Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil

 

Quote: ["How is it that theres so many religious texts from across the world that all have one message in common?"]

They don't; that's one of my main-points. Ofcourse except for platitudes, which would turn up in any context.

Im afraid you're very wrong... almost every ancient text about religious dogma has a similarity... and that is of course....Love

Im not going to quote the bible for an example, its there trust me...

The bhagavad Gita's three major themes are knowledge, action, and love.

Islam, has many examples of love for your fellow human beings...

Its obvious in Buddism, i'll assume you know this...

Shintoism details respect and love for nature, and of course we are a part of nature....

Its impossible to deny this FACT... all religious texts have one main theme in common. Though its not something thats widely practiced, its a theme thats echoed through the ages.

Hate to say it brother, but you're wrong.

Concerning the relationship religion-love, this doesn't differ much from how the subject 'love' is approached by mankind in general.


1/ A majority of mankind has a rather so-and-so attitude to 'love' (or whatever name it goes under), ranging from nominal adherence to some ideological system to 'love' of king and country and other lip-service perfomances.

And in a secular context I'm quite sure, that pop-culture in the form of banale entertainment relates much more often to 'love', than religion does.

2/ Some ideologies have 'pro-love doctrines', but sadly enough a minority of adherers behave rather aggressive, hateful and invasive. Completely hypocritically.

3/ And finally there are ideologies, where there are 'pro-love doctrines', and where a minority of adherers also actively follow such doctrines in practise.



In the case of religious/semi-religious 'love', this 'love' is (as os the 'god' concept) very UN-uniform, and is (as is the 'god' concept) meaningless to use in a broad inclusive category. The 'love' of a buddhist would e.g. only somewhat resemble the 'love' of a christian. So as a feed-back argumént for theism, there's no uniform, universal 'love' to refer to.


When it comes to the manifested and demonstrable, it's apparant, that humanitarian, liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy (in a 'love'-context) is far superior to the various versions of theistic-dominated socities. This type of democracy takes care of the weak and helpless, with no price-tags attached.


You have created a cosmetic category of 'love' in your post, a category which describes mankind generally, and which doesn't point exclusively/specifically to theism even in exceptional situations.

I hope, I can avoid to be involved in any self-containing arguments about 'divine love' as an exclusive subject. I don't share the initial circle-argumentatory premises for 'divine love'. But if it has to be done, I'll do it.

reply to post by Olise


You wrote:

["They that fumble around the darkness that is the world, which includes the cosmos and all, never find the true meaning of life, neither do they understand what they are experiencing; they impress the impressionable with big words, which only reveal their true ignorance: the matters of life are simple enough for a child to understand, and can be perceived better from a child's perspective."]

This patronizing attitude of yours is unfortunately shared by most 'true' believers, be they christian, theistic, political or otherwise ideological. And not only do they have such condescending opinions about non-believers, but also about each other, when a semi-colon is in the wrong place in a 'doctrine'.

Your implied anti-intelletual attitude doesn't give you credit either. As you are using the benefits of contemporary science/logic (a computer), you are hardly in a position to condemn it at the same time.

If you should be interested in approaching 'reality' from other than scholastic positions, I would be more than willing to take up genesis 1, which is beyond even a child's comprehension. From your self-proclaimed 'truth' you can hopefully 'explain' it to me.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil

 

Im not going to quote the bible for an example, its there trust me...

LOL, along with racism, genocide, human sacrifice, demeaning of women. And not just Christianity, many Gods before Yahweh and Allah have been tyrannical, and merciless.

Islam, has many examples of love for your fellow human beings...

And many examples of hatred towards "Kafirs"; we'll leave that part out though; that would be inconvenient to your argument; wouldn't it?

Its impossible to deny this FACT... all religious texts have one main theme in common. Though its not something thats widely practiced, its a theme thats echoed through the ages.

You can't deny that the bible offers charity, and talks about "love"; but the loving, kind, altruistic passages do not counter-ballance the immoral, nasty and abhorrent passages. The "good" passages do not make up for the "bad".

