One small question about Heaven7
category: general [glöplog]
[[ Oh yeah and about relegion not chaging...that is true. We
know that God has send down messages since the dawn of
mankind. and they were all the same, but got changed by
greedy people. ]]
How does a believer identify an authentical message from the
monotheist god, from its changed versions? By comparing it to his holy
book? (no wonder the message is not changing, then)
How does one rational person asserts the authenticity of the message?
know that God has send down messages since the dawn of
mankind. and they were all the same, but got changed by
greedy people. ]]
How does a believer identify an authentical message from the
monotheist god, from its changed versions? By comparing it to his holy
book? (no wonder the message is not changing, then)
How does one rational person asserts the authenticity of the message?
iblis: i have a cantonese wife :)
Nope. you can actually see a red line all the way from early relegions. Things that simply doesnt change.
"How does one rational person asserts the authenticity of the message?"
Not by logic alone. Let me ask you...do you belive in air?
"How does one rational person asserts the authenticity of the message?"
Not by logic alone. Let me ask you...do you belive in air?
Psonice...haha great. i should have figured that one out. Well good luck, it sounds bloody hard to learn :)
Or maybe you should get another wife with an easyer language to learn :p
Or maybe you should get another wife with an easyer language to learn :p
Iblis: i've chosen the famous 3rd way: let her speak english.
What religions are you considering in your set? Are you only considering
the religions that were born in the middle east. Because, after all,
between there's a clear hierarchical link between the mesopotamian's
culture and the sumerian's, the jew's, the christian's, the muslim's
Where do you see this "red line" in the tao te ching, in the shito
religion, in the south american religions of the maya's, the aztech?
Is the red line the intersection of all the doctrines?
Again, if not, how do you select the set of doctrines that are
authentic?
As for believing /in/ air? I can imprison it in a membrane, I can
measure the composition of it, I can (gasp) breathe it.. but believing
/in/ it?
[[
be·lieve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v. intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to
solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe
in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
]]
to believe (transitive verb) is not to believe (intransitive verb)
"Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, still
exists." P.K.Dick
(also featured in PK is
dead)
the religions that were born in the middle east. Because, after all,
between there's a clear hierarchical link between the mesopotamian's
culture and the sumerian's, the jew's, the christian's, the muslim's
Where do you see this "red line" in the tao te ching, in the shito
religion, in the south american religions of the maya's, the aztech?
Is the red line the intersection of all the doctrines?
Again, if not, how do you select the set of doctrines that are
authentic?
As for believing /in/ air? I can imprison it in a membrane, I can
measure the composition of it, I can (gasp) breathe it.. but believing
/in/ it?
[[
be·lieve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v. intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to
solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe
in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
]]
to believe (transitive verb) is not to believe (intransitive verb)
"Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, still
exists." P.K.Dick
(also featured in PK is
dead)
yes in other words you can sense it, feel it, breathe it as you said. That is no different to someone who beliefs in God. we feel it. But as you obvisouly havent tried, how can you know?
because the God given criteria is that we take the first step.
But you know why i belive that the relegions have been there always, and always with the same message? Because God says so. It is the same reason i dont eat pork, that i dont commit adultry...because God told me not to. that simple.
Now...i will share with you something that made me belive that God is more than something i feel, and a few dusty old books.
Have you ever heard about "the twin events?" If you have, there is no reason to lay it out for you once more. And you will maybe have an idea why i accept a book as a guide to life. If not. I will give you the full story.
because the God given criteria is that we take the first step.
But you know why i belive that the relegions have been there always, and always with the same message? Because God says so. It is the same reason i dont eat pork, that i dont commit adultry...because God told me not to. that simple.
Now...i will share with you something that made me belive that God is more than something i feel, and a few dusty old books.
Have you ever heard about "the twin events?" If you have, there is no reason to lay it out for you once more. And you will maybe have an idea why i accept a book as a guide to life. If not. I will give you the full story.
Oh...you bastard. So you want her to learn how to speak a relatively diffcult language, because youre to lasy to learn hers :D
Naw...just kidding, i reckon speaking english is a good thing in england. But i could be wrong =/
Naw...just kidding, i reckon speaking english is a good thing in england. But i could be wrong =/
The composition of air, its properties are facts I can share with others in a precise form. Any other person, in the same conditions can reproduce the measurement and return the same facts. Any other person can verify its measurements against mine, even after my death.
I do not have access to your inner feelings and beliefs. You can transcribe them into words, but those words are but a fuzzy representation. I cannot reproduce those feelings and sensations.. I cannot even know I approached your sensations. A mind programming and trance state can approach that ideal, but its results cannot be verified.
And no, I do not know what "the twin events" are but I can research it.
I do not have access to your inner feelings and beliefs. You can transcribe them into words, but those words are but a fuzzy representation. I cannot reproduce those feelings and sensations.. I cannot even know I approached your sensations. A mind programming and trance state can approach that ideal, but its results cannot be verified.
And no, I do not know what "the twin events" are but I can research it.
iblis: she already speaks english, which is definitely a good thing if you live and work in england :)
I really should learn cantonese though, so i can talk to her parents more.
I really should learn cantonese though, so i can talk to her parents more.
And no, you still haven't convinced me that all religions brought the
same message.
same message.
Well that is because you dont belive in it.
"Any other person, in the same conditions can reproduce the
measurement and return the same facts. "
But because the "same conditions" arent a scale and an airchamber it is not real?
