FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > Religion

Greetings!

Religion Discussions on religions, mysticism, and spirituality as well as opposing views such as agnosticism and atheism.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 23 votes, 3.48 average. Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-25-2005, 03:28 PM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Aye we have before.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #152  
Old 05-25-2005, 05:26 PM
Kolriss's Avatar
Kolriss Kolriss is offline
Flablarghl
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,222
Quote:
intelligent ppl have no choice but to oppose the religious around them, they already weild too much power and we need to stop that.
Server Error
The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete your request.

Could not connect to JRun Server.


Gasp! How dare those evil religionists destroy our JRun servers! All intelligent people must put a stop to their evil exploits!
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 05-25-2005, 07:00 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPDC
Sadly I feel the same way. Thought the convo was going well until your comment.
Anyways lets see.

Then my response was to those that feel the way you said you thought they felt. IF they do not feel that way my response would be in error. You do not feel that way, YET you stated THESE MAY BE REASONS one would want to destroy religion. My response was WHY those reasons were in error.

Could not the same be asked of you?
Seriously. I enjoy a good debate. I enjoy hearing what others think, However I guess what yoursaying is that you dont think these things, but that someone somewhere DOES. Well my question was to those WHO WANTED to destroy religion, since that was an ONTOPIC question. See?

The same could be asked of me if I was the one who said the answers can only be found within. BTW, I think it is reasonable to assume replies to my posts are aimed at me.


Do you truly believe this?

The retort I responded to when I wrote that said nothing about any of my counter points. So, yes, when I said it, it was true. You did not rebut my response until your next post. Thank you for doing so.


You think? So your saying that people MAY want to destory religion because they dont pay taxes? That was one of your comments. NOW that being said, IF relion was destroyed one wouldnt have taxes being gained from them, they wouldnt exists. HOWEVER NEITHER would their services. Clear? NOW Why is this closed minded? Thats simple. You see a close mind see that a church doesnt pay tax. An open mind looks at what a church doesnt do, and then applies what it does do. You see On one hand they do not pay tax, on the other hand THEY DO suppluyu MANY needed services they state doesnt have to supply. You see? NOW if they do not exists the state will have to pick up the tab.


I'll grant you the context, no church, no church...services (sorry, I had to). That still leaves the false alternative that only the government can perform those services if churches don't. I'll assume you keep calling me close-minded because you're upset, not just because I don't agree with you.


Take a second and think about it. How is it open minded to realize there are some bad people that use religion to negative or hurtfull acts, AND still to observe the FACT that many people use religion to POSITIVE ends?

I think I'll go by what I think you meant rather than what you actually said. I agree it is open-minded to realize, etc. Since nothing I said indicates that I am not aware that religion has a positive side, I'm not sure of the relevance?

What have you read by Socrates?
Nothing. Socrates didn't write anything, at least not that history has recorded. I have read Plato's Dialogues if that counts. MP, it isn't like you to be the one flashing academic credentials around like it makes your arguments sounder. Obviously I have pushed one of your buttons, it wasn't intentional (the BUTTON wasn't intentional, I cop to the pushing!).

Sorry in advance about the quote mixing, there are simple computer skills I haven't mastered yet.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 05-26-2005, 04:35 AM
MPDC's Avatar
MPDC MPDC is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 20,219
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via Yahoo to MPDC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Agenda
Nothing. Socrates didn't write anything, at least not that history has recorded. I have read Plato's Dialogues if that counts. MP, it isn't like you to be the one flashing academic credentials around like it makes your arguments sounder. Obviously I have pushed one of your buttons, it wasn't intentional (the BUTTON wasn't intentional, I cop to the pushing!).

Sorry in advance about the quote mixing, there are simple computer skills I haven't mastered yet.
THATS why I included PLATO. Now do you understand.
The main way people get a feel for Socrates is from what PLATO wrote. Do you understand the connection now?


I was offended at the insult about the two being the same. Its very clear and simple as to why when one is 'refering' to the one they must at least note the other.
At least as far as I see it. I think you to understand the connection by your answer. You knew he never wrote anything. As such what do we actually know about the man?
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 05-26-2005, 05:30 AM
MPDC's Avatar
MPDC MPDC is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 20,219
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via Yahoo to MPDC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Agenda
Yeah, you're just like Socrates (I take it you think he is the same person as Plato, you may be right), ask a question, then rip up the answers. That was old Socrates! For your edification, the Socratic Method involves repeated questioning based on the answer to the last question to get the student to arrive at a deeper answer. That is what you were doing how?
This was what annoyed me.
I never ripped up your answers. I merely asked further questions. I tried to get you to understand the other side of the argument. Hence the method I used. Much like asking, "Does a dog have a Buddha nature. (MU was the actuall answer if your looking for it).
Thank you for your post however. Unless its an insult that some how I missed.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 05-26-2005, 01:37 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPDC
THATS why I included PLATO. Now do you understand.
The main way people get a feel for Socrates is from what PLATO wrote. Do you understand the connection now?