Most of them preach compulsory love in the specified deity; and rejection of that "love" results in punishment or "sin" - That's not moral, that's not nice.

Anyway, It's man made, not God-made; it shows that man has aspects of love, and aspects of hatred which we have improved over time: whether it's women's rights, or xenophobia.

Hate to say it brother, but you're wrong.

You forgot to add "In my opinion".

reply to post by bogomil

The 'love' of a buddhist would e.g. only somewhat resemble the 'love' of a christian.

Im not christian so i don't know what they consider love, though i know what their God(jesus) tells them about it...

As for buddist definition of love... it falls in line with what Jesus taught...

The definition of love in Buddhism is: wanting others to be happy.
This love is unconditional and it requires a lot of courage and acceptance (including self-acceptance).
The "near enemy" of love, or a quality which appears similar, but is more an opposite is: conditional love (selfish love, see also the page on attachment).
The opposite is wanting others to be unhappy: anger, hatred.
A result which one needs to avoid is: attachment.

This definition means that 'love' in Buddhism refers to something quite different from the ordinary term of love which is usually about attachment, more or less successful relationships and sex; all of which are rarely without self-interest. Instead, in Buddhism it refers to de-tachment and the unselfish interest in others' welfare.

Selflessness basically.... caring for everyones welfare. Same thing.

When it comes to the manifested and demonstrable, it's apparant, that humanitarian, liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy (in a 'love'-context) is far superior to the various versions of theistic-dominated socities.

Oh you have got to be kidding, democracy is a myth, it doesn't exist. Theres always someone at the top profiting from the lesser of our species. Our society is based around money, and any so called "humanitarian, liberal blah blah blah" always has other agendas, which involve someone getting rich. Its a dog eat dog world, and no form of government has been sucessfull in terms of provideing for all its citizens equally. Government has nothing to do with love what so ever... well, love of money i guess

You have created a cosmetic category of 'love' in your post, a category which describes mankind generally, and which doesn't point exclusively/specifically to theism even in exceptional situations.

Well if we're talking about God which we are, and the sorces we have our "information" of said God, it does point to theism... in most cases. Though i didn't say exclusively...

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

LOL, along with racism, genocide, human sacrifice, demeaning of women. And not just Christianity, many Gods before Yahweh and Allah have been tyrannical, and merciless.

completely besides point i was making....

And many examples of hatred towards "Kafirs"; we'll leave that part out though; that would be inconvenient to your argument; wouldn't it?

Only because its has nothing to do with what i was saying....

You can't deny that the bible offers charity, and talks about "love"; but the loving, kind, altruistic passages do not counter-ballance the immoral, nasty and abhorrent passages. The "good" passages do not make up for the "bad".

I didn't say that any passage makes up for anything... Again you're missing the point of my arguement...

Most of them preach compulsory love in the specified deity; and rejection of that "love" results in punishment or "sin" - That's not moral, that's not nice.

Anyway, It's man made, not God-made; it shows that man has aspects of love, and aspects of hatred which we have improved over time: whether it's women's rights, or xenophobia.

This has nothing to do with what certian people preach... Pretty much everything you've said has nothing to do with my arguement...

Do you have any points to make or are you just spouting off?

reply to post by Akragon

completely besides point i was making....

You were making the point that love is a common theme amongst religions throughout history. Compulsory love, especially within Monotheism is a common theme too. The tyrannical, and merciless nature of the deity is common along with the added contradiction of love and acceptance.

That's my point. Take it or leave it.

Only because its has nothing to do with what i was saying....

You said Islam offers love. I was showing that it offers no love to Kafirs (or non-believers)

I didn't say that any passage makes up for anything... Again you're missing the point of my arguement..

No, again; your argument was that love is a common theme; i'm highlighting that abhorrent preaching is also a common theme (including human sacrifice, blood ritual etc.)

