And if we lie to ourselves, would that make it all better?
And if it was not a lie ??
Spoiler!
Sanktum wrote:
^Religion is for people who can't set their own goals in life. And whether you achieve your religous goals or not, isn't really decided by how seriously you took your religion, but instead by what happens when you die. There are so many different beliefs in the world and a lot of people are going to be disappointed. Or maybe afterlife is for every individual exactly the way they depicted it in their minds, sort of like an imaginative existence? Either way, you're better off setting your own goals because then you will not be disappointed having worked hard enough to achieve them.
you know, people will explain/describe it in a different way, what if the way you understand religion and why it exists is wrong?, have you ever thought about that?, that this so called religion could be true and there is afterlife, like hell and heaven?
you know, people will explain/describe it in a different way, what if the way you understand religion and why it exists is wrong?, have you ever thought about that?, that this so called religion could be true and there is afterlife, like hell and heaven?
Biblical (yes, I say biblical) God can't be real. End of story. There could be some other divine being that created us, entelechy (I think it's spelled that way in English), but not the God as described in holy books. And I know what you just said, what if we described it wrong. And the answer is: we don't know.
you know, people will explain/describe it in a different way, what if the way you understand religion and why it exists is wrong?, have you ever thought about that?, that this so called religion could be true and there is afterlife, like hell and heaven?
Biblical (yes, I say biblical) God can't be real. End of story. There could be some other divine being that created us, entelechy (I think it's spelled that way in English), but not the God as described in holy books. And I know what you just said, what if we described it wrong. And the answer is: we don't know.
Im not gonna tell you there is god because i believe in that, i also dont know exactly how bible described "god", maybe the so called "bible" that exists now made the word "god" have less meaning than what it should, but i dont really expect alot from a book that has x versions (edited by humans, at different times).
Im not gonna tell you there is god because i believe in that, i also dont know exactly how bible described "god", maybe the so called "bible" that exists now made the word "god" have less meaning than what it should, but i dont really expect alot from a book that has x versions (edited by humans, at different times).
Im not gonna tell you there is god because i believe in that, i also dont know exactly how bible described "god", maybe the so called "bible" that exists now made the word "god" have less meaning than what it should, but i dont really expect alot from a book that has x versions (edited by humans, at different times).
Im not gonna tell you there is god because i believe in that, i also dont know exactly how bible described "god", maybe the so called "bible" that exists now made the word "god" have less meaning than what it should, but i dont really expect alot from a book that has x versions (edited by humans, at different times).
Im not gonna tell you there is god because i believe in that, i also dont know exactly how bible described "god", maybe the so called "bible" that exists now made the word "god" have less meaning than what it should, but i dont really expect alot from a book that has x versions (edited by humans, at different times).
I'm not sure what your point is exactly, or maybe you misunderstood me. I'm actually sort of agreeing with what your saying in a way. By nature, Bhuddism contains a lot of values which are peaceful and promote a disassociation with particular negative values (greed, materialism, over indulgence etc). My point is that there's no 'ruling book' that is justifying Xenphobic/sexist values like you stated. Perhaps you know more about it than I do considering your background so please correct me if I'm wrong. I was using it as an example to argue that not all religion leads to such negative behaviors and attitudes. Also I was implying that "all religion is used just to explain natural things" is blatantly wrong and using the spiritual quest of self enlightenment as an example. Hence my call, don't confuse Christianity with all religion. Just because some religion may harbor very traditional, 'negative' mindsets it doesn't mean that religion as an entity does.
My over all point is that not all religion is sexist, Xenophobic or causing negative disasters etc. Some Religion promotes positive values and enrich the lives of people. We shouldn't simply "delete it", like some people have implied earlier. Despite the fact that it's not feasible to do so, you'd be eradicating a lot of good from this world as well.
Spoiler!
I always tell myself never to get involved when these religious debates start but look what I've gone and done. Silly SRF and it's terrible bi-monthly religion topics >.<
I dont think we should delete religions. And yes most religions do promote self-enlightenment (in 1 form or another). However what i meant is, Religions preserve traditions, and those traditions (usually going back thousands of years) are very conservative, and by todays standards, xenophobic and sexist. Buddhism does have sexist aspects in it, even though it was radically equal and ahead of time when it was formed. Basically, Buddhism some 3000 years ago, in Hindu South Asia (with the caste system and ridiculous sexism) was seen as very radically equal - however in the modern (western) world, it wouldn't (and shouldn't) be seen in the same light. Esp. in the case of Buddhism and HInduism, they start off with very self/moral goals, however more tenets (racist and sexist) are added on to them as the religion becomes more ogranized, because society at that time (3000 years ago) was very unequal. So now we have 3000years old societal beliefs, which are very outdated, being preserved by these religions. Hinduism and Buddhism by their nature are very flexible though and can be changed But other religions, that are strict and depend on one holy book, probably cant.
