OK, let me put it into terms you can understand. At one point, you had the body of a small infant. Years later, you had the body of a toddler, then a youth, an adolescent, etc. etc. But although your body has changed, you are still the same person. How can you explain that? The soul is remaining the same. And just because you forget everything you did as an infant didn't mean it wasn't you doing it. Your parents remember things you did as a child that you will never remember. I can understand your apprehension and assuming all religious propaganda is "mundane speculation" or "mere sentiment", and most of that is because proponents of religion are simply making a show of it, they're not following religious principles. Also Christianity is not a good place to start when beginning the science of self realization. Unfortunately you have no attraction for it.
I had to laugh when you mentioned about living simply, how can you think people are living simply? People are working hard every day to maintain a meager salary, under constant threat of unemployment, and you think that this is a simple life? (to have a mundane house, drive 20-30 minutes to work/day, a wife/husband who they claim to "love" (but mostly divorce 5 years later), and have children who they raise, but who send them to nursing homes once they are old? Face it: People have to suffer the misery of disease, old age, and death, and you think that's a simple kind of life? Either you're smokin some good pot, or you are severely illusioned, my friend.
In current Christian dogma, you go to hell for lack of faith, not these "actions" you speak of. If I put a gun to the head of your child and told you "if you don't sincerely, really believe in Santa Claus in the next 10 seconds, I pull the trigger," then your child will die, because your thoughts and beliefs are not under volitional control. To punish for something over which we have no control is horribly cruel, and does not qualify as loving or compassionate now matter how you twist language.
I'm not concerned with "christian dogma", and your example is flawed because once again, we are not this body, and "my child" is a bodily (therefore temporary) designation. When you are dead, is it still "your child?" no, because you no longer possess your body, and your relationship with your child is lost forever. You mistake it to think that God is directly punishing and rewarding all the individual souls. You're wrong, because He has the material nature (which is working perfectly) do it for Him. (which is, Newton's law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction)
I find the idea of god repugnant. The idea of the Christian God makes this life less tolerable, not more. If existence is random then I can accept that children die in fires, because, well, stuff happens. I can accept that good people get cancer as frequently as bad people, because, well, stuff happens. The universe really isn't out to get me, but tree limbs do occasionally fall from trees and kill people, etc. We as humans should do what we can to minimize suffering and horror, but ultimately stuff happens over which we have no control.
The problem is that you think I am in support of Christian dogma, whereas I am not; I'm just someone who believes in God. But the "all loving" God of Christian theology is a relatively new concept, which only complicates matters when people try to approach God in a serious manner. I don't want people to be "judged and damned" because they don't find a particular idea credible. That's not my intent. So don't call into question my humanity. Rather, if you don't believe that people have souls, then it's your own humanity you need to question.
I don't think people need a concept of a god to be responsible for their actions and think before they act.
Maybe, but I'd say everyone already has a concept of God. It's just a matter of believing or not believing in Him. But people are always responsible for their actions--the famous "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." applies to actions as individuals, too.
To me, doing the right thing because you care about other people, the environment, integrity, etc., is more upstanding than acting good because you're afraid of punishment.
I think you have noble intentions in here, so I'm not trying to be an ass, just offering an alternate position. 'Upstanding ' is a bodily condition; a man can be called 'upstanding' and still have to suffer the miseries of birth, death, disease, and old age. He might be seen as an 'upstanding man' because he serves his nation, his family, and his environment. But that word has no real value because it is a bodily designation, and the man is not his body--he is a soul. If people are _seriously_ God-conscious then all such upstanding actions will be performed by default.
The real problem with the ID is that its loudest proponents are usually fundamentalist christians, who use the Bible as the basis for their claims. The Bible, however, was meant for a certain group of people living during a certain time period. Although the Absolute Truth is certainly contained in the Bible, there really isn't a version that hasn't been adulterated by some outside interpretation, and even today rubber-stamped Christians warp its intended message. I've always wondered why Christianity focuses so heavily on Jesus' death, when it is his message which should be propagated. You don't hear Christians quoting Jesus, but you hear them quoting The Bible out of context in the same way Islamic Fundamentalists do to the Quran.
When Jesus was present, he re-established the principles of religion, but no one was listening to him. "Thou shalt not kill," and yet many Christians see no problem with slaughterhouses. Some Christians say animals don't have souls, but Jesus would have taught "Thou shalt not murder," if he meant it to apply only to human beings. "Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart," and yet people don't love God. They love their dogs. Then they cry when bad things happen to them.
The basic tenant of Christianity is "Give us this day our daily bread." But God isn't our order-supplier; rather, we are eternally subordinate to him. Because of our birth in the material world, we forget our relationship with God and think, "I am god, I am this body, and all these material things that connect to this body are mine." And when this sort of person goes to church he thinks, "OK God, you give me this, this, and this, and I'll worship you." And if he doesn't get that thing, he thinks "Well, there is no God."
