Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

34 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm not aware of any religions that do not include either gods, higher powers, or magical spirits. I have assumed that belief in a religion includes at least some of those, although there might be one or two exceptions. Buddhism as a philosophy or way of life could be considered an exception, but the general religion of Buddhism, as practiced by the masses, includes spirits and 'lower order' gods.

 

Religions exist, just as everything we can think of exists, in the human mind. Fantasies exist, but only in the mind of some people. Religions exist, but only in the mind of some people.

 

A solid concrete or brick wall also exists in the mind of those who can see it. But it also exists outside of the mind, as can be demonstrated by anyone who kicks it with a bare foot, perhaps breaking a toe.

 

See the difference? ????

There are a few...Taoism, Zen, and like you say, Buddhism. Maybe more...I'm not sure.

"Religions exist, just as everything we can think of exists, in the human mind. Fantasies exist, but only in the mind of some people. Religions exist, but only in the mind of some people."

 

Perhaps so. A more philosophical person or Zen master might argue that everything is created by the mind. ????

[VincentRJ]

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

A brick and a wall, and a brick wall exist originally in the mind of the creator, a man in this case.

Without imagination and a mind to store images, there would be no brick wall.

I should have anticipated that response. ????

Let's change the analogy. Let's consider an naturally formed stone wall, or a stone boulder that has rolled down the mountain and is sitting on the ground.

 

Person 'A' is blind and playing with a football to see if he can kick it. He misses the ball and hits the stone boulder, damaging his foot. The boulder exists, even though it's not in his mind.

 

Person 'B' has been smoking pot and hallucinates that there is a large boulder on the ground in front of him. It's in his mind but it's not real, and his companion walks straight through the boulder to demonstrate that it's not real. Okay? ????

 

[Sunmaster]

[VincentRJ]

56 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Perhaps so. A more philosophical person or Zen master might argue that everything is created by the mind. ????

An awareness of something has to involve the mind, and the experience of that awareness, whether by sight, touch, hearing, taste or smell, will vary at least slightly from individual to individual because all individuals are unique to some degree.

 

However, nobody can forcefully kick a stone wall with his bare foot without causing damage, and nobody can stick his bare hand in a fire without burning it, not even a Zen master. ????

[mauGR1]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I should have anticipated that response. ????

Let's change the analogy. Let's consider an naturally formed stone wall, or a stone boulder that has rolled down the mountain and is sitting on the ground.

 

Person 'A' is blind and playing with a football to see if he can kick it. He misses the ball and hits the stone boulder, damaging his foot. The boulder exists, even though it's not in his mind.

 

Person 'B' has been smoking pot and hallucinates that there is a large boulder on the ground in front of him. It's in his mind but it's not real, and his companion walks straight through the boulder to demonstrate that it's not real. Okay? ????

 

The analogy is flawed, like the imaginary persons you mention.

I stand by my opinion, everything which exists in the mind is real, religion may be not real for you, and a brick wall is real, fair enough.

I think that both the brick wall and any religion are real, but they are not comparable in so many aspects.

[VincentRJ]

15 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

The analogy is flawed, like the imaginary persons you mention.

I stand by my opinion, everything which exists in the mind is real, religion may be not real for you, and a brick wall is real, fair enough.

I think that both the brick wall and any religion are real, but they are not comparable in so many aspects.

They are absolutely not comparable. That was my point. The brick wall is real for every living creature, without exception, including spiders, tigers, elephants, and even religious zealots. ????

It's also real for photons of light which can't pass through it.

 

Religion, on the other hand, is real only for those who have an emotional belief or faith in it.

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Religion, on the other hand, is real only for those who have an emotional belief or faith in it.

Lol, not willing to pull your leg, but our modern society is the result of thousands of years of development, in which religion has played a major role in unifying the very fragmented tribal society.

Thanks to religion and kingdoms it was possible to create money to make trade possible all over the world.

So, you may have no sympathy for religion, i can understand that, but a modern world would have been impossible without it.

