Re: God Thread, Pt. III

[stevieg8]

Yea i read it back few years ago, and then some of the chapters few months ago. It spurred me to find and read the Authentic Book of Ezekiel (although it's extinct now )

I must not have read that part (the Guide is like 600 pages long...). What's the Authentic Book of Ezekiel?

[RealGunner]

Lol no, i meant The book of Ezekiel, but the authentic version without corruption (silly thing to search for as i found out ) and not the one you get now which i personally don't trust (but reading it anyways )

[stevieg8]

Oh ok. Jewish tradition states that we have the original version of the books (especially of written law, aka the Tanach), so I've never really heard it discussed like that.

[RealGunner]

hmm are there not many versions of the old testament ?

[stevieg8]

hmm are there not many versions of the old testament ?

Not for us, no. I have learned that there are other interpretations for other religions, but I don't remember specifics so don't want to assert anything; I just know that Jews consider what we have today "מסיני" or from Sinai - as in literally given to Moses on the mountain.

[free_cat]

The bottom line is that if you want to have faith in God, if you want to take your scripture as fact - go for it; I've seen it work wonders on the psyche of numerous people close to me, who I love very much, and would never begrudge them to it. Furthermore, religion has been the source of many of the greatest thinkers the world has ever seen, from the pre-Socratics commenting on Hesiod to the modern Catholic Church, which still churns out philosophical treatises and considers morality at a level most people are unaware of (to all the secularists in this thread, did you know the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution?). Religion is also directly responsible for many of the scientific discoveries through history, contrary to popular belief, and was the leading force behind the earliest hospitals (in Ancient Rome) and the entire existence of the university system (more recently, in what we ironically refer to as the Dark Ages).

Your bottom line is very poor to be honest. Religion (especially cristianity as you point out) asks people to "have faith" without evidence. To believe in something with not a single prove as you accept. Not only that, but evidence contradicts most of the religious texts, so in fact, it has evidence against it. You argue that it's great to believe because it "heals you" and "works wonders", but shouldn't people believes be based in truth, instead on fake stuff that "heals you"? In my opinion, we should believe stuff only because there are evidences that make us believe it's true. It doesn't make logical sense to believe in something only because is good for you if it's clearly false, which is essentially your bottom line.

Also, don't play the card that Religion = knowledge, when religion has been the destroyer of knoweledge most of the time: Greek/Roman Knoweledge, Alexandria Library, Islam science in Baghdad, and a long etc. The universities and hospitals you mention were places of religious indoctrination and few real knoweledge. Specially middle age hospitals were hilarious: you where ill, so some priest came, said you needed a blood letting to purge the evil spirits and they actually helped you die.

[The Messiah]

I feel over-matched by these atheist, not by their understanding of the truth but however with their eloquent style of writing all the more gibberish propagandas.


They have over-ran this place with their numerous numbers.

[stevieg8]

I feel over-matched by these atheist, not by their understanding of the truth but however with their eloquent style of writing all the more gibberish propagandas.


They have over-ran this place with their numerous numbers.

Really? After the work I clearly put into an extensive post for you, that's the best response you can give me? You really are nothing but a troll; I thought maybe if you were responding to such a serious topic so vehemently, you might actually care about what you were saying for once. My mistake.

[shinigami99]

How can I believe in evolution when no one has gone back in time to 5million years to make all the necessary observation.

How can you believe in creationism, when you didn't go back in time 6000 years to watch god do it?

Because I also do not believe that, I think a Christians have already pointed out that there is nowhere in the bible where it states that God created the world 6,000 years ago. Even if it does, it could be 6,000 years in angels reckoning.

The bible is not just an ordinary book that you can just take it's literal meaning, there are many mysteries, allegories, similitude, parables, proverbs etc. You have to study it to understand it, you can't not just simply read it and come here to debate.

