Please flesh this out a bit more, Clod.
It's like your (entirely valid) response to my request for empirical proof for the existence of Love. The existence of Love cannot be proved as you would prove Pythagoras' Theorem. Nor can the existence of God. But this does NOT prove that God and Love do not exist. Though if one accepts that God is Love, and we can provide subjective evidence for the existence of Love, then we have provided subjective evidence for the existence of God! :wah:
I think you know very well that I cannot provide you with empirical proof of Love or any other subjective state. And you will probably also know the Philosophical arguments for why this is the case - and know that they are sound ones. But this does not stop you, me and innumerable other human beings from reaching an agreement on a range of phenomena which is to be understood as pointing to the existence of felt love - albeit in an indirect way.
For example, most of us would agree that a mother who hugs and kisses and pets her baby loves it: whereas a mother who throws her baby into a furnace does not. The behaviour of the first mother is viewed by the overwhelming majority of human beings as indicative of love - as evidence for it.
But what sort of phenomena is to count as evidence for the subjective experience of God - evidence which the overwhelming majority of human beings agree upon?
Tell me, Clod.
Well, firstly see my comment above. Secondly, I have met people who claim to have had experience of God and that it changed their lives. One example would be the Anglican minister who said direct experience of God was the sole reason he became a minister. So just like the mother before and after the birth of her child, we have a change in behaviour. This might be regarded as a subjective indicator of the existence of God. (I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it "evidence")
(Can you clarify something for me here? I’m assuming that by ‘God’ you mean the God of monotheism - the one who is allegedly omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. Is this the case?)
Well, I wasn't really thinking that precisely, but yes, what I was saying would refer to Him, as well as old Clattybattythingy.
I think the threat which Religion poses to the survival of the human species has never been greater at any time in our history than it is now. I want to draw attention to this threat, confront it and work for its removal. If this makes me a fanatical atheist in your eyes then so be it, Clod.
I see. Fair enough. But I would argue that the danger is extremist religion, not all religion, and that you are attempting to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm thinking of organisations like the Church of England and the Salvation Army.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
posted by clodhopper
I see. Fair enough. But I would argue that the danger is extremist religion, not all religion, and that you are attempting to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm thinking of organisations like the Church of England and the Salvation Army.
I would agree with you there. I don't think you can eliminate the need for religion in society - The cure could be worse than the disease and people don't listen to hectoring voices.
I see. Fair enough. But I would argue that the danger is extremist religion, not all religion, and that you are attempting to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm thinking of organisations like the Church of England and the Salvation Army.
I would agree with you there. I don't think you can eliminate the need for religion in society - The cure could be worse than the disease and people don't listen to hectoring voices.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Glaswegian wrote: Please flesh this out a bit more, Clod.
Clodhopper;1323064 wrote: It's like your (entirely valid) response to my request for empirical proof for the existence of Love. The existence of Love cannot be proved as you would prove Pythagoras' Theorem. Nor can the existence of God. But this does NOT prove that God and Love do not exist.
You’re right. The existence of love - and remember, Clod, we are talking about love as a subjective experience not its outward manifestations in behaviour - cannot be proved in the way Pythagoras' Theorem can be. But this is only to say that love is not logically demonstrable or, if you like, logically certain. I stated earlier that although this is the case it hasn’t prevented the overwhelming majority of human beings from reaching an agreement on a range of phenomena which is to be understood as pointing to the existence of love, as constituting evidence that this subjective experience is real.
But can the same be said about the evidence for the subjective experience of God? Have the overwhelming majority of human beings reached an agreement about this?
No.
I think one of the reasons for this failure of agreement has to do with the nature of the (alleged) experience itself. As was previously stated, there is widespread agreement about what counts as evidence for love - and this holds for certain other subjective states as well (e.g., anger, fear, happiness). But agreement of this order is much harder to obtain in the case of subjective states which are more abstract and refined in character. And here I’m talking about those states in which cognition and imagination feature very strongly (e.g, analytical thinking, rumination, aesthetic contemplation). When subjective states like these occur in human beings it is difficult, if not impossible, for an onlooker to detect them or have any knowledge about them from the outside.
For example, suppose you are on a subway train and there is a woman seated opposite you who is gazing at the floor with her face devoid of expression. How can you ascertain what is going on inside her? How can you tell what she is thinking? What she is feeling? For all you know she could be picturing what it would be like strolling through the gardens of Versailles; or wondering how the Large Hadron Collider will impact on our understanding of the universe; or mulling over her suspicions that her husband is secretly having sex with the family dog. These subjective states are complex. But at least they have form and content.
Now let me ask you this, Clod: what form and content does the subjective experience of God possess? What does this experience consist of? Is there anything about this experience which is ascertainable to the mind‘s eye?
If this experience has no discernible object, if there is nothing identifiable which the experience is of, if the experience is transparent to the point of nothingness then how can any agreement ever hoped to be reached about it by those who are not privy to it? More to the point - how would this experience manifest itself outwardly in an individual‘s behaviour? It was difficult enough to gain knowledge of the subjective experience of the hypothetical woman on the subway train, and her experience had form and content in its favour. So just imagine how much greater this difficulty must be in respect of a subjective experience which has none of these.
This is why evidence for the subjective experience of God is problematical in the extreme. Whereas evidence for the subjective experience of love is not. But there are other reasons as well...
Clodhopper wrote: Though if one accepts that God is Love, and we can provide subjective evidence for the existence of Love, then we have provided subjective evidence for the existence of God! :wah:
I know you’re being light here, Clod, but I think you’ve highlighted something very important - namely this:
It is precisely because the subjective experience of God is objectless that many people have a tendency to equate it with something else - and this can be almost anything which takes their fancy. This situation is described well by the American physicist, Steven Weinberg, in the following quote:
'Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that "God is the ultimate" or "God is our better nature" or "God is the universe". Of course, like any other word, the word "God" can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that "God is energy", then you can find God in a lump of coal.'
Clodhopper;1323064 wrote: It's like your (entirely valid) response to my request for empirical proof for the existence of Love. The existence of Love cannot be proved as you would prove Pythagoras' Theorem. Nor can the existence of God. But this does NOT prove that God and Love do not exist.
You’re right. The existence of love - and remember, Clod, we are talking about love as a subjective experience not its outward manifestations in behaviour - cannot be proved in the way Pythagoras' Theorem can be. But this is only to say that love is not logically demonstrable or, if you like, logically certain. I stated earlier that although this is the case it hasn’t prevented the overwhelming majority of human beings from reaching an agreement on a range of phenomena which is to be understood as pointing to the existence of love, as constituting evidence that this subjective experience is real.
But can the same be said about the evidence for the subjective experience of God? Have the overwhelming majority of human beings reached an agreement about this?
No.
I think one of the reasons for this failure of agreement has to do with the nature of the (alleged) experience itself. As was previously stated, there is widespread agreement about what counts as evidence for love - and this holds for certain other subjective states as well (e.g., anger, fear, happiness). But agreement of this order is much harder to obtain in the case of subjective states which are more abstract and refined in character. And here I’m talking about those states in which cognition and imagination feature very strongly (e.g, analytical thinking, rumination, aesthetic contemplation). When subjective states like these occur in human beings it is difficult, if not impossible, for an onlooker to detect them or have any knowledge about them from the outside.
For example, suppose you are on a subway train and there is a woman seated opposite you who is gazing at the floor with her face devoid of expression. How can you ascertain what is going on inside her? How can you tell what she is thinking? What she is feeling? For all you know she could be picturing what it would be like strolling through the gardens of Versailles; or wondering how the Large Hadron Collider will impact on our understanding of the universe; or mulling over her suspicions that her husband is secretly having sex with the family dog. These subjective states are complex. But at least they have form and content.
Now let me ask you this, Clod: what form and content does the subjective experience of God possess? What does this experience consist of? Is there anything about this experience which is ascertainable to the mind‘s eye?
If this experience has no discernible object, if there is nothing identifiable which the experience is of, if the experience is transparent to the point of nothingness then how can any agreement ever hoped to be reached about it by those who are not privy to it? More to the point - how would this experience manifest itself outwardly in an individual‘s behaviour? It was difficult enough to gain knowledge of the subjective experience of the hypothetical woman on the subway train, and her experience had form and content in its favour. So just imagine how much greater this difficulty must be in respect of a subjective experience which has none of these.
This is why evidence for the subjective experience of God is problematical in the extreme. Whereas evidence for the subjective experience of love is not. But there are other reasons as well...
Clodhopper wrote: Though if one accepts that God is Love, and we can provide subjective evidence for the existence of Love, then we have provided subjective evidence for the existence of God! :wah:
I know you’re being light here, Clod, but I think you’ve highlighted something very important - namely this:
It is precisely because the subjective experience of God is objectless that many people have a tendency to equate it with something else - and this can be almost anything which takes their fancy. This situation is described well by the American physicist, Steven Weinberg, in the following quote:
'Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that "God is the ultimate" or "God is our better nature" or "God is the universe". Of course, like any other word, the word "God" can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that "God is energy", then you can find God in a lump of coal.'
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
You’re right. The existence of love - and remember, Clod, we are talking about love as a subjective experience not its outward manifestations in behaviour - cannot be proved in the way Pythagoras' Theorem can be. But this is only to say that love is not logically demonstrable or, if you like, logically certain. I stated earlier that although this is the case it hasn’t prevented the overwhelming majority of human beings from reaching an agreement on a range of phenomena which is to be understood as pointing to the existence of love, as constituting evidence that this subjective experience is real.
But can the same be said about the evidence for the subjective experience of God? Have the overwhelming majority of human beings reached an agreement about this?
No.
There are an awful lot of Believers in the world. Billions of them. Far, far more than there are Agnostics and Atheists. They all agree there are a range of phenomena that point to the existence of God (or Gods). Creation, for example, or even (like the Anglican Minister I mentioned in a previous post) personal experience. You and I might not agree with them, especially on some of the detail, but we can't show they're definitely wrong.
Given that I think your premise is not correct, I also think the argument you put forward in the next two paragraphs, which is based on that premise, has to be incorrect. If I've misunderstood, please feel free to have another bash at explaining.
Now let me ask you this, Clod: what form and content does the subjective experience of God possess? What does this experience consist of? Is there anything about this experience which is ascertainable to the mind‘s eye?
Well, since I have not experienced it, how could I possibly know? But I can't say that because I have not experienced it, it does not exist.
I know you’re being light here, Clod, but I think you’ve highlighted something very important - namely this:
It is precisely because the subjective experience of God is objectless that many people have a tendency to equate it with something else - and this can be almost anything which takes their fancy. This situation is described well by the American physicist, Steven Weinberg, in the following quote:
'Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that "God is the ultimate" or "God is our better nature" or "God is the universe". Of course, like any other word, the word "God" can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that "God is energy", then you can find God in a lump of coal.'
Interesting quotation. I would agree that if people define God in such a way, they will find Him, even in a lump of coal. And since Creation is one of the things that are generally agreed by Believers to be a phenomena pointing to the existence of God, and coal is an aspect of Creation, then God would be in the lump of coal. And, indeed, in us, since we are also an aspect of Creation.
But can the same be said about the evidence for the subjective experience of God? Have the overwhelming majority of human beings reached an agreement about this?
No.
There are an awful lot of Believers in the world. Billions of them. Far, far more than there are Agnostics and Atheists. They all agree there are a range of phenomena that point to the existence of God (or Gods). Creation, for example, or even (like the Anglican Minister I mentioned in a previous post) personal experience. You and I might not agree with them, especially on some of the detail, but we can't show they're definitely wrong.
Given that I think your premise is not correct, I also think the argument you put forward in the next two paragraphs, which is based on that premise, has to be incorrect. If I've misunderstood, please feel free to have another bash at explaining.
Now let me ask you this, Clod: what form and content does the subjective experience of God possess? What does this experience consist of? Is there anything about this experience which is ascertainable to the mind‘s eye?
Well, since I have not experienced it, how could I possibly know? But I can't say that because I have not experienced it, it does not exist.
I know you’re being light here, Clod, but I think you’ve highlighted something very important - namely this:
It is precisely because the subjective experience of God is objectless that many people have a tendency to equate it with something else - and this can be almost anything which takes their fancy. This situation is described well by the American physicist, Steven Weinberg, in the following quote:
'Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that "God is the ultimate" or "God is our better nature" or "God is the universe". Of course, like any other word, the word "God" can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that "God is energy", then you can find God in a lump of coal.'
Interesting quotation. I would agree that if people define God in such a way, they will find Him, even in a lump of coal. And since Creation is one of the things that are generally agreed by Believers to be a phenomena pointing to the existence of God, and coal is an aspect of Creation, then God would be in the lump of coal. And, indeed, in us, since we are also an aspect of Creation.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Clodhopper;1323530 wrote: There are an awful lot of Believers in the world. Billions of them. Far, far more than there are Agnostics and Atheists. They all agree there are a range of phenomena that point to the existence of God (or Gods). Creation, for example, or even (like the Anglican Minister I mentioned in a previous post) personal experience. You and I might not agree with them, especially on some of the detail, but we can't show they're definitely wrong.
If the billions of believers you mention here, Clod, hold that Creation points to the existence of God then their position is very weak. For it ultimately rests on two philosophical arguments: 1. ‘The Cosmological Argument’; 2. ‘The Argument From Design’. Both of these arguments have been discredited in Philosophy for a long time now: more than this - they have been demolished (by Kant and Hume, for example). I don’t think we should waste our time on philosophical arguments concerning the existence of God for both of us recognise that his existence or non-existence cannot be established with absolute certainty either way on philosophical grounds.
Since absolute certainty on this matter can’t be had - not in the light of present circumstances anyway - what we should be asking ourselves is this: how likely is it that God exists?
It sounds impressive when you say that there are billions of believers (the Anglican minister included) who claim to have had personal experience of God. However, every single one of these claims must be examined on its own merits. And when this is done - whenever any particular claim of this sort is looked at closely it does not appear impressive at all. Let me provide you with an example of one such set of claims - that of mystics. What these claims show is just how grossly mistaken individuals can be about their alleged ‘experience of God’.