I beg you pardon, but any relegious person will be in the same condition that i am and has been and therefore CAN reproduce what i experienced. One here even admitted to having the EXCACT same sensation that i did.
Im sorry that our means of measure are not a scale, but a heart, and not and airchamber but a senseaperatus.
Or to put it scientific: to reproduce the sensation you need :
1 body, and 1 open mind. If you have those YOU can reproduce it.
But to get the the twin events. That to me represent the ideal "proof" of God (mind you, not connected to any certain relegion).
"The vision of idumea"
Nearly eight centuries before the occurrence of these historical events, the tangible details thereof were precisely recorded in a prestigious document. This document was produced more than twenty centuries ago, by a group of people who were neither associated nor to be directly affected with these events. The document was written in the Greek language at a geographical location totally different from the place where the events were going to take place. These twin events, an year apart, have changed the course of history for nearly 20% of the world population.
Whether this document is considered sacred, revered, spiritual or exactly opposite and contrary to that, does not change the fact that the "Vision" was recorded centuries before the events. Similarly, the person or persons who had physically written the document were trustworthy, honest or exactly opposite and contrary to that does not change the fact that the twin events were recorded ahead of their time. The Vision speaks of a "fugitive" and later on of the "fugitives" who had joined him. They all were being persecuted by the mighty "sons of Kedar" and had got the shelter in a new location. From here, in one year, the "fugitives" became powerful enough to diminish the glory of their enemies. These are the historical facts. It so happens that the "fugitive" was prophet Muhammad and the events are related to him. This does not mean that the study is undertaken to prove the preaching of Muhammad or his religion. The study is conducted to establish an irrefutable fact that what happened in the seventh century in Arabia as major "Twin-Events" was known nearly eight centuries before its time in Egypt, and was recorded by the Greek writers. A copy of the document was placed in the prestigious Royal Library of Alexandria. If the recorded details, the geographical locations and the time frame for the interval between the two events do tally, then the most important question is;
Who could have possibly known or made known the details in advance?
The historical details of this document...
A few centuries before the Christian era, during or immediately after the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), this prestigious document was written in Alexandria, Egypt. A copy of this original historical document in Greek entitled septuaginta was preserved in the Royal Library of Alexandria. Since that time this document has been translated in many languages of the world. One can obtain a copy of the Greek document or its translated text from any major public library.
The "TWIN EVENTS" that are under our study...
The knowledge and understanding of the following historical details which did take place in Arabia -- the declared location of the Vision, will help the readers to fully comprehend and appreciate the Message, at the end of the quoted passage.
1. So prominent is the first event that one could find the historical details and the date of this event in any reputable pocket dictionary or a mini encyclopedia under the heading “Hegira" (also written as "Hejira" or "Hijrah"). The historical migration of prophet Muhammad from Makkah (also written as Mekkah or Mecca) to Yatrib, a location more than 200 miles north, is known as “Hijrah” (lit. "the migration"). The citizens of Yatrib and the neighbouring areas offered the shelter as well as all kinds of aid to this Messenger of God and his companions, when their lives were in extreme danger. Yatrib was later called Madinat an-Nabi, the “City of the Prophet” or simply Medina. This historical migration happened in the year 622 CE. The so-called “fugitives” of the Vision -- Muhammad, his companion Abu Bakr and a Bedouin guide -- had to cover the tracks of their camels, leading out from the City of Mekkah, by a flock of sheep driven behind them. They did not take the well known direct trade route to Madina but had to go through indirect routes, to avoid being caught by the enemies. The journey took them about two weeks to reach the destination. During the nights they used to hide themselves in the caves and scrubs of the desert, as the Vision had stated. The persecutors of Muhammad and his followers were the wealthy leaders of the idol worshippers and the proud custodians of the most prestigious place of pilgrimage in Arabia. The mission of prophet began in 614 CE. For the next eight years the persecutors had ridiculed, abused, socially boycotted, tortured and even killed the followers of the Prophet, as the Vision had fore-told. When the threats and violence increased, many of the prophet's followers migrated to Abyssinia with their families. The people who had settled in this particular location of the Arabian Peninsula called Hijaz were the descendants of Kedar - a grandson of Abraham. In the Vision they are identified as "the sons of Kedar". The year 622 CE is marked as the beginning of the Islamic State and the first year of the Islamic Lunar Calendar. We are presently living in 2000 C.E., and in the Islamic year 1420 A.H. (Anno Hijrah).
2. In 623 CE, nearly one year after the first event -- as it was pre-recorded in the Vision, the second of the "TWIN EVENTS" did take place. It was the first full military confrontation between the followers of Muhammad (Muslims) and the mighty Pagan Arabs. It is known in the history of Arabia as the Battle of Badr. The Prophet and his ill-equipped Muslim army, some of whom had no armors or swords, defeated the Pagan army, three times their size. These companions of the prophet who numbered 305 had only 70 camels and 2 horses. They traveled through the arid desert from Yatrib to Badr, a distance of nearly 90 miles, sharing the camels between them. This unqualified conclusive victory against such odds, established the fear of Muslim army not only in the hearts of the defeated idol worshippers but throughout the Arabian Peninsula. The age old glory of the mighty "sons of Kedar" who were Pagans, failed as the vision had predicted. In its place the glory of the "submitters to Allah" (Muslims) spread all over the Arabian Peninsula. A Western research scholar says that before the Battle of Badr, Islam was merely a religion and a state but after the Battle it became the state religion, nay, the state itself. Today, there are 1.2 billion Muslims around the world who memorialize the journey of their prophet to Yatrib and each year millions of Muslims visit the "Prophet's Mosque" in Medina.
