Fingerless Glove wrote:What I don't understand is why a belief in God...'God' being the universal term for a higher power, means that you must be a creationist?
Because if you are a true follower of an Abrahamic religion (which as someone pointed out is what has ended up as the point of discussion in this thread) the Word of God as given to the people of The Bible is that God created the world and fully-formed man and woman were part of that Creation.
The minute you admit that evolution has occurred then you cease to be a true follower of that religion.
Unless of course you are a Papist.
"Theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
(October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul)
So whilst the Catholic Church considers evolutionary theories (some of them, anyway) OK, the OK ones are those that do not suggest emergent behaviour as the reason for the soul of Man - because that would deny God's part in the creation of Man, which is the Creationist view.
Well according to my reading of Jovan's posts, he dictates that all creationists believe that God created the world in six days and took a rest on the Sabbath, somehow I don't believe that is what John Paul was actually saying in the quote you provided.
Taqaandan may be performed to achieve detumescence.
Fingerless Glove wrote:Well according to my reading of Jovan's posts, he dictates that all creationists believe that God created the world in six days and took a rest on the Sabbath, somehow I don't believe that is what John Paul was actually saying in the quote you provided.
"According to your reading" of my posts, you find offence against you, in every one!
I don't "dictate" anything that creationists believe, the Bible does!
I'm also well aware that as science has progressively disproved the story, bit by bit, that religions have slowly shifted (most of them) from it being taken quite literally, towards it being an "Analogy": That a "Day" doesn't mean a "Day", No, it can mean "a period of time" eg. a Billion years! And that "Evolution and Creation" are "not mutually exclusive".....
Jo van wrote:I taught my children morality, based on the 'golden rule': "If you wouldn't like someone doing it to you, don't do it to them, treat others as you would wish to be treated."
And you feel here you are treating those who are religiously observant as you would wish to be treated?
Jo van wrote:All those special clothes, and food, and rituals don't make you a good person, it just shows you to be a gullible, suggestible person. And the sooner people start looking at these things objectively, the better off we'll all be.
Jo - Just as you say it does not make you a good person, I say those harmless rituals do not necessarilly make you a bad person either. If it holds no meaning for you, then no one is forcing you to do it, now are they? Or did they once upon a time, perhaps??
By the way, the special food is no different than Italians cooking Italian food, or Germans eating delicacies from their culture, or the Irish, or English, or Spanish, Mexican, Indian....I ask you again to stop putting down what you know so little about....
Furthermore, 'kosher' meat - the animal is actually killed in the most humane way possible - unlike how most animals are slaughtered in the west.....
So, again, I ask you to stop writing all this crap as if you are some sort of authority, only because you believe you know what you're talking about..... If you feel so negative, be honest and say, according to your minimal understanding, you see no point in those things...and leave it at that. But your repeated insulting is disturbing to me and I have concern others who have no idea you don't know what you're talking about, but sound believable, might get the wrong idea also.
Lastly, I would strongly like to point out that you can hardly be thinking you are objective! Yes, the sooner EVERYONE starts seeing things objectively, the better...but when passions rise and egos start preaching, then there definitely is not an objective presence.
And please know I have a strong negative outlook with religion, myself, but I believe it still does not give me the right to put down my fellow human beings, especially ones who have not personally done anything to me to warrant my negativity.
However long the night, the dawn will break. ~ African proverb ~
The Golden Rule, as a concept, has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law," as it was called from the 1670s[5]). The concept was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, India, Greece, Judea, and China. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways, but its most common Modern English phrasing first appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583[6]): That English phrasing is a translation of ancient Greek manuscripts; and in the original Greek it is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Matthew: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:39, Luke 6:31)
As I see it Jo, you are teaching Biblical morality to you child/ren.
The Golden Rule, as a concept, has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law," as it was called from the 1670s[5]). The concept was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, India, Greece, Judea, and China. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways, but its most common Modern English phrasing first appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583[6]): That English phrasing is a translation of ancient Greek manuscripts; and in the original Greek it is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Matthew: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:39, Luke 6:31)
As I see it Jo, you are teaching Biblical morality to you child/ren.
Or Ancient Egyptian morality, or Babylonian morality, or Chinese morality...
It is present in so many cultures because it is a useful precept. However, nowhere - even in Matthew or Luke - does it say only the Jews can follow it.
i am trying to escape from this belief (npi) that Jo van is attacking anyone personally because i have a personal spiritual creed that i do not feel has been attacked, which is strange because so many others have touched on areas that i would agree with yet they have felt the other way... Perhaps it is because i do not define myself by my religion; i am not a Jewess, a Muslim, or a Christian, i am a human; i do not see an attack on religion as a personal attack.
