much depends on your own willingness to let go.

And your ability to recognise it's not those magic mushrooms you ate earlier. Or indigestion

[Sunmaster]

Psychedelic substances are just one of the many paths that can be used. They can give you great insight but they are not a substitute for regular practice.

[Skeptic7]

42 minutes ago, Puwa said:

Yes but the problem with your position is that it assumes a priori that there is an "ultimate" or "supreme" or "converging point" and an "underlying substance that makes up everything." But how do you know? This again is a supposition without evidence. Once you take this position, then it is easy enough to claim that different religions or conceptions of god are merely culturally determined takes on the same basic, fundamental truth. It's the old saying that various religions are just different paths up the same mountain. But in fact each religion posits its own mountain. In Christianity, humanity's fundamental problem is facing judgement upon death. In Buddhism, the problem is not death but rebirth. In one, salvation comes through faith in a savior. In the other it comes from perfection of wisdom; the idea of a savior is incompatible. 

Excellent posts both, but Good Luck! I've been trying to make these points, though less eloquently and more in their faces for more than 3 months, without even a dent. They just make BS up and act like it's reality. And act like they're the enlightened ones with some kind of knowledge to which only they are privy...when all they truly offer is less than nothing. Maybe in your lovely tolerant, eloquent manner you will be able to open their eyes a bit. 

 

Personally, I don't care what batshit crazy ideas they make up and believe, but for them to spout off and not see that they are just creating their own fantasies and trying to offer them up as substantial...when in fact they are absolute rubbish...is mind boggling, to put it mildly. 

 

Anyway...thanks for the efforts and well made points, but with this lot you'll have about as much success as a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest. ????

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Excellent posts both, but Good Luck! I've been trying to make these points, though less eloquently and more in their faces, without even a dent. They just make BS up and act like it's reality. And act like they're the enlightened ones with some kind of knowledge to which only they are privy...when all they truly offer is less than nothing. Maybe in your lovely tolerant, eloquent manner you will be able to open their eyes a bit. 

 

Personally, I don't care what batshit crazy ideas they make up and believe, but for them to spout off and not see that they are just creating their own fantasies and trying to offer them up as substantial...when in fact they are absolute rubbish...is mind boggling, to put it mildly. 

 

Anyway...thanks for the efforts and well made points, but with this lot you'll have about as much success as a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest. ????

Oh the irony! ???????? And it's undoubtedly completely lost on you. 55555555

 

with some kind of knowledge to which only they are privy

The knowledge is there for all to find and see. It's not even like you want to be spoon-fed the knowledge. You are like one of those babies who spit the food right back and throw a tantrum. 
Silly man.

 

 

[Puwa]

12 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

you'll have about as much success as a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest. ????

I chuckled out loud!

[Skeptic7]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Oh the irony! ???????? And it's undoubtedly completely lost on you. 55555555

 

with some kind of knowledge to which only they are privy

The knowledge is there for all to find and see. It's not even like you want to be spoon-fed the knowledge. You are like one of those babies who spit the food right back and throw a tantrum. 
Silly man.

 

 

You offer nothing. Bring nothing to the table other than tossed BS word salad. You're prob a Deepak Chopra fan!   

[Sunmaster]

You wouldn't recognize it if it slammed on your head like a sledgehammer, so who am I to change your mind?

[metempsychotic]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:38 PM, quandow said:

I believe life had some sort of intelligent design, and as I've pulled human remains out of a submerged plane crash and observed the lack of life, there is something about humans having a soul. It's even been weighed. As much as the method used to weigh the soul was sloppy science, I think the bible is sloppy narrative. Jesus was a short dark guy, not the European with flowing brown hair currently selling His book. It's been rewritten so many times with so many inconsistencies that it's difficult to fathom anyone taking it 100% seriously. There ARE many good parables, the lessons are good standards to apply to your walk through life. Do I believe we were created? Yes. Do I believe in the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God? No.

cant see how the bible in its retelling and iterations differs much from myths - say for example of the grecco roman variety, which themselves are retold by various individuals.

difference is the bible has been curated by various interested parties as has almost every religious literary touchstone.

i dont deny the potential existence of a higher power or force, i just doubt they wrote a book, 

[notmyself]

12 hours ago, Puwa said:

Yes but the problem with your position is that it assumes a priori that there is an "ultimate" or "supreme" or "converging point" and an "underlying substance that makes up everything." But how do you know? This again is a supposition without evidence. Once you take this position, then it is easy enough to claim that different religions or conceptions of god are merely culturally determined takes on the same basic, fundamental truth. It's the old saying that various religions are just different paths up the same mountain. But in fact each religion posits its own mountain. In Christianity, humanity's fundamental problem is facing judgement upon death. In Buddhism, the problem is not death but rebirth. In one, salvation comes through faith in a savior. In the other it comes from perfection of wisdom; the idea of a savior is incompatible. 