The following text is from the Septuagint Esaias XXI, i.e. Book of Isaiah Chapter 21
THE VISION OF IDUMEA 1
13. Thou 2 mayest lodge in the forest 3 in the evening, or in the way of D'edan. 4
14. Ye that dwell in the country of Th'eman 5, bring water to meet him that is thirsty 6;
15. meet the fugitives 7 with bread, because of the multitude of the slain, and because of the multitude of them that lose their way and because of the multitude of swords, and because of the multitude of bent bows, and because of the multitude of them that have fallen in war 8.
16. For thus said the Lord to me 9, Yet a year, as the year of an hireling, and the glory of the sons of Kedar shall fail 10;
17. and the remnant of the strong bows of the sons of Kedar shall be small: for the Lord God of Israel has spoken it. (Esaias XXI)
"Any other person, in the same conditions can reproduce the
measurement and return the same facts. "
But because the "same conditions" arent a scale and an airchamber it is not real?
I beg you pardon, but any relegious person will be in the same condition that i am and has been and therefore CAN reproduce what i experienced. One here even admitted to having the EXCACT same sensation that i did.
Im sorry that our means of measure are not a scale, but a heart, and not and airchamber but a senseaperatus.
Or to put it scientific: to reproduce the sensation you need :
1 body, and 1 open mind. If you have those YOU can reproduce it.
But to get the the twin events. That to me represent the ideal "proof" of God (mind you, not connected to any certain relegion).
"The vision of idumea"
Nearly eight centuries before the occurrence of these historical events, the tangible details thereof were precisely recorded in a prestigious document. This document was produced more than twenty centuries ago, by a group of people who were neither associated nor to be directly affected with these events. The document was written in the Greek language at a geographical location totally different from the place where the events were going to take place. These twin events, an year apart, have changed the course of history for nearly 20% of the world population.
Whether this document is considered sacred, revered, spiritual or exactly opposite and contrary to that, does not change the fact that the "Vision" was recorded centuries before the events. Similarly, the person or persons who had physically written the document were trustworthy, honest or exactly opposite and contrary to that does not change the fact that the twin events were recorded ahead of their time. The Vision speaks of a "fugitive" and later on of the "fugitives" who had joined him. They all were being persecuted by the mighty "sons of Kedar" and had got the shelter in a new location. From here, in one year, the "fugitives" became powerful enough to diminish the glory of their enemies. These are the historical facts. It so happens that the "fugitive" was prophet Muhammad and the events are related to him. This does not mean that the study is undertaken to prove the preaching of Muhammad or his religion. The study is conducted to establish an irrefutable fact that what happened in the seventh century in Arabia as major "Twin-Events" was known nearly eight centuries before its time in Egypt, and was recorded by the Greek writers. A copy of the document was placed in the prestigious Royal Library of Alexandria. If the recorded details, the geographical locations and the time frame for the interval between the two events do tally, then the most important question is;
Who could have possibly known or made known the details in advance?
The historical details of this document...
A few centuries before the Christian era, during or immediately after the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.), this prestigious document was written in Alexandria, Egypt. A copy of this original historical document in Greek entitled septuaginta was preserved in the Royal Library of Alexandria. Since that time this document has been translated in many languages of the world. One can obtain a copy of the Greek document or its translated text from any major public library.
The "TWIN EVENTS" that are under our study...
The knowledge and understanding of the following historical details which did take place in Arabia -- the declared location of the Vision, will help the readers to fully comprehend and appreciate the Message, at the end of the quoted passage.
1. So prominent is the first event that one could find the historical details and the date of this event in any reputable pocket dictionary or a mini encyclopedia under the heading “Hegira" (also written as "Hejira" or "Hijrah"). The historical migration of prophet Muhammad from Makkah (also written as Mekkah or Mecca) to Yatrib, a location more than 200 miles north, is known as “Hijrah” (lit. "the migration"). The citizens of Yatrib and the neighbouring areas offered the shelter as well as all kinds of aid to this Messenger of God and his companions, when their lives were in extreme danger. Yatrib was later called Madinat an-Nabi, the “City of the Prophet” or simply Medina. This historical migration happened in the year 622 CE. The so-called “fugitives” of the Vision -- Muhammad, his companion Abu Bakr and a Bedouin guide -- had to cover the tracks of their camels, leading out from the City of Mekkah, by a flock of sheep driven behind them. They did not take the well known direct trade route to Madina but had to go through indirect routes, to avoid being caught by the enemies. The journey took them about two weeks to reach the destination. During the nights they used to hide themselves in the caves and scrubs of the desert, as the Vision had stated. The persecutors of Muhammad and his followers were the wealthy leaders of the idol worshippers and the proud custodians of the most prestigious place of pilgrimage in Arabia. The mission of prophet began in 614 CE. For the next eight years the persecutors had ridiculed, abused, socially boycotted, tortured and even killed the followers of the Prophet, as the Vision had fore-told. When the threats and violence increased, many of the prophet's followers migrated to Abyssinia with their families. The people who had settled in this particular location of the Arabian Peninsula called Hijaz were the descendants of Kedar - a grandson of Abraham. In the Vision they are identified as "the sons of Kedar". The year 622 CE is marked as the beginning of the Islamic State and the first year of the Islamic Lunar Calendar. We are presently living in 2000 C.E., and in the Islamic year 1420 A.H. (Anno Hijrah).