I was offended at the insult about the two being the same. Its very clear and simple as to why when one is 'refering' to the one they must at least note the other.
At least as far as I see it. I think you to understand the connection by your answer. You knew he never wrote anything. As such what do we actually know about the man?
Always understood it, from your phrasing it wasn't clear you did.

Er...that part actually wasn't an insult, I thought you might be of the opinion that Socrates may have been a fictional character that Plato created, since we only know of him through Plato's writings, that could be the case. Hence the parenthetical remark that you may be right.

MP, if you're going to bring up and compare yourself to Socrates, my instinct is to hold you to a very high clarity and accuracy standard. IMHO, starting a retort with a question isn't the same thing as the Socratic Method. Maybe the SM isn't right for you...you seem to get involved in alot of arguments over trivial points. For instance we are WAY off topic now! Can we walk away from the debate over the debating?
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 05-26-2005, 01:43 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPDC
This was what annoyed me.
I never ripped up your answers. I merely asked further questions. I tried to get you to understand the other side of the argument. Hence the method I used. Much like asking, "Does a dog have a Buddha nature. (MU was the actuall answer if your looking for it).
Thank you for your post however. Unless its an insult that some how I missed.
Nope, not intended as an insult!

I think I understand what you were trying to do better now and will try to keep it in mind in future. You do know the Socratic Method is famously annoying though, right?
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 05-26-2005, 03:38 PM
MPDC's Avatar
MPDC MPDC is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 20,219
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via Yahoo to MPDC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Agenda
Nope, not intended as an insult!

I think I understand what you were trying to do better now and will try to keep it in mind in future. You do know the Socratic Method is famously annoying though, right?
Yes.
But I think it helps both parties in a deeper way than any other method.
What I have noticed a lot here is that many want admit that they know the answer and will try to end run it.
Rather interesting.

And I understand now what you meant by maybe I was right.I thought that was sarcasm. After some of the recent 'debates' I have had, my paranoia was kicking up. I apologize if my post were harsh in some manner.
As far as off topic. If you wish to not discuss whatever any more I understand. I just not that on many thread I have nothing to do with they mutate into extreme directions, and I seldom see anyone pointing that the thread is off topic. I find that odd. Perhaps, however, it is merely my paranoia.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 05-27-2005, 07:24 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPDC
Yes.
But I think it helps both parties in a deeper way than any other method.
What I have noticed a lot here is that many want admit that they know the answer and will try to end run it.
Rather interesting.

And I understand now what you meant by maybe I was right.I thought that was sarcasm. After some of the recent 'debates' I have had, my paranoia was kicking up. I apologize if my post were harsh in some manner.
As far as off topic. If you wish to not discuss whatever any more I understand. I just not that on many thread I have nothing to do with they mutate into extreme directions, and I seldom see anyone pointing that the thread is off topic. I find that odd. Perhaps, however, it is merely my paranoia.
You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you!

I'll bear your methods in mind next time and try to take them as intended.

Curious: are you theist?
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 05-27-2005, 08:25 PM
kyman's Avatar
kyman kyman is offline
snarf
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: limbo
Posts: 11,035
Blog Entries: 1
I think a few critical points of this thread are this, and please, if anyone has anything to add, do so. If not, I would enjoy anyone's reflections on the points I made below, as I think they make a lot of sense. There isn't much of anything said that is new, but what I tried to do is break it down into two important issues.

First, religion/identity and god are seperate, or in conflict I should say, as one expresses its will in conflict with the will of the universe. There is no alignment with the natural will of the universe. You do not need religion to love and abide with god.

Second, people mispercieve what god is because they are using religions definition. In actuality, god is totality. And we are a part of that. Tuning into nature, the totality, is how you become one with god.

So these are some of the problems. Identity uses religion to 'use' god to attract power, and this is so because our deepest essence is not just connected to god/totality, but is one with it. So naturally, people gravitate towards this.

So fighting churchies, isn't fighting god/totality, as nothing could do anythign to totality/eternity. What we really need to be fighting, or not fighting, but illuminating, is ignorance. As I said before, love is the best way to do this. It disarms people, gives them peace/security, where they can be themselves/curious, which inspires forward progress/evolution.