 

Very eloquently put.... far better than me just asking where 'they' get their data from. 

 

[notmyself]

Some are glad of their chains.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 8:52 AM, notmyself said:

 

You know this to be true how?

Are you trolling?

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Puwa said:

Yes but the problem with your position is that it assumes a priori that there is an "ultimate" or "supreme" or "converging point" and an "underlying substance that makes up everything." But how do you know? This again is a supposition without evidence. Once you take this position, then it is easy enough to claim that different religions or conceptions of god are merely culturally determined takes on the same basic, fundamental truth. It's the old saying that various religions are just different paths up the same mountain. But in fact each religion posits its own mountain. In Christianity, humanity's fundamental problem is facing judgement upon death. In Buddhism, the problem is not death but rebirth. In one, salvation comes through faith in a savior. In the other it comes from perfection of wisdom; the idea of a savior is incompatible. 

Yes but the problem with your position is that it assumes a priori that there is an "ultimate" or "supreme" or "converging point" and an "underlying substance that makes up everything." But how do you know?

No one knows, which is what faith is all about. If we KNEW, it wouldn't be faith.

The new religion of climate change is a case in point- no one actually knows if climate change will kill us all, or just let us grow food in presently cold places. However, there are a lot of people that have FAITH in the new prophets with their computer models. The payoff for the new priests of the religion- they get to fly to exotic places and live a great life at other people's expense.

 

 

the idea of a savior is incompatible. 

The idea of a saviour is an invention of the men with funny hats. All religions were created to give the men with funny hats power and wealth, or just food ( what happened to all the burnt offerings to the temple? ).

Far as I remember, The Christ preached that men had to find salvation from within themselves, not given by another.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, metempsychotic said:

cant see how the bible in its retelling and iterations differs much from myths - say for example of the grecco roman variety, which themselves are retold by various individuals.

difference is the bible has been curated by various interested parties as has almost every religious literary touchstone.

i dont deny the potential existence of a higher power or force, i just doubt they wrote a book, 

The Old Testament is a history book of the Jews, and the New Testament is a history of the origins of the Christian religion.

Neither are a path to salvation of the soul.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 2:31 AM, CharlieH said:

No offence to those that do,  but for me, its just  "an invisible friend for adults".

Many mock the religious, but in ages past life was so horrendeous for so many that believing in a better afterlife was probably the only reason they didn't kill themselves.

[ivor bigun]

I honestly feel sorry for everybody who chooses to mock God because there will be severe penalties for that person and God will make that person eat those words. 
 
All over the web you see people writing blasphemous things about Christ and when the time comes they’re going to wish they had a time machine.

How do you know this? Did he tell you? And i thought Jesus "turned the other cheek" and forgave sinners.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes but the problem with your position is that it assumes a priori that there is an "ultimate" or "supreme" or "converging point" and an "underlying substance that makes up everything." But how do you know?

No one knows, which is what faith is all about. If we KNEW, it wouldn't be faith.

The new religion of climate change is a case in point- no one actually knows if climate change will kill us all, or just let us grow food in presently cold places. However, there are a lot of people that have FAITH in the new prophets with their computer models. The payoff for the new priests of the religion- they get to fly to exotic places and live a great life at other people's expense.

 

 

the idea of a savior is incompatible. 

The idea of a saviour is an invention of the men with funny hats. All religions were created to give the men with funny hats power and wealth, or just food ( what happened to all the burnt offerings to the temple? ).

Far as I remember, The Christ preached that men had to find salvation from within themselves, not given by another.

2 points...

 

1. Direct knowledge is possible which makes faith redundant. Once you know something to be true, you don't need to believe it to be true.

Example: I know how water feels on my body because I've been swimming in it. I don't base my knowledge on what I've read or heard about water.

 

2. Originally, religions were not created to exert power over others. Religions,  as organized belief systems, evolved from shamanism and animism, which are the oldest ways to connect/relate to the spirit world.

Once an intermediary (priest/imam,rabbi) was placed between Spirit/God and the seeker, that's where the seeker lost the knowledge of his direct connection and was forced to rely on others to find answers. That's where he lost his power and gave it to the "guys in funny hats" and organized religion. 

The roles of the shaman and the priests are very different. The first acts as a personal guide in a 1-to-1 setting (knowledge is direct and first hand) , the second acts as a messenger of diluted knowledge (knowledge is based upon faith and second hand).

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Direct knowledge is possible which makes faith redundant. Once you know something to be true, you don't need to believe it to he true.

Unfortunately, in the absence of The Christ performing miracles, no living person KNOWS if "God" exists, or not. Faith is our only means of believing. I once thought "God" spoke to me, but as life went on, I realised it was just a chemical response in my brain to the situation around me.