These people do things like say "If there is a God, let him strike me down on this very spot!" Once again, God isn't our order-supplier, and furthermore, he doesn't need to prove his abilities. He gives us what we truly want. If we don't want to believe in God, he will provide us with logical fallacies that will make us forget his existence, like "Can God create a rock that even He cannot lift?" or "If there is a God, he wouldn't have taken my child away/caused the Tsunami/made bad things happen."
But I think a lot of these people, deep down, know that God exists, and they're terrified. They're terrified because if there *is* a God, then that means they'll be responsible for their actions. It means they'll have to think before they act. And in a country where blame is shifted from one person to another, where the pop-culture emphasizes sense-gratification, and where people are masters at cheating, lying, and stealing, does it come as a surprise that everyone wants to be Godless?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah OK, I guess I misinterpreted what you said. Good point.
I had to laugh when you mentioned about living simply, how can you think people are living simply? People are working hard every day to maintain a meager salary, under constant threat of unemployment, and you think that this is a simple life? (to have a mundane house, drive 20-30 minutes to work/day, a wife/husband who they claim to "love" (but mostly divorce 5 years later), and have children who they raise, but who send them to nursing homes once they are old? Face it: People have to suffer the misery of disease, old age, and death, and you think that's a simple kind of life? Either you're smokin some good pot, or you are severely illusioned, my friend.
I'm not concerned with "christian dogma", and your example is flawed because once again, we are not this body, and "my child" is a bodily (therefore temporary) designation. When you are dead, is it still "your child?" no, because you no longer possess your body, and your relationship with your child is lost forever. You mistake it to think that God is directly punishing and rewarding all the individual souls. You're wrong, because He has the material nature (which is working perfectly) do it for Him. (which is, Newton's law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction)
I find the idea of god repugnant. The idea of the Christian God makes this life less tolerable, not more. If existence is random then I can accept that children die in fires, because, well, stuff happens. I can accept that good people get cancer as frequently as bad people, because, well, stuff happens. The universe really isn't out to get me, but tree limbs do occasionally fall from trees and kill people, etc. We as humans should do what we can to minimize suffering and horror, but ultimately stuff happens over which we have no control.
The problem is that you think I am in support of Christian dogma, whereas I am not; I'm just someone who believes in God. But the "all loving" God of Christian theology is a relatively new concept, which only complicates matters when people try to approach God in a serious manner. I don't want people to be "judged and damned" because they don't find a particular idea credible. That's not my intent. So don't call into question my humanity. Rather, if you don't believe that people have souls, then it's your own humanity you need to question.
you forgot the "superficial" before pro religion :P
Maybe, but I'd say everyone already has a concept of God. It's just a matter of believing or not believing in Him. But people are always responsible for their actions--the famous "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." applies to actions as individuals, too.
To me, doing the right thing because you care about other people, the environment, integrity, etc., is more upstanding than acting good because you're afraid of punishment.
I think you have noble intentions in here, so I'm not trying to be an ass, just offering an alternate position. 'Upstanding ' is a bodily condition; a man can be called 'upstanding' and still have to suffer the miseries of birth, death, disease, and old age. He might be seen as an 'upstanding man' because he serves his nation, his family, and his environment. But that word has no real value because it is a bodily designation, and the man is not his body--he is a soul. If people are _seriously_ God-conscious then all such upstanding actions will be performed by default.
When Jesus was present, he re-established the principles of religion, but no one was listening to him. "Thou shalt not kill," and yet many Christians see no problem with slaughterhouses. Some Christians say animals don't have souls, but Jesus would have taught "Thou shalt not murder," if he meant it to apply only to human beings. "Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart," and yet people don't love God. They love their dogs. Then they cry when bad things happen to them.
The basic tenant of Christianity is "Give us this day our daily bread." But God isn't our order-supplier; rather, we are eternally subordinate to him. Because of our birth in the material world, we forget our relationship with God and think, "I am god, I am this body, and all these material things that connect to this body are mine." And when this sort of person goes to church he thinks, "OK God, you give me this, this, and this, and I'll worship you." And if he doesn't get that thing, he thinks "Well, there is no God."
These people do things like say "If there is a God, let him strike me down on this very spot!" Once again, God isn't our order-supplier, and furthermore, he doesn't need to prove his abilities. He gives us what we truly want. If we don't want to believe in God, he will provide us with logical fallacies that will make us forget his existence, like "Can God create a rock that even He cannot lift?" or "If there is a God, he wouldn't have taken my child away/caused the Tsunami/made bad things happen."
But I think a lot of these people, deep down, know that God exists, and they're terrified. They're terrified because if there *is* a God, then that means they'll be responsible for their actions. It means they'll have to think before they act. And in a country where blame is shifted from one person to another, where the pop-culture emphasizes sense-gratification, and where people are masters at cheating, lying, and stealing, does it come as a surprise that everyone wants to be Godless?
We can safely assume they were NOT Ramen; otherwise the man would have been protected by His Noodly Appendage.