[Sunmaster]

 

[VincentRJ]

29 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Lol, not willing to pull your leg, but our modern society is the result of thousands of years of development, in which religion has played a major role in unifying the very fragmented tribal society.

Thanks to religion and kingdoms it was possible to create money to make trade possible all over the world.

So, you may have no sympathy for religion, i can understand that, but a modern world would have been impossible without it.

You mean, like the Chinese, who have shown the most rapid economic development during the past 40 years in the entire history of human civilization, despite their rejection of religion. ????

 

I suspect that the adherence to the many different religions of the past have slowed down economic development enormously, resulting in so many wars and conflicts that could have been avoided if people had been more rational and sensible.

[mauGR1]

41 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You mean, like the Chinese, who have shown the most rapid economic development during the past 40 years in the entire history of human civilization, despite their rejection of religion. ????

 

I suspect that the adherence to the many different religions of the past have slowed down economic development enormously, resulting in so many wars and conflicts that could have been avoided if people had been more rational and sensible.

I'm not talking about the last 40 years, i was talking about the last 10.000 years more or less.

Now, you can pay a Chinese, or a European, or an Iranian in dollars, he will make no objection, because nowadays the real cult and engine of the society is money.

But money would have not been possible without military power and religion.

Religion has been used for wars, right, but if you scratch the surface, it should be obvious to you that the main reason for wars and conflicts is greed, and unfortunately you can't take that away from humans.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

But money would have not been possible without military power and religion.

Why do you assume that? The following Wikipedia article on the history of money makes no mention of the necessity of religion. The use of money evolved because it was a more efficient system than bartering. It's use is rational and sensible, not religious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money

 

Another article on 'The origin of Money', on page 51, states:
"Money has not been generated by law. In its origin it is a social, and not a state institution. Sanction by the authority of the state is a notion alien to it."
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/on-the-origins-of-money.pdf

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Why do you assume that? The following Wikipedia article on the history of money makes no mention of the necessity of religion. The use of money evolved because it was a more efficient system than bartering. It's use is rational and sensible, not religious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money

 

Another article on 'The origin of Money', on page 51, states:
"Money has not been generated by law. In its origin it is a social, and not a state institution. Sanction by the authority of the state is a notion alien to it."
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/on-the-origins-of-money.pdf

Perhaps not directly, but kingdoms needed religion to unify the tribes, as kingdoms evolved into empires money became necessary to trade on larger and larger areas.

[VincentRJ]

42 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps not directly, but kingdoms needed religion to unify the tribes, as kingdoms evolved into empires money became necessary to trade on larger and larger areas.

Yes. Not directly. Since money is a far more efficient method of trading than the system of barter, then of course ancient civilizations would use money once it had been invented, whatever their religion or lack of religion.

 

However, it wasn't always necessary for ancient, invading armies to use money. They would just take by force whatever resources they needed or wanted. The soldiers would get their 'wages' in the form of spoils. They would be forced to fight because it was their duty, and if they refused, they would often be executed.

 

Genghis Khan by the way, was very tolerant of all religions.
 

[Odysseus123]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Yes. Not directly. Since money is a far more efficient method of trading than the system of barter, then of course ancient civilizations would use money once it had been invented, whatever their religion or lack of religion.

 

However, it wasn't always necessary for ancient, invading armies to use money. They would just take by force whatever resources they needed or wanted. The soldiers would get their 'wages' in the form of spoils. They would be forced to fight because it was their duty, and if they refused, they would often be executed.

 

Genghis Khan by the way, was very tolerant of all religions.
 

It would depend on the type of army.

Alexander's army was accompanied by a vast travelling market and soldiers had to pay money for the goods and foodstuffs.

Rome's generals spend a great deal of their time purchasing supplies and paying troops.

 

I think that Maugri has a point-religion was a unifying force (albeit somewhat fuzzy at the edges) and both Alexander (and his successors) and Rome paid a great deal of attention to it.

 

That is because "the Gods" were reflection of the numina-the vast forces that controlled man's fate-Fortuna,hubris,luck.the Mos Maiorum..etc.