You want somebody to come debate you at face level? Well, here we go. I spent 6 years in religious Jewish school, along with three more at a lower level; I was raised in a religious family, with religious teaching and upbringing, in a religious community, so have studied the Old Testament, the Talmud (Jewish oral law) and probably upwards of 30 Jewish commentators in depth. I have studied philosophy from the pre-Socratics, and have a focus within this study on religious theologians. As a result, I have read the works of Christian philosophers including Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes. I also traveled through Italy with a PhD. in Comparative Religions who has been a practicing Roman Catholic his entire life, with whom I read writings of Popes from 1000 years ago to John Paul II, as well as studied the New Testament and the founding myths of the Church. I have studied pieces of the Quran, although sadly not all of it, and have read commentators including al-Ghazali, al-Farabi, Averroes, and others. I am also fluent in Hebrew and have studied the Old Testament, at least, in it's original text, and can make my way through Aramaic with difficulty.

For full disclosure, while I would consider myself a theist, I am not practicing in any way, nor would I ever attempt to debate an athiest. This is because it is not possible to prove God; in fact, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that it would be heresy to attempt to do so, as God by his nature exists outside of the human comprehension. Trying to bring God to our level is a form of idol worship, because it gives God - an unknowable entity - qualities that we understand. He claims that the only acceptable argument is the argument from first cause, which you cited earlier (something must have created the universe to begin with), but that one too has been disproven since his time by the new understanding we have of space-time. If you want to learn more on this topic, you should read up on quantum physics (also check out Immanuel Kant, who does a great job responding to Descartes' proofs of God; so great a job, in fact, that Descartes - a seminal philosopher - is considered a joke at this point) and the 4th dimension. If you can't wrap your head around these concepts, don't worry about it - they're tough. But don't be confused when academics don't think your infallible five-year-old argument is that convincing.

Islam (which I have been given the impression is your religion) goes even farther than Aquinas - describing God in anything but negative terms is an incredible violation. You can only describe God by what He is not - anything else purports to know God's essence, something considered incredibly problematic. Ironically, the best enumeration of this view I've seen was by Maimonides, a Jew, but he spent much of his life in Arabic North Africa, and is actually cited by the Islamic community as one of their great scholars - there are major questions as to his true religious beliefs. I would suggest you check out the aptly titled "Guide of the Perplexed" for a better understanding of this.

The bottom line is that if you want to have faith in God, if you want to take your scripture as fact - go for it; I've seen it work wonders on the psyche of numerous people close to me, who I love very much, and would never begrudge them to it. Furthermore, religion has been the source of many of the greatest thinkers the world has ever seen, from the pre-Socratics commenting on Hesiod to the modern Catholic Church, which still churns out philosophical treatises and considers morality at a level most people are unaware of (to all the secularists in this thread, did you know the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution?). Religion is also directly responsible for many of the scientific discoveries through history, contrary to popular belief, and was the leading force behind the earliest hospitals (in Ancient Rome) and the entire existence of the university system (more recently, in what we ironically refer to as the Dark Ages).

But don't ever think you will convince someone. You simply don't have the proof on your side. Faith is important and helpful and healing BECAUSE it doesn't have evidence (another argument of Aquinas's, actually); it is something you accept onto yourself without proof, because you don't need it. I have a hard time accepting that, and it makes me all the more impressed by those who can do it. But those of us who like to dwell in verifiable absolutes - or are attempting to seek them - will never take your belief as proof.

+1, Just curious though, you say you are a theist, are you a very liberal jew then? or a deist? It's interesting because even people who not that religious will not accept that there is no materialistic proof for a God. Some people may not like labels, but what label would you describe yourself as?

[stevieg8]

The bottom line is that if you want to have faith in God, if you want to take your scripture as fact - go for it; I've seen it work wonders on the psyche of numerous people close to me, who I love very much, and would never begrudge them to it. Furthermore, religion has been the source of many of the greatest thinkers the world has ever seen, from the pre-Socratics commenting on Hesiod to the modern Catholic Church, which still churns out philosophical treatises and considers morality at a level most people are unaware of (to all the secularists in this thread, did you know the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution?). Religion is also directly responsible for many of the scientific discoveries through history, contrary to popular belief, and was the leading force behind the earliest hospitals (in Ancient Rome) and the entire existence of the university system (more recently, in what we ironically refer to as the Dark Ages).