In short, religion/identity/ego and God ARE IN CONFLICT, and most people AREN'T AWARE OF WHAT GOD/TOTALITY IS, and how that totality relates to them.
__________________
Worlds of difference between everything and nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 05-28-2005, 01:52 AM
MPDC's Avatar
MPDC MPDC is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 20,219
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via Yahoo to MPDC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Agenda
You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you!

I'll bear your methods in mind next time and try to take them as intended.

Curious: are you theist?
Buddhist.
I do not belive in a God or gods. But I do belive in the Buddha nature.
I am not a buddha.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 05-28-2005, 01:20 PM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

[quote=kyman]

"First, religion/identity and god are seperate,"

Better, the Creator and His Creation are seperate. This is totally logical, and be seen by a reductionist analogy: you can create a work of art - its your handiwork - yet you are a seperate entity from it. Infact, to assume anything in Creation as being anything other than what it is - a created entity - is illogical.


"Second, people mispercieve what god is because they are using religions definition."

Not all religions do such. How is your notion of mispercievement equitable with Judaism, for example, which claims God as indescribable, transcendent of His Creation, yet fully alligned with every aspect of it?

" In actuality, god is totality. And we are a part of that."

You are referring to the totality of the Creation we percieve only - so to conclude that the totality (Created things) is God is highly eronous and illogical. It is akin to saying art is the artist, as opposed to the creation of the artist. This will mean that a tailor is his created trousers?

"Tuning into nature, the totality, is how you become one with god."

Nature is a created matrix, and represented by unseen forces which are the cogs and wheels of Creation. Nothing more than the hard wiring. Yet one does not need any component in nature to believe or aspire to the Creator, while one can use any component in nature to do that also. The Creator is above nature. Gravity is a force which obeys the will of the Creator (Job).

"Identity uses religion to 'use' god to attract power"

Also, in non-religious countries, other tools beside religion can be equally effective?

" As I said before, love is the best way to do this. It disarms people, gives them peace/security, where they can be themselves/curious, which inspires forward progress/evolution."

It can also do the reverse when it falters - and it surely does. Try to incur a random failing with love and you soon find out. Love must be defined - and this is possible only by enacting certain principles of and for humanity whereby love can be identified. Love - what does it mean: when one is alone and unloved or unlovable anymore - he is foresaken?

The best and only description of God is one which is without any description. This means the unpercieved is free to percieve the unpercievable. All images, descriptions and definitions only come in the way. Why buy retail?
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 05-28-2005, 02:41 PM
kyman's Avatar
kyman kyman is offline
snarf
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: limbo
Posts: 11,035
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Better, the Creator and His Creation are seperate. This is totally logical, and be seen by a reductionist analogy: you can create a work of art - its your handiwork - yet you are a seperate entity from it. Infact, to assume anything in Creation as being anything other than what it is - a created entity - is illogical.
I disagree entirely.

Perhaps seperate in a relative sense, as in, my form is seperate from yours, but not in an absolute sense, as in my form is seperate from yours. We are one right now, sharing minds, with who knows how many others.

Quote:
Not all religions do such. How is your notion of mispercievement equitable with Judaism, for example, which claims God as indescribable, transcendent of His Creation, yet fully alligned with every aspect of it?
JOE, listen to this point.

ALL RELIGION SEPERATE FROM GOD. Religion is a collective identity/menality, which is then what comes inbetween oneness with god. Religion is identity, and identity is the self you are meant to sacrifice for jesus/love/oneness.

If you are one with god, which is the 'purpose' of religion, then you don't need a religion, and what religion is meant to be after that is that NEWNESS god makes, free from past and future, which implies tradition/organization/status quo rules.

Look how many rules of the church are outdated, overturned, or going to be overturned. They are holding so many people back because the people running the church have a GHOST IDENTITY from past, and IT is living on by handing itself down to helpless children who cannot resist it, who then perpetuate those rules to the masses, which are then stuck in past as well. Twilight Zone.

Quote:
You are referring to the totality of the Creation we percieve only - so to conclude that the totality (Created things) is God is highly eronous and illogical. It is akin to saying art is the artist, as opposed to the creation of the artist. This will mean that a tailor is his created trousers?
Are you kidding? Where are you getting this from?

If god is that transcendent, unseen, presence, invisible and still, then he is everywhere.

To quote your bible 'be still, and know that I am god'.

Your body is all empty space, so is your room, and the silence between music, and words. Emptiness and form, are one. Never seperate. Nothing is nothing to be seperate from nothing or anything, but in this world, silence/nothing manifests as space, around which, everything we have is made.

Not seperate.

Quote:
Nature is a created matrix, and represented by unseen forces which are the cogs and wheels of Creation. Nothing more than the hard wiring. Yet one does not need any component in nature to believe or aspire to the Creator, while one can use any component in nature to do that also. The Creator is above nature. Gravity is a force which obeys the will of the Creator (Job).
We are the creator. We are manifested. Look at what we are? What is our nature? Our purpose in this world? We are creation creating.