Even the person who has only sampled a few of the mystical writings associated with Religion must be struck by the extent to which erotic language and imagery abound in them. As the psychiatrist J. A. C. Brown observes:
'Many have noticed the common use in devotional works of sexual symbolism and the tendency to express religious feeling in erotic imagery even to the extent of describing what, in another context, would be taken as an account of sexual orgasm.'
This is the view of Psychiatry. But in case you think it is exclusive to mental health professionals, the very same view of mysticism is expressed by the renowned religious scholar, Don Cupitt, in his book Mysticism After Modernity. Cupitt writes:
'Everyone knows that both in India and in the West spiritual writing makes extensive use of erotic imagery...the eroticism of wounds, of thraldom, bondage, and ravishment...The language in which mysticism and religious experience are written about is to a very great degree not just erotic, but female erotic: that is, steeped in watery imagery expressing both our feelings for Woman, and the sexual pleasure of Woman.'
In his book Cupitt discusses erotic mystical writing drawn from a wide variety of religious sources. The following are just a few examples for you to consider:
Here is St Jerome telling female Christian penitents what they will feel when the Bridegroom comes to them in the night. Christ will slip in
'and will touch your belly; and you will start up all trembling, and will cry: "I am wounded with love"'.
While St Bernard tells the Christian believer:
'having arrived at that nakedness where the naked reality of God can enter, the soul is fertilized into divine life'.
The same saint urges the Christian seeker of God to learn:
'ever greater openness to the pressure of God's love'.
And he compares the union of self and God with:
'the mixing of water in wine'.
And here are two examples of erotic mystical writing from the Hindu tradition. The medieval female poet-saint Mahadevi gushes:
'You (Shiva) are like milk
In water...'
And...
'He (Shiva) battered my heart,
Looted my flesh,
Claimed as tribute my pleasure,
Took over all of me'
Here is a final example (not drawn from Cupitt). It is one of many relating to St Teresa of Avila. She effuses about her mystical experience thus:
‘The angel held a long golden dart in his hands. From time to time he plunged it into my heart and forced it into my entrails. When he withdrew the dart, it was as if he were going to tear out my entrails, and it left me all inflamed with love divine…I am certain that the pain penetrated my deepest entrails and it seemed as if they were torn when my spiritual spouse withdrew the arrow with which he had penetrated them.’
~o0o~
Apparently, even Catholic priests are unable to read St Teresa nowadays without giggling.
I think it is nakedly obvious that what we are seeing in the foregoing mystical experiences is the human sex instinct after it has undergone highly elaborate forms of sublimation. This instinct has become transformed out of all recognition in the mind of the mystic - to such an extent that it operates under the guise of 'spiritual feeling'. But in spite of this process of psychic refinement the true aetiology of mystical experience is revealed in a range of erotic words and images.
In such cases mystical experience is nothing more than a form of eroticism. In fact, it could be more accurately described as auto-eroticism. This is because the union achieved is not an ecstatic union with 'God' but an ecstatic union with one's self. As the man in the street might put it - the union with one's self in this kind of experience, the communing with one's self in it, the entering deeply into one's self in it, is really a form of self-shagging without any naughty stains or fluids to clean up.
If the billions of believers you mention here, Clod, hold that Creation points to the existence of God then their position is very weak. For it ultimately rests on two philosophical arguments: 1. ‘The Cosmological Argument’; 2. ‘The Argument From Design’. Both of these arguments have been discredited in Philosophy for a long time now: more than this - they have been demolished (by Kant and Hume, for example). I don’t think we should waste our time on philosophical arguments concerning the existence of God for both of us recognise that his existence or non-existence cannot be established with absolute certainty either way on philosophical grounds.
Since absolute certainty on this matter can’t be had - not in the light of present circumstances anyway - what we should be asking ourselves is this: how likely is it that God exists?
It sounds impressive when you say that there are billions of believers (the Anglican minister included) who claim to have had personal experience of God. However, every single one of these claims must be examined on its own merits. And when this is done - whenever any particular claim of this sort is looked at closely it does not appear impressive at all. Let me provide you with an example of one such set of claims - that of mystics. What these claims show is just how grossly mistaken individuals can be about their alleged ‘experience of God’.
Even the person who has only sampled a few of the mystical writings associated with Religion must be struck by the extent to which erotic language and imagery abound in them. As the psychiatrist J. A. C. Brown observes:
'Many have noticed the common use in devotional works of sexual symbolism and the tendency to express religious feeling in erotic imagery even to the extent of describing what, in another context, would be taken as an account of sexual orgasm.'
This is the view of Psychiatry. But in case you think it is exclusive to mental health professionals, the very same view of mysticism is expressed by the renowned religious scholar, Don Cupitt, in his book Mysticism After Modernity. Cupitt writes:
'Everyone knows that both in India and in the West spiritual writing makes extensive use of erotic imagery...the eroticism of wounds, of thraldom, bondage, and ravishment...The language in which mysticism and religious experience are written about is to a very great degree not just erotic, but female erotic: that is, steeped in watery imagery expressing both our feelings for Woman, and the sexual pleasure of Woman.'
In his book Cupitt discusses erotic mystical writing drawn from a wide variety of religious sources. The following are just a few examples for you to consider:
Here is St Jerome telling female Christian penitents what they will feel when the Bridegroom comes to them in the night. Christ will slip in
'and will touch your belly; and you will start up all trembling, and will cry: "I am wounded with love"'.
While St Bernard tells the Christian believer:
'having arrived at that nakedness where the naked reality of God can enter, the soul is fertilized into divine life'.
The same saint urges the Christian seeker of God to learn:
'ever greater openness to the pressure of God's love'.
And he compares the union of self and God with:
'the mixing of water in wine'.
And here are two examples of erotic mystical writing from the Hindu tradition. The medieval female poet-saint Mahadevi gushes:
'You (Shiva) are like milk
In water...'
And...
'He (Shiva) battered my heart,
Looted my flesh,
Claimed as tribute my pleasure,
Took over all of me'
Here is a final example (not drawn from Cupitt). It is one of many relating to St Teresa of Avila. She effuses about her mystical experience thus:
‘The angel held a long golden dart in his hands. From time to time he plunged it into my heart and forced it into my entrails. When he withdrew the dart, it was as if he were going to tear out my entrails, and it left me all inflamed with love divine…I am certain that the pain penetrated my deepest entrails and it seemed as if they were torn when my spiritual spouse withdrew the arrow with which he had penetrated them.’
~o0o~
Apparently, even Catholic priests are unable to read St Teresa nowadays without giggling.
I think it is nakedly obvious that what we are seeing in the foregoing mystical experiences is the human sex instinct after it has undergone highly elaborate forms of sublimation. This instinct has become transformed out of all recognition in the mind of the mystic - to such an extent that it operates under the guise of 'spiritual feeling'. But in spite of this process of psychic refinement the true aetiology of mystical experience is revealed in a range of erotic words and images.
In such cases mystical experience is nothing more than a form of eroticism. In fact, it could be more accurately described as auto-eroticism. This is because the union achieved is not an ecstatic union with 'God' but an ecstatic union with one's self. As the man in the street might put it - the union with one's self in this kind of experience, the communing with one's self in it, the entering deeply into one's self in it, is really a form of self-shagging without any naughty stains or fluids to clean up.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
'The angel held a long golden dart in his hands. From time to time he plunged it into my heart and forced it into my entrails. When he withdrew the dart, it was as if he were going to tear out my entrails, and it left me all inflamed with love divine…I am certain that the pain penetrated my deepest entrails and it seemed as if they were torn when my spiritual spouse withdrew the arrow with which he had penetrated them.’ St Teresa of Avila
~o0o~
Glaswegian wrote: Apparently, even Catholic priests are unable to read St Teresa nowadays without giggling.
Many individuals have been on to St Teresa for years. They have quickly discerned what really underlay her ‘mystical experiences’. One such person was the great Italian sculptor, Bernini. His famous statue of the saint really…er…nails her.
Wanna see how good St Teresa felt getting ‘mystically penetrated’? Step this way:
http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketel ... a_face.jpg
And here's that 'long golden dart' that made her eyes roll back in ecstasy:
http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketel ... _avila.jpg
~o0o~
Glaswegian wrote: Apparently, even Catholic priests are unable to read St Teresa nowadays without giggling.
Many individuals have been on to St Teresa for years. They have quickly discerned what really underlay her ‘mystical experiences’. One such person was the great Italian sculptor, Bernini. His famous statue of the saint really…er…nails her.
Wanna see how good St Teresa felt getting ‘mystically penetrated’? Step this way:
http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketel ... a_face.jpg
And here's that 'long golden dart' that made her eyes roll back in ecstasy:
http://tesla.liketelevision.com/liketel ... _avila.jpg
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
posted by clodhopper
There are an awful lot of Believers in the world. Billions of them. Far, far more than there are Agnostics and Atheists. They all agree there are a range of phenomena that point to the existence of God (or Gods). Creation, for example, or even (like the Anglican Minister I mentioned in a previous post) personal experience. You and I might not agree with them, especially on some of the detail, but we can't show they're definitely wrong.
The problem is those same people demand that everybody agree with them that they and only they are right and all must follow and will willingly go to war to make everybody comply. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial they wish to silence your right to disagree. In actual fact I doubt that there are more believers than non believers but there are many too scared to shout this is a load of cobblers. There are a lot of believers who cannot just accept others do not share their faith sadly they seem to be the ones making the running.
Glaswegian - Why the hang up about st teresa and the sexual imagery in religion? It prompts an image of you slavering over mildly erotic craven images. I doubt there isn't an adult catholic that doesn't get the erotic imagery but it makes no difference to their faith, . Given that faith is irrational rational arguments aren't going to get through and the response of the faithful to dissent will always be violent and all the more vicious as it attacks what they see as the very essence of their being. I think dawkins et al are right in that things are going to get worse as we have more and more faith based schools in england and wales and we have a culture where we are told to tolerate religious views while we are we are supposed to refrain from making our own clear. You see it a lot on this forum - he is religious you should respect his beliefs and not refer to them as nonsense. It's an insidious, back door return to a fear ridden society where people are scared to express an opinion or make a joke for fear of reatliation. .
Maybe we should take a leaf out of a muslim country's book of laws.
Syria bans the burka and niqab in universities | Mail Online
Our students are our children and we will not abandon them to extremist ideas and practices.’
We've just handed the nutters carte blanche to set up more faith schools. Syria is by no means the only muslim country acting against extremists but we ***** foot around
There are an awful lot of Believers in the world. Billions of them. Far, far more than there are Agnostics and Atheists. They all agree there are a range of phenomena that point to the existence of God (or Gods). Creation, for example, or even (like the Anglican Minister I mentioned in a previous post) personal experience. You and I might not agree with them, especially on some of the detail, but we can't show they're definitely wrong.
The problem is those same people demand that everybody agree with them that they and only they are right and all must follow and will willingly go to war to make everybody comply. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial they wish to silence your right to disagree. In actual fact I doubt that there are more believers than non believers but there are many too scared to shout this is a load of cobblers. There are a lot of believers who cannot just accept others do not share their faith sadly they seem to be the ones making the running.
Glaswegian - Why the hang up about st teresa and the sexual imagery in religion? It prompts an image of you slavering over mildly erotic craven images. I doubt there isn't an adult catholic that doesn't get the erotic imagery but it makes no difference to their faith, . Given that faith is irrational rational arguments aren't going to get through and the response of the faithful to dissent will always be violent and all the more vicious as it attacks what they see as the very essence of their being. I think dawkins et al are right in that things are going to get worse as we have more and more faith based schools in england and wales and we have a culture where we are told to tolerate religious views while we are we are supposed to refrain from making our own clear. You see it a lot on this forum - he is religious you should respect his beliefs and not refer to them as nonsense. It's an insidious, back door return to a fear ridden society where people are scared to express an opinion or make a joke for fear of reatliation. .
Maybe we should take a leaf out of a muslim country's book of laws.
Syria bans the burka and niqab in universities | Mail Online
Our students are our children and we will not abandon them to extremist ideas and practices.’
We've just handed the nutters carte blanche to set up more faith schools. Syria is by no means the only muslim country acting against extremists but we ***** foot around
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
gmc;1324110 wrote: Glaswegian - Why the hang up about st teresa and the sexual imagery in religion? It prompts an image of you slavering over mildly erotic craven images.
Just slavering? C'mon, gmc: be a little more imaginative.
Watch St Teresa teaching Glaswegian a lesson here: Sexy nun image by ksenises on Photobucket
Just slavering? C'mon, gmc: be a little more imaginative.
Watch St Teresa teaching Glaswegian a lesson here: Sexy nun image by ksenises on Photobucket
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Glaswegian;1324128 wrote: Just slavering? C'mon, gmc: be a little more imaginative.
Watch St Teresa teaching Glaswegian a lesson here: Sexy nun image by ksenises on Photobucket
I can but you're already sounding like a sex obsessed demented wee free finding obscenity where none exists and the slavering glaswegian image is bad enough. How else would you portray ecstasy? Did you trawl for that image or did you already have the link - on second thought don't answer your proclivities are your own affair.
Bit like the forumgarden censor ***** foot finding obscenity when none exists.
from the original post
Unquestionably, misery, pain and death fill this world on a scale which is simply unimaginable. What I am interested to know is how Christians and other monotheists account for this state of affairs? How do they reconcile it with their belief in a merciful and loving God who cares about his creation?
Like you I could probably reproduce all the arguments used by religion to account for this state of affairs in the world of man. I think they are a load of bollocks and like you and - clodhopper as well come to that - probably churn out cogent reasons as to why they are bollocks. There are plenty of ministers and priests that can do the same but it always comes back to they believe and if it was actually rational you would not need faith. You must believe like a child does. Not so sure about evangelicals they just don't seem to even want to think about it. Saved by the lord don't think about why you needed saved in the first place or you might realise it was your own fault.