Your bottom line is very poor to be honest. Religion (especially cristianity as you point out) asks people to "have faith" without evidence. To believe in something with not a single prove as you accept. Not only that, but evidence contradicts most of the religious texts, so in fact, it has evidence against it. You argue that it's great to believe because it "heals you" and "works wonders", but shouldn't people believes be based in truth, instead on fake stuff that "heals you"? In my opinion, we should believe stuff only because there are evidences that make us believe it's true. It doesn't make logical sense to believe in something only because is good for you if it's clearly false, which is essentially your bottom line.

Also, don't play the card that Religion = knowledge, when religion has been the destroyer of knoweledge most of the time: Greek/Roman Knoweledge, Alexandria Library, Islam science in Baghdad, and a long etc. The universities and hospitals you mention were places of religious indoctrination and few real knoweledge. Specially middle age hospitals were hilarious: you where ill, so some priest came, said you needed a blood letting to purge the evil spirits and they actually helped you die.

You're misunderstanding me. My point is that faith is a different field from science; if you treat it as such, then it can be good for you. I personally don't believe, because I'm like you - I need evidence. But the very ability to accept something onto yourself without the proof is the part of it that helps some people order their lives, and in a lot of cases they're not hurting anyone else with it - so I say go for it. The problem is when people try to treat what they believe in like it IS a verifiable science, and then try to force others to go along with it. THAT I have a problem with.

Also, the second half of your post isn't quite historically accurate. First of all, I wasn't saying religion = knowledge; I'm just saying they've contributed a great deal to the breadth of knowledge in the world, and I can't see how that's debatable - they absolutely have, by any measure. Regardless, though, the destruction of knowledge is isolated to specific people and time periods; you mention Greek/Roman, but most Greek thinkers were using Homer and Hesiod (both very religious texts) to inform and base their thought, and almost none were punished for it (Socrates is an outlier, whose story is also often misunderstood). The Romans were not in anyway stopped by religion, and were actually one of the most tolerant societies (except towards Christians) that the early world had seen. You reference Islamic science in Baghdad, but forget that it was the Golden Days after Muhammad (when study of outside philosophy was not only allowed, but considered encouraged by the religion itself) that developed most of modern mathematics.

Just like with anything else, there are two sides to any coin. For every Galileo (another misunderstood story - check out Bertolt Brecht's play "Galileo" for a better understanding of how he was executed for politics, not religion), there is an example of the Huns or Mongols who destroyed just as much knowledge without a religious influence. Hell, just look at WWII - the single biggest destructor of ancient architecture possibly ever. There was no religious motivation there.

Finally, my point about the hospitals was an aside, but again you're missing things. I'm not referring to Middle Age hospitals, although I can get to those shortly too; I specifically referenced in Ancient Rome, where the earliest Christians - despite being in hiding - established networks of healers to bring herbs (many of which have been incorporated into modern medicines) and bandages to the sick, or at the very least provide them with food and comfort in their dying hours like hospice care. This was something the early Romans had no semblance of, despite their advances in other aspects of public health, and was incredibly necessary during the 10-15 different plague outbreaks that happened during this time period. The Early Christians can be directly credited for a lot of the disease prevention in that time period.

Middle Age hospitals, though, go far beyond what you described. What you described was true for many small towns, but larger cities - especially on pilgrimage routes - did have real hospital systems, typically staffed by various orders of monks. Google Santa Maria della Scalla in Siena, or check out the extensive network that existed in San Gimignano (I think that's where it was located).

I'm not arguing religion is all wonderful, or that it has no faults. Both are true. Just asking everyone, on both sides, to open their minds a little bit.

[stevieg8]

+1, Just curious though, you say you are a theist, are you a very liberal jew then? or a deist? It's interesting because even people who not that religious will not accept that there is no materialistic proof for a God. Some people may not like labels, but what label would you describe yourself as?