2. In 623 CE, nearly one year after the first event -- as it was pre-recorded in the Vision, the second of the "TWIN EVENTS" did take place. It was the first full military confrontation between the followers of Muhammad (Muslims) and the mighty Pagan Arabs. It is known in the history of Arabia as the Battle of Badr. The Prophet and his ill-equipped Muslim army, some of whom had no armors or swords, defeated the Pagan army, three times their size. These companions of the prophet who numbered 305 had only 70 camels and 2 horses. They traveled through the arid desert from Yatrib to Badr, a distance of nearly 90 miles, sharing the camels between them. This unqualified conclusive victory against such odds, established the fear of Muslim army not only in the hearts of the defeated idol worshippers but throughout the Arabian Peninsula. The age old glory of the mighty "sons of Kedar" who were Pagans, failed as the vision had predicted. In its place the glory of the "submitters to Allah" (Muslims) spread all over the Arabian Peninsula. A Western research scholar says that before the Battle of Badr, Islam was merely a religion and a state but after the Battle it became the state religion, nay, the state itself. Today, there are 1.2 billion Muslims around the world who memorialize the journey of their prophet to Yatrib and each year millions of Muslims visit the "Prophet's Mosque" in Medina.
The following text is from the Septuagint Esaias XXI, i.e. Book of Isaiah Chapter 21
THE VISION OF IDUMEA 1
13. Thou 2 mayest lodge in the forest 3 in the evening, or in the way of D'edan. 4
14. Ye that dwell in the country of Th'eman 5, bring water to meet him that is thirsty 6;
15. meet the fugitives 7 with bread, because of the multitude of the slain, and because of the multitude of them that lose their way and because of the multitude of swords, and because of the multitude of bent bows, and because of the multitude of them that have fallen in war 8.
16. For thus said the Lord to me 9, Yet a year, as the year of an hireling, and the glory of the sons of Kedar shall fail 10;
17. and the remnant of the strong bows of the sons of Kedar shall be small: for the Lord God of Israel has spoken it. (Esaias XXI)
Good thing i found that text on the net. It really saved me a lot of time. Thank you brother Ismael.
It's like, the first link I already found on google.
And I don't think I need to believe in god to believe that the
message in the aztec religion is similar to the message in the christian
religion, nor that the message of zen buddhism is the same as the
message as the one of islam.
But I guess it's because i don't have an "open mind."
And I don't think I need to believe in god to believe that the
message in the aztec religion is similar to the message in the christian
religion, nor that the message of zen buddhism is the same as the
message as the one of islam.
But I guess it's because i don't have an "open mind."
dissimilar, not similar i meant. (duh!)
Ok I'm getting tired, and double negative sucks.
I meant that I think the messages of those religions I quoted were
pretty dissimilar.. But that sure, if your single belief is that every
religion is the same, you're going to think they are the same. You are
also free to think that you can breathe in water.
I meant that I think the messages of those religions I quoted were
pretty dissimilar.. But that sure, if your single belief is that every
religion is the same, you're going to think they are the same. You are
also free to think that you can breathe in water.
So inner and outer peace in all its shapes is not a similar message. Interresting. IM not sying they are excactly the same. if you think so pleace quote me where i say that. I say that there is a red line. and that line is peace. My criteria of a "good" relegion is that.
But what is your take on the article then?
I KNOW i cant breathe in water. My lungs arent designet for it.
But what is your take on the article then?
I KNOW i cant breathe in water. My lungs arent designet for it.
And no...dont twist my words. The open mind was to reproduce the sensation i was talking about. If you think relegions are very different feel free to think so.
And futhermore, isnt it strange that it is relegions that is similar that survived? the azteks are no more. the inka are no more. But my mate Paul and i agree to all the basic stuff in relegion even though he is a buddist and im a muslim (or try to be that is). Phred and i are not a long way from eachother when it comes to the basics (or the red line), even though he is a christian. and a guy i went to school with was jew, my shop keeper and his family are hindus..and you know what? we basically agree to the basics. SO...you free to think you can breathe under water :p
Now Iblis.... you can imagine how many people can find the Twin Events referring to whatever and whomever they want to... i mean... a fugitive that later on has power and is able to confront his prosecuterors.... must have been done over 1000 times in history.
And the use of older scripts as vision. is one of THE most common relegious practices. Mind you that christians came to believe that aristotle was God's philosopher, Arabs thought him as a kind od deity and things like that.... well.. later on christians discvered (thru the Arabs) the rest of his books and understood the magnitute of their idiocy...
Now about the thing that "all religions share the same meaning" and stuff....
Well it was very well pointed out that if u constrain your sutdy in the Middle eastern religions (mainly jews-christians-muslims) it is obvious that smthng like that is true, since they ala share the same context...
But remember that there are MANU relegions, past and present, that share no common meanings with the M.Eastern ones...
As for god giving messages...
Well the point is not mine, but a rather good one...
If god wants to give smthng, it eans that god has a purpose, and having a purpose means having a goal. (Like the world has a purspose etc etc)
But somthng -whatever, god or not- having a purpose means it wants to make/do smthng only because it he doesn't have it. Having a purpose/goal means you are not complete, and therefor WANT to do smthng. Or else you wouldn't have any other purpose, since you would have everything needed.
