|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do We NEED God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Thats not "communion."
Thats simply interacting with your own imagination. Its a closed loop, you arent receiving input from any external source. There is literally no difference between this form of communion with "god" and communion with Darth Vader. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How would that have anything to do with communion with god?
Did you just say "Based on the description of the character of Jesus, in the Bible, can you imagine how He might respond to a given everyday situation that we humans face now?" Isn't that an example of me "communion" with me?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Well...if, as the story goes, Christ is "in" us, wouldn't communion be at least theoretically possible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ramoss writes: Technically you have a valid point. Let me ask you a hypothetical question, however. If a devout group of religious/spiritual/truth seekers were believing the idea that communion with a God or a higher (or even alian) power is possible, would it be beneficial to them to simply burst their bubble...or at least attempt to do so....if the result of their belief made them better people and was beneficial to humanity? Granted all kids outgrow Santa Claus, but some adults keep the belief going, if only to make Christmas seem more magical and benevolent. Some stories as mythos are best left alone by logic and critical thinking. Thats simply interacting with your own imagination. Its a closed loop, you arent receiving input from any external source. There is literally no difference between this form of communion with "god" and communion with Darth Vader. My point is that there can be a purpose for a belief, even if it can logically never be proven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Phat writes: Well...if, as the story goes, Christ is "in" us, wouldn't communion be at least theoretically possible? What do you mean by "theoretically possible"? Is there some theoretical reason to think this is the case? Or do you just mean that it is "theoretically possible" in the sense of being unfalsifiable? I suspect there are a plethora of unfalsifiable ("theoretically possible"?) things which you would dismiss without a second thought. What makes this one worthy of more credence than any other?
Phat writes: My point is that there can be a purpose for a belief, even if it can logically never be proven. Forget proof. Simply ask yourself if the belief in question is more likely to be the result of human needs and dispositions. And if the answer to this question is "yes" then eventually that's what people will conclude and that is what the followers of said belief will have to find strategies to immunise themselves against.
Phat writes: If a devout group of religious/spiritual/truth seekers were believing the idea that communion with a God or a higher (or even alian) power is possible, would it be beneficial to them to simply burst their bubble...or at least attempt to do so....if the result of their belief made them better people and was beneficial to humanity? Look at history. What does it tell us? It tells us a number of things. It tells us that humans are naturally inquisitive creatures who eventually will question most things. It also tells us that we will never be short of those who seek to place themselves at the top of the mystic tree by claiming to have some sort of unique relationship with the divine. If the belief in question doesn't stand up to scrutiny then eventually it will crumble like a castle made of sand or (probably more likely) there will be splits and schisms as one group claims to have greater access to the unfalsifiable mind of god than the others. The less the belief stands up to reason the more those who adhere to it will be forced to entrench themselves in ignorance and denial whilst retaining conviction that they are the true followers of said entity. So whilst you may propose as some sort of premise the notion that "the result of their belief made them better people and was beneficial to humanity" I would suggest that in the long run any such belief which doesn't stand up to scrutiny will result in a culture of ignorance which is not at all beneficial to humanity. Think creationists.
Phat writes: ...if the result of their belief made them better people and was beneficial to humanity? We know you don't have to believe in god to do good things that benefit humanity.
Phat writes: Granted all kids outgrow Santa Claus, but some adults keep the belief going, if only to make Christmas seem more magical and benevolent. Some stories as mythos are best left alone by logic and critical thinking. If you met an otherwise normal 40 year old guy who genuinely believed in Santa Claus then, no matter how kind or generous or good natured he might be, wouldn't you think that he was completely deluded to the point of having some sort of problem? I'm sure there are some lovely people doing charity work and whatnot who have complete faith in biblical literalism. This is no reason to do anything other than point out the flaws with biblical literalism is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
We would listen to our conscience and act on what we knew to be the best to do. We would do what is right and not merely what we wanted. We would sacrifice in many cases for the benefit of others. We would let wisdom prevail. Some say this would entirely be our decision and our mind. Others would believe that we were in communion with the Spirit of God.
