Lon wrote: Without going into detail or revealing any SECRETS Doan, it's in the simplicity of it all.
There can be no secrets in any religion.
What's the difference?
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
What's the difference?
Lon wrote: With all due respect Suresh, I spend very little time and no energy at all in trying to prove my non-belief in deitys. In fact, these recent posts of mine are about the most time that I have even spent on the subject in the past 25 years. I know there are many non believers that like to argue and debate religion. I am not one of them..
Yes, if you do not believe in something you don't talk about it. But if somebody talks about it then it will be difficult for him to claim that he does not believe in that 'something'.
Yes, if you do not believe in something you don't talk about it. But if somebody talks about it then it will be difficult for him to claim that he does not believe in that 'something'.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What's the difference?
Suresh Gupta wrote: Will you like to elaborate on 'Athiesm is a religion'?May I? If "religion" means "church," then definitely atheism is not a religion. If "religion" means "personal beliefs that control our daily life" then of course atheism is a religion because an atheist believes that there is no God, and acts accordingly.
I think there one and a half times as many religions as there are people in this world.
I think there one and a half times as many religions as there are people in this world.
Look what the cat dragged in.
What's the difference?
Suresh Gupta :-6
Sorry to be so long in responding to "Who are they?"
I have witnessed what Lon was talking about. I have felt what Lon is talking about. I get the same treatment from some of the fundamentalist/literalists as Lon does when they here me refer to myself a Christian Pluralist. This does not come from all Christians but it does come from quite a few.
Shalom
Ted :-6 :-6
Sorry to be so long in responding to "Who are they?"
I have witnessed what Lon was talking about. I have felt what Lon is talking about. I get the same treatment from some of the fundamentalist/literalists as Lon does when they here me refer to myself a Christian Pluralist. This does not come from all Christians but it does come from quite a few.
Shalom
Ted :-6 :-6
What's the difference?
It would be very interesting to compare some of the criteria that Lon has mentioned as part of being a secular humanist with some of the resent discoveries made in quantum physics: scientific proof, (experimentation). objectivity, rationalism. There are some very interesting comments coming from the quantum physicist.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
What's the difference?
Ted wrote: I would love for Cap'n Buzzard to explain his comment "all based on a lie". It is a rather broad statement that could mean almost anything.
Koan: Thanks for the complement besides formal training in translation and interpretation, both Greek and Hebrew, Biblical history and a great deal of formal and informal study on various religious topics I have devoted much time to understanding the "Book", the history surrounding the "Book" as well as the archaeology concerning the "Book" and a great deal of theology.
I believe there to be many reasons for so many denominations and a great part of the problem comes, not as per Shadowbox's comments about reading the "Book" but from each reading the "Book" in their own ignorance and of course disagreeing with others interpretations.
To put it a concise as possible the Bible is a combination of: myth, legend, poetry, folk tale, short story and fiction among others. It was not dictated by God nor edited by Him but was mans response to his experiences of the Divine. It does contain throughout kernels of history but is not a history book and should not be read as one. The authors never intended it to be taken literally.
The Bible was written in a style called midrash which makes a great use of metaphor. Without some knowledge of Midrash and the use of metaphor it is difficult to interpret what is written. The great heresy of both the reformation and the Renaissance was the development of literalism. Dr. Marcus Borg puts an approximate date at around 1690. Up to that point it was read by most as it was intended to be and not as an historical document.
One further comment needs to be made here. Just because something is not historical does not make it false. Much truth can be presented in both midrash and metaphor and it need not be historical.
I'm sure there are other reasons for such splits withing the faith but that should give you an idea at least.
Shalom
Ted :-6 I believe it all to be a Hoax. Was Martin Luther another conspiracy? The Great Lie.
Koan: Thanks for the complement besides formal training in translation and interpretation, both Greek and Hebrew, Biblical history and a great deal of formal and informal study on various religious topics I have devoted much time to understanding the "Book", the history surrounding the "Book" as well as the archaeology concerning the "Book" and a great deal of theology.
I believe there to be many reasons for so many denominations and a great part of the problem comes, not as per Shadowbox's comments about reading the "Book" but from each reading the "Book" in their own ignorance and of course disagreeing with others interpretations.
To put it a concise as possible the Bible is a combination of: myth, legend, poetry, folk tale, short story and fiction among others. It was not dictated by God nor edited by Him but was mans response to his experiences of the Divine. It does contain throughout kernels of history but is not a history book and should not be read as one. The authors never intended it to be taken literally.
The Bible was written in a style called midrash which makes a great use of metaphor. Without some knowledge of Midrash and the use of metaphor it is difficult to interpret what is written. The great heresy of both the reformation and the Renaissance was the development of literalism. Dr. Marcus Borg puts an approximate date at around 1690. Up to that point it was read by most as it was intended to be and not as an historical document.
