|
|
Post by rikita on Nov 18, 2011 15:04:23 GMT
well, i sometimes wish i could think like that, but the thought of there being no point to anything really scares me. i guess it is in part because i find myself so very important (so the idea of me not existing also seems very horrible to me somehow...)
|
|
|
|
Post by imec on Nov 18, 2011 15:32:29 GMT
But isn't the point the fact that we are part of the most fascinating, never ending, real life story? That we can play a meaningful role in it? Enjoy it? Affect the way others experience it? I consider myself extremely fortunate that a single sperm out of thousands made it to the egg and allowed me to develop and be a part of this story.
As for being here by "coincidence"... such a notion is to completely discount the overwhelming and growing body of evidence which supports the theory of natural selection - a truly wondrous process which has determined and defined life as we know it.
If the point is simply to please a sadistic, megalomaniacal creator who frankly shows no respect at all for his/her creations then I find no comfort at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Nov 18, 2011 16:34:50 GMT
well to me it doesn't seem like God is sadistic or megalomaniacal, just that His decisions are beyond me to understand, and that he gave his creation a certain freedom that unfortunately brings also negative results.
btw, even with believing in God i do believe in a certain amount of coincidence, and i do believe in evolution and all that. but i do believe also that he is behind all these things...
|
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Nov 18, 2011 16:44:41 GMT
My views have changed as I have aged. My father belonged to the Catholic Church and my mother to the United Church. When they married and started a family, they were pressured to baptize my oldest sister Catholic. Once we moved to France away from the families, my parents decided not to baptize the remaining 4 of us.
Each Sunday my parents would encourage us to attend Sunday school at which ever Church we chose. In those days the Churches would send school buses around the neighborhoods for children to attend child worship classes.
When we married, it was in the United Church because it was easier than the Catholic process and I wanted to be married in Church. Now it would not matter.
I also have changed my views about from being buried, to being cremated and buying a spot in the crematorium to now our ashes just being mixed together and spread somewhere important to the two of us. I think my views have changed because we have no children.
We do not belong to any church but I still do enjoy attending a Service at any church from time to time. I guess it is comfort, as I never had any negative experiences going to church and I see no harm in it for myself.
Mich
|
|
|
|
Post by imec on Nov 18, 2011 16:50:54 GMT
His decisions are beyond me to understand Well, as mark pointed out above, that theme or variations on it is a common one amongst believers. But, I'm sorry. it's a cop-out. If we applied that way of thinking freely and fairly, we would be overrun by Amins, Ghadafis, Hitlers, Stalins, Mansons, Gacys etc. We didn't let them off the hook because we didn't understand their decisions. As for "Him" being behind "all these things"... WHO exactly was behind "Him"? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2011 18:01:43 GMT
Speaking of the dictators of the world, a lot of them are viewed as gods by the population until the day they fall. At least real people fall sooner or later, unlike imaginary beings who can only go in and out of fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 18, 2011 20:11:08 GMT
Rikita, here is a conundrum - imagine you were told by your spiritual adviser that he'd heard a voice, that he believed to be from God, - saying he didn't exist.
Would you put that down to a decision that is beyond you to understand, made by God, and you accept it as you accept that there are things God does that are beyond you to understand - or would you not believe it?
The point is, over the centuries a human has said that 'this is the word of God' and on good faith you accept it. What if a human said that the word of God is that he doesn't exist and to stop worshipping him?
If you then continue to worship him you are going against the word of God, yet if you stop, do you still worship God as you are obeying him?
(A bit convoluted but I hope you understand what I mean)
The other thing - you say "his decisions are beyond me to understand" - how do you know he made that decision? Or is the default view, that anything that happens, every single decision, is done by God - ergo, he must have made it?
The next thing as regards not understanding and acceptance - at what point, where is the line where you will not act upon what you understand to be a decision made, or something said, by God?
The point here is that once someone accepts these things there are bound to be people (and there are) whose line is so far away that that will commit evil acts because they believe God is directing them or has told them to do it, or God made a decision they are carrying out even though they don't understand the decision.
Where would your line be, how committed are you to believing in God that you will do what you think should be done because it has come down from Him either as word from another human or you believe somehow he is behind it even though you don't understand the decision?
