Shantanu
Well-Known Member
That kind of universal love and unity is the wrong attitude for individual survival.Hence "unity in diversity"
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That kind of universal love and unity is the wrong attitude for individual survival.Hence "unity in diversity"
That kind of universal love and unity is the wrong attitude for individual survival.
You set high ideals and do everything to attain those ideals at an individual level.What is right attitude toward human life in your opinion?
You set high ideals and do everything to attain those ideals.
You have to fight to protect your ideals because your ideals are your soul.What id one can not reach the ideals because they are unrealistic?
You have to fight to protect your ideals because your ideals are your soul.
When you say 'I' am this: what do you think 'I' means?I must say i disagree with you on this.
Ideals has nothing to do with a soul.
There's no such thing as objective morality.Human sacrifice is objectively wrong.
According to these statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.Out of curiosity, how much of the living population would you estimate to be theists?
From an objective standpoint and in a simplistic fashion there is either:
These are mutually exclusive and only one can be correct. How one worships isn't the issue necessarily, but wittling it to 'whatever works for you' is, in my opinion, feel-good rubbish.
- One God
- A Pantheon
- No God/s
And is God manifest in other humans as well, or just you?
If you were living as God as a human, you would not be thinking in terms of right vs. wrong. You would not judge by the clothing one wears to suit the day. Nor would you be elevating others above each other. God does not divide.
That would, in my view, nullify the oneness of a monotheistic god. It certainly would in a Judaic framework.Or one God that takes many forms and names, and appears to each believer in a way meaningful to the believer.
That would, in my view, nullify the oneness of a monotheistic god. It certainly would in a Judaic framework.
Yes, but the concept of oneness goes above and beyond that within traditional Jewish theology. I'm not expecting you to agree with the theology of course, I'm just putting it out there that this would not be acceptable to Noahides and Jews as a monotheistic concept, since that god would essentially be divided and the division would negate the absolute oneness.Not necessarily. It's still one God.
So do I. But I am explicitly an atheist, even an anti-theist.According to these statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.
How about if they're trying to "make disciples of all nations?"I think it depends on motives. If the messengers are just trying to make everyone conform, then its meaningless.
If there trying to clear up confussions and tell people to do whats right, thats different.
So you have faith in atheism and anti-theism?So do I. But I am explicitly an atheist, even an anti-theist.
And I know for a fact that many apatheists and atheists simply do not bother to make explicit their stance.
Exactly what do you think "faith in atheism" or "faith in anti-theism" could possibly mean?So you have faith in atheism and anti-theism?
How about if they're trying to "make disciples of all nations?"