Some would say survival is our purpose, but that is identity's delusion. In reality, what identity does to survive, is CREATE. It creates everything, circumstance, tools, communities. Our logic is not human logic, but the logic of the universe.

The ENTIRE problem with man/identity, is he thinks HE (identity) is the creator. There is no identity, and we are that creator/I am. Drop identity/man, and you are left with Spirit.

I'd say god, but when I say god I mean presence/spirit, and NOT THE LORD of the bible, and I dont want any 'devout' religious people 'stoning' me through their love of god. Not gods fault, religion's/identity's.

Quote:
It can also do the reverse when it falters - and it surely does. Try to incur a random failing with love and you soon find out. Love must be defined - and this is possible only by enacting certain principles of and for humanity whereby love can be identified. Love - what does it mean: when one is alone and unloved or unlovable anymore - he is foresaken?
Love CANNOT EVER be defined, but if you try, you will place conditions on it, and when they are not met, expectation becomes disappointment, AND we have exactly what you're talking about.

Defining love is everyones problem, and we are raised to do so. We are all raised to see it as our creation, our object, used to our end.

In reality, love is eternity and it exists for its own sake. TRUE LOVE, without an opposite, is the realization of oneness, transcending duality/life/death/dependency/hate. That is not 'ours', but, it is what we are. That is what we are always 'being', whether we realize it or not.

Quote:
The best and only description of God is one which is without any description. This means the unpercieved is free to percieve the unpercievable. All images, descriptions and definitions only come in the way. Why buy retail?
__________________
Worlds of difference between everything and nothing.

Last edited by kyman; 05-28-2005 at 02:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 05-28-2005, 03:04 PM
JonnyM234 JonnyM234 is offline
Newb
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5
schizophrenia

I agree with you completely on this one. Most of the churchies out there have no evidence to support their claims, "...because God made it that way" is something I've heard many times before. But think about this, I'm no expert on the bible, but it was apparently written by many men over a period of time who were able to hear messages from some unseen force who told them to do things. I'm no psychiatrist either, but isn't that condition called schizophrenia? Back when the bible was written they had no knowledge of these disorders, and now the people who have those disorders are in mental facilities (the few that are left) or they are those "bums on the street" that we see every day. What I don't understand is how people can take a book that was written by a bunch of schizophrenics seriously. Religion has cause more wars, more genocide, and just generally more conflict in the world than anything we have ever known. Organized religion is a plague that affects us all, just look at the war in Iraq... it's ridiculous. People need to accept life for what it is, and not live in this imaginary world of mystical figures and far-fetched dreams. I see this view as the easy way out of life. We still realy have no clue what life really is, who we really are, and what we are really doing here. What do we really know anyway? We know as much as we know, and I don't believe we will ever know everything because it is too complex for us to comprehend. Besides, how will we know when we have discovered EVERYTHING? Will someone be there to tell us what we've missed? What else needs to be known? The only thing we can do is live out our lives, enjoy them, and watch as scientists (like ourselves) discover new theories, new facts, and other exciting things. So whatever we do, we shouldn't be bored, I'm sick of people saying "I'm so bored"... because there is an exciting world out there where new and interesting things are being discovered everyday. So whatever you do, don't be bored because there's a lot of amazing things going on in our world (and I'm not talking about war or poverty or any of that negative stuff, no one wants that in their world, however, it is inevitable). All that is left for us is to learn what our mentors have been teaching us and pass that knowledge down to others with hope that they will discover new things just like our mentors did, and just like we did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArghMonkey
Yikes !!! The churchies are taking over !

Its amazing, with science uncovering the truths of this universe it should have destroyed religion (for intelligent people it did, unfortunately the weak minded still need the god crutch).

I am interested in ways to help destroy religion, besides forcing people to think and put them through a good university education how can someone get through to the nutter churchies out there ?
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 05-28-2005, 03:55 PM
MPDC's Avatar
MPDC MPDC is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 20,219
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via Yahoo to MPDC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Agenda
I'll bear your methods in mind next time and try to take them as intended.
By the way.
Thanks
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Most and Least Democratic Countries in the World ArghMonkey Politics and World Events 76 09-18-2007 11:24 AM
DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION: iris89 Religion 2 10-03-2006 05:45 PM
On Religion samay Religion 3 04-08-2006 09:01 AM
Yoga and Christianity Sivananda Mike Dubbeld Religion 1 03-03-2006 11:47 AM
Has religion made useful contributions to civilization? lautremont Religion 33 01-31-2004 06:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network