Since this Spirit can't be detected by any scientific means, I suppose that theoretically it would be entirely our decision and our responsibility regardless of our beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Phat writes: We would listen to our conscience and act on what we knew to be the best to do. Shouldn't we do this anyway? Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God much of the time?
Phat writes: We would sacrifice in many cases for the benefit of others. Again - Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God most of the time?
Phat writes: We would let wisdom prevail. Again - Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God most of the time? Why do all theistic arguments seem to require that anything positive be attributed to God and anything not positive be somebody else's fault? Isn't this the sort of psychological behaviour that we would expect of those who have a psychological "NEED" to believe in some sort of perfect idealised being.......?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Straggler writes: I suppose that it depends on whether this communion is initiated and/or maintained by our own effort or through Gods grace. Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God most of the time? The bible says differing things, depending on the translation. Galatians 5:16:
New International Version (1984) So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. New Living Translation (2007)So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won't be doing what your sinful nature craves. English Standard Version (2001)But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. New American Standard Bible (1995)But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. International Standard Version (2008)So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will never fulfill the desires of the flesh. Symbolically or literally are we through our own efforts walking/doing the right vibe or are we letting the right vibe personified(God) guide our lives?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So when we act wisely, selflessly and conscientiously it is thanks to God. But when we act unwisely, selfishly and negligently it is down to us.
That is a very depressing view of the human condition. We can only ever be responsible for the bad things we do. I don't think this is the sort of god anyone needs.........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
But when we act unwisely, selfishly and negligently it is down to us.
According to his other thread Phat thinks this behaviour is caused by demons.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Theodoric writes: Not exactly. I think that when we act contrarily to our altruistic nature we allow demons legal right to reinforce our negative behavior. It is still initially our responsibility.
According to his other thread Phat thinks this behaviour is caused by demons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Phat writes: I think that when we act contrarily to our altruistic nature we allow demons legal right to reinforce our negative behavior. What does this actually mean in practise? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that I want to experience some demonic influence. What should I do and how will I know when the demon(s) is/are influencing me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Straggler writes: Good question. I think that a good indicator which you may or may not be able to perceive internally, yourself, is when you are observed to be unable to control yourself. In other words, not only are you eating yourself to death, you are incapable of stopping even though all logic suggests that you should. Its interesting how you say that--for the sake of argument---you would want to experience that which you don't believe exists. ts the same with your GOD argument with jar. You seem bemused to believe that a GOD could exist without your acknowledgement...which I suppose is true from your subjective awareness. GOD very well could exist even though you never chose to believe such a thing. So could demons. In the case of demons, however, I give them much less respect. So should you.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that I want to experience some demonic influence. What should I do and how will I know when the demon(s) is/are influencing me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Phat writes: In the case of demons, however, I give them much less respect. So should you. Well from a strictly practical point of view a demon that could cause me to ruin my life seems far more relevant than an "unknowable" GOD that refuses to have any interaction with me at all.
Phat writes: You seem bemused to believe that a GOD could exist without your acknowledgement... I have absolutely no problem with the idea that all sorts of things could exist without my acknowledgement. In fact I'm sure that lots of things are happily existing without any reference to me or my acknowledgement at all. So I have no idea where you are getting this from.......?
Phat writes: Its interesting how you say that--for the sake of argument---you would want to experience that which you don't believe exists. There are all sorts of things I'd like to experience which I don't actually think exist!!! Some descriptions of heaven sound rather pleasant for example.
Straggler writes: Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that I want to experience some demonic influence. What should I do and how will I know when the demon(s) is/are influencing me? Phat writes: I think that a good indicator which you may or may not be able to perceive internally, yourself, is when you are observed to be unable to control yourself. In other words, not only are you eating yourself to death, you are incapable of stopping even though all logic suggests that you should. On this basis everytime someone eats a donut, smokes a cigarette, drinks a can of coke, has a few too many beers or consumes a cheeseburger they are doing so under demonic influence. We know these things are bad for us. In some cases we know they are literally likely to kill us in the long run. But we do them anyway. Do you really think that it is demons rather than aspects of evolved human psychology that are at play here?
Really?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024