 

I'm afraid that i still feel the "numina"-as do a great many of human folk today.It is in my soul.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Yes. Not directly. Since money is a far more efficient method of trading than the system of barter, then of course ancient civilizations would use money once it had been invented, whatever their religion or lack of religion.

 

However, it wasn't always necessary for ancient, invading armies to use money. They would just take by force whatever resources they needed or wanted. The soldiers would get their 'wages' in the form of spoils. They would be forced to fight because it was their duty, and if they refused, they would often be executed.

 

Genghis Khan by the way, was very tolerant of all religions.
 

According to Yuval Noah Harari's "Sapiens" (i recommend it) the roman Denarius was accepted in India some 2000 years ago.

At the time of the Roman empire raping and pillaging was already discouraged, the soldiers had a regular salary, and the aim was to assimilate population and territory without creating unnecessary resentment within the local population.

[VincentRJ]

42 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

According to Yuval Noah Harari's "Sapiens" (i recommend it) the roman Denarius was accepted in India some 2000 years ago.

At the time of the Roman empire raping and pillaging was already discouraged, the soldiers had a regular salary, and the aim was to assimilate population and territory without creating unnecessary resentment within the local population.

Tell that to the Jews. Some time after the crucifixion of Christ, around 66 AD, the Jews rebelled against the Romans and took back control of their own country for a period of 4 years. In 70 AD, the Romans returned with great vengeance. They butchered everyone in their path, heaping the corpses on the Temple Mount, and then setting fire to the temple. The fires spread beyond the Temple Mount to surrounding meadows and farms and tens of thousands of Jews were slaughtered. The devastation was so great, the Roman historian, Josephus, wrote that there was nothing left to show that Jerusalem had ever been inhabited.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Tell that to the Jews. Some time after the crucifixion of Christ, around 66 AD, the Jews rebelled against the Romans and took back control of their own country for a period of 4 years. In 70 AD, the Romans returned with great vengeance. They butchered everyone in their path, heaping the corpses on the Temple Mount, and then setting fire to the temple. The fires spread beyond the Temple Mount to surrounding meadows and farms and tens of thousands of Jews were slaughtered. The devastation was so great, the Roman historian, Josephus, wrote that there was nothing left to show that Jerusalem had ever been inhabited.

Thanks for this interesting story, of which i've never heard before.

I don't doubt its veracity, although propaganda at the time was already in fashion.

[Odysseus123]

28 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Tell that to the Jews. Some time after the crucifixion of Christ, around 66 AD, the Jews rebelled against the Romans and took back control of their own country for a period of 4 years. In 70 AD, the Romans returned with great vengeance. They butchered everyone in their path, heaping the corpses on the Temple Mount, and then setting fire to the temple. The fires spread beyond the Temple Mount to surrounding meadows and farms and tens of thousands of Jews were slaughtered. The devastation was so great, the Roman historian, Josephus, wrote that there was nothing left to show that Jerusalem had ever been inhabited.

I think that you (and Josephus) are over-egging the pudding.

 

In actual fact there is little archaeological evidence for mass destruction throughout Judea at this time.

Josephus was a defector to the Romans.

The Romans employed quite a number of Jewish numeri (auxiliary troops) throughout the war.

Jerusalem was a different kettle of fish altogether.It was taken over by the Zealots who initiated a reign of terror and refused to surrender.

In the ancient world-in fact up to the Napoleonic Wars-a city under siege which refused to surrender would be pillaged,sacked and the inhabitants subjected to slaughter.The Crusaders did it again in 1099.Th British did it at Badajoz in 1812.

 

Whilst the temple mount was destroyed and it's defenses "slighted" there is no evidence that the city actually ceased to exist-in fact it was still around for the Bar Kochba revolt some 60 years later.

 

Very few Historians give any sort of credence to the vast numbers spouted by ancient historians-the "there were millions of 'em" school-always excepting the noblest historian of them all-Thucydides.