But God in need and uncomplete, is contradicting the monotheistic relegions who believe in a complete/perfect god with a purpose. For it is purpose which drives revelation and not randomness right?
And for the first part....
Well, could you think that relegions share some meanings, because their respective founders had READ about them, seen them in their world around them and used them in a religious context so as to convince people for their cause?
I mean Moses, Christ, Mohamed had a crystal clear "plan" for their people, to break their bonds of slavery from other "people" who held tham enslaved. What more common thing do you need?
For specific reasons, Mose and Mohamed were actually able to do this, where poor old Christ was not.
And as a fact, relegions after their "birth" take advantage of whatever pre-existing beliefs. and turn them into their needs (as if they had forever been there for that purpose) only because that is the most easy way to make someone CHANGE his belief. Mind that the grreatest part of what relegions teach today HAD NEVER BEEN SAID by their founders-prophets. They were added afterwards, as they were learnig and getting in touch with other civilisations-beliefs so as to show them that whatever they believed in the past was actually this "new" thing.
That is why for example christians placed Xmas in december when christ was actually born in summer, only because in december was the greatest pagan event, the fest of the Sun.
Religions change when they come in touch with different civs, or else no one would have ever believed in them. And then of course for at least some they would still be no believers if they weren't actually IMPOSED on people, thru destruction. death and torture...
The point is, relegions don't look alike because of the "message", they look alike because they ALL stole meanings from pre-existing theories, philosophies etc etc
As for philosphy, well there are not only atheist philosophers and respective systems.
Maybe half of the philosphical systems are idealistic, and a idealistic philo.system always comes down to the presence of some Godly Divine power. But they don't START from there rather than come down to that, which is completely different. And ofcourse their meaning of God is not the simplistic one relegions give. Try reading the platonic-neoplatonic or Stoic philosystems (to name 2 which existed BEFORE the motheistic relegions, and where they stole A LOT of meanings from....)
The other half ofcourse are materialistic philosystems, which can never come down to a God.
What my prob is with relegions (and idealsitic systems in general) is that exactly because they come down to the presence of an Absolute Truth, that humanity just needs to find out, thru the emans of belief, intellect or whatever. Since the most intelectual or believing or most whatever are able to KNOW that existing truth, it "legalizes" some person (the prophet, the interpreterm the priest, the pope) to be the holder, the knower of the ONLY thuth and as such legalizes him to exert GREAT power (the only power) on every one. That is why idealistic philo.systems have some kind of monarchy as their political ideal. THat is why every monarchy, is one BASED on religion.
On contrast to the idealistic ones, materialistic ones thru their definition of truth (thru the necessity of the real world around us) give great "push" to the human intellect in scientific knowledge and rational thinking. That is why religions have never actually "helped" humankind PROGRESS, rather than stop that.
There were times when because of relegion they had come to "belive" that philosophy and science are pure theoritical shit, and relegion was the only practical science existing. Ony because their own efforts showed them their idiocy, did they come to admit to the separation of religion and science. Not because they undesrstood that they have different purpses, but because whenever they tried to use scientific methods to explain theology, they came to heretical conclusions. ANd only much much afterwards, thru the re-invention of true scientific knowledge (thru the Arabs) did they come again to the understandig that relegion is only about god, and science about the world surrounding us.
I know that that is not what church sais about science and its purpose today. But that is only because church cannot say otherwise any more. They had said those thing, there are in their books. It was not so long ago that church still belived that the world was actually made in 7 days, and they even had "foubd" thre their scientific research of the testaments, the actual DATE that those 7 days occured (if you have seen the trial of the apes film...). Of course nowadays, they have taken all of that back, as they would soound so ridiculous.
Religions have always been against progress, scientific, ethical political WHATSOEVER. Because that is the nature of their own beliefs. Because they have an absolute truth that has already been said/revealed and so no other is needed.
But as the world is forever changing, so are all of our truths, and so religions to survive will be either burning every new knowledge, or discreetley changing their own beliefs, so as to look that they were always believing in that.
But we will forever have history to remind us that that is not the case, for relegions had taught so many things, that today are ashamed of even saying that they did so, always acting as that "those were metaphoric images etc etc".
If it only werent for the thousands of people who were slaughtered, only because they pointed oyt the metaphors....
And the use of older scripts as vision. is one of THE most common relegious practices. Mind you that christians came to believe that aristotle was God's philosopher, Arabs thought him as a kind od deity and things like that.... well.. later on christians discvered (thru the Arabs) the rest of his books and understood the magnitute of their idiocy...
Now about the thing that "all religions share the same meaning" and stuff....
Well it was very well pointed out that if u constrain your sutdy in the Middle eastern religions (mainly jews-christians-muslims) it is obvious that smthng like that is true, since they ala share the same context...
But remember that there are MANU relegions, past and present, that share no common meanings with the M.Eastern ones...
As for god giving messages...
Well the point is not mine, but a rather good one...
If god wants to give smthng, it eans that god has a purpose, and having a purpose means having a goal. (Like the world has a purspose etc etc)
But somthng -whatever, god or not- having a purpose means it wants to make/do smthng only because it he doesn't have it. Having a purpose/goal means you are not complete, and therefor WANT to do smthng. Or else you wouldn't have any other purpose, since you would have everything needed.