Blind faith or there would be a common sense point when you say it is wrong, whatever it was?
|
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Nov 18, 2011 21:25:33 GMT
imec and kerouac - i would say that is quite a big difference. if i say i don't understand why God does the things He does, then i am basically accepting things that can not be changed (while i do see things that can be changed as something we are supposed to work on, to try to change) - if i said the same thing about any person, wouldn't that mean i believed that person to be a God, or how? (otherwise, why should their decisions be beyond me to understand?)
mark - i don't have a spiritual adviser, and if someone told me God told them to tell me something, i probably wouldn't believe it simply because i probably wouldn't believe that person. i think God gave us the ability to also think about things and judge them for ourselves. we obviously don't always get to the right conclusion (and it is very possible my own conclusions are wrong, or that things that seem to contradict themselves, like different religions for example, are true in a way that again, is not really possible for me to comprehend). so believing in any kind of religion i guess should always be a balancing act between a certain amount of just believing blindly (because as i said before, the main reason most people believe is because that is what they learned from their parents or whoever) and question things. obviously all religion i have been taught, and including the bible, has gone through human hands and changed by them through translation, interpretation, trying to get advantages, whatever - i don't think being religious means not questioning things, or not trying to change things.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 18, 2011 22:04:42 GMT
Fair enough riki, I'm more curious than anything. It's more than I just can't get to grips with accepting not just blind faith, but that even if something happens, it's happened because God has let it happen and for reasons we cannot understand.
It's again the conundrum of why he lets bad things happen, why he lets there be more than one religion etc etc.
If you question it the answer is always 'it's for reasons we, because we are not God, don't understand'.
Phueey.
Does not compute.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 19, 2011 12:01:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 19, 2011 12:47:37 GMT
This thread sent me off watching YouTube videos of Christopher Hitchens again. I find his arguments against religion so much more convincing than the arguments of those telling him he is a slave of god or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by imec on Nov 19, 2011 16:08:28 GMT
imec and kerouac - i would say that is quite a big difference. if i say i don't understand why God does the things He does, then i am basically accepting things that can not be changed (while i do see things that can be changed as something we are supposed to work on, to try to change) - if i said the same thing about any person, wouldn't that mean i believed that person to be a God, or how? (otherwise, why should their decisions be beyond me to understand?) rikita, I'm sorry but I don't buy any of this. Why can they not be changed? Why can't HE change them??? And anyway, if they truly CAN'T be changed, then how the hell can we blame murderers, rapists etc. for what they do - by your reasoning they had no choice - HE made them do it. And btw, how do we know these people AREN'T god? We have a very serious problem when adults are "teaching" their children out of a book which describes a god which not only condones murder, rape, pillaging, human sacrifice and so on, but actually relishes in putting thousands of people to death while at the same time teaching them that none of this behaviour is acceptable and that people who act this way are wicked. It's hypocrisy of the highest (lowest?) order. |
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 24, 2011 17:31:11 GMT
Being a Buddhist I now have the option of believing or not believing in a creator god. The Buddha, although often pursued on this subject, had nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of a god. He pointed out that there is enough to get on with in our daily lives without spending time speculating about a god, or the universe, or other unanswerable questions. I now make a point of avoiding useless speculation  |
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Nov 25, 2011 9:15:58 GMT
So, is Buddhism a way of life rather than a way of religion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 13:18:46 GMT
That's pretty much what I have always understood from a Buddhist friend of mine. At least that would be the attitude of "Western" Buddhists, because I don't think they really buy the whole reincarnation business. -------- I think I was a strange child, because I bought a lot of what the nuns would tell us, hook, line & sinker -- but I found it horribly scary rather than comforting. For example, the business about going to heaven and living forever. The forever bit scared the shit out of me, because I tried to analyze it along the lines of "okay, most people live to be about 75 and that's a pretty long time. They have done a lot of stuff in those years, but I suppose that if you lived for 300 or 400 years, you could find some new stuff to do, but that would be the absolute limit. It would be complete torture to have to live for 10,000 years, but we're talking about forever!" 
I would actually be thinking about this in bed and then I would have the most horrible nightmares about being in this huge empty gray place.... forever. When I would try to explain it to my parents, they thought I was a nutcase because there was no way that a 6 year old could understand "forever."
So you can imagine what I thought about places like purgatory or limbo, not to mention those creepy guardian angels spying on me. |
|
|
|
Post by frenchmystiquetour on Nov 25, 2011 15:17:59 GMT
This has nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a God (or maybe it does) but in order to define what something is, you have to define what it isn't. Existence is based on the principle of duality. Hence, you can't have yes without no, you can't have matter without anti-matter and you can't have good without evil. If you believe in a God(s) then he/she/it can do nothing about the presence of evil due to the way they designed the nature of existence. If you don't believe in a God(s) then you just accept duality as an underlying scientific principle of existence. Or maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.  |
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Nov 25, 2011 15:23:24 GMT
This has nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a God (or maybe it does) but in order to define what something is, you have to define what it isn't. Existence is based on the principle of duality. Hence, you can't have yes without no, you can't have matter without anti-matter and you can't have good without evil. If you believe in a God(s) then he/she/it can do nothing about the presence of evil due to the way they designed the nature of existence. If you don't believe in a God(s) then you just accept duality as an underlying scientific principle of existence. Or maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Pass........... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 18:07:33 GMT
Why stop at duality? North East West South, up down right left, sour sweet bitter salty....