People talk about getting high on jesus (well some do), it's like talking to a junky - they know all the reasons not to do something but they can't stop themselves. It's the same with religion and they also try and get others to become addicts and become dangerously violent when you take it away from them.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of an unspiritual situation. It is the opiate of the people."
They don't have to reconcile it they just need it to hang on to. Then there are those who can feel smug they are in god's favour unlike those godless heathens on haiti.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/01/17 ... ng-change/
It's not rational why expect a rational debate?
Watch St Teresa teaching Glaswegian a lesson here: Sexy nun image by ksenises on Photobucket
I can but you're already sounding like a sex obsessed demented wee free finding obscenity where none exists and the slavering glaswegian image is bad enough. How else would you portray ecstasy? Did you trawl for that image or did you already have the link - on second thought don't answer your proclivities are your own affair.
Bit like the forumgarden censor ***** foot finding obscenity when none exists.
from the original post
Unquestionably, misery, pain and death fill this world on a scale which is simply unimaginable. What I am interested to know is how Christians and other monotheists account for this state of affairs? How do they reconcile it with their belief in a merciful and loving God who cares about his creation?
Like you I could probably reproduce all the arguments used by religion to account for this state of affairs in the world of man. I think they are a load of bollocks and like you and - clodhopper as well come to that - probably churn out cogent reasons as to why they are bollocks. There are plenty of ministers and priests that can do the same but it always comes back to they believe and if it was actually rational you would not need faith. You must believe like a child does. Not so sure about evangelicals they just don't seem to even want to think about it. Saved by the lord don't think about why you needed saved in the first place or you might realise it was your own fault.
People talk about getting high on jesus (well some do), it's like talking to a junky - they know all the reasons not to do something but they can't stop themselves. It's the same with religion and they also try and get others to become addicts and become dangerously violent when you take it away from them.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of an unspiritual situation. It is the opiate of the people."
They don't have to reconcile it they just need it to hang on to. Then there are those who can feel smug they are in god's favour unlike those godless heathens on haiti.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/01/17 ... ng-change/
It's not rational why expect a rational debate?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
gmc;1324110 wrote: Given that faith is irrational rational arguments aren't going to get through and the response of the faithful to dissent will always be violent and all the more vicious as it attacks what they see as the very essence of their being.
Yes. This goes to the heart of the matter.
Faith is extremely resistant to rational argumentation because it is rooted in a range of emotions and needs which operate at a deep level in the believer - often at the antipodes of Reason.
Earlier in the thread I said that the Christian religion has become so deeply entrenched in some believers that they can only leave it behind kicking and screaming. Let me expand on this a little with something I posted in another thread in connection with the myth of Jesus’s divinity.
In that post I said it is unbearable for many Christians even to entertain the possibility that Jesus’s divinity is a myth. This is because the Christian who has believed in this myth for years - for a whole lifetime in countless cases - has invested so much of himself in it, so much mental and emotional energy in the form of sentiments, feelings, wishes, hopes, dreams, yearnings, etc. that he is under enormous psychological pressure from within to keep believing it.
Now, can you imagine a Christian who has given so much of his being over to this myth having to admit that this was done in vain, that the sacrifice he has made of himself to it was for absolutely nothing, and that he was a complete fool for believing in it for a single moment? Such an admission would be wholly intolerable to him. Therefore, he is compelled to keep believing in the myth. Yes, better for him to keep doing that than to suffer the pain and personal humiliation which would result from recognising Jesus’s divinity for what it is - viz. a myth manufactured centuries ago by the Church and certain Jews with a political agenda.
But there is a further reason why the Christian is driven to believe in the myth of Jesus’s divinity. Christians provide this myth with monstrous new life from one generation to the next because it is rooted in something appalling which lies at the core of their being. And the appalling thing which lies there is this - A big thumb-sucking infant who is terrified of existence and death, and who will cling desperately to anything for succour, no matter how absurd and risible that thing may be. Yes, even something as absurd and risible as the myth of Jesus’s divinity.
~o0o~
This holds - mutatis mutandis - for Islam, Judaism and every other supernatural belief system as well.
Yes. This goes to the heart of the matter.
Faith is extremely resistant to rational argumentation because it is rooted in a range of emotions and needs which operate at a deep level in the believer - often at the antipodes of Reason.
Earlier in the thread I said that the Christian religion has become so deeply entrenched in some believers that they can only leave it behind kicking and screaming. Let me expand on this a little with something I posted in another thread in connection with the myth of Jesus’s divinity.
In that post I said it is unbearable for many Christians even to entertain the possibility that Jesus’s divinity is a myth. This is because the Christian who has believed in this myth for years - for a whole lifetime in countless cases - has invested so much of himself in it, so much mental and emotional energy in the form of sentiments, feelings, wishes, hopes, dreams, yearnings, etc. that he is under enormous psychological pressure from within to keep believing it.
Now, can you imagine a Christian who has given so much of his being over to this myth having to admit that this was done in vain, that the sacrifice he has made of himself to it was for absolutely nothing, and that he was a complete fool for believing in it for a single moment? Such an admission would be wholly intolerable to him. Therefore, he is compelled to keep believing in the myth. Yes, better for him to keep doing that than to suffer the pain and personal humiliation which would result from recognising Jesus’s divinity for what it is - viz. a myth manufactured centuries ago by the Church and certain Jews with a political agenda.
But there is a further reason why the Christian is driven to believe in the myth of Jesus’s divinity. Christians provide this myth with monstrous new life from one generation to the next because it is rooted in something appalling which lies at the core of their being. And the appalling thing which lies there is this - A big thumb-sucking infant who is terrified of existence and death, and who will cling desperately to anything for succour, no matter how absurd and risible that thing may be. Yes, even something as absurd and risible as the myth of Jesus’s divinity.
~o0o~
This holds - mutatis mutandis - for Islam, Judaism and every other supernatural belief system as well.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
gmc;1324155 wrote: FOXNews.com - Religious Haitians Say Earthquake Was God Asking for Change
The following is an excerpt from the above link:
'But Morse noted that Haitians are already very religious. His countrymen may suffer many ills, but "when it comes to spiritual strength, Haiti is one of the richest nations in the world."
And in that sense, the earthquake seems to have been counterproductive in terms of salvation.
"How could He do this to us?," cried Remi Polevard, who said his five children lie beneath in the rubble of a home near St. Gerard University. "There is no God."
Sunday night, as downtown residents began burning some of the bodies that have been rotting on the streets for five days, a woman walking by in an orange dress pulled out a copy of the Bible.
She flung it into the fire.'
~o0o~
A scintilla of hope.
The following is an excerpt from the above link:
'But Morse noted that Haitians are already very religious. His countrymen may suffer many ills, but "when it comes to spiritual strength, Haiti is one of the richest nations in the world."
And in that sense, the earthquake seems to have been counterproductive in terms of salvation.
"How could He do this to us?," cried Remi Polevard, who said his five children lie beneath in the rubble of a home near St. Gerard University. "There is no God."
Sunday night, as downtown residents began burning some of the bodies that have been rotting on the streets for five days, a woman walking by in an orange dress pulled out a copy of the Bible.
She flung it into the fire.'
~o0o~
A scintilla of hope.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
The power of Pharaoh is the same to us as the rewards that we can receive so as to please our ego.
As it says in Exodus 5:2 Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice?
Its only about the faith in the Creator’s ability to change us. Is it truly possible to attain the perception of the spiritual and of the Creator and can be carried out by an ordinary person, but if I said to you that Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness without some revelation of the creator you would or could not understand.
This is the reason why the Creator conceals Himself, in order that we develop a feeling of urgent need for him. Regardless of the suffering that comes to us.We should say its his way, even though we think of it as nature or man causing this to happen.
In times of suffering, we must understand the reason for which the Creator sends us these feelings. There is no other force or power in the world except the Creator, no enemies, or dark forces, devil ,Saten or whatever you want to call it. However, it is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from?
A person’s highest spiritual potential is to reach the level of maaseh merkavah ("the act of rule"). He is able to correct himself to such an extent that Divine Providence over the world can be executed through that person.
(Talmud, Suka)
in other words we have within us the power to stop the human suffering forever.
I know many will not agree with this and I would not expect them to.
As it says in Exodus 5:2 Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice?
Its only about the faith in the Creator’s ability to change us. Is it truly possible to attain the perception of the spiritual and of the Creator and can be carried out by an ordinary person, but if I said to you that Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness without some revelation of the creator you would or could not understand.
This is the reason why the Creator conceals Himself, in order that we develop a feeling of urgent need for him. Regardless of the suffering that comes to us.We should say its his way, even though we think of it as nature or man causing this to happen.
In times of suffering, we must understand the reason for which the Creator sends us these feelings. There is no other force or power in the world except the Creator, no enemies, or dark forces, devil ,Saten or whatever you want to call it. However, it is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from?
A person’s highest spiritual potential is to reach the level of maaseh merkavah ("the act of rule"). He is able to correct himself to such an extent that Divine Providence over the world can be executed through that person.
(Talmud, Suka)
in other words we have within us the power to stop the human suffering forever.
I know many will not agree with this and I would not expect them to.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Shimon;1324403 wrote: The power of Pharaoh is the same to us as the rewards that we can receive so as to please our ego.
As it says in Exodus 5:2 Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice?
Its only about the faith in the Creator’s ability to change us. Is it truly possible to attain the perception of the spiritual and of the Creator and can be carried out by an ordinary person, but if I said to you that Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness without some revelation of the creator you would or could not understand.
This is the reason why the Creator conceals Himself, in order that we develop a feeling of urgent need for him. Regardless of the suffering that comes to us.We should say its his way, even though we think of it as nature or man causing this to happen.
In times of suffering, we must understand the reason for which the Creator sends us these feelings. There is no other force or power in the world except the Creator, no enemies, or dark forces, devil ,Saten or whatever you want to call it. However, it is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from?
A person’s highest spiritual potential is to reach the level of maaseh merkavah ("the act of rule"). He is able to correct himself to such an extent that Divine Providence over the world can be executed through that person.
(Talmud, Suka)
in other words we have within us the power to stop the human suffering forever.
I know many will not agree with this and I would not expect them to.
That's the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude those destroyed by earthquake and other natural phenomena must be guilty of some terrible sin. It's a reasoning that made sense in the bronze age when natural disasters came out of nowhere and it seemed the gods or god must have sent them and believing there was a purpose to it all gave comfort, then they can find someone to blame and take things out on - someone whose sins brought god's wrath down on them all, starting, often times of course, with those who don't share the same faith. You see vestiges of it in Haiti - let's not all pull together to sort things out how about we gang up on the unbelievers that caused it. ( there are countless examples throughout history where one religion has found a scapegoat for natural catastrophe in another religion or non-believers as a way of dodging or explaining uncomfortable questions like why did god do this ). It's sad to see the same attitudes in the 21st century.
You're right many will not agree with you and you shouldn't expect them to but at least when disaster comes they won't turn round and claim you brought it on yourself. They will just help without gloating about how good they must be not to suffer the same fate.
As it says in Exodus 5:2 Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice?
Its only about the faith in the Creator’s ability to change us. Is it truly possible to attain the perception of the spiritual and of the Creator and can be carried out by an ordinary person, but if I said to you that Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness without some revelation of the creator you would or could not understand.
This is the reason why the Creator conceals Himself, in order that we develop a feeling of urgent need for him. Regardless of the suffering that comes to us.We should say its his way, even though we think of it as nature or man causing this to happen.
In times of suffering, we must understand the reason for which the Creator sends us these feelings. There is no other force or power in the world except the Creator, no enemies, or dark forces, devil ,Saten or whatever you want to call it. However, it is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from?
A person’s highest spiritual potential is to reach the level of maaseh merkavah ("the act of rule"). He is able to correct himself to such an extent that Divine Providence over the world can be executed through that person.
(Talmud, Suka)
in other words we have within us the power to stop the human suffering forever.
I know many will not agree with this and I would not expect them to.
That's the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude those destroyed by earthquake and other natural phenomena must be guilty of some terrible sin. It's a reasoning that made sense in the bronze age when natural disasters came out of nowhere and it seemed the gods or god must have sent them and believing there was a purpose to it all gave comfort, then they can find someone to blame and take things out on - someone whose sins brought god's wrath down on them all, starting, often times of course, with those who don't share the same faith. You see vestiges of it in Haiti - let's not all pull together to sort things out how about we gang up on the unbelievers that caused it. ( there are countless examples throughout history where one religion has found a scapegoat for natural catastrophe in another religion or non-believers as a way of dodging or explaining uncomfortable questions like why did god do this ). It's sad to see the same attitudes in the 21st century.
You're right many will not agree with you and you shouldn't expect them to but at least when disaster comes they won't turn round and claim you brought it on yourself. They will just help without gloating about how good they must be not to suffer the same fate.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Exept for humans, all of nature consumes only what it needs for sustenance. Humans crave more food, more sex, and more physical comfort than they need to stay comfortable and alive. This state is especially true in desires that are uniquely human, in the endlesspursuit of money, power, honor, fame, and knowledge.
As mans ego grows they incorporate pleasure from degrading others or seeing others suffer. This huge desire is unique to the human nature, and it is the real egoism. We experience them through our connections with others
I did not say those destroyed by earthquake and other natural phenomena must be guilty of some terrible sin Every human ever to live is in one form or another a sinner.Its our nature and instilled by God.
I said Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness we just cant or wont see it. It is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from? so we will turn from our egoistic nature of destroying ourselfs and others. and become altruistic by giving to others without any thought of profit or benefit to oneself.
It is not about reward and punishment that is so valued in this world. Suffering is felt by every single soul as one. One person can change the world,or at least start the change since he feels the whole world suffer.
We have the power,right now,to change the world.We could supply every living soul with food, water and medical care and above all love and make every person comfortable and well. But we dont do this because our ego says mine,mine,mine I want it all.I could have given the money for this computor to someone in need of food or shelter but my ego said I want this. We cant help it its in our nature. Because without this desire we would never be able to realize the differance between the creature and the creator.