This has nothing to do with what certian people preach

People preach contradictory to their "faith", people are not consistent with the doctrines that found their religion. I was higlighting that compulsory love in a concept that the doctrine itself preaches. (Accept God or Hell)

.. Pretty much everything you've said has nothing to do with my arguement...

Well my arguments relate to the OP in regards to "Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense"?

Arguments FOR God have always been speculative nonsense; whether God exists or not. That's my point. You don't have to respond, this is a point i'm making independantly of yours.

Do you have any points to make or are you just spouting off?

Spouting off And enjoying the discussion.

reply to post by Akragon

completely besides point i was making....

You were making the point that love is a common theme amongst religions throughout history. Compulsory love, especially within Monotheism is a common theme too. The tyrannical, and merciless nature of the deity is common along with the added contradiction of love and acceptance.

That's my point. Take it or leave it.

Only because its has nothing to do with what i was saying....

You said Islam offers love. I was showing that it offers no love to Kafirs (or non-believers)

I didn't say that any passage makes up for anything... Again you're missing the point of my arguement..

No, again; your argument was that love is a common theme; i'm highlighting that abhorrent preaching is also a common theme (including human sacrifice, blood ritual etc.)

This has nothing to do with what certian people preach

People preach contradictory to their "faith", people are not consistent with the doctrines that found their religion. I was higlighting that compulsory love in a concept that the doctrine itself preaches. (Accept God or Hell)

.. Pretty much everything you've said has nothing to do with my arguement...

Well my arguments relate to the OP in regards to "Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense"?

Arguments FOR God have always been speculative nonsense; whether God exists or not. That's my point. You don't have to respond, this is a point i'm making independantly of yours.

Do you have any points to make or are you just spouting off?

Spouting off And enjoying the discussion.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


Good stuff man, im sorry i came off a little snappy.

Yes there is much in the bible and other religions that speak contrary to love and its ideals. One should look beyond those words and find the true meaning.

We have litterally nothing that was Written by God, inspired isn't written by. Though again the message within the passages may have a divine context.

Love is divine

It's common that people don't understand God's ways but we can know God, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This peculiar baptism proves not only, who God is but who Yeshua is also. Just as you have a criteria for what it will take for you to believe in God - God also has a criteria for you to meet before you can know him. Care to venture a guess as to whose criteria is more important in the grand scheme of things?

Yeshua came to reveal all the mysteries - he came to reveal God. You choose not to know the truth and want others to believe along the same lines as you. When Jesus' disciples didn't get the higher spiritual meaning of something he said, he would say "Are you still that dull?"

At least disciples are trying to learn - they may not quite grasp all the hidden mysteries but at least they try. Have you ever wondered what God thinks of something who doesn't even try to know him?

What is less than dull? Because that is where you are on the path to knowledge.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["Im not christian so i don't know what they consider love, though i know what their God(jesus) tells them about it... "]

I know, and my example on the difference between christian and buddhist 'love' was a response to your earlier general comment (not a comment on your theism):

Earlier quote from you: [" Im afraid you're very wrong... almost every ancient text about religious dogma has a similarity... and that is of course....Love"]

I am trying to say, that you have created a false category of 'love', which will make religions 'uniform'. Please re-read our recent posts, if you've lost the initial points..

Quote: [" As for buddist definition of love... it falls in line with what Jesus taught..."]

Only on very, very general lines. And in any case it's more extensive and less conditional than Jesus teachings.

Quote: [" The definition of love in Buddhism is: wanting others to be happy."]

Nope, it's to end the suffering, which is a consequence of 'ignorance' (as buddhists define ignorance). That 'happiness' will be a fringe-benfit from this is of minor importance in this context; happiness is the general outcome of many (often contradictory) processes.

Quote: ["The "near enemy" of love, or a quality which appears similar, but is more an opposite is: conditional love (selfish love, see also the page on attachment)."]

You are stretching buddhistic points beyond their self-definitions to make them fit with your answer. You are talking about the buddhistic 'ego', which is not a 'moral' position, but a position of ignorance.