It's not that I don't like labels, it's that I don't know enough about my beliefs to pick one. I believe a god exists, but accept that I have no proof for it; I know I don't care whether or not heaven and hell exist (reward/punishment should not be the driving factor behind how I live); and I am very skeptical about the literal content of any religious text. As regards the question about Judaism, I would call myself Jewish - I feel that my upbringing has informed a lot of my morality and how I interact with others around me - but most people would consider me areligious, considering my lack of involvement in any of the "typical" Orthodox Jewish practices. I don't ever go to synagogue anymore, even when I'm home and my dad wishes I would; I don't keep Kosher, or follow the laws of the Sabbath or holidays - I didn't even fast for Yom Kippur in the past couple of years. I've never felt a connection to the spiritual aspect of the laws and customs, so the only things I do, I do out of respect for my parents while I'm under their roof. I guess you could call me very liberal if you want, but I'm not sure what I'd call myself.

[RedOranje]

I feel over-matched by these atheist, not by their understanding of the truth but however with their eloquent style of writing all the more gibberish propagandas.


They have over-ran this place with their numerous numbers.

To be fair, you seem quite fluent in both gibberish AND propaganda so I doubt the use of either/both poses a serious problem. Eloquence, on the other hand...

[ToEy]

The amount of overwhelming evidences (over the 3 threads) for GOD doesn't convince me at all. If anything, believing in GOD comes down to faith, not logic.

I like free_cat's argument the best, if the quran or the bible is indeed written by GOD/or god inspired men, then why are they so open to interpretation, interpreted by so many ways by so many people. Why will GOD not write/inspire a book that guides everyone clearly, instead of one that can be used to influence uneducated people to do radical stuff (crusades/terrorist etc)

[Le Samourai]

Interesting Poem:

Hap

BY THOMAS HARDY

If but some vengeful god would call to me
From up the sky, and laugh: "Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!"

Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.

But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown?
—Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . .
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.

[boss]

Heyy guys i guess i'm on the right way finding the answer ! Maybe someone recognized God .......i just have a question to all of U.... anybody recogn. your Grandfathers Grandfather ? looooooooool

[RedOranje]

What?

[Cruijf]

What?

Sorry, but this.

Could you rephrase it?

[free_cat]

How do religious people explain the fact that scientific discoveries have proved a lot of religious principles wrong?

For instances, it was religious dogma until Copernicus and Galileo Galilei that the universe was created for humans and that the earth was at the center of the universe.

Islam also made the same mistake and quoted as some of Mohamad miracles that "the sun slowed down" which is obviously a complete mistake on how the solar system works (it would be the earth rotation that slowed down) and it's also an obvious lie, because it's impossible to stop or slow down's earth's rotation and then start it again at the same speed.

One would have to wonder how since modern science started there have been no more of these miracles recorded. God decided to just vanish after the first scientist appeared in order to not be found? Or he simply never existed and old miracles were just misinterpretations or outright lies?
It's obvious, to anyone who is not a religious fanatic, what is most likely.

[free_cat]

By the way, no offence but Islam's is funny.

The always repeated idea that "the Qur'an stresses its Arabic nature, Muslim scholars believe that any translation cannot be more than an approximate interpretation" is ridicoulous.

So, you've got a God that creates the Univers and the Earth, and then decides that only some poorly educated guys living in the desert are his chosen people, and he sends them God's word but in an ARABIC NATURE, yes, the UNIVERSAL GOD speaks only in Arabic and is only able to send a message that can only be fully understood in ARABIC.
The same god that is omnipotent and omniscent can only make a fully understandable book in ARABIC, and expects the whole world to turn into this religion and become islam followers and everyone to learn arabic to read his holly book.

Plus, only 20% of Islam followers speak Arabic, so 80% of Islamist don't even have a clue about Allah's real word in arabic nature.

I mean... please, even the most Islam fanatic can see some big contradictions in this.