Things on earth in our world will get a whole lot worse unless we wake up and change .Natural catastrophes are sent to us to tell us its time to wake up. As I said an act of absolute kindness . But unless you can see our true nature you will continue to believe in some outside force as something beyond our control.And continue to believe that we are separate and not parts of one common soul Adam ha Rishon. And our job is to realize the differance and to change or correct the Intensions of the deires we recieve.and recieve it for others and the creator.
As mans ego grows they incorporate pleasure from degrading others or seeing others suffer. This huge desire is unique to the human nature, and it is the real egoism. We experience them through our connections with others
I did not say those destroyed by earthquake and other natural phenomena must be guilty of some terrible sin Every human ever to live is in one form or another a sinner.Its our nature and instilled by God.
I said Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness we just cant or wont see it. It is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from? so we will turn from our egoistic nature of destroying ourselfs and others. and become altruistic by giving to others without any thought of profit or benefit to oneself.
It is not about reward and punishment that is so valued in this world. Suffering is felt by every single soul as one. One person can change the world,or at least start the change since he feels the whole world suffer.
We have the power,right now,to change the world.We could supply every living soul with food, water and medical care and above all love and make every person comfortable and well. But we dont do this because our ego says mine,mine,mine I want it all.I could have given the money for this computor to someone in need of food or shelter but my ego said I want this. We cant help it its in our nature. Because without this desire we would never be able to realize the differance between the creature and the creator.
Things on earth in our world will get a whole lot worse unless we wake up and change .Natural catastrophes are sent to us to tell us its time to wake up. As I said an act of absolute kindness . But unless you can see our true nature you will continue to believe in some outside force as something beyond our control.And continue to believe that we are separate and not parts of one common soul Adam ha Rishon. And our job is to realize the differance and to change or correct the Intensions of the deires we recieve.and recieve it for others and the creator.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Shimon;1324544 wrote: Exept for humans, all of nature consumes only what it needs for sustenance. Humans crave more food, more sex, and more physical comfort than they need to stay comfortable and alive. This state is especially true in desires that are uniquely human, in the endlesspursuit of money, power, honor, fame, and knowledge.
As mans ego grows they incorporate pleasure from degrading others or seeing others suffer. This huge desire is unique to the human nature, and it is the real egoism. We experience them through our connections with others
I did not say those destroyed by earthquake and other natural phenomena must be guilty of some terrible sin Every human ever to live is in one form or another a sinner.
I said Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness we just cant or wont see it. It is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from? so we will turn from our egoistic nature and destroying ourselfs and others. and become altruistic giving to others.
It is not about reward and punishment that is so valued in this world.
It is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from? so we will turn from our egoistic nature and destroying ourselfs and others. and become altruistic giving to others.
You do not need religion or belief in a creator to be altruistic - altruism is as much a part of human nature as greed. While some take pleasure in the degrading and suffering of others it takes religion for it to be justified in the name of a greater good. You don't need to look very far to find degradation and suffering imposed on others in the name of religion or because of religion or to find delight in the suffering of others because of religious belief - pat robertson for one seems to take pleasure in his god punishing the ungodly. To suggest suffering is sent as a kindness by a benevolent creator so we will learn to be altruistic is an obscene belief you are welcome to.
You are right we are not going to agree.
As mans ego grows they incorporate pleasure from degrading others or seeing others suffer. This huge desire is unique to the human nature, and it is the real egoism. We experience them through our connections with others
I did not say those destroyed by earthquake and other natural phenomena must be guilty of some terrible sin Every human ever to live is in one form or another a sinner.
I said Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness we just cant or wont see it. It is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from? so we will turn from our egoistic nature and destroying ourselfs and others. and become altruistic giving to others.
It is not about reward and punishment that is so valued in this world.
It is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from? so we will turn from our egoistic nature and destroying ourselfs and others. and become altruistic giving to others.
You do not need religion or belief in a creator to be altruistic - altruism is as much a part of human nature as greed. While some take pleasure in the degrading and suffering of others it takes religion for it to be justified in the name of a greater good. You don't need to look very far to find degradation and suffering imposed on others in the name of religion or because of religion or to find delight in the suffering of others because of religious belief - pat robertson for one seems to take pleasure in his god punishing the ungodly. To suggest suffering is sent as a kindness by a benevolent creator so we will learn to be altruistic is an obscene belief you are welcome to.
You are right we are not going to agree.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
did not explain a complicated subject very well and was taken totally wrong.for that I am sorry, There is a much broader and deeper meaning to this that I cannot explain in a few short words. And I am very late for an appointment. Can we continue later? I do see your point But I am tryng to explain something rather complicated.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
gmc;1324155 wrote: It's not rational why expect a rational debate?
I know that religious beliefs cannot be shown to be false on rational grounds. But that is due to the nature of these beliefs. For they refer to things which lie beyond the scope of Reason - things like 'Gods', 'angels', 'demons', ‘Heaven', ‘Hell', 'souls', 'sin’, ‘divine intervention’ and the like. And I’m also aware that religious believers take great comfort knowing that Reason cannot touch these things - even to the point of feeling smug about this.
Since reason cannot establish with absolute certainty that religious beliefs are false it must necessarily do something else: namely, show that these beliefs are so unlikely to be true that anyone who holds them is a clot who should not be taken seriously.
Let me provide you with an example of a religious belief that is so preposterous that it could only be held by a clot who should not be taken seriously: viz. belief in 'the Rapture'. As you might have heard, there are fifty million Christians in America today who believe that they will be miraculously airlifted into the sky by Jesus at the time of the Rapture.
As I mentioned a moment ago, since a belief of this kind cannot be shown to be indubitably false we must ask ourselves instead - how likely is it to be true? And the way we go about answering this question is by bringing all that we have ever learned to bear on it - which means, in effect, our entire personal experience and everything we have learned about the experience of others. This great mass of experience is generally understood as ‘common sense’.
Now, what does common sense tell us about belief in the Rapture? Well, among other things it tells us this: If the fifty million American Christians who hold this belief turn out to be right, and they are indeed Raptured, then some of them will be sitting on the shi*ter at the time of its commencement. That is statistically certain. This means, of course, that these particular believers will ascend heavenwards with their trousers or knickers around their ankles and their arses un-wiped.
Do you find this scenario convincing? Do you think it is at all likely? What does yer guid Scots common sense tell you, gmc?
I know that religious beliefs cannot be shown to be false on rational grounds. But that is due to the nature of these beliefs. For they refer to things which lie beyond the scope of Reason - things like 'Gods', 'angels', 'demons', ‘Heaven', ‘Hell', 'souls', 'sin’, ‘divine intervention’ and the like. And I’m also aware that religious believers take great comfort knowing that Reason cannot touch these things - even to the point of feeling smug about this.
Since reason cannot establish with absolute certainty that religious beliefs are false it must necessarily do something else: namely, show that these beliefs are so unlikely to be true that anyone who holds them is a clot who should not be taken seriously.
Let me provide you with an example of a religious belief that is so preposterous that it could only be held by a clot who should not be taken seriously: viz. belief in 'the Rapture'. As you might have heard, there are fifty million Christians in America today who believe that they will be miraculously airlifted into the sky by Jesus at the time of the Rapture.
As I mentioned a moment ago, since a belief of this kind cannot be shown to be indubitably false we must ask ourselves instead - how likely is it to be true? And the way we go about answering this question is by bringing all that we have ever learned to bear on it - which means, in effect, our entire personal experience and everything we have learned about the experience of others. This great mass of experience is generally understood as ‘common sense’.
Now, what does common sense tell us about belief in the Rapture? Well, among other things it tells us this: If the fifty million American Christians who hold this belief turn out to be right, and they are indeed Raptured, then some of them will be sitting on the shi*ter at the time of its commencement. That is statistically certain. This means, of course, that these particular believers will ascend heavenwards with their trousers or knickers around their ankles and their arses un-wiped.
Do you find this scenario convincing? Do you think it is at all likely? What does yer guid Scots common sense tell you, gmc?
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Shimon;1324595 wrote: did not explain a complicated subject very well and was taken totally wrong.for that I am sorry, There is a much broader and deeper meaning to this that I cannot explain in a few short words. And I am very late for an appointment. Can we continue later? I do see your point But I am tryng to explain something rather complicated.
As you wish, I will look forward to it. I suspect I know where you are coming from in terms of belief and I doubt we will agree but I've always found it beneficial to think about why you think the way you do about things - if that makes sense:-3. If you can't explain why you hold an opinion it's because it's someone else's and you haven't given the matter any thought. It's the same with belief, if you simply regurgitate bits of gospel and someone else's ideas then they are not your own until you have thought things through yourself. You might decide your belief hasn't changed except perhaps it's now reinforced.
posted by glaswegian
Do you find this scenario convincing? Do you think it is at all likely? What does yer guid Scots common sense tell you, gmc?
Personally no.
Since reason cannot establish with absolute certainty that religious beliefs are false it must necessarily do something else: namely, show that these beliefs are so unlikely to be true that anyone who holds them is a clot who should not be taken seriously.
It's also unlikely that jesus was
a) the son of god
b) god himself
c) the holy spirit
d) that his mum was a virgin.
It's also seems unlikely that you would be defrocked for daring to ordain a woman as a priest but not for child abuse but guess what? that is actually the case.
Not taking those who hold such beliefs seriously used to be downright downright life threatening. At least nowadays we can choose not to believe and say so openly.
How's this for a clear moral viewpoint.
YouTube - Vast Majority Of Victims Were Postpubescent That's Not Pedophilia! Bill Donohue pt.3!
As you wish, I will look forward to it. I suspect I know where you are coming from in terms of belief and I doubt we will agree but I've always found it beneficial to think about why you think the way you do about things - if that makes sense:-3. If you can't explain why you hold an opinion it's because it's someone else's and you haven't given the matter any thought. It's the same with belief, if you simply regurgitate bits of gospel and someone else's ideas then they are not your own until you have thought things through yourself. You might decide your belief hasn't changed except perhaps it's now reinforced.
posted by glaswegian
Do you find this scenario convincing? Do you think it is at all likely? What does yer guid Scots common sense tell you, gmc?
Personally no.
Since reason cannot establish with absolute certainty that religious beliefs are false it must necessarily do something else: namely, show that these beliefs are so unlikely to be true that anyone who holds them is a clot who should not be taken seriously.
It's also unlikely that jesus was
a) the son of god
b) god himself
c) the holy spirit
d) that his mum was a virgin.
It's also seems unlikely that you would be defrocked for daring to ordain a woman as a priest but not for child abuse but guess what? that is actually the case.
Not taking those who hold such beliefs seriously used to be downright downright life threatening. At least nowadays we can choose not to believe and say so openly.
How's this for a clear moral viewpoint.
YouTube - Vast Majority Of Victims Were Postpubescent That's Not Pedophilia! Bill Donohue pt.3!
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Hello Shimon
There’s a few things in your post which I found a bit confusing. Could you clarify them?
Here they are:
Shimon;1324403 wrote: but if I said to you that Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness without some revelation of the creator you would or could not understand.
Are you saying here that suffering is a gift from the Creator?
Shimon wrote: This is the reason why the Creator conceals Himself, in order that we develop a feeling of urgent need for him. Regardless of the suffering that comes to us.We should say its his way, even though we think of it as nature or man causing this to happen.
So it is the Creator who causes suffering - not man or nature. Is that correct?
Shimon wrote: There is no other force or power in the world except the Creator, no enemies, or dark forces, devil ,Saten or whatever you want to call it. However, it is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from?
There is no other force or power in the world which acts in opposition to the Creator: for example, no Cosmic Adversary or personification of Evil. Yes?
There’s a few things in your post which I found a bit confusing. Could you clarify them?
Here they are:
Shimon;1324403 wrote: but if I said to you that Suffering is sent as an absolute kindness without some revelation of the creator you would or could not understand.
Are you saying here that suffering is a gift from the Creator?
Shimon wrote: This is the reason why the Creator conceals Himself, in order that we develop a feeling of urgent need for him. Regardless of the suffering that comes to us.We should say its his way, even though we think of it as nature or man causing this to happen.
So it is the Creator who causes suffering - not man or nature. Is that correct?
Shimon wrote: There is no other force or power in the world except the Creator, no enemies, or dark forces, devil ,Saten or whatever you want to call it. However, it is the Creator Himself who forms in us a sensation like this, in order for us to wonder why we felt the suffering and were did it come from?
There is no other force or power in the world which acts in opposition to the Creator: for example, no Cosmic Adversary or personification of Evil. Yes?
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Im so sorry for late response Was away all day just got home.
First of all I will give you the orthodox answer (which Im sure you have heard before)
Gee Johnny, We can't understand God's ways or Worse than innocent people suffering is others watching their suffering unmoved by the event. And that's exactly what would happen if we were to understand why innocents suffer.
That being said I think I should explain. I am a Kabbalist And I should not have made a statements about something that has taken years to understand.It so much more involved than I could ever explain here.(If you would like I will take the time to explain but it would take many posts or start a new thread) All I will say here is that I belive in hashgacha pratitof or divine providence of the creator and leave it at that. trust me glasweigian I have devoted most of life to thinking about such matters.
My explainations above could have lead to falsifications, arguments and wrong conclusions and for this I am deeply sorry that was not my Intension.
First of all I will give you the orthodox answer (which Im sure you have heard before)
Gee Johnny, We can't understand God's ways or Worse than innocent people suffering is others watching their suffering unmoved by the event. And that's exactly what would happen if we were to understand why innocents suffer.
That being said I think I should explain. I am a Kabbalist And I should not have made a statements about something that has taken years to understand.It so much more involved than I could ever explain here.(If you would like I will take the time to explain but it would take many posts or start a new thread) All I will say here is that I belive in hashgacha pratitof or divine providence of the creator and leave it at that. trust me glasweigian I have devoted most of life to thinking about such matters.
My explainations above could have lead to falsifications, arguments and wrong conclusions and for this I am deeply sorry that was not my Intension.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Shimon;1324698 wrote: Im so sorry for late response Was away all day just got home.
First of all I will give you the orthodox answer (which Im sure you have heard before)
Gee Johnny, We can't understand God's ways or Worse than innocent people suffering is others watching their suffering unmoved by the event. And that's exactly what would happen if we were to understand why innocents suffer.