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 25, 2011 18:22:41 GMT
It is for the individual to make that distinction for himself  |
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 25, 2011 18:25:17 GMT
Again, this is a matter for an individual to decide for himself. Lord Buddha always encouraged people to examine his teachings for themselves and make up their own minds. There is no dogma in Buddhism.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 25, 2011 18:28:59 GMT
FMT talks about '"duality" which is something I have only recently comprehended (rather than accepted in my mind through learning by rote)...
But you see for yourselves that one quickly becomes enmeshed in useless speculation!
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 25, 2011 18:31:59 GMT
Once again we go down the blind alley and are trapped by words. Meaning what?
|
|
|
|
Post by frenchmystiquetour on Nov 25, 2011 20:06:49 GMT
Duality leads to variety?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 20:28:21 GMT
Is Buddhism non verbal or does it also trap with words?
|
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Nov 26, 2011 18:42:53 GMT
imec and kerouac - i would say that is quite a big difference. if i say i don't understand why God does the things He does, then i am basically accepting things that can not be changed (while i do see things that can be changed as something we are supposed to work on, to try to change) - if i said the same thing about any person, wouldn't that mean i believed that person to be a God, or how? (otherwise, why should their decisions be beyond me to understand?) rikita, I'm sorry but I don't buy any of this. Why can they not be changed? Why can't HE change them??? And anyway, if they truly CAN'T be changed, then how the hell can we blame murderers, rapists etc. for what they do - by your reasoning they had no choice - HE made them do it. And btw, how do we know these people AREN'T god? We have a very serious problem when adults are "teaching" their children out of a book which describes a god which not only condones murder, rape, pillaging, human sacrifice and so on, but actually relishes in putting thousands of people to death while at the same time teaching them that none of this behaviour is acceptable and that people who act this way are wicked. It's hypocrisy of the highest (lowest?) order. of course we can blame people who decide to do these things. what i have to accept is, that due to God giving us the freedom to decide by ourselves if we want to be good or bad (to put it in really simple terms) there will be people who aren't good. of course i can (and should) still try to work against that... i don't know why God gave us this freedom, but he definitely didn't MAKE people do bad things. the responsibility for our actions does lie with us in the end. and personally, as for the bible, i am kind of torn... on the one hand it is (or contains) the word of God, on the other hand, it did go through a lot of translations (the fact of being written down by humans being the first one), and it has been decided by humans which parts to keep in it, which parts to take out, etc. - and i don't think it is a manual... |
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Nov 26, 2011 18:48:50 GMT
That's pretty much what I have always understood from a Buddhist friend of mine. At least that would be the attitude of "Western" Buddhists, because I don't think they really buy the whole reincarnation business. -------- I think I was a strange child, because I bought a lot of what the nuns would tell us, hook, line & sinker -- but I found it horribly scary rather than comforting. For example, the business about going to heaven and living forever. The forever bit scared the shit out of me, because I tried to analyze it along the lines of "okay, most people live to be about 75 and that's a pretty long time. They have done a lot of stuff in those years, but I suppose that if you lived for 300 or 400 years, you could find some new stuff to do, but that would be the absolute limit. It would be complete torture to have to live for 10,000 years, but we're talking about forever!"
I would actually be thinking about this in bed and then I would have the most horrible nightmares about being in this huge empty gray place.... forever. When I would try to explain it to my parents, they thought I was a nutcase because there was no way that a 6 year old could understand "forever."
So you can imagine what I thought about places like purgatory or limbo, not to mention those creepy guardian angels spying on me.well, as i (i think) said before, for me it is more the opposite - what i find really scary is the thought of not existing anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2011 19:46:39 GMT
How do you imagine existing after this life?
|
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Nov 27, 2011 20:49:17 GMT
i actually don't think much about how it is. i suppose it is quite different to this life, in a physical sense and also in the sense of how we perceive time, and i would suppose it is something we couldn't fully imagine until we know it. (i don't think we will be sitting on little clouds in a white dress and playing harps or something like that.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jul 28, 2019 21:04:57 GMT
I found myself watching a movie called Ignacio de Loyola on the Catholic channel (KTO) just because I was channel surfing and it looked really weird. I looked it up and it is a Filipino movie using scruffy Spanish actors. Everybody wears the roughest burlap as costumes and all of the dialogue is total religious dogma. It reminds me of a lot of the hard core Muslim stuff that I have seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jul 29, 2019 15:05:57 GMT
Meanwhile, a news story has confirmed that Québec has the lowest percentage of believers in God in Canada. Neighbouring New Brunswick has the most! (and of course NB also has a large number of Acadian francophones). This was a very deep and swift change - Québec was as priest-ridden as Poland and Ireland were, before the "Quiet Revolution" of the early 1960s.
|
|