One further comment needs to be made here. Just because something is not historical does not make it false. Much truth can be presented in both midrash and metaphor and it need not be historical.
I'm sure there are other reasons for such splits withing the faith but that should give you an idea at least.
Shalom
Ted :-6 I believe it all to be a Hoax. Was Martin Luther another conspiracy? The Great Lie.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
What's the difference?
We could debate Allah, God, Jesus and all the other religions about today and still arrive back at nothing.
What's the difference?
Capt :-6
Actually Martin Luther was no saint either. I will explain that in a moment. It was not his intent to start a new church but to reform the existing church. He was appalled by the selling of indulgences.
Martin Luther was cagey enough to use the inquisition to get rid of his opposition. Just accuse them of being heretics. He was also extremely anti-semitic.
John Calvin also made similar use of the inquisition.
Nice guys.
We should be careful not to blame the messenger or the message for its misuse. That is a purely human problem. It is also the problem of the extremists in any faith. The great majority would like to get on with life in their faith and earn a reasonable daily living. They simply want to get on with life.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Actually Martin Luther was no saint either. I will explain that in a moment. It was not his intent to start a new church but to reform the existing church. He was appalled by the selling of indulgences.
Martin Luther was cagey enough to use the inquisition to get rid of his opposition. Just accuse them of being heretics. He was also extremely anti-semitic.
John Calvin also made similar use of the inquisition.
Nice guys.
We should be careful not to blame the messenger or the message for its misuse. That is a purely human problem. It is also the problem of the extremists in any faith. The great majority would like to get on with life in their faith and earn a reasonable daily living. They simply want to get on with life.
Shalom
Ted :-6
What's the difference?
I have been long in responding as well but, lucky for me, Telaquapacky summed it up pretty well. I see religion as an expression of how one views the world and one's relationship to life within that view of the world. This interpretation of "religion" makes any philosophy a religion of sorts. To not debate or discuss or feel the need to defend one's belief shows only the level of confidence and security one shows in one's beliefs and/or the level of concern (or lack of) one has for defining such beliefs through conversation and debate. It does not change the fact that religion exists purely as a means to understanding our role in the universe which atheism certainly intends to do.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
What's the difference?
The mass deception is so widespread and is so believable because many of its (Christian Churches) tenets have to have the so called 'Look Good Feeling', smile awhile. Most of their practitioners will tell you they Believe. They exhibit love, kindness,patience and mercy. But is it all for REAL.
What's the difference?
Capt. :-6
I am involved in a church community and two associated church organizations. As far as I can tell, in my limited world it is all for real on the part of some.
I cannot address other church communities since that would be to judge them and fortunately that is not my role. I will leave it to God.
Though I do strongly believe from my limited experience that there are many such communities where in general it is "all for real". This does, of course, not speak for all individuals within any community. As we know each community has its less then perfect members although from my perspective no one is perfect. We all have a lot to learn from and do better at. There are good folks out there but sometimes they're overshadowed by otheres, like clergy that sexually abuse folks etc.
We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I am involved in a church community and two associated church organizations. As far as I can tell, in my limited world it is all for real on the part of some.
I cannot address other church communities since that would be to judge them and fortunately that is not my role. I will leave it to God.
Though I do strongly believe from my limited experience that there are many such communities where in general it is "all for real". This does, of course, not speak for all individuals within any community. As we know each community has its less then perfect members although from my perspective no one is perfect. We all have a lot to learn from and do better at. There are good folks out there but sometimes they're overshadowed by otheres, like clergy that sexually abuse folks etc.
We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
What's the difference?
Ted wrote: Capt. :-6
I am involved in a church community and two associated church organizations. As far as I can tell, in my limited world it is all for real on the part of some.
I cannot address other church communities since that would be to judge them and fortunately that is not my role. I will leave it to God.
Though I do strongly believe from my limited experience that there are many such communities where in general it is "all for real". This does, of course, not speak for all individuals within any community. As we know each community has its less then perfect members although from my perspective no one is perfect. We all have a lot to learn from and do better at. There are good folks out there but sometimes they're overshadowed by otheres, like clergy that sexually abuse folks etc.
We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Shalom
Ted :-6okies
I am involved in a church community and two associated church organizations. As far as I can tell, in my limited world it is all for real on the part of some.
I cannot address other church communities since that would be to judge them and fortunately that is not my role. I will leave it to God.
Though I do strongly believe from my limited experience that there are many such communities where in general it is "all for real". This does, of course, not speak for all individuals within any community. As we know each community has its less then perfect members although from my perspective no one is perfect. We all have a lot to learn from and do better at. There are good folks out there but sometimes they're overshadowed by otheres, like clergy that sexually abuse folks etc.
We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Shalom
Ted :-6okies