That being said I think I should explain. I am a Kabbalist And I should not have made a statements about something that has taken years to understand.It so much more involved than I could ever explain here.(If you would like I will take the time to explain but it would take many posts or start a new thread) All I will say here is that I belive in hashgacha pratitof or divine providence of the creator and leave it at that. trust me glasweigian I have devoted most of life to thinking about such matters.
My explainations above could have lead to falsifications, arguments and wrong conclusions and for this I am deeply sorry that was not my Intension.
You intrigue. By all means start a new thread if you wish. Be a change not to have someone throw their toys out the pram just because someone doesn't share their belief. It's not likely we will end in agreement but there are many people I don't agree with but still get along with.
We can't understand God's ways or Worse than innocent people suffering is others watching their suffering unmoved by the event. And that's exactly what would happen if we were to understand why innocents suffer.
You can't understand so just accept it as god's will, if one child is saved from the rubble it's a miracle if thousands die in the same pile it's divine providence but if you knew why god did it you would have no empathy for them. To me that is nonsense. One of the saddest things is people who say they need their faith to make them compassionate.
First of all I will give you the orthodox answer (which Im sure you have heard before)
Gee Johnny, We can't understand God's ways or Worse than innocent people suffering is others watching their suffering unmoved by the event. And that's exactly what would happen if we were to understand why innocents suffer.
That being said I think I should explain. I am a Kabbalist And I should not have made a statements about something that has taken years to understand.It so much more involved than I could ever explain here.(If you would like I will take the time to explain but it would take many posts or start a new thread) All I will say here is that I belive in hashgacha pratitof or divine providence of the creator and leave it at that. trust me glasweigian I have devoted most of life to thinking about such matters.
My explainations above could have lead to falsifications, arguments and wrong conclusions and for this I am deeply sorry that was not my Intension.
You intrigue. By all means start a new thread if you wish. Be a change not to have someone throw their toys out the pram just because someone doesn't share their belief. It's not likely we will end in agreement but there are many people I don't agree with but still get along with.
We can't understand God's ways or Worse than innocent people suffering is others watching their suffering unmoved by the event. And that's exactly what would happen if we were to understand why innocents suffer.
You can't understand so just accept it as god's will, if one child is saved from the rubble it's a miracle if thousands die in the same pile it's divine providence but if you knew why god did it you would have no empathy for them. To me that is nonsense. One of the saddest things is people who say they need their faith to make them compassionate.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Shimon;1324698 wrote: All I will say here is that I belive in hashgacha pratitof or divine providence of the creator and leave it at that. trust me glasweigian I have devoted most of life to thinking about such matters.
I'm sure you have, Shimon.
Shimon wrote: My explainations above could have lead to falsifications, arguments and wrong conclusions and for this I am deeply sorry that was not my Intension.
No apologies are necessary.
Take as much time as you want to make your response.
I'm sure you have, Shimon.
Shimon wrote: My explainations above could have lead to falsifications, arguments and wrong conclusions and for this I am deeply sorry that was not my Intension.
No apologies are necessary.
Take as much time as you want to make your response.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
For thousands of years Kabbalah was kept secret. It was taught to only Jewish males over the age of 40 who were very learned in Torah. It was mostly handed down to one person at a time and by a qualified Rabbi. Since 1995 It is permissible to disclose Kabbalah to the general public.
Kabbalah is the soul of the Torah, an ancient Jewish tradition which teaches the deepest insights into the essence of God. Abraham is regarded the first Kabbalist who received the knowledge of the Upper World. That is the Kabbalah of our ancestors. Not the stuff with red strings, Madonna or any other new age thing.
Kabbalah Is the teaching about creation and the spiritual world which is all that is described in the Torah. The Torah does not say a single word about our physical world.It is not a historical document. People, places and events are describing spiritual actions that happen within a person. Each Hebrew letter has a spiritual meaning that can be translated to something happening inside of you.
When a person arrives at a conclusion and is ready he will begin the study, If he is not he wont there is no coercion in Kabbalah. Unconditional desire to learn is called a true prayer to which the Creator responds.
Todays Religion maintains that the Creator changes his attitude toward man depending on man's actions. If your good you will receive gods blessingas an award if you will. Kabbalah asserts that the Upper Force is invariant and cannot be altered by man's actions. It can change the person, therefore he perceives the divine providence differently. The Creator is absolute and unalterable
It says in Talmud Tov u Metiv le Rayim ve le Tovim meaning He is good and He does good to the bad and the good
First, we have understand the Creator is the Absolute Goodness. This means that it is utterly impossible that He would ever cause any sorrow to any person.
Religious people accept the fact and think that now the Creator is angry and causes earthquakes or other disasters. However, they never say that He is evil or treacherous because it is indecent and unacceptable although this is exactly what they feel. They ask why did he make this happen and cause all this suffering?
The Kabbalist regards the Creator's attitude as the only possible and absolutely kind and just way, but as a self-test, self-analysis. Therefore, he judges, analyzes, and compares himself with the Upper Force and asks it to make him equal to the attribute that is being displayed. The Kabbalist always asks the Creator to make him better or equal to his attribute Mercy,judgement ect.
Although religion calls upon man to change his ways somewhat, it is completely based on pleading with the Creator to give him something. This originates in the ancient beliefs in various forces that needed to be appeased by sacrifice and implored to soften their attitude.
When you read in Torah about sacrifices you think of killing cows and goats again it has nothing to do with a physical action by understanding that The Hebrew word for sacrifice is Kurban, which derives from Karov (closeness). This word implies inner actions of man, where he sacrifices (corrects) the inanimate, vegetative and animate parts of his egoistical nature, elevating it to the human level.
As I said its very complicated to explain
As I feel I am not doing anyone or Kabballah justice I will leave this up to qualified Rabbi's
Kabbalah is the soul of the Torah, an ancient Jewish tradition which teaches the deepest insights into the essence of God. Abraham is regarded the first Kabbalist who received the knowledge of the Upper World. That is the Kabbalah of our ancestors. Not the stuff with red strings, Madonna or any other new age thing.
Kabbalah Is the teaching about creation and the spiritual world which is all that is described in the Torah. The Torah does not say a single word about our physical world.It is not a historical document. People, places and events are describing spiritual actions that happen within a person. Each Hebrew letter has a spiritual meaning that can be translated to something happening inside of you.
When a person arrives at a conclusion and is ready he will begin the study, If he is not he wont there is no coercion in Kabbalah. Unconditional desire to learn is called a true prayer to which the Creator responds.
Todays Religion maintains that the Creator changes his attitude toward man depending on man's actions. If your good you will receive gods blessingas an award if you will. Kabbalah asserts that the Upper Force is invariant and cannot be altered by man's actions. It can change the person, therefore he perceives the divine providence differently. The Creator is absolute and unalterable
It says in Talmud Tov u Metiv le Rayim ve le Tovim meaning He is good and He does good to the bad and the good
First, we have understand the Creator is the Absolute Goodness. This means that it is utterly impossible that He would ever cause any sorrow to any person.
Religious people accept the fact and think that now the Creator is angry and causes earthquakes or other disasters. However, they never say that He is evil or treacherous because it is indecent and unacceptable although this is exactly what they feel. They ask why did he make this happen and cause all this suffering?
The Kabbalist regards the Creator's attitude as the only possible and absolutely kind and just way, but as a self-test, self-analysis. Therefore, he judges, analyzes, and compares himself with the Upper Force and asks it to make him equal to the attribute that is being displayed. The Kabbalist always asks the Creator to make him better or equal to his attribute Mercy,judgement ect.
Although religion calls upon man to change his ways somewhat, it is completely based on pleading with the Creator to give him something. This originates in the ancient beliefs in various forces that needed to be appeased by sacrifice and implored to soften their attitude.
When you read in Torah about sacrifices you think of killing cows and goats again it has nothing to do with a physical action by understanding that The Hebrew word for sacrifice is Kurban, which derives from Karov (closeness). This word implies inner actions of man, where he sacrifices (corrects) the inanimate, vegetative and animate parts of his egoistical nature, elevating it to the human level.
As I said its very complicated to explain
As I feel I am not doing anyone or Kabballah justice I will leave this up to qualified Rabbi's
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
What happened in1995 that made this teaching acceptable to all instead of just a certain few?
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
according to the Kabbalah The Ari had written about this in the 16th century. reality has begun to pressure Jews more in order to leada change and start on a process of spiritual awarness. Every person must learn and know how the world and its management operates.
since 1995 the souls has come to a degree where there are people (though not all) who can study and understand it. To some, it will take more time, but there are millions who are already at this degree of understanding.Im trying to find the article by the Ari and will put up a link.I know its on line but Im late again hope to be home sometime around 10 pacific time
since 1995 the souls has come to a degree where there are people (though not all) who can study and understand it. To some, it will take more time, but there are millions who are already at this degree of understanding.Im trying to find the article by the Ari and will put up a link.I know its on line but Im late again hope to be home sometime around 10 pacific time
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Shimon;1324761 wrote: For thousands of years Kabbalah was kept secret. It was taught to only Jewish males over the age of 40 who were very learned in Torah. It was mostly handed down to one person at a time and by a qualified Rabbi. Since 1995 It is permissible to disclose Kabbalah to the general public.
Kabbalah is the soul of the Torah, an ancient Jewish tradition which teaches the deepest insights into the essence of God. Abraham is regarded the first Kabbalist who received the knowledge of the Upper World. That is the Kabbalah of our ancestors. Not the stuff with red strings, Madonna or any other new age thing.
Kabbalah Is the teaching about creation and the spiritual world which is all that is described in the Torah. The Torah does not say a single word about our physical world.It is not a historical document. People, places and events are describing spiritual actions that happen within a person. Each Hebrew letter has a spiritual meaning that can be translated to something happening inside of you.
When a person arrives at a conclusion and is ready he will begin the study, If he is not he wont there is no coercion in Kabbalah. Unconditional desire to learn is called a true prayer to which the Creator responds.
Todays Religion maintains that the Creator changes his attitude toward man depending on man's actions. If your good you will receive gods blessingas an award if you will. Kabbalah asserts that the Upper Force is invariant and cannot be altered by man's actions. It can change the person, therefore he perceives the divine providence differently. The Creator is absolute and unalterable
It says in Talmud Tov u Metiv le Rayim ve le Tovim meaning He is good and He does good to the bad and the good
First, we have understand the Creator is the Absolute Goodness. This means that it is utterly impossible that He would ever cause any sorrow to any person.
Religious people accept the fact and think that now the Creator is angry and causes earthquakes or other disasters. However, they never say that He is evil or treacherous because it is indecent and unacceptable although this is exactly what they feel. They ask why did he make this happen and cause all this suffering?
The Kabbalist regards the Creator's attitude as the only possible and absolutely kind and just way, but as a self-test, self-analysis. Therefore, he judges, analyzes, and compares himself with the Upper Force and asks it to make him equal to the attribute that is being displayed. The Kabbalist always asks the Creator to make him better or equal to his attribute Mercy,judgement ect.
Although religion calls upon man to change his ways somewhat, it is completely based on pleading with the Creator to give him something. This originates in the ancient beliefs in various forces that needed to be appeased by sacrifice and implored to soften their attitude.
When you read in Torah about sacrifices you think of killing cows and goats again it has nothing to do with a physical action by understanding that The Hebrew word for sacrifice is Kurban, which derives from Karov (closeness). This word implies inner actions of man, where he sacrifices (corrects) the inanimate, vegetative and animate parts of his egoistical nature, elevating it to the human level.
As I said its very complicated to explain
As I feel I am not doing anyone or Kabballah justice I will leave this up to qualified Rabbi's
What does Kabbalah say about the Earth, Shimon? Was it made by the Creator?
Kabbalah is the soul of the Torah, an ancient Jewish tradition which teaches the deepest insights into the essence of God. Abraham is regarded the first Kabbalist who received the knowledge of the Upper World. That is the Kabbalah of our ancestors. Not the stuff with red strings, Madonna or any other new age thing.
Kabbalah Is the teaching about creation and the spiritual world which is all that is described in the Torah. The Torah does not say a single word about our physical world.It is not a historical document. People, places and events are describing spiritual actions that happen within a person. Each Hebrew letter has a spiritual meaning that can be translated to something happening inside of you.
When a person arrives at a conclusion and is ready he will begin the study, If he is not he wont there is no coercion in Kabbalah. Unconditional desire to learn is called a true prayer to which the Creator responds.
Todays Religion maintains that the Creator changes his attitude toward man depending on man's actions. If your good you will receive gods blessingas an award if you will. Kabbalah asserts that the Upper Force is invariant and cannot be altered by man's actions. It can change the person, therefore he perceives the divine providence differently. The Creator is absolute and unalterable
It says in Talmud Tov u Metiv le Rayim ve le Tovim meaning He is good and He does good to the bad and the good
First, we have understand the Creator is the Absolute Goodness. This means that it is utterly impossible that He would ever cause any sorrow to any person.
Religious people accept the fact and think that now the Creator is angry and causes earthquakes or other disasters. However, they never say that He is evil or treacherous because it is indecent and unacceptable although this is exactly what they feel. They ask why did he make this happen and cause all this suffering?
The Kabbalist regards the Creator's attitude as the only possible and absolutely kind and just way, but as a self-test, self-analysis. Therefore, he judges, analyzes, and compares himself with the Upper Force and asks it to make him equal to the attribute that is being displayed. The Kabbalist always asks the Creator to make him better or equal to his attribute Mercy,judgement ect.
Although religion calls upon man to change his ways somewhat, it is completely based on pleading with the Creator to give him something. This originates in the ancient beliefs in various forces that needed to be appeased by sacrifice and implored to soften their attitude.
When you read in Torah about sacrifices you think of killing cows and goats again it has nothing to do with a physical action by understanding that The Hebrew word for sacrifice is Kurban, which derives from Karov (closeness). This word implies inner actions of man, where he sacrifices (corrects) the inanimate, vegetative and animate parts of his egoistical nature, elevating it to the human level.