 

His numbers are always modest and true to scale.

[VincentRJ]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Thanks for this interesting story, of which i've never heard before.

I don't doubt its veracity, although propaganda at the time was already in fashion.

You're welcome. Here's a Wikipedia article that provides more detailed information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)

 

"Josephus claims that 1.1 million people were killed during the siege, of which a majority were Jewish...  Armed rebels, as well as the frail citizens, were put to death... After the Romans killed the armed and elderly people, 97,000 were still enslaved."

[VincentRJ]

16 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

In actual fact there is little archaeological evidence for mass destruction throughout Judea at this time.

Here's some recent archaeological evidence.
https://opentheword.org/2017/05/31/evidence-of-the-destruction-of-jerusalem-and-the-temple-in-70-ad-discovered/

 

"Along with the road, the group also found evidence of the Roman siege of Jerusalem during the Great Jewish Revolt that took place between 66 AD and 70 AD. This includes several ballista balls (stones launched by catapults) used by the Romans during the assault and as well several stone arrowheads used by the Jewish defenders.
According to IAA, these findings confirm the description of the attack by Josephus, an ancient Jewish historian."

[mauGR1]

21 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You're welcome. Here's a Wikipedia article that provides more detailed information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)

 

"Josephus claims that 1.1 million people were killed during the siege, of which a majority were Jewish...  Armed rebels, as well as the frail citizens, were put to death... After the Romans killed the armed and elderly people, 97,000 were still enslaved."

Yep. I went straight there and checked, but thanks again.

[Odysseus123]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Here's some recent archaeological evidence.
https://opentheword.org/2017/05/31/evidence-of-the-destruction-of-jerusalem-and-the-temple-in-70-ad-discovered/

 

"Along with the road, the group also found evidence of the Roman siege of Jerusalem during the Great Jewish Revolt that took place between 66 AD and 70 AD. This includes several ballista balls (stones launched by catapults) used by the Romans during the assault and as well several stone arrowheads used by the Jewish defenders.
According to IAA, these findings confirm the description of the attack by Josephus, an ancient Jewish historian."

So the Romans fired ballista bolts and the Jews shot arrows back-of course they did!

It was a siege-they did at Mai-Dun in 44 AD as well (Britannica)

There is no evidence of the complete destruction of Jerusalem-only the Temple Mount and it's "slighted" defenses-which was standard Roman military practice.

 

The quoted numbers of the population of Jerusalem at this time lack credence-in fact they are impossible.

[mauGR1]

27 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

I think that you (and Josephus) are over-egging the pudding.

 

In actual fact there is little archaeological evidence for mass destruction throughout Judea at this time.

Josephus was a defector to the Romans.

The Romans employed quite a number of Jewish numeri (auxiliary troops) throughout the war.

Jerusalem was a different kettle of fish altogether.It was taken over by the Zealots who initiated a reign of terror and refused to surrender.

In the ancient world-in fact up to the Napoleonic Wars-a city under siege which refused to surrender would be pillaged,sacked and the inhabitants subjected to slaughter.The Crusaders did it again in 1099.Th British did it at Badajoz in 1812.

 

Whilst the temple mount was destroyed and it's defenses "slighted" there is no evidence that the city actually ceased to exist-in fact it was still around for the Bar Kochba revolt some 60 years later.

 

Very few Historians give any sort of credence to the vast numbers spouted by ancient historians-the "there were millions of 'em" school-always excepting the noblest historian of them all-Thucydides.

 

His numbers are always modest and true to scale.

In fact, in more recent times, a German historian disputed Josephus's numbers, saying that , at the time, 1 million people was the whole population of Judea.

[Odysseus123]

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

In fact, in more recent times, a German historian disputed Josephus's numbers, saying that , at the time, 1 million people was the whole population of Judea.

In fact the German historian (was it Hans Delbruck?) was probably being kind.

 

We forget that history in Ancient and Medieval times had much more to with rhetoric than a quest for the truth.

 

But to go to the topic-what do think of the Roman/Latin concept of the "Numen/Numina"?