Or you really believe that God's chose Arabs to be the chosen people, and that's a very dangerous way of thought and also quite an unbelievable position flying in the face of all scientific and human evidence.

[Die Borussen]

a teacher in my school said a lot of doctors believe in god cause they need to rely on something bigger than them when they have a patient's health depended from their actions


in my opinion its a smart and helpful trick if i can call it that way

you see good creatures humans are, ask each other for help, but when
they dont receive it or when its not possible to receive it then giving up its not an option for them whatsoever, therefore believing something bigger and stronger out there exists will give them hope..
maybe thats a likely way that god was created..

[VivaStPauli]

IMHO a lot of doctors believe in god, because they were brought up in a religous home.

Here, a lot of doctors don't believe in god, because most academics here are agnostic or atheist.

[Cruijf]

Islam also made the same mistake and quoted as some of Mohamad miracles that "the sun slowed down" which is obviously a complete mistake on how the solar system works (it would be the earth rotation that slowed down) and it's also an obvious lie, because it's impossible to stop or slow down's earth's rotation and then start it again at the same speed.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??? Source?

[stevieg8]

Islam also made the same mistake and quoted as some of Mohamad miracles that "the sun slowed down" which is obviously a complete mistake on how the solar system works (it would be the earth rotation that slowed down) and it's also an obvious lie, because it's impossible to stop or slow down's earth's rotation and then start it again at the same speed.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??? Source?

I'm assuming it's the story about the battle they were winning as long as the sun stayed up, so a miracle occurred keeping it up for several days. If not what OC was referring to, then it's at least a similar story. I'll try and find which book of the Old Testament it takes place in, I can't remember off the top of my head.

[zizzle]

How do religious people explain the fact that scientific discoveries have proved a lot of religious principles wrong?

For instances, it was religious dogma until Copernicus and Galileo Galilei that the universe was created for humans and that the earth was at the center of the universe.

Muslims never believed that the earth is the center of the universe as a part of their creed. That is no where mintioned in our scriptures. However if some Muslims did believe that, and im sure some did, it's completely based on what everyone thought in that time and not based on religion. As far as other scientific discoveries go, muslims have been very flexible in that regard and you'll ever hear them talking about the scientific miracles of the Quran (plenty were discussed in the previous threads) as the texts hint at some facts that were validated by science (examples are the creation, the expanding, and the fate of the universe)

The only discovery that SOME muslims refuse to accept in the modern day is the theory of evolution, and to be precise the evolution of man. Generally muslims have no problem accepting that life forms could evolve over time but they refuse to accept human evolution based on some faulty understanding of the texts and the fact that Darwin was an athiest. I for one accept human evolution as a possible valid theory since i dont see any contradiction between that and my understanding of the texts.

Islam also made the same mistake and quoted as some of Mohamad miracles that "the sun slowed down" which is obviously a complete mistake on how the solar system works (it would be the earth rotation that slowed down) and it's also an obvious lie, because it's impossible to stop or slow down's earth's rotation and then start it again at the same speed.

nope, never happened. Mohammed never performed a miracle of this sort.

One would have to wonder how since modern science started there have been no more of these miracles recorded. God decided to just vanish after the first scientist appeared in order to not be found? Or he simply never existed and old miracles were just misinterpretations or outright lies?
It's obvious, to anyone who is not a religious fanatic, what is most likely.

well i understand what you're talking about but as far as Islam is concerned Muhammed was the last prophit and no miracles should happen after him. Matter of fact if someone performed a miracle in this age we'll be as skeptic as any man of science.

[VivaStPauli]

Just a small point, that really doesn't change anything about what you just said: Darwin wasn't an atheist, ironically he was a Christian.

Regarding miracles: ever since people stopped just believing rumors, miracles just stopped "for some reason", I assume this is because there never were any miracles.

[zizzle]

Just a small point, that really doesn't change anything about what you just said: Darwin wasn't an atheist, ironically he was a Christian.

[Sponsored content]