 

I started out really religious, but had the illusion dispelled, quite suddenly when I was rejected as a minister's assistant. I had become one for a few weeks but some b'tard complained  because I was too young ( though confirmed ) in a religion that had a tenant of "suffer the little children". Then I rejected faith because I didn't understand that religion and faith were different. Came back to faith in the creator much later in life.

If monks didn't have to be religious and get up very early to chant, I'd quite like to be a monk, but they don't take people  just on faith.

[Puwa]

ThaiVisa forum may not be the best place to explore these questions fully. But for anyone interested, probably the most widely accepted definition of religion comes from the late eminent scholar Melford Spiro, of UC Santa Barbara. One of his specialties was Theravada Buddhism, where he encountered the question of whether classical Buddhism as described in the Pali Canon can be considered a religion at all, since it is atheistic and has a radically different idea of salvation from those of others. This sent him into a deep exploration of the matter, and he emerged with the following definition: "Religions are institutions consisting of culturally-patterned interaction with culturally postulated superhuman beings." If you can dig up a copy of his article "Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation," you'll enjoy the full Spiro effect. He also wrote several seminal books on Theravada in Burma, including "Buddhism: A Great Tradition and its Burmese Vicissitudes," the best explanatory work on the logical and cultural systems of Theravada; "Burmese Supernaturalism" which is a cracker; and "Anthropological Other or Burmese Brother? Studies in Cultural Analysis."  

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unfortunately, in the absence of The Christ performing miracles, no living person KNOWS if "God" exists, or not. Faith is our only means of believing. I once thought "God" spoke to me, but as life went on, I realised it was just a chemical response in my brain to the situation around me.

 

I started out really religious, but had the illusion dispelled, quite suddenly when I was rejected as a minister's assistant. I had become one for a few weeks but some b'tard complained  because I was too young ( though confirmed ) in a religion that had a tenant of "suffer the little children". Then I rejected faith because I didn't understand that religion and faith were different. Came back to faith in the creator much later in life.

If monks didn't have to be religious and get up very early to chant, I'd quite like to be a monk, but they don't take people  just on faith.

Sorry, but I must wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.

There are many spiritual practices that allow you to do just that: meditation, contemplation, tai chi, countless types of yoga, art (introspective art, religious art, psychedelic art), music (Gregorian chant, harmonic chanting), dance (spinning dervishes)....just to name a few.

How far you get depends solely on your willingness to stick with it. 
"Saints" or holy people who have progressed far on the path didn't just exist in the past, they exist today as well.

[notmyself]

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you trolling?

 

Certainly not mate. I'm asking where the data comes from because it could be interesting.

 

I think anyone miss the point of "God" if they think that what happens on earth has to be replicated throughout all the universe.

Different life forms can receive the message in different ways.

 

Last number of pages have had a plethora of quite serious unsubstantiated claims such as would require knowledge of other universes or life forms.. not species... life forms.

 

I could go on but after reading the latest posts on the thread I see you have posted something related.

 

[notmyself]

23 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No one knows, which is what faith is all about. If we KNEW, it wouldn't be faith.

 

Ah, my old friend.

 

What of it being argued in a more philosophical sense. If I said I'd just got a dog then you are perhaps willing to take its truth value, at face value, but if I said a hundred dogs would you would be less likely to?

 

A piece on this from over a decade ago.

 

 

So I've said a number of times that my interest in religion is psychologically based [sic] and just one of a number of sources of irrational belief. It's interesting because there is so much history of, and on it but local beliefs are generally more interesting in that one section believes that x will bring good fortune while another bad... and then behave in such a manner that it is more likely to come to pass.

 

Any road up.... I would seem to me that we occupy opposite binary standpoints. My initial position is don't know while yours appears to be, believe it to be true until proven otherwise.

 

 

Buddhism. The resort people go to when they are done with theism. 

[sweatalot]

Can't resist: 
Here is a quote from an author who claims the Bible is not the word of  God but an invention of wise authors. It's psychologically based. The figures mentioned in the Bible are merely the invention of these authors. A man named Jesus, who was different from everyone else because he was the only one who was the Son of God, never lived. I think that's an interesting idea and not as primitive as many others in this context

 

"... Jesus discovered this glorious truth and declared himself to be one with God – not a God that man had fashioned. For he never recognized such a God. He said, “If any man should ever come, saying, ‘Look here or look there,’ believe them not, for the kingdom of God is within you.” Heaven is within you. Therefore, when it is recorded that “He went unto his father,” it is telling you that he rose in consciousness to the point where he was just conscious of being, thus transcending the limitations of his present conception of himself, called ‘Jesus.’ "

Goddard, Neville. Neville Goddard: The Complete Reader,  Kindle-Version.