Jo van has put forward many arguments as to why he feels proselytising religions should be "wiped from the earth" and explained why he feels the rational stance is the one to take. Now that more people have entered into the debate arguing for organised religion - or at least arguing against his stance from a sense of personal outrage; perhaps someone would care to try to put forward the argument that says morality and ethics require a supernatural being before they can be followed.
Perhaps someone too might like to argue for a body of people all taking the same faith or religion on trust that it is the right faith when there are millions of others who would argue that it is the wrong faith. Christians and Muslims would argue that Judaism should have moved on to encompass new prophets, the Dalai Lama would i am sure like all Men (generic term) to believe in reincarnation and in "what goes around, comes around".
Can someone argue that any one religion is the right religion? Either there are many Gods or there is only one God. Ask a Hindu whether Mohammedism (sp?) is right. Or a Pakistani their views on Hinduism.
If this much-touted God is universal, omnipotent, omniscient etc then perhaps all religions should give pause to think that religious wars are all a part of his plan and that the killing of Jews in the Holocaust was God's work, that Hamas shelling Israel and Israel shelling Gaza, 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanistan are all a part of His work and stop pretending in free will.
If we have free will then we have no need of a God to teach us morality. The misery in the world is our doing, we cannot pass the buck any further.
So what is He there for? Can any believer put forward the argument that answers that question?
belinda wrote: Or Ancient Egyptian morality, or Babylonian morality, or Chinese morality...
It is present in so many cultures because it is a useful precept. However, nowhere - even in Matthew or Luke - does it say only the Jews can follow it.
i am trying to escape from this belief (npi) that Jo van is attacking anyone personally because i have a personal spiritual creed that i do not feel has been attacked, which is strange because so many others have touched on areas that i would agree with yet they have felt the other way... Perhaps it is because i do not define myself by my religion; i am not a Jewess, a Muslim, or a Christian, i am a human; i do not see an attack on religion as a personal attack.
Jo van has put forward many arguments as to why he feels proselytising religions should be "wiped from the earth" and explained why he feels the rational stance is the one to take. Now that more people have entered into the debate arguing for organised religion - or at least arguing against his stance from a sense of personal outrage; perhaps someone would care to try to put forward the argument that says morality and ethics require a supernatural being before they can be followed.
Perhaps someone too might like to argue for a body of people all taking the same faith or religion on trust that it is the right faith when there are millions of others who would argue that it is the wrong faith. Christians and Muslims would argue that Judaism should have moved on to encompass new prophets, the Dalai Lama would i am sure like all Men (generic term) to believe in reincarnation and in "what goes around, comes around".
Can someone argue that any one religion is the right religion? Either there are many Gods or there is only one God. Ask a Hindu whether Mohammedism (sp?) is right. Or a Pakistani their views on Hinduism.
If this much-touted God is universal, omnipotent, omniscient etc then perhaps all religions should give pause to think that religious wars are all a part of his plan and that the killing of Jews in the Holocaust was God's work, that Hamas shelling Israel and Israel shelling Gaza, 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanistan are all a part of His work and stop pretending in free will.
If we have free will then we have no need of a God to teach us morality. The misery in the world is our doing, we cannot pass the buck any further.
So what is He there for? Can any believer put forward the argument that answers that question?
.
Very good post Belinda.
I especially like this ""If we have free will then we have no need of a God to teach us morality. The misery in the world is our doing, we cannot pass the buck any further. ""
Posted this in response to Manny's post while Belinda was writing the above...so will try and address her questions in another post later, perhaps.... And yet maybe this post might address some of her points also -
The essence for me when it comes to sprituality is unity....and the divine core of each of us with all things operating in unity - and unified so deeply, that mere debating hardly touches the divine essence of all....All is one - that is my personal belief put very quickly and simply of what 'god' is - which is everything (and nothing, for if it's truly everything, then that contains nothing also)....
Anyway, here's 'my' post (not from me, but came to me from another years ago) showing 'the golden' rule has no exclusivity attached to it, and I post it to try and share how far more unified and connected we all are - since most faiths, organized religion and other forms of spirituality seem to use it as one of their 'core truths'....
Bahá'í Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah "And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version. "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31,
King James Version. "...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23 "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.' Doctrine of the Mean 13.3 "Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4
Ancient Egyptian: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3
Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517 "Listen to the essence of Dharma. Having listened, focus on it, and establish it in your mind. Do not do any thing to others which you do not want to be done to yourself" Vedas
Humanism: "(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity." "(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4 "Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3
Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5
Jainism: "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2. "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara "A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated." Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18 "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a. "And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6
Native American Spirituality: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace. "All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk "Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.
Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form" "Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga
Sikhism: Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259 "No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299
Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.
Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien. "The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Unitarian: "The inherent worth and dignity of every person;" "Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.... " "The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;" "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles. 7,8
Wicca: "A'in it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede
Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5 "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
However long the night, the dawn will break. ~ African proverb ~
The Golden Rule, as a concept, has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law," as it was called from the 1670s[5]). The concept was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, India, Greece, Judea, and China. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways, but its most common Modern English phrasing first appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583[6]): That English phrasing is a translation of ancient Greek manuscripts; and in the original Greek it is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Matthew: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:39, Luke 6:31)
As I see it Jo, you are teaching Biblical morality to you child/ren.
i have said repeatedly Manny, that "morality isn't the monopoly of religion", They just make that claim, to justify their existence. The golden rule was around long before the current crop of religious beliefs, it's a simple philosophical test.
And "morality" existed long before 2000 years ago. (in various forms, it was considered moral to own slaves until around 150 years ago. It was considered moral to treat black people as inferiors, until around 50 years ago. Until 1992, in this country, a man could not be charged with raping his wife.... ) Morals change..
Moon Willow wrote:And you feel here you are treating those who are religiously observant as you would wish to be treated?
I've said many times I don't care what people believe, as long as it doesn't effect other people, and that includes the war over the sacred sites that they wish to nod at, and the thousands of people who've already died, just so that they can perform that ridiculous ritual, at that particular site. The muslims and the christians are all just as bad. They believe those sites to be "magic" (my word), and they kill people to gain access.
Moon Willow wrote:Jo - Just as you say it does not make you a good person, I say those harmless rituals do not necessarilly make you a bad person either. If it holds no meaning for you, then no one is forcing you to do it, now are they? Or did they once upon a time, perhaps??
See above.
Moon Willow wrote:So, again, I ask you to stop writing all this crap as if you are some sort of authority, only because you believe you know what you're talking about.....
You're perfectly entitled to ask, the answer's; "no". You're also perfectly entitled to challenge/correct any inaccuracies, or to disagree with my views. But what you really object to, is my lack of "respect". When people do "respectable things" I will respect that, but I will not "respect" Fancy Dress, uniforms, Traditional Costumes, silly hats, special sticks, Magic Buildings/books etc.. -Because anyone can wear that stuff, and still rape children, or kill people. It's simply a disguise, I don't "buy it"...
Moon Willow wrote:If you feel so negative, be honest and say, according to your minimal understanding, you see no point in those things...and leave it at that.
I said that, and you objected.
Moon Willow wrote:But your repeated insulting is disturbing to me and I have concern others who have no idea you don't know what you're talking about, but sound believable, might get the wrong idea also.
People can do their own research, I did. I'm not expecting anyone to take my word for anything, not even my own kids, I taught them "Question everything"
Moon Willow wrote:And please know I have a strong negative outlook with religion, myself, but I believe it still does not give me the right to put down my fellow human beings, especially ones who have not personally done anything to me to warrant my negativity.
See post 8, page 1. Religious people like to dictate to others, just as you're trying to do here, by telling me what I can, and can't write. I haven't attacked anyone personally, I have simply argued that religion is a harmful influence on our societies and governments, and cause wars. If things are funny, I will laugh. Get over yourself, it's only words. Which one is your brother...?
belinda wrote: Now that more people have entered into the debate arguing for organised religion - or at least arguing against his stance from a sense of personal outrage; perhaps someone would care to try to put forward the argument that says morality and ethics require a supernatural being before they can be followed.
Simply because if we take away responsibility for our actions, and no consequences, there is only chaos, and I don't mean peace love pass a flower wear a cheesecloth kind, I mean real nasty beat the crap out of each other chaos...
People are fundamentaly stupid, even the nicest of people, even on here, will fight their space... This thread for one has shown that... But atm, even with consequences, the world is one fkd up place, and ye want to take that away?...
Humans are stupid monkeys, all of nature is strife, all of it is war, and struggle and protecting ones own resources in the fight for survival... Religions function is to give some order in an otherwise chaotic and unorderly situation... That is the ideal, unfortunately, as with other social systems experimented on in our recent 20C past, human/primate greed takes precedence, and those ideals are used to exploit...
The only way us humans will stop our crap on this planet is if we are compelled to do so... Period...
Gee, just look at the situation we have in this country wi the chaos in our youth, we're all talking about it, we've taken away responsiblity, and look at them...Their uncontrollable...
...............