As I said its very complicated to explain
As I feel I am not doing anyone or Kabballah justice I will leave this up to qualified Rabbi's
What does Kabbalah say about the Earth, Shimon? Was it made by the Creator?
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Earth is considered Malchut everything was made by the Creator and inside the creature
this is from the Zohar may not help but does explain the physical creation earth
Vol 1 Beresheet section 7
Holy, holy, holy" (Yeshayah 6:3) is THE SECRET OF THE MOCHIN OF BINAH, WHICH IS ALSO THE SECRET OF THE VERSE: "Let the waters...be gathered." THE PHRASE "Hashem Tzeva'ot" (Ibid.) is THE SECRET OF THE VERSE: "to one place", YESOD OF ZEIR ANPIN THAT IS CALLED THE LIFE OF THE WORLDS, TO WHICH THE MOCHIN FROM BINAH IS DRAWN ACCORDING TO THE SECRET OF THE PHRASE: "TO ONE PLACE." THE PHRASE: "The whole earth is full of his glory" (Ibid.) is THE SECRET OF THE VERSE: "and let the dry land appear." THIS VERSE IS THE SECRET OF THE LOWER HEI, CALLED WHEN COMPRISED WITHIN THE UNION OF THE UPPER WORLD. THE WORDS "AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR" is the secret of the engraved name of the union of Kaf-Vav-Zayin-Vav, Bet-Mem-Vav-Kaf-Samech-Zayin and Kaf-Vav-Zayin-Vav, BECAUSE THE DRY LAND--WHICH IS THE REVEALED WORLD--IS INCLUDED IN THE UNION OF THE SUPERNAL WORLD--WHICH IS THE SECRET OF "HASHEM OUR ELOHIM HASHEM."
the gathering of the waters is the flow of emanation from yesod of zeir anpin to malchut forming our world by the Hebrew letters above resulting in the revealed world
this is from the Zohar may not help but does explain the physical creation earth
Vol 1 Beresheet section 7
Holy, holy, holy" (Yeshayah 6:3) is THE SECRET OF THE MOCHIN OF BINAH, WHICH IS ALSO THE SECRET OF THE VERSE: "Let the waters...be gathered." THE PHRASE "Hashem Tzeva'ot" (Ibid.) is THE SECRET OF THE VERSE: "to one place", YESOD OF ZEIR ANPIN THAT IS CALLED THE LIFE OF THE WORLDS, TO WHICH THE MOCHIN FROM BINAH IS DRAWN ACCORDING TO THE SECRET OF THE PHRASE: "TO ONE PLACE." THE PHRASE: "The whole earth is full of his glory" (Ibid.) is THE SECRET OF THE VERSE: "and let the dry land appear." THIS VERSE IS THE SECRET OF THE LOWER HEI, CALLED WHEN COMPRISED WITHIN THE UNION OF THE UPPER WORLD. THE WORDS "AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR" is the secret of the engraved name of the union of Kaf-Vav-Zayin-Vav, Bet-Mem-Vav-Kaf-Samech-Zayin and Kaf-Vav-Zayin-Vav, BECAUSE THE DRY LAND--WHICH IS THE REVEALED WORLD--IS INCLUDED IN THE UNION OF THE SUPERNAL WORLD--WHICH IS THE SECRET OF "HASHEM OUR ELOHIM HASHEM."
the gathering of the waters is the flow of emanation from yesod of zeir anpin to malchut forming our world by the Hebrew letters above resulting in the revealed world
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Glaswegian wrote: What does Kabbalah say about the Earth, Shimon? Was it made by the Creator?
Shimon wrote: Earth is considered Malchut everything was made by the Creator and inside the creature
Shimon wrote: First, we have understand the Creator is the Absolute Goodness. This means that it is utterly impossible that He would ever cause any sorrow to any person.
I’m going to bring in a response here which I made to LarsMac earlier in this thread because it is completely germane to what you assert in the two quotations above, Shimon. Here is that response:
Glaswegian wrote: Given your belief in God, Lars, I take it that you also believe He created the Earth. This means that all the physical processes which occur on this planet - from those occurring at its core to those occurring in its outermost atmosphere - are the work of God. Therefore, when God created these physical processes He must have known in advance - given His omniscience - that some of them would cause earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and other such phenomena which wreak death and destruction on the human race.
So how can you say that sh*t like earthquakes just happen which we get in the way of? According to your belief system, earthquakes and the like do not just happen. They have been made to happen by God who, as their originator, is responsible for them.
In the light of these considerations, Shimon, how can you say that it is impossible for the Creator to ‘cause any sorrow to any person’? According to you, He created everything - including the Earth and whatever is inside the creature. Therefore, He is morally culpable for countless natural evils like earthquakes and plagues, and all of the hideously deformed infants that never saw the light of day in a billion mothers’ wombs - to name just a tiny portion of His horrors. To equate such a Creator with Absolute Goodness - as you have done - is a joke. A rather tasteless joke, in fact.
Shimon wrote: Earth is considered Malchut everything was made by the Creator and inside the creature
Shimon wrote: First, we have understand the Creator is the Absolute Goodness. This means that it is utterly impossible that He would ever cause any sorrow to any person.
I’m going to bring in a response here which I made to LarsMac earlier in this thread because it is completely germane to what you assert in the two quotations above, Shimon. Here is that response:
Glaswegian wrote: Given your belief in God, Lars, I take it that you also believe He created the Earth. This means that all the physical processes which occur on this planet - from those occurring at its core to those occurring in its outermost atmosphere - are the work of God. Therefore, when God created these physical processes He must have known in advance - given His omniscience - that some of them would cause earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and other such phenomena which wreak death and destruction on the human race.
So how can you say that sh*t like earthquakes just happen which we get in the way of? According to your belief system, earthquakes and the like do not just happen. They have been made to happen by God who, as their originator, is responsible for them.
In the light of these considerations, Shimon, how can you say that it is impossible for the Creator to ‘cause any sorrow to any person’? According to you, He created everything - including the Earth and whatever is inside the creature. Therefore, He is morally culpable for countless natural evils like earthquakes and plagues, and all of the hideously deformed infants that never saw the light of day in a billion mothers’ wombs - to name just a tiny portion of His horrors. To equate such a Creator with Absolute Goodness - as you have done - is a joke. A rather tasteless joke, in fact.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Glaswegian
I understand your thinking this way,as I would say most would agree with your reasoning as it is very sound. But it is coming from the level of Peshat or literal.
I cannot tell how many tears I have shed over the human condition,the many trips to hospitals or funeral homes as a member of Chevra Kaddisha
not a day goes by that I ask why this or that had to happen.Then I remember there is more, An infinate amount more to creation than we here on earth can ever realize in our limited sences.
The Creator, Borre in Hebrew, means Come and See Bo u Re’e meaning come and see this quality within you.
I am talking about Avodat ha Shem or the creators work, spiritual work in ourself and is by no means a joke, tastless or otherwise. we can only justify it to the degree we are corrected.This happens when a person reveals the Creator, he receives the ability to justify Him,with the goal of becoming a complete Tzadik with complete correction of the entire world. But as you stated ,as so many of us do,we ask if he is so utterly benevolent ,beyond compare. How, then, did He create so many creatures that suffer and agonize all through their lives? Is it not the nature of the good to bestow, or at least not to harm so?
The suffering we feel is concentrated in a point in the heart, where we feel darkness and pain. The contact with the Creator starts at this black point.And he will awaken that point in every heart in its time. A person must perceive all obstacles placed before him as the signal for the next step This signifies the eventual crossing of the barrier Machsom between our world or our level of understanding and the spiritual. The level of ones understanding comes from the level he has attained. as I am talking about the spiritual justification and do not and will not speak of anything else.
So Glaswegian please understand I am talking about spiritual matters because the Torah does not speak one word about our corperal world.There is None Else Beside Him
I understand your thinking this way,as I would say most would agree with your reasoning as it is very sound. But it is coming from the level of Peshat or literal.
I cannot tell how many tears I have shed over the human condition,the many trips to hospitals or funeral homes as a member of Chevra Kaddisha
not a day goes by that I ask why this or that had to happen.Then I remember there is more, An infinate amount more to creation than we here on earth can ever realize in our limited sences.
The Creator, Borre in Hebrew, means Come and See Bo u Re’e meaning come and see this quality within you.
I am talking about Avodat ha Shem or the creators work, spiritual work in ourself and is by no means a joke, tastless or otherwise. we can only justify it to the degree we are corrected.This happens when a person reveals the Creator, he receives the ability to justify Him,with the goal of becoming a complete Tzadik with complete correction of the entire world. But as you stated ,as so many of us do,we ask if he is so utterly benevolent ,beyond compare. How, then, did He create so many creatures that suffer and agonize all through their lives? Is it not the nature of the good to bestow, or at least not to harm so?
The suffering we feel is concentrated in a point in the heart, where we feel darkness and pain. The contact with the Creator starts at this black point.And he will awaken that point in every heart in its time. A person must perceive all obstacles placed before him as the signal for the next step This signifies the eventual crossing of the barrier Machsom between our world or our level of understanding and the spiritual. The level of ones understanding comes from the level he has attained. as I am talking about the spiritual justification and do not and will not speak of anything else.
So Glaswegian please understand I am talking about spiritual matters because the Torah does not speak one word about our corperal world.There is None Else Beside Him
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Shimon;1325283 wrote: But as you stated ,as so many of us do,we ask if he is so utterly benevolent ,beyond compare. How, then, did He create so many creatures that suffer and agonize all through their lives? Is it not the nature of the good to bestow, or at least not to harm so?
The suffering we feel is concentrated in a point in the heart, where we feel darkness and pain. The contact with the Creator starts at this black point.And he will awaken that point in every heart in its time.
The ‘Creator’ has had time enough, Shimon. The Jewish people realised that painful truth almost to the point of extinction in the death camps. Every sensible Jew who lives in the real world knows that they cannot pin their hopes on an imaginary ‘God’ or ’Creator’. Be a sensible Jew and do the same.
The suffering we feel is concentrated in a point in the heart, where we feel darkness and pain. The contact with the Creator starts at this black point.And he will awaken that point in every heart in its time.
The ‘Creator’ has had time enough, Shimon. The Jewish people realised that painful truth almost to the point of extinction in the death camps. Every sensible Jew who lives in the real world knows that they cannot pin their hopes on an imaginary ‘God’ or ’Creator’. Be a sensible Jew and do the same.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Glaswegian;1325344 wrote: The ‘Creator’ has had time enough, Shimon. The Jewish people realised that painful truth almost to the point of extinction in the death camps. Every sensible Jew who lives in the real world knows that they cannot pin their hopes on an imaginary ‘God’ or ’Creator’. Be a sensible Jew and do the same.
I have thought long and hard about your statment,
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson who's younger brother, DovBer, was shot to death and thrown into a mass grave during occupation of Dnepropetrovsk in the fall of 1941 said the following:
" Our outrage, our incessant challenge to G-d over what has occurred -- this itself is a most powerful attestation to our belief in Him and our faith in His goodness. Because if we did not, underneath it all, possess this faith, what is it that we are outraged at? The blind workings of fate? The random arrangement of quarks that make up the universe? It is only because we believe in G-d, because we are convinced that there is right and there is wrong and that right must, and ultimately will, triumph, that we cry out, as Moses did: "Why, my G-d, have you done evil to Your people?!"
It came to me as I was trying to rationlize your statment above, Our implicit and infinite faith in God is our inheritance, it is my inheritance.It is as much apart of me as breathing.
Please read Exodus 5:22 - 6:9 with a open heart and mind,and if you dont understand,then in its time you will,the fact that you say an imaginary god explains alot about your reasoning.
I think we have plowed this feild long enough.We shouldnt ruin the soil for either one of us.
I have thought long and hard about your statment,
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson who's younger brother, DovBer, was shot to death and thrown into a mass grave during occupation of Dnepropetrovsk in the fall of 1941 said the following:
" Our outrage, our incessant challenge to G-d over what has occurred -- this itself is a most powerful attestation to our belief in Him and our faith in His goodness. Because if we did not, underneath it all, possess this faith, what is it that we are outraged at? The blind workings of fate? The random arrangement of quarks that make up the universe? It is only because we believe in G-d, because we are convinced that there is right and there is wrong and that right must, and ultimately will, triumph, that we cry out, as Moses did: "Why, my G-d, have you done evil to Your people?!"
It came to me as I was trying to rationlize your statment above, Our implicit and infinite faith in God is our inheritance, it is my inheritance.It is as much apart of me as breathing.
Please read Exodus 5:22 - 6:9 with a open heart and mind,and if you dont understand,then in its time you will,the fact that you say an imaginary god explains alot about your reasoning.
I think we have plowed this feild long enough.We shouldnt ruin the soil for either one of us.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
I think we have plowed this feild long enough.We shouldnt ruin the soil for either one of us.
That may just be the wisest thing said on this thread. If more people thought like that there would be less conflict in the world.
That may just be the wisest thing said on this thread. If more people thought like that there would be less conflict in the world.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Shimon;1325394 wrote: I have thought long and hard about your statment,
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson who's younger brother, DovBer, was shot to death and thrown into a mass grave during occupation of Dnepropetrovsk in the fall of 1941 said the following:
" Our outrage, our incessant challenge to G-d over what has occurred -- this itself is a most powerful attestation to our belief in Him and our faith in His goodness. Because if we did not, underneath it all, possess this faith, what is it that we are outraged at? The blind workings of fate? The random arrangement of quarks that make up the universe? It is only because we believe in G-d, because we are convinced that there is right and there is wrong and that right must, and ultimately will, triumph, that we cry out, as Moses did: "Why, my G-d, have you done evil to Your people?!"
I once read that the Jews in Auschwitz put God on trial for doing nothing to stop the horror and suffering of the Holocaust, and they found Him guilty.