But God in need and uncomplete, is contradicting the monotheistic relegions who believe in a complete/perfect god with a purpose. For it is purpose which drives revelation and not randomness right?
And for the first part....
Well, could you think that relegions share some meanings, because their respective founders had READ about them, seen them in their world around them and used them in a religious context so as to convince people for their cause?
I mean Moses, Christ, Mohamed had a crystal clear "plan" for their people, to break their bonds of slavery from other "people" who held tham enslaved. What more common thing do you need?
For specific reasons, Mose and Mohamed were actually able to do this, where poor old Christ was not.
And as a fact, relegions after their "birth" take advantage of whatever pre-existing beliefs. and turn them into their needs (as if they had forever been there for that purpose) only because that is the most easy way to make someone CHANGE his belief. Mind that the grreatest part of what relegions teach today HAD NEVER BEEN SAID by their founders-prophets. They were added afterwards, as they were learnig and getting in touch with other civilisations-beliefs so as to show them that whatever they believed in the past was actually this "new" thing.
That is why for example christians placed Xmas in december when christ was actually born in summer, only because in december was the greatest pagan event, the fest of the Sun.
Religions change when they come in touch with different civs, or else no one would have ever believed in them. And then of course for at least some they would still be no believers if they weren't actually IMPOSED on people, thru destruction. death and torture...
The point is, relegions don't look alike because of the "message", they look alike because they ALL stole meanings from pre-existing theories, philosophies etc etc
As for philosphy, well there are not only atheist philosophers and respective systems.
Maybe half of the philosphical systems are idealistic, and a idealistic philo.system always comes down to the presence of some Godly Divine power. But they don't START from there rather than come down to that, which is completely different. And ofcourse their meaning of God is not the simplistic one relegions give. Try reading the platonic-neoplatonic or Stoic philosystems (to name 2 which existed BEFORE the motheistic relegions, and where they stole A LOT of meanings from....)
The other half ofcourse are materialistic philosystems, which can never come down to a God.
What my prob is with relegions (and idealsitic systems in general) is that exactly because they come down to the presence of an Absolute Truth, that humanity just needs to find out, thru the emans of belief, intellect or whatever. Since the most intelectual or believing or most whatever are able to KNOW that existing truth, it "legalizes" some person (the prophet, the interpreterm the priest, the pope) to be the holder, the knower of the ONLY thuth and as such legalizes him to exert GREAT power (the only power) on every one. That is why idealistic philo.systems have some kind of monarchy as their political ideal. THat is why every monarchy, is one BASED on religion.
On contrast to the idealistic ones, materialistic ones thru their definition of truth (thru the necessity of the real world around us) give great "push" to the human intellect in scientific knowledge and rational thinking. That is why religions have never actually "helped" humankind PROGRESS, rather than stop that.
There were times when because of relegion they had come to "belive" that philosophy and science are pure theoritical shit, and relegion was the only practical science existing. Ony because their own efforts showed them their idiocy, did they come to admit to the separation of religion and science. Not because they undesrstood that they have different purpses, but because whenever they tried to use scientific methods to explain theology, they came to heretical conclusions. ANd only much much afterwards, thru the re-invention of true scientific knowledge (thru the Arabs) did they come again to the understandig that relegion is only about god, and science about the world surrounding us.
I know that that is not what church sais about science and its purpose today. But that is only because church cannot say otherwise any more. They had said those thing, there are in their books. It was not so long ago that church still belived that the world was actually made in 7 days, and they even had "foubd" thre their scientific research of the testaments, the actual DATE that those 7 days occured (if you have seen the trial of the apes film...). Of course nowadays, they have taken all of that back, as they would soound so ridiculous.
Religions have always been against progress, scientific, ethical political WHATSOEVER. Because that is the nature of their own beliefs. Because they have an absolute truth that has already been said/revealed and so no other is needed.
But as the world is forever changing, so are all of our truths, and so religions to survive will be either burning every new knowledge, or discreetley changing their own beliefs, so as to look that they were always believing in that.
But we will forever have history to remind us that that is not the case, for relegions had taught so many things, that today are ashamed of even saying that they did so, always acting as that "those were metaphoric images etc etc".
If it only werent for the thousands of people who were slaughtered, only because they pointed oyt the metaphors....
stop it you fools
Emmanuel Kant has already proved (a couple of hundred years ago) that it's the existance or non-existance of a god cannot be proved.
http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Philosophy/Kants_Refutations_of_the_proofs_of_the_Existence_of_God.shtml
Emmanuel Kant has already proved (a couple of hundred years ago) that it's the existance or non-existance of a god cannot be proved.
http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Philosophy/Kants_Refutations_of_the_proofs_of_the_Existence_of_God.shtml
ARGH! SHUT UP! Thank you... It's a _demo_!
so right sofocles.... God (idealistic or religious) is not a matter of proof.
Then again, it's only believrs that try to prove the existence of god...
non believers don't try to proove hos non existence, rathr than point out the controversies of such an existance.
As a matter of philosophy, you can come down to that or the other belief as a matter of coherence in your philosophical system, not as a proof. As a result and not as a starting point, even though ofcourse afterwards his presence is a basical one in the system.
Idealism, since it points out that it is only "idea" which is byitself existing HAS to come down to the most generic of all ideas(essences) which will be the starting and ending point of all existence, the pattern of all things (since its the same one idea everything came out of and must go to to reach perfection) forever and ineverything existing.
