None of it is true - Does this bother anyone?

[Anti-thesisofreason]

LOL!


My question is, why have a religious belief system at all? What is there to gain by it? I can see why someone would want to believe in a personal God because they simply want to have a Daddy who is watching out for them or perhaps they like the comfort of knowing that there is some intelligence behind all the chaos of life. But I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would give a flying rip about a God who just kinda threw this stuff together and isn't intimately involved in human beings' lives. What can possibly be gained from such belief? It seems quite irrational to me.

The daddy god concept is far too simplistic and idea for me any Divine Entity is far more complex than simply a protector god. I am not even certain that the God Head can be considered a conscious entity as we understand consciousness.

As for what can be gained from my spiritual walk? I am, at this point, uncertain as to what the ultimate out come will be. What I have learned is patients, I've learned to be a better father, I've learned to not take most of life too seriously, I've learned to be a better husband, I've learned about mindfulness and have even practiced it to some extent, I've learned a lot about other religions and I've even worked through a lot of the anger I had towards Christianity. Most importantly I've learned that not everyone sees religion and spirituality the same way.

I have no problem with the chaos in the universe my spiritual walk acknowledges it and embraces it. Chaos is about change sometimes violent and unwanted and sometimes scary but through change comes new life and new opportunities.

 

[dogsgod]

I understand God is a belief, one that provides emotional comfort rather than an appeal to the intellect.

 

[Riverwolf]

I never said anything about "criminally." Just insane (e.g. a: extreme folly or unreasonableness b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable)

Well, that's an incorrect assumption. Translation, you're wrong.

MANY religious people I've talked to were perfectly mentally capable of thinking for themselves, and coming up with their own interpretations, which requires brainwork.

 

[Riverwolf]

I understand God is a belief, one that provides emotional comfort rather than an appeal to the intellect.

Guess what? God disagrees.

"One's intellect becomes steady when one's senses are under complete control."

The highest spiritual goal, that only relatively few people strive for, requires release of emotion altogether. No pleasure, no pain, no anger, no fear, no comfort, no joy, no nothing. Just peace.

A person who achieves this is called a Sage.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes. A neutered symbol of what the original Church fathers held as sacred. Protestants don't technically qualify as "Christians" in the original sense of the term. They have shed themselves of all the sacraments and believe in "Me, My Bible and Jesus" which is rather pathetic theology even for Christians. If you took the trouble to read Cyprian, Ignatius, or Athenasius or any of the Church Fathers, I think you will find yourself wondering how it is that Christianity has devolved into weekly pep rallies with no substance to them.

All it takes to be a Christian is to accept Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior. Nothing else.

And BTW, Christo Redeemer is a good representation of what the non-crucifix Christian Cross may stand for.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

I understand God is a belief, one that provides emotional comfort rather than an appeal to the intellect.

Personally that concept is far to simplistic my spiritual walk is not there to provide emotional comfort. Nor am I looking for a surrogate daddy/mommy figure. Nor do I pray to my God/dess in hopes that they will provide me with money, a car, or other material objects that I can, through some personal effort, obtain myself. Neither do I ask the gods "why me" when something bad happens to me or my family or I fall on bad times.

 

[Riverwolf]

LOL!


My question is, why have a religious belief system at all? What is there to gain by it? I can see why someone would want to believe in a personal God because they simply want to have a Daddy who is watching out for them or perhaps they like the comfort of knowing that there is some intelligence behind all the chaos of life.

Nope.

It's not a daddy-son (not father-son) relationship. It's a Master-Apprentice relationship. The Master is not comforting to his or her Apprentice, and the Apprentice doesn't go to his or her Master for comfort in times of trouble; the Apprentice is supposed to weather it. (Well, that actually does depend on the school.)

Keep in mind, that's on the personal level, with a personal god.

 

[ChristineES]

Yes. A neutered symbol of what the original Church fathers held as sacred. Protestants don't technically qualify as "Christians" in the original sense of the term. They have shed themselves of all the sacraments and believe in "Me, My Bible and Jesus" which is rather pathetic theology even for Christians. If you took the trouble to read Cyprian, Ignatius, or Athenasius or any of the Church Fathers, I think you will find yourself wondering how it is that Christianity has devolved into weekly pep rallies with no substance to them.

I have seen some twisted ideas about my faith, and you are a master of twisting it. I also don't appreciate some atheist telling me about my faith, which is not from some Church fathers but from the Gospels themselves.
I follow Jesus, not Paul or any other evangelist after him.
Don't bother answering, I don't plan on reentering this thread. Bless you.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"No pleasure, no pain, no anger, no fear, no comfort, no joy, no nothing. Just peace.

A person who achieves this is called a Sage."

Corpse is a better word.

 

[Riverwolf]

"No pleasure, no pain, no anger, no fear, no comfort, no joy, no nothing. Just peace.

A person who achieves this is called a Sage."

Corpse is a better word.

:biglaugh:I had a feeling someone might say something like this. (I was actually expecting zombie. ^_^)

No, you're still very much alive in this state. You just have an unhindered view of the world, and see things for what they are, rather than for what you or anyone else wants you to see them.

To better explain this, a disciple of Buddha once asked him, "What is the Truth?" The Buddha simply picked up a flower, and, saying nothing, held it up for the disciple to see.

I won't further explain it. Contemplate it yourself.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"I won't further explain it. Contemplate it yourself."

Sorry, certain pressing matters come first. I haven't read yesterday's obituaries.