 

I saw much evidence of the same sort of beliefs in both India and Thailand.

 

It was probably universal at one point or another.

[VincentRJ]

3 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

So the Romans fired ballista bolts and the Jews shot arrows back-of course they did!

It was a siege-the did at Mai-Dun in 44 AD as well (Britannica)

There is no evidence of the complete destruction of Jerusalem-only the Temple Mount and it's "slighted" defenses-which was standard Roman military practice.

 

The quoted numbers of the population of Jerusalem at this time lack credence-in fact they are impossible.

You can't completely destroy stone walls, stone roads and stone monuments with fire. The claim by Josephus is that the suburbs and homes in Jerusalem were destroyed because the fire spread, and that the impression he got afterwards was that no-one had lived there.

 

We can't be certain about the population of Israel at that time, but my impression is that it was above 3 million. I've read reports that about 1/3rd of the population was killed or enslaved during that conflict.

Here's one estimate.  https://www.haaretz.com/1.4852548

 

"On the eve of the destruction of the Second Temple, the number of Jews reached a peak of about 4.5 million - a record broken only in the 19th century. During the Middle Ages, the global Jewish population remained stable, at around one million."

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

In fact the German historian (was it Hans Delbruck?) was probably being kind.

 

We forget that history in Ancient and Medieval times had much more to with rhetoric than a quest for the truth.

 

But to go to the topic-what do think of the Roman/Latin concept of the "Numen/Numina"?

 

I saw much evidence of the same sort of beliefs in both India and Thailand.

 

It was probably universal at one point or another.

Yes, i think so, but i read too quickly, as usual, the article mentioned by Vincent... It also says, according to Josephus, that the temple fire was lit (mistake ?) by the Jews themselves.

About the Numen, well i am very credulous in the spiritual field, i believe in God, all the avatars, satan, good and bad ghosts, parallel universes, animism and aliens, i am also quite convinced that planet earth is a sentient being, and possibly every atom is a self conscious solar system

[Odysseus123]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, i think so, but i read too quickly, as usual, the article mentioned by Vincent... It also says, according to Josephus, that the temple fire was lit (mistake ?) by the Jews themselves.

About the Numen, well i am very credulous in the spiritual field, i believe in God, all the avatars, satan, good and bad ghosts, parallel universes, animism and aliens, i am also quite convinced that planet earth is a sentient being, and possibly every atom is a self conscious solar system

Well if you aren't joking (employing that Latin wit of yours ????) then I would tend to agree with you!

I witnessed the ceremonies of the Lord Juggernaut and the Lord Ganesha in India and thought-"It's the Numina"

 

It gave me quite a thrill.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Odysseus123 said:

Well if you aren't joking (employing that Latin wit of yours ????) then I would tend to agree with you!

I witnessed the ceremonies of the Lord Juggernaut and the Lord Ganesha in India and thought-"It's the Numina"

 

It gave me quite a thrill.

India is undoubtedly a thrilling place for many reasons, no i am not joking, and there i saw very strange things with my own eyes, which i will tell you whenever i'll have the pleasure to meet you in person.

[StreetCowboy]

 

 

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

...

Another article on 'The origin of Money', on page 51, states:
"Money has not been generated by law. In its origin it is a social, and not a state institution. Sanction by the authority of the state is a notion alien to it."
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/on-the-origins-of-money.pdf

“Sanction by the authority of the state is a notion alien to it”

Apparently not in modern times, when the coins of money were minted by the Roman emperors, and similarly in times since. Even the Clydesdale Bank pound notes are protected by deposits in the Bankof England

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

 

 

“Sanction by the authority of the state is a notion alien to it”

Apparently not in modern times, when the coins of money were minted by the Roman emperors, and similarly in times since. Even the Clydesdale Bank pound notes are protected by deposits in the Bankof England

Yep, the emperor image was a guarantee of trust, since the first coins, minted in Lydia around 600 bc.

Silver, and later, Gold were used because easy to work, and too soft for weaponry.