And ofcourse that idea can be no other than a form of God.
On the other hand materialism, since it believs that it is matter which is byitself existing, and ideas nothing more than intelectual reactions to that (or the dialectic counterparts), can never come down to the existence of an idea.
Though there has been at least one materialistic philosophical sytem that accepted the presence of Gods. According to Epikoyros gods existed (since so many people had a "prexisting" knowledge of them, but gods are just huge creatures living somewhere far far away never interefering and bla bla... which is kinda ridiculous through today's view....
Generally speaking, materialsm can never accept the existence of a god, only because of the foundations of their system.
And from where i'm standing, materialistic systems are the most straightforward, not controversial, freedom providing, explaining of capable, progressive systems... and i think history can back me up on this....
On the very other hand (the third one ;) religion starts from the existence of God and tries to form a system around that. And therefor cannot proove either that god exists or not, as the acceptance of its existence has formed the very stystem that will try to prove it. It would be nothing more of a "viscious circle".
Yet i can quote you some terrible tries by christian theologists to try to prove God's existence thru logical means... (e.g. the ontological and pragmatological proofs of god by Anselmo of Canterbury(1033-1109) thru idealistic realism, in his works Proslogium and Monologium)
Then again, it's only believrs that try to prove the existence of god...
non believers don't try to proove hos non existence, rathr than point out the controversies of such an existance.
As a matter of philosophy, you can come down to that or the other belief as a matter of coherence in your philosophical system, not as a proof. As a result and not as a starting point, even though ofcourse afterwards his presence is a basical one in the system.
Idealism, since it points out that it is only "idea" which is byitself existing HAS to come down to the most generic of all ideas(essences) which will be the starting and ending point of all existence, the pattern of all things (since its the same one idea everything came out of and must go to to reach perfection) forever and ineverything existing.
And ofcourse that idea can be no other than a form of God.
On the other hand materialism, since it believs that it is matter which is byitself existing, and ideas nothing more than intelectual reactions to that (or the dialectic counterparts), can never come down to the existence of an idea.
Though there has been at least one materialistic philosophical sytem that accepted the presence of Gods. According to Epikoyros gods existed (since so many people had a "prexisting" knowledge of them, but gods are just huge creatures living somewhere far far away never interefering and bla bla... which is kinda ridiculous through today's view....
Generally speaking, materialsm can never accept the existence of a god, only because of the foundations of their system.
And from where i'm standing, materialistic systems are the most straightforward, not controversial, freedom providing, explaining of capable, progressive systems... and i think history can back me up on this....
On the very other hand (the third one ;) religion starts from the existence of God and tries to form a system around that. And therefor cannot proove either that god exists or not, as the acceptance of its existence has formed the very stystem that will try to prove it. It would be nothing more of a "viscious circle".
Yet i can quote you some terrible tries by christian theologists to try to prove God's existence thru logical means... (e.g. the ontological and pragmatological proofs of god by Anselmo of Canterbury(1033-1109) thru idealistic realism, in his works Proslogium and Monologium)
"Now Iblis.... you can imagine how many people can find the Twin Events referring to whatever and whomever they want to... i mean... a fugitive that later on has power and is able to confront his prosecuterors.... must have been done over 1000 times in history."
Not by "the sons of kedar" Look up any old map of what today is saudi arabia, and behold....kedar. That narraows it down there allready. But read the whole article, and make your mind after that.
"If god wants to give smthng, it means that god has a purpose"says who?
"But somthng -whatever, god or not- having a purpose means it wants to make/do smthng only because it he doesn't have it. "
will you apply this to the demoscene aswell?
that the reason we make demos is because we dont have them?
"Having a purpose/goal means you are not complete, and therefor WANT to do smthng. Or else you wouldn't have any other purpose, since you would have everything needed."
what kind of logic is that? If you were able to create anything you wanted. with no limits. you would only create to fulfill your basic needs?. sound like human Logic to me, but were told that human logic do not apply to God, thus God is hard to prove as fact. And it was never the point!
"But God in need and uncomplete, is contradicting the monotheistic relegions who believe in a complete/perfect god with a purpose. For it is purpose which drives revelation and not randomness right?"
yes purpose for us, what Gods purpose is i have NO idea, except God would like that we would all chose to go to heaven.
Applying human logiv to God is not right, it defyø's the whole idea of God. What you're doing is making God human like. You try hard to apply what apply to us to God.
But to use a quite lame analogy. When youre a child, you do not have the same rights as your parents. you dont think like they do, because they know more. and because they know more, than can do more things etc...With God were not talking human anymore were talking omniscient being.
Do God get bored? How the h3ll should i know? ;)
"Well, could you think that relegions share some meanings, because their respective founders had READ about them, seen them in their world around them and used them in a religious context so as to convince people for their cause?"
Ofcourse i can, but i dont think it is so. And this is philosophy, and when it is philosophy, my guess are as good and educated as yours.
"The point is, relegions don't look alike because of the "message", they look alike because they ALL stole meanings from pre-existing theories, philosophies etc etc"
say you... i think otherwise.
"As for philosphy, well there are not only atheist philosophers and respective systems.