The following quotation also refers to such a trial:
'During the Holocaust, Jews in Concentration Camps put God on trial. They literally got together in the prisons and held court-like proceedings, putting God on the stand. "How could you?" they asked, "You, the God of Abraham and Moses, who led our people out of slavery, who parted the Red Sea, who led us to the Promised Land. How could you let this happen to us? What do you have to say for yourself?" They put God on trial, and in the end, some found God guilty of betrayal. Others acquitted him on grounds that God wasn't as powerful as he had been in Biblical times. So he couldn't be held responsible. Others, looking around and watching their loved ones march off to the gas chambers, could come to no other conclusion than that God must be dead.'
Shimon wrote: Please read Exodus 5:22 - 6:9 with a open heart and mind,and if you dont understand,then in its time you will,the fact that you say an imaginary god explains alot about your reasoning.
I'm familiar with the events narrated in this part of Exodus. And as far as my reasoning goes - it tells me that the tale of God, Moses and Pharaoh contains a major weakness which tends to be overlooked by religious believers. More about this later.
Shimon wrote: I think we have plowed this feild long enough.
Ploughed? We have merely dislodged one or two pebbles, Shimon. As I've said elsewhere, the evils perpetrated by 'God' are more numerous than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson who's younger brother, DovBer, was shot to death and thrown into a mass grave during occupation of Dnepropetrovsk in the fall of 1941 said the following:
" Our outrage, our incessant challenge to G-d over what has occurred -- this itself is a most powerful attestation to our belief in Him and our faith in His goodness. Because if we did not, underneath it all, possess this faith, what is it that we are outraged at? The blind workings of fate? The random arrangement of quarks that make up the universe? It is only because we believe in G-d, because we are convinced that there is right and there is wrong and that right must, and ultimately will, triumph, that we cry out, as Moses did: "Why, my G-d, have you done evil to Your people?!"
I once read that the Jews in Auschwitz put God on trial for doing nothing to stop the horror and suffering of the Holocaust, and they found Him guilty.
The following quotation also refers to such a trial:
'During the Holocaust, Jews in Concentration Camps put God on trial. They literally got together in the prisons and held court-like proceedings, putting God on the stand. "How could you?" they asked, "You, the God of Abraham and Moses, who led our people out of slavery, who parted the Red Sea, who led us to the Promised Land. How could you let this happen to us? What do you have to say for yourself?" They put God on trial, and in the end, some found God guilty of betrayal. Others acquitted him on grounds that God wasn't as powerful as he had been in Biblical times. So he couldn't be held responsible. Others, looking around and watching their loved ones march off to the gas chambers, could come to no other conclusion than that God must be dead.'
Shimon wrote: Please read Exodus 5:22 - 6:9 with a open heart and mind,and if you dont understand,then in its time you will,the fact that you say an imaginary god explains alot about your reasoning.
I'm familiar with the events narrated in this part of Exodus. And as far as my reasoning goes - it tells me that the tale of God, Moses and Pharaoh contains a major weakness which tends to be overlooked by religious believers. More about this later.
Shimon wrote: I think we have plowed this feild long enough.
Ploughed? We have merely dislodged one or two pebbles, Shimon. As I've said elsewhere, the evils perpetrated by 'God' are more numerous than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
And my only complaint about Glaswegian is that his beliefs are no more or less provable and rational than Shimon's, or anyone else who posts as a believer. And, Glaswegian, I worry about yours only because you are one small step from claiming that those who disagree with you should be killed for the greater good of the human race. The way you talk about religion is as vicious as any bigots.
I'm an Agnostic. I just don't know. Which to me, since neither side can produce rational evidence for their beliefs, makes extremists on either side equally dangerous. But I do know that a conflict betwen Belief and non-Belief would be as nasty as any other war we've had in Europe.
I'm an Agnostic. I just don't know. Which to me, since neither side can produce rational evidence for their beliefs, makes extremists on either side equally dangerous. But I do know that a conflict betwen Belief and non-Belief would be as nasty as any other war we've had in Europe.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Clodhopper;1325517 wrote: And my only complaint about Glaswegian is that his beliefs are no more or less provable and rational than Shimon's, or anyone else who posts as a believer. And, Glaswegian, I worry about yours only because you are one small step from claiming that those who disagree with you should be killed for the greater good of the human race. The way you talk about religion is as vicious as any bigots.
I'm an Agnostic. I just don't know. Which to me, since neither side can produce rational evidence for their beliefs, makes extremists on either side equally dangerous. But I do know that a conflict betwen Belief and non-Belief would be as nasty as any other war we've had in Europe.
I'm curious Clodhopper as to why you feel that a conflict between Believers and Non Believers would be a nasty war? By Non Believers I assume you mean Atheists. I can see Believers attacking Non Believers (Atheists) as this has occurred in history, but can you give me an example of Atheists attacking Believers.
I'm an Agnostic. I just don't know. Which to me, since neither side can produce rational evidence for their beliefs, makes extremists on either side equally dangerous. But I do know that a conflict betwen Belief and non-Belief would be as nasty as any other war we've had in Europe.
I'm curious Clodhopper as to why you feel that a conflict between Believers and Non Believers would be a nasty war? By Non Believers I assume you mean Atheists. I can see Believers attacking Non Believers (Atheists) as this has occurred in history, but can you give me an example of Atheists attacking Believers.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
No. I can't.
But to me, a truly devout Atheist is as religious as a Jesuit. It's a matter of belief without proof. Atheists never had a chance to be organised or proselytise before now. Their neighbours would have burned them before the church got a chance. I just don't want to see them make the same mistakes as other religions.
chuckle. Maybe it's just that I've never met an Atheist as committed as Glaswegian before!
But to me, a truly devout Atheist is as religious as a Jesuit. It's a matter of belief without proof. Atheists never had a chance to be organised or proselytise before now. Their neighbours would have burned them before the church got a chance. I just don't want to see them make the same mistakes as other religions.
chuckle. Maybe it's just that I've never met an Atheist as committed as Glaswegian before!
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Clodhopper;1325526 wrote: No. I can't.
But to me, a truly devout Atheist is as religious as a Jesuit. It's a matter of belief without proof. Atheists never had a chance to be organised or proselytise before now. Their neighbours would have burned them before the church got a chance. I just don't want to see them make the same mistakes as other religions.
chuckle. Maybe it's just that I've never met an Atheist as committed as Glaswegian before!
Well meet a second Atheist---me-------------I consider myself a non militant Atheist and I don't feel that I have to prove anything to be an Atheist----------it's a belief, just as the Baptist can't prove or disprove anything, but believes.
I have no desire to convert anyone to my non belief or to argue it, despite the fact that I find the whole concept of gods, god, angels, original sin, virgin birth, burning bushes, resurrection, walking on water as ridiculous as the easter bunny, tooth fairy, santa claus, hob goblins and leprechauns.
But to me, a truly devout Atheist is as religious as a Jesuit. It's a matter of belief without proof. Atheists never had a chance to be organised or proselytise before now. Their neighbours would have burned them before the church got a chance. I just don't want to see them make the same mistakes as other religions.
chuckle. Maybe it's just that I've never met an Atheist as committed as Glaswegian before!
Well meet a second Atheist---me-------------I consider myself a non militant Atheist and I don't feel that I have to prove anything to be an Atheist----------it's a belief, just as the Baptist can't prove or disprove anything, but believes.
I have no desire to convert anyone to my non belief or to argue it, despite the fact that I find the whole concept of gods, god, angels, original sin, virgin birth, burning bushes, resurrection, walking on water as ridiculous as the easter bunny, tooth fairy, santa claus, hob goblins and leprechauns.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Clodhopper;1325526 wrote: Maybe it's just that I've never met an Atheist as committed as Glaswegian before!
Thank you for a very nice compliment.
Your humble servant
Glaswegian
Thank you for a very nice compliment.
Your humble servant
Glaswegian
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Lon: Non militant. No gripe here!
Glaswgian: Dear Sir, I have enjoyed our conversation - bigot as you may be!
Just let me know when you are planning your first auto da fe, so I can turn up with my fire extinguisher.
Glaswgian: Dear Sir, I have enjoyed our conversation - bigot as you may be!
Just let me know when you are planning your first auto da fe, so I can turn up with my fire extinguisher.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Hmm. I'm tempted to give you carte blanche with the Wee Frees though. Miserable buggers.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Glaswegian,
Nobody ever convinced anyone of the atributes of God through debate.
The god you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.
If you are referring to the movie and book Elie Wiesel’s The Trial of God,I think it was made in the late 80's, which I assume you are.
When asked by the rabbis and academics committee about these events this was his response, "Why should they know what happened? I was the only one there. It happened at night; there were just three people. At the end of the trial, they used the word chayav, rather than ‘guilty'. It means ‘He owes us something'. Then we went to pray."
Jerusalem scholar Esther Farbstein, author of Halachah and Leadership during the Holocaust, was asked if there is any record of God being put on trial in Auschwitz. Mrs Farbstein said flatly No. But she said "There is no question that individuals did put God on trial in their minds, so it is quite plausible that people did have this discussion. But I think it's a story, because I have never seen such a document testifying to such a trial".
Mr. Wiesel, being a survivor of Auschwitz had every right to do so. Why not? It seems to me you have already done so and found him guilty, As is your right. Me trying to convince you that God is just and you trying to convince me he is not, is like trying to explain the color blue to a person born without sight. Its not going to happen
There are millions of people who call themself Atheists who are kind ,just and loving people, and the kind of person I would be proud to call freind.I will not argue with them about their faith, Its not my job to convince them to think otherwise. As I said above Nobody ever convinced anyone of the goodness of God through debate.
Glaswegian Thank you for giving me a reason to think about him ,and that is all I can ask from anyone.
Nobody ever convinced anyone of the atributes of God through debate.
The god you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.
If you are referring to the movie and book Elie Wiesel’s The Trial of God,I think it was made in the late 80's, which I assume you are.
When asked by the rabbis and academics committee about these events this was his response, "Why should they know what happened? I was the only one there. It happened at night; there were just three people. At the end of the trial, they used the word chayav, rather than ‘guilty'. It means ‘He owes us something'. Then we went to pray."
Jerusalem scholar Esther Farbstein, author of Halachah and Leadership during the Holocaust, was asked if there is any record of God being put on trial in Auschwitz. Mrs Farbstein said flatly No. But she said "There is no question that individuals did put God on trial in their minds, so it is quite plausible that people did have this discussion. But I think it's a story, because I have never seen such a document testifying to such a trial".
Mr. Wiesel, being a survivor of Auschwitz had every right to do so. Why not? It seems to me you have already done so and found him guilty, As is your right. Me trying to convince you that God is just and you trying to convince me he is not, is like trying to explain the color blue to a person born without sight. Its not going to happen
There are millions of people who call themself Atheists who are kind ,just and loving people, and the kind of person I would be proud to call freind.I will not argue with them about their faith, Its not my job to convince them to think otherwise. As I said above Nobody ever convinced anyone of the goodness of God through debate.
Glaswegian Thank you for giving me a reason to think about him ,and that is all I can ask from anyone.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Clodhopper;1325517 wrote: I'm an Agnostic. I just don't know. Which to me, since neither side can produce rational evidence for their beliefs, makes extremists on either side equally dangerous. But I do know that a conflict betwen Belief and non-Belief would be as nasty as any other war we've had in Europe.
Here you say that you are an agnostic, Clod.
However, earlier in the thread (post #86) you said this:
Clodhopper wrote: Other days I get down on my knees and thank God for the wonder and beauty of His Creation. Am I confused? Yep!
Being an agnostic, you must hold the view that evidence for the existence of God is lacking. So why do you get down on your knees and thank Him?
This kind of behaviour is indicative of more than just confusion on your part, Clod. It indicates a powerful desire to believe in God, to want Him to exist very much, even to the point of acting as if He does, in fact, exist.
But this is only play-acting, a game of make-believe, pretending that God exists.
This is why I say that belief in God is wholly irrational. It has nothing to do with Reason whatsoever. But it has everything to do with needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies.
Here you say that you are an agnostic, Clod.
However, earlier in the thread (post #86) you said this:
Clodhopper wrote: Other days I get down on my knees and thank God for the wonder and beauty of His Creation. Am I confused? Yep!
Being an agnostic, you must hold the view that evidence for the existence of God is lacking. So why do you get down on your knees and thank Him?
This kind of behaviour is indicative of more than just confusion on your part, Clod. It indicates a powerful desire to believe in God, to want Him to exist very much, even to the point of acting as if He does, in fact, exist.
But this is only play-acting, a game of make-believe, pretending that God exists.
This is why I say that belief in God is wholly irrational. It has nothing to do with Reason whatsoever. But it has everything to do with needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
This is why I say that belief in God is wholly irrational. It has nothing to do with Reason whatsoever. But it has everything to do with needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies.
I like Richard Dawkins answer when asked if he believed there was no god. He said he was 99.99% certain there was no god (or words to that effect) not a 100% because he could not prove conclusively there was no god any more than the religious can prove conclusively that there is.
When it comes right down to it glaswegian your passionate atheism is equally as irrational as shimon's belief. All you can say is that on balance of probability is you do not believe in god. It is a rational conclusion and one I happen to concur in.
posted by shimon
Nobody ever convinced anyone of the atributes of God through debate.
The god you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.
If you are referring to the movie and book Elie Wiesel’s The Trial of God,I think it was made in the late 80's, which I assume you are.
So you believe in more than one god? There is either one and only one or there is not. :sneaky:
Joking aside. You cannot prove something doesn't exist atheists don't need to prove god doesn't exist the religious claim that he does, prove it. But you can't and it always comes back to faith - you have to believe despite what reason tells you. My objection to religion and the religious is the misery and violence they are prepared to inflict on others when they can't prove it.
Can we choose what we believe? I would say yes and so would most religious people, but then they would say ---- but we want to control how you think and how you are taught for your own good and by the way no one should question our beliefs or in any way criticise them. If they taught even a modicum of tolerance for non-believers and extended the respect for others that they demand for themselves all would be well.
We owe our tolerant and peaceful society where on the whole most people believe they are entitled to respect and equality and have that enshrined in law
(generalisation I know and I'm just as well aware of the exception as you are) not to monotheism but a basic primitive instinct that we all need each other and co-operation and working together is a better survival tactic than conflict.