 

[Luminous]

The Creation story puts Adam and Eve at anywhere from 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (particularly when we take into account the details about Adam's age and the age of those after him).

All of the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that homo sapiens have been around for some 200,000 years, this in stark contrast to the Garden of Eden story. Indeed, all the physical evidence supports evolution on every level whether biological, geological, or astronomical. The only rational conclusion is that the Adam and Eve story is, well, a story.

And this is the first problem: If it is just a story then there never was a singular event called "the fall of man" and therefore all this business of killing bulls or a virgin human sacrifice on a cross is entirely baseless.

The second problem is this: If we assume that the Garden/fall of man story is true, the conclusion that we draw is that the God of the Bible is not, in fact, very good at all. There is not one human being who would kick his/her toddler child out of the house for disobeying them (certainly not on a first offense!) or (if they had the power) alter that child's core being so that every one of her descendants would be born "in sin" and under a curse. This would be akin to a prisoner conceiving a child during a conjugal visit and then the powers that be taking steps to ensure that the child was raised in prison since the parent had committed an offense.

Moreover, the very nature of forgiveness is such that it does not require sacrifice. If your child steals from you, you don't tell them that they have to sacrifice Rover before they can be at peace with you. And if your neighbor offends you, you do not reconcile to them by allowing them to kill your infant son. Either you forgive or you don't.

The entire thing is not only irrational but if any one of us behaved in a similar fashion, we'd be imprisoned. And rightly so.

Therefore, on the one hand the physical universe screams that the Bible story is not true and on the other hand everything that we understand about the words "good" and "loving" scream that the Bible story cannot be the story of a loving God. How then can anyone actually believe this stuff?

who's we?

 

[slave2six]

If you believe it's true, is not the knowledge valuable in its own right? I don't want a sky daddy, I want to understand.

And if I believe that there really is a Balrog that some miners in West Virginia might arouse, should I not then make every effort to shut down those mines so as to save their lives?

Knowledge is only valuable when applied to things that are real. Knowledge is better than belief.

 

[slave2six]

What is irrational is presuming that all religious belief systems are fundamentally opportunistic and then asserting that it is somehow irrational for one to infer/adopt a belief system simply because s/he believes it to reflect fundamental truths.

What is the value of reflecting on things that are not real? Belief, by definition, abhors evidence. Like I heard one person say, "I know there is no God by the same means that I know that there is not an elephant in my car." Belief is irrational. What value is there is contemplating the irrational?

 

[slave2six]

The daddy god concept is far too simplistic and idea for me any Divine Entity is far more complex than simply a protector god. I am not even certain that the God Head can be considered a conscious entity as we understand consciousness.

As for what can be gained from my spiritual walk? I am, at this point, uncertain as to what the ultimate out come will be. What I have learned is patients, I've learned to be a better father, I've learned to not take most of life too seriously, I've learned to be a better husband, I've learned about mindfulness and have even practiced it to some extent, I've learned a lot about other religions and I've even worked through a lot of the anger I had towards Christianity. Most importantly I've learned that not everyone sees religion and spirituality the same way.

I have no problem with the chaos in the universe my spiritual walk acknowledges it and embraces it. Chaos is about change sometimes violent and unwanted and sometimes scary but through change comes new life and new opportunities.

I agree with the idea of embracing chaos.

Hey, if contemplating on the unknowable makes you a better person, that's great. I just don't understand why people can't see the simple truth that when we behave certain ways we are healthier both physically and mentally and that society as a whole benefits from that "right" behavior. It seems pretty simple to me.

 

[slave2six]

I understand God is a belief, one that provides emotional comfort rather than an appeal to the intellect.

Dogs also provide emotional comfort and have the added benefit that they are real.

 

[slave2six]

Originally Posted by slave2six
I never said anything about "criminally." Just insane (e.g. a: extreme folly or unreasonableness b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable)

Well, that's an incorrect assumption. Translation, you're wrong.

MANY religious people I've talked to were perfectly mentally capable of thinking for themselves, and coming up with their own interpretations, which requires brainwork.

Within the confines of that belief system you mean? I agree completely. It's astounding how much nuance and intricacies are worked out among such people. But I have worked with mental patients who reach intricacies within their alternate realities as well. That doesn't make them sane. Just clever.

 

[slave2six]

All it takes to be a Christian is to accept Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior. Nothing else.

By modern pop standards, yes. Certainly not by the standards of those who founded the religion.

 

[slave2six]

Personally that concept is far to simplistic my spiritual walk is not there to provide emotional comfort. Nor am I looking for a surrogate daddy/mommy figure. Nor do I pray to my God/dess in hopes that they will provide me with money, a car, or other material objects that I can, through some personal effort, obtain myself. Neither do I ask the gods "why me" when something bad happens to me or my family or I fall on bad times.

You, my friend, are certainly substitious and I applaud you.

 

[slave2six]

Nope.

It's not a daddy-son (not father-son) relationship. It's a Master-Apprentice relationship. The Master is not comforting to his or her Apprentice, and the Apprentice doesn't go to his or her Master for comfort in times of trouble; the Apprentice is supposed to weather it. (Well, that actually does depend on the school.)

Keep in mind, that's on the personal level, with a personal god.

...who does not interact with humans using any of the five senses by which human beings are able to have a personal relationship with another "person." That is to say, God only exists in the imagination. On one level, that is indeed very personal. On another, it is not personal at all and is simply open to "every man does what is right in his own eyes" or spiritual anarchy.