_________________ let it gooooo let it gooooOoOooOOOOOO
Let her suck my pistol She open up her mouth and then I blow her brains out
Im not gonna tell you there is god because i believe in that, i also dont know exactly how bible described "god", maybe the so called "bible" that exists now made the word "god" have less meaning than what it should, but i dont really expect alot from a book that has x versions (edited by humans, at different times).
Im not gonna tell you there is god because i believe in that, i also dont know exactly how bible described "god", maybe the so called "bible" that exists now made the word "god" have less meaning than what it should, but i dont really expect alot from a book that has x versions (edited by humans, at different times).
Not about the bible that exists now, the one that exists now is (no comment), im saying what if there was an original/real one that was really sent by a "god", thats why im saying you should not be so sure that there is nothing like that.. Because you cant prove it didnt.. I dont believe in the bible that exists now, just incase you didnt notice it.
The main religions that worsen my overall view of religion are Christianity and Islam, those are the ones that have kinda messed up.
^This.
I think that all of the "interpretations" of the bible is so full of shit. Either you believe in the bible 100% or you dont. if you dont believe everything in the bible then you arent a christian you are a DEIST. The whole point is that you believe in the "teachings of christ" not just pick the bits you want to pick and fk the rest of it.
religion is supposed to be a teaching tool to teach people who are lost for a moral compass. once you have learnt those things (dont cheat, dont steal, dont hurt others, dont touch little catholic boys etc) then you no longer need the bible, you use it as a reference to your moral ethics.
we live in a time where the bible or any other religious scripture can be debunked and tossed aside in replace of real scientific factual knowledge. as steven hawking once said
Quote:
there is no need for a god, we needed less then a second to produce the laws of physics that govern our universe and once we had these fundamentals the universe could do everything else on its own.
im saying what if there was an original/real one that was really sent by a "god"
Seriously... the "Bible" can't be used as evidence.. Well, does Prometheus exist because the Odin says he does? No.
exactly, all religious books are AT LEAST second hand evidence... it would even be considered bias information (god knows what it would be biased towards!)
im saying what if there was an original/real one that was really sent by a "god"
Seriously... the "Bible" can't be used as evidence.. Well, does Prometheus exist because the Odin says he does? No.
I told you i dont believe in the current bible, so ofc im not using it as an evidence, what im sayin is what if there was a real "holy book" ?, the bible was an example because its edited (lets not say made up because --> ) maybe before x years there was an original version, something real....
Not about the bible that exists now, the one that exists now is (no comment), im saying what if there was an original/real one that was really sent by a "god", thats why im saying you should not be so sure that there is nothing like that.. Because you cant prove it didnt.. I dont believe in the bible that exists now, just incase you didnt notice it.
I know, I got that from your posts. Bible is edited like a million times by now. But still, the 'original' one wasn't sent by God... It was still written by humans, and thus it's faulty, just as humans are.
I'd like to interject an intelligent response but I really don't have one. I think, in many ways, you are right. I pondered the idea of whether or not these ideas are ingrained in culture, as opposed to an external force introducing them, but my thoughts got me no where. Well wrote Drop and well summarized, I think I have a lot more research and thinking to do before I begin to draw a more rational conclusion as to what my beliefs are on this issue. Good post, Sir.
The original scriptures was collected together and placed in the "Ark" within the temple, knew this from RE (religious Education).There lot more infomation into this as there was 24 books and original was 22 books, but wont go down that area.
" During the Israeli exile in the sixth century, the books were scattered, but not lost. Around 539 B.C. and after the return of Israel from the Babylonian captivity, Ezra the priest later re-collected all of them back together.They were then stored in the Ark that was constructed for the second temple and were meticulously copied to protect the inspired writings "
This same temple the archaeologists are still looking for its original location.
_________________
Assasin - Archer/Force - 120 - Ninjitsu
"In prosperity our friends know us; in adversity we know our friends"
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