Quote: [" The opposite is wanting others to be unhappy: anger, hatred."]

And the 'opposite' of being a violin-player is to be tone-deaf??? You play too freely on semantic constructions.

Quote: ["This definition means that 'love' in Buddhism refers to something quite different from the ordinary term of love which is usually about attachment, more or less successful relationships and sex; all of which are rarely without self-interest. Instead, in Buddhism it refers to de-tachment and the unselfish interest in others' welfare."]

From different motives and through different methods. The christian inquisition also claimed unselfish interest, when they burned socalled heretics. It was for their own good. As a category 'unselfish' is just as worthless as 'god' and as 'love'.

I have the impression, that you fixate on some words being similar, and then disregard the intermediary steps leading to their manifestations, you make them somewhat identical. I dislike joining such wordgames, but I can join the black/white semantic club, if only for eaxmples.

Quote: ["Oh you have got to be kidding, democracy is a myth, it doesn't exist."]

Where I live (and in the neighbouring countries), it's really quite good. Decent state-paid old-age pensions, generous wellfare, free schooling, very cheap medicare for everybody, free drug and alcohol-rehabilitation, very few homeless, a rather egalitarian legal system and protection of minorities. Isn't that enough?

Quote: [" Theres always someone at the top profiting from the lesser of our species."]

As local pensions go I'm at the lower end, but I still have more, than I really need. Why should I care, if somebody at the top is very rich.

Quote: ["Our society is based around money, and any so called "humanitarian, liberal blah blah blah" always has other agendas, which involve someone getting rich."]

And why is it a problem for you, if someone gets rich, if the common man has a good income and personal liberty inside the perimeters of democracy.

Quote: ["Its a dog eat dog world, and no form of government has been sucessfull in terms of provideing for all its citizens equally."]

I never said anything about Utopia, it can become better still. But there are light-years between theocracy and blah, blah democracy as you call it.

Quote: ["Government has nothing to do with love what so ever..."]

There's no need of singing hallelujah or to make demonstrative gestures of 'love' to demonstrate care for other people. We just do it, without any holy circus surrounding it.

Quote: [" Well if we're talking about God which we are, and the sorces we have our "information" of said God, it does point to theism... in most cases. Though i didn't say exclusively..."]

No, YOU are talking about God, and you wanted to demonstrate uniformity in religion from your example of the categorized word 'love', so you also could demonstrate validation of the concept 'god'. Where I again will refer to your own words from earlier:

Quote: [" Personally i like to look for answers, and most of them come from a time where everyone believed in a God. I think many people were more "spiritually in tune" back then... a lot less distractions ye know?

Can we really say that the texts we've translated from long ago are all nonsence? Even many new age "masters" tend to fall in line with what is written about long ago."]

It's a question of finding a functional method for knowledge-seeking. Not of enforcing the various answers to 'support' each other.

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct


You wrote:

["It's common that people don't understand God's ways but we can know God, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit."]

Such initiations are thirteen a dozen. I have a nice little collection myself from a handful of different religions. It sometimes 'adds' to knowledge, sometimes it's just placebo effects.

Quote: ["This peculiar baptism proves not only, who God is but who Yeshua is also."]

It doesn't 'prove' 'god' or Jesus any more than an equalent initiation 'proves' Shiva. Unless you use the word 'prove' in a new way, special for you.

Quote: ["Just as you have a criteria for what it will take for you to believe in God - God also has a criteria for you to meet before you can know him. Care to venture a guess as to whose criteria is more important in the grand scheme of things?"]

Using special premises adapted to lead to the pre-determined answer is only useful for the believer. To experience the autheticity of the flying spaghetti monster, there are also certain criteria to meet first.

Quote: ["Yeshua came to reveal all the mysteries - he came to reveal God."]

Not to ridicule you, but you are completely wrong. That's what Krishna did, not Jesus.

Quote: [" You choose not to know the truth and want others to believe along the same lines as you."]