All monotheism and we are the chosen people does is give an excuse and justification for hatred and discrimination that is seized on by those who want power for themselves.For every 99 people who are prepared to live and let live there is one who wants things their way and no other and will use religion to get it. If you look at the history of religion it is a history of the most cynical exploitation of their fellows by those who want power. there is nothing hidden about it, you can look at things like the first ecumenical council in 325AD to see where it began or the schisms in islam as peace and brotherly love went out the window in favour do as I say and kill the unbeliever.
How anyone can blindly follow any of the main religions completely escapes me but even intelligent people do what they are told by religious leaders even if it suicide as a way to heaven. But we are still expected to respect religious belief.:-5:-5
I like Richard Dawkins answer when asked if he believed there was no god. He said he was 99.99% certain there was no god (or words to that effect) not a 100% because he could not prove conclusively there was no god any more than the religious can prove conclusively that there is.
When it comes right down to it glaswegian your passionate atheism is equally as irrational as shimon's belief. All you can say is that on balance of probability is you do not believe in god. It is a rational conclusion and one I happen to concur in.
posted by shimon
Nobody ever convinced anyone of the atributes of God through debate.
The god you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.
If you are referring to the movie and book Elie Wiesel’s The Trial of God,I think it was made in the late 80's, which I assume you are.
So you believe in more than one god? There is either one and only one or there is not. :sneaky:
Joking aside. You cannot prove something doesn't exist atheists don't need to prove god doesn't exist the religious claim that he does, prove it. But you can't and it always comes back to faith - you have to believe despite what reason tells you. My objection to religion and the religious is the misery and violence they are prepared to inflict on others when they can't prove it.
Can we choose what we believe? I would say yes and so would most religious people, but then they would say ---- but we want to control how you think and how you are taught for your own good and by the way no one should question our beliefs or in any way criticise them. If they taught even a modicum of tolerance for non-believers and extended the respect for others that they demand for themselves all would be well.
We owe our tolerant and peaceful society where on the whole most people believe they are entitled to respect and equality and have that enshrined in law
(generalisation I know and I'm just as well aware of the exception as you are) not to monotheism but a basic primitive instinct that we all need each other and co-operation and working together is a better survival tactic than conflict.
All monotheism and we are the chosen people does is give an excuse and justification for hatred and discrimination that is seized on by those who want power for themselves.For every 99 people who are prepared to live and let live there is one who wants things their way and no other and will use religion to get it. If you look at the history of religion it is a history of the most cynical exploitation of their fellows by those who want power. there is nothing hidden about it, you can look at things like the first ecumenical council in 325AD to see where it began or the schisms in islam as peace and brotherly love went out the window in favour do as I say and kill the unbeliever.
How anyone can blindly follow any of the main religions completely escapes me but even intelligent people do what they are told by religious leaders even if it suicide as a way to heaven. But we are still expected to respect religious belief.:-5:-5
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Here you say that you are an agnostic, Clod.
However, earlier in the thread (post #86) you said this:
Originally Posted by Clodhopper
Other days I get down on my knees and thank God for the wonder and beauty of His Creation. Am I confused? Yep!
Being an agnostic, you must hold the view that evidence for the existence of God is lacking. So why do you get down on your knees and thank Him?
This kind of behaviour is indicative of more than just confusion on your part, Clod. It indicates a powerful desire to believe in God, to want Him to exist very much, even to the point of acting as if He does, in fact, exist.
But this is only play-acting, a game of make-believe, pretending that God exists.
This is why I say that belief in God is wholly irrational. It has nothing to do with Reason whatsoever. But it has everything to do with needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies.
Well, I think Creation is wonderful and beautiful. Some days it gets to me so much I DO want to thank SOMEONE for it. So I do. If the Being I am thanking does not exist, well, no harm done. And I've said thank you, which matters to me. Other days I hear about some horror or other and think there can't possibly be a god. Or if there is, I want nothing to do with the evil astard. After all, a Creation where half of Life has to eat the other half to live is not a nice place. Ever seen wild dogs bring down a wildebeest? They eat it alive. Not a nice way to go. Oh, and I don't see a contradiction between saying Creation is wonderful, beautiful and also not nice.
Would I like God to exist? Some days yes, other days no. But He exists or he doesn't, and my wishes have no effect on that. Almost certainly doesn't. And I see no problem with people who use God to satisfy their "needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies" as long as they don't force their beliefs on me. Very few do.
As someone once said, if God did not exist, we would be forced to create Him. Many people have needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies and to put them onto God is a great comfort to them. They WOULD create God. Maybe they have! I don't know.
Hmm. I wonder if belief in god is as harmful as a belief in magic, crystals, New Age cults or the horoscope.
Are you a keen reader of horoscopes, Glaswegian? :wah:
So that's why I say I'm an Agnostic. Because I just don't know either way.
However, earlier in the thread (post #86) you said this:
Originally Posted by Clodhopper
Other days I get down on my knees and thank God for the wonder and beauty of His Creation. Am I confused? Yep!
Being an agnostic, you must hold the view that evidence for the existence of God is lacking. So why do you get down on your knees and thank Him?
This kind of behaviour is indicative of more than just confusion on your part, Clod. It indicates a powerful desire to believe in God, to want Him to exist very much, even to the point of acting as if He does, in fact, exist.
But this is only play-acting, a game of make-believe, pretending that God exists.
This is why I say that belief in God is wholly irrational. It has nothing to do with Reason whatsoever. But it has everything to do with needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies.
Well, I think Creation is wonderful and beautiful. Some days it gets to me so much I DO want to thank SOMEONE for it. So I do. If the Being I am thanking does not exist, well, no harm done. And I've said thank you, which matters to me. Other days I hear about some horror or other and think there can't possibly be a god. Or if there is, I want nothing to do with the evil astard. After all, a Creation where half of Life has to eat the other half to live is not a nice place. Ever seen wild dogs bring down a wildebeest? They eat it alive. Not a nice way to go. Oh, and I don't see a contradiction between saying Creation is wonderful, beautiful and also not nice.
Would I like God to exist? Some days yes, other days no. But He exists or he doesn't, and my wishes have no effect on that. Almost certainly doesn't. And I see no problem with people who use God to satisfy their "needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies" as long as they don't force their beliefs on me. Very few do.
As someone once said, if God did not exist, we would be forced to create Him. Many people have needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies and to put them onto God is a great comfort to them. They WOULD create God. Maybe they have! I don't know.
Hmm. I wonder if belief in god is as harmful as a belief in magic, crystals, New Age cults or the horoscope.
Are you a keen reader of horoscopes, Glaswegian? :wah:
So that's why I say I'm an Agnostic. Because I just don't know either way.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
gmc;1325588 wrote: How anyone can blindly follow any of the main religions completely escapes me but even intelligent people do what they are told by religious leaders even if it suicide as a way to heaven. But we are still expected to respect religious belief.:-5:-5
Yes, we are all expected to respect religious belief. But very few of us ever stop to ask ourselves - Why? What is it about these beliefs that makes them so worthy of respect? Indeed, why is it that throughout the ages we have been commanded to respect them? Millions of human beings have suffered and died - at times in the most horrific fashion - for failing to respect religious beliefs, for daring so much as to even question them.
That so many people in the world today think there is something about religious beliefs which makes them deserving of respect has been one of the greatest con-tricks pulled off by Religion. For when these beliefs are looked at honestly and impartially they are found to be no different from any other set of beliefs. That is, they possess no inherent feature or quality which should automatically command our respect. Therefore, when Religion says its beliefs are 'sacrosanct' and that we ought to adopt an attitude of respect and reverence towards them, it is lying.
The reason why Religion has promulgated this perfumed lie about religious beliefs from time immemorial is because it wants to defuse all criticism and questioning of them in advance. The very fact that Religion needs to do this - that it needs to forestall any challenge that might be made to these beliefs - speaks volumes about how insecure it feels about them. If Religion had any confidence in its beliefs then it would allow them to stand their ground alongside every other kind of belief. But that is something it has never done. It has always demanded special protection for its beliefs.
So the next time you hear a religionist bleating that you must respect his religious beliefs, and you go along with this, know that you have been taken for a fool. Know that countless others have been fooled in the same way. This is one of the reasons why the great Hindenburg of hocus-pocus called Religion has stayed airborne for so long.
Yes, we are all expected to respect religious belief. But very few of us ever stop to ask ourselves - Why? What is it about these beliefs that makes them so worthy of respect? Indeed, why is it that throughout the ages we have been commanded to respect them? Millions of human beings have suffered and died - at times in the most horrific fashion - for failing to respect religious beliefs, for daring so much as to even question them.
That so many people in the world today think there is something about religious beliefs which makes them deserving of respect has been one of the greatest con-tricks pulled off by Religion. For when these beliefs are looked at honestly and impartially they are found to be no different from any other set of beliefs. That is, they possess no inherent feature or quality which should automatically command our respect. Therefore, when Religion says its beliefs are 'sacrosanct' and that we ought to adopt an attitude of respect and reverence towards them, it is lying.
The reason why Religion has promulgated this perfumed lie about religious beliefs from time immemorial is because it wants to defuse all criticism and questioning of them in advance. The very fact that Religion needs to do this - that it needs to forestall any challenge that might be made to these beliefs - speaks volumes about how insecure it feels about them. If Religion had any confidence in its beliefs then it would allow them to stand their ground alongside every other kind of belief. But that is something it has never done. It has always demanded special protection for its beliefs.
So the next time you hear a religionist bleating that you must respect his religious beliefs, and you go along with this, know that you have been taken for a fool. Know that countless others have been fooled in the same way. This is one of the reasons why the great Hindenburg of hocus-pocus called Religion has stayed airborne for so long.
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
posted by clodhopper
As someone once said, if God did not exist, we would be forced to create Him. Many people have needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies and to put them onto God is a great comfort to them. They WOULD create God. Maybe they have! I don't know.
No we wouldn't. While I agree some might need to create a god to pin their hopes on why do we pander to them?
posted by glaswegian
Yes, we are all expected to respect religious belief. But very few of us ever stop to ask ourselves - Why? What is it about these beliefs that makes them so worthy of respect? Indeed, why is it that throughout the ages we have been commanded to respect them? Millions of human beings have suffered and died - at times in the most horrific fashion - for failing to respect religious beliefs, for daring so much as to even question them.
Most people I think are secular and disposed to tolerate others. For that reason it's easier to just humour the religious for the sake of peace - the trouble is they take that tolerance and respect as meaning they are entitled to it.
As someone once said, if God did not exist, we would be forced to create Him. Many people have needs, wishes, yearnings and fantasies and to put them onto God is a great comfort to them. They WOULD create God. Maybe they have! I don't know.
No we wouldn't. While I agree some might need to create a god to pin their hopes on why do we pander to them?
posted by glaswegian
Yes, we are all expected to respect religious belief. But very few of us ever stop to ask ourselves - Why? What is it about these beliefs that makes them so worthy of respect? Indeed, why is it that throughout the ages we have been commanded to respect them? Millions of human beings have suffered and died - at times in the most horrific fashion - for failing to respect religious beliefs, for daring so much as to even question them.
Most people I think are secular and disposed to tolerate others. For that reason it's easier to just humour the religious for the sake of peace - the trouble is they take that tolerance and respect as meaning they are entitled to it.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
No we wouldn't. While I agree some might need to create a god to pin their hopes on why do we pander to them?
Well, "we" probably wouldn't. But some people probably would. In fact, it's very likely that is how belief in God originally happened: Early man struggling to make sense of the world and dealing with death.
Well, "we" probably wouldn't. But some people probably would. In fact, it's very likely that is how belief in God originally happened: Early man struggling to make sense of the world and dealing with death.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
Clodhopper;1325613 wrote: Well, "we" probably wouldn't. But some people probably would. In fact, it's very likely that is how belief in God originally happened: Early man struggling to make sense of the world and dealing with death.
I think that as well. It's clear from geological and other evidence evidence that there have at times been world wide cataclysmic events that would have shattered any civilisation around at the time. In that context the vicious god of the old testament makes sense. My question was rhetorical I suppose. But why do we pander to those who believe in a stone age mythology? If they stuck to the message of the late JC it wouldn't be so bad but it seems it is the vindictive god that people prefer.
YouTube - "The God Who Wasn't There" clip - The Rapture
I think that as well. It's clear from geological and other evidence evidence that there have at times been world wide cataclysmic events that would have shattered any civilisation around at the time. In that context the vicious god of the old testament makes sense. My question was rhetorical I suppose. But why do we pander to those who believe in a stone age mythology? If they stuck to the message of the late JC it wouldn't be so bad but it seems it is the vindictive god that people prefer.
YouTube - "The God Who Wasn't There" clip - The Rapture
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
gmc;1325610 wrote: Most people I think are secular and disposed to tolerate others. For that reason it's easier to just humour the religious for the sake of peace - the trouble is they take that tolerance and respect as meaning they are entitled to it.
And they are not entitled to it at all. As I said before, human beings have been fooled for far too long now into showing Religion a respect it in no way deserves, and this foolishness has cost us dearly.
Watch what happens when respect for religious beliefs is withdrawn and they are subjected to open and straightforward critique. Watch how quickly they wither and turn to dust: YouTube - The God Who Wasn't There - Dr. Ronald Sipus Interview
And they are not entitled to it at all. As I said before, human beings have been fooled for far too long now into showing Religion a respect it in no way deserves, and this foolishness has cost us dearly.
Watch what happens when respect for religious beliefs is withdrawn and they are subjected to open and straightforward critique. Watch how quickly they wither and turn to dust: YouTube - The God Who Wasn't There - Dr. Ronald Sipus Interview
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips
ONE SANE AMERICAN
In America - a land blighted by religious madness and superstition - a ray of hope appears.
An enlightened American speaks out against the evil of religion: YouTube - Fox News Interviews Atheist Brian Flemming
In America - a land blighted by religious madness and superstition - a ray of hope appears.
An enlightened American speaks out against the evil of religion: YouTube - Fox News Interviews Atheist Brian Flemming