Maybe half of the philosphical systems are idealistic, and a idealistic philo.system always comes down to the presence of some Godly Divine power. But they don't START from there rather than come down to that, which is completely different. And ofcourse their meaning of God is not the simplistic one relegions give. Try reading the platonic-neoplatonic or Stoic philosystems (to name 2 which existed BEFORE the motheistic relegions, and where they stole A LOT of meanings from....)"
yeah long live the internet...no wait. information didnt travel very fast back then mainly due to huge language incompabilities. ;) This idea that poeple stole stuff from eacothers relegions are possible, but i just dont think that is all there is to it.
"Religions have always been against progress, scientific, ethical political WHATSOEVER. Because that is the nature of their own beliefs. Because they have an absolute truth that has already been said/revealed and so no other is needed. "
that is why i chose a relegion that is NOT like that. But one that expects from people that they educate themself, in the world we live in. The more we understand about the world, the more we understand about our relegion. To fully appreciate the quraan you have to be hardcore at math, much better than i am and ever will be.
"But as the world is forever changing, so are all of our truths"
ao youre telling me that peace will simply be outdated some time? I dont belive so. It was always a goal, a hard one to obtain, but a goal we have, never the less.. to us, it is peace in this life, and peace in the next one.
"But we will forever have history to remind us that that is not the case, for relegions had taught so many things, that today are ashamed of even saying that they did so, always acting as that "those were metaphoric images etc etc".
If it only werent for the thousands of people who were slaughtered, only because they pointed oyt the metaphors...."
Some relegions might do so. Im very impressed with buddism and the verda (their texts) they have even more advanced science than Islam. And i am impressed with islams fullness. Its way of life.
Not by "the sons of kedar" Look up any old map of what today is saudi arabia, and behold....kedar. That narraows it down there allready. But read the whole article, and make your mind after that.
"If god wants to give smthng, it means that god has a purpose"says who?
"But somthng -whatever, god or not- having a purpose means it wants to make/do smthng only because it he doesn't have it. "
will you apply this to the demoscene aswell?
that the reason we make demos is because we dont have them?
"Having a purpose/goal means you are not complete, and therefor WANT to do smthng. Or else you wouldn't have any other purpose, since you would have everything needed."
what kind of logic is that? If you were able to create anything you wanted. with no limits. you would only create to fulfill your basic needs?. sound like human Logic to me, but were told that human logic do not apply to God, thus God is hard to prove as fact. And it was never the point!
"But God in need and uncomplete, is contradicting the monotheistic relegions who believe in a complete/perfect god with a purpose. For it is purpose which drives revelation and not randomness right?"
yes purpose for us, what Gods purpose is i have NO idea, except God would like that we would all chose to go to heaven.
Applying human logiv to God is not right, it defyø's the whole idea of God. What you're doing is making God human like. You try hard to apply what apply to us to God.
But to use a quite lame analogy. When youre a child, you do not have the same rights as your parents. you dont think like they do, because they know more. and because they know more, than can do more things etc...With God were not talking human anymore were talking omniscient being.
Do God get bored? How the h3ll should i know? ;)
"Well, could you think that relegions share some meanings, because their respective founders had READ about them, seen them in their world around them and used them in a religious context so as to convince people for their cause?"
Ofcourse i can, but i dont think it is so. And this is philosophy, and when it is philosophy, my guess are as good and educated as yours.
"The point is, relegions don't look alike because of the "message", they look alike because they ALL stole meanings from pre-existing theories, philosophies etc etc"
say you... i think otherwise.
"As for philosphy, well there are not only atheist philosophers and respective systems.
Maybe half of the philosphical systems are idealistic, and a idealistic philo.system always comes down to the presence of some Godly Divine power. But they don't START from there rather than come down to that, which is completely different. And ofcourse their meaning of God is not the simplistic one relegions give. Try reading the platonic-neoplatonic or Stoic philosystems (to name 2 which existed BEFORE the motheistic relegions, and where they stole A LOT of meanings from....)"
yeah long live the internet...no wait. information didnt travel very fast back then mainly due to huge language incompabilities. ;) This idea that poeple stole stuff from eacothers relegions are possible, but i just dont think that is all there is to it.
"Religions have always been against progress, scientific, ethical political WHATSOEVER. Because that is the nature of their own beliefs. Because they have an absolute truth that has already been said/revealed and so no other is needed. "
that is why i chose a relegion that is NOT like that. But one that expects from people that they educate themself, in the world we live in. The more we understand about the world, the more we understand about our relegion. To fully appreciate the quraan you have to be hardcore at math, much better than i am and ever will be.
"But as the world is forever changing, so are all of our truths"
ao youre telling me that peace will simply be outdated some time? I dont belive so. It was always a goal, a hard one to obtain, but a goal we have, never the less.. to us, it is peace in this life, and peace in the next one.
"But we will forever have history to remind us that that is not the case, for relegions had taught so many things, that today are ashamed of even saying that they did so, always acting as that "those were metaphoric images etc etc".
If it only werent for the thousands of people who were slaughtered, only because they pointed oyt the metaphors...."
Some relegions might do so. Im very impressed with buddism and the verda (their texts) they have even more advanced science than Islam. And i am impressed with islams fullness. Its way of life.
so right sofocles.... God (idealistic or religious) is not a matter of proof.
Spot on! But its a good practice nevertheless. A blind faith is no faith. And i will happily admit that i might at some point give up on relegion. But i cannot run from what i feel. thus..I will always belive in God.
Spot on! But its a good practice nevertheless. A blind faith is no faith. And i will happily admit that i might at some point give up on relegion. But i cannot run from what i feel. thus..I will always belive in God.