Sorry again, but that's what YOU do. YOU don't know, that it was Krishna who is the truthbringer, and you want others to share your ignorance on that point.

Quote: ["At least disciples are trying to learn"]

What disciples. The Hara Krishna people? And if not, why not?

reply to post by bogomil


I was talking to the dude who started this thread. I could give a rats ass what you think about your Shiva. You are spouting nonsense. It's Jesus who reveals God.

Tell me what Shiva has revealed?

Let's hear it.

reply to post by bogomil


You said: Sorry again, but that's what YOU do. YOU don't know, that it was Krishna who is the truthbringer, and you want others to share your ignorance on that point."

You don't KNOW and You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit your butt. I already regret asking you to tell me anything and I haven't even read it yet, but save yourself the time and headache. I have no need for a lesson in Hindu.Lol I don't need it, nor do I want it. Remember these words "I told you so."

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
reply to post by bogomil

 

I was talking to the dude who started this thread. I could give a rats ass what you think about your Shiva. You are spouting nonsense. It's Jesus who reveals God.

Tell me what Shiva has revealed?

Let's hear it.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Myrtales Instinct because: (no reason given)

First of all it would have been easier to see that, if you had indicated this in some way. And secondly you are wrong again. It was NOT Jesus revealing anything, it was Krishna. Why....? It's true, because it's true.

Isn't that the christian way of argumenting. Why can't I use it also?

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct


You wrote:

["You don't KNOW and You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit your butt."]

And how do you and I differ in that respect?

You serve some self-proclaimed 'truths' from your preferred set of myths, and that makes it 'true'.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I have had all kinds of problems with translating Genesis, where you have a word that comes up in a sentence that, their eyes were opened and saw that they were eyrrmm (a transliteration of the Hebrew "consonants"). Hmm, what does that mean? Can't tell, really, since it is only found in this one story, they discover they are eyrmm, they hide because they are eyrmm, and the Lord asks who told them they were eyrmm. Well they made xgrt out of fig leaves because they were eyrmm, so what they made must have been some type of clothing, because what else would you make from fig leaves, right? So since they made clothes because the were eyrmm, that would mean, naked, right?
I think a text like this would be meaningless unless there was an oral tradition that went along with it and it was maintained in an unbroken manner. I don't see that as happening or there being any sort of evidence to support that.
Anyway, how I would translate it would be; Adam and Eve walked about the Garden in a carefree manner, totally without fear. (Later) They suddenly saw danger about them and created guards to protect themselves from potential hazards that they were now afraid of.
You may object, saying, But Adam answered the Lord by saying, We were eyrmm and afraid, so wouldn't your translation be redundant? My answer would be, Yes, but that is the convention of Hebrew text.
Edit for correction: That spelling I cited is actually found in the Bible once, I went back and checked. That one instance, where they had this discovery, would mean something like; they were both of them (as a group or pair) of that particular state, or quality.

edit on 30-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

As I recall, you read scriptures literally and that makes it almost impossible to understand the stories the way they were written.

Sodom for instance is said to be a moral story on how to treat your guests. That is the usual Jewish take from what I hear.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
It's common that people don't understand God's ways but we can know God, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This peculiar baptism proves not only, who God is but who Yeshua is also. Just as you have a criteria for what it will take for you to believe in God - God also has a criteria for you to meet before you can know him. Care to venture a guess as to whose criteria is more important in the grand scheme of things?

Yeshua came to reveal all the mysteries - he came to reveal God. You choose not to know the truth and want others to believe along the same lines as you. When Jesus' disciples didn't get the higher spiritual meaning of something he said, he would say "Are you still that dull?"

At least disciples are trying to learn - they may not quite grasp all the hidden mysteries but at least they try. Have you ever wondered what God thinks of something who doesn't even try to know him?

What is less than dull? Because that is where you are on the path to knowledge.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Myrtales Instinct because: (no reason given)

Thanks for showing us what speculative nonsense look like.

Regards
DL