I think there are useful philosophies in every religion. Even an Atheist may use these philosophies to improve their life. As a couple of examples, there is the Golden Rule as expressed in the New Testament, and the Way of Water from The Tao Te Ching.Do we have anybody who is multi religious?
Who worships Christian, Judaism, and Muslim religion?
Kind of jack of all religions?
We have multi skilled workforce, so why not have multi religious society?
Guess you could sue God -( note I'm a catho ) , the Pope is the Prince on earth , but he and every Cardinal in the line up are either barristers or economists .
PS.. if we are to lay blame at the feet of Christ , the poison pill there is that Judism says he doesn't exist , so we can't prosecute a non-entity .
How's that for a catch 22 ?
Indeed, it's what we're all attempting, via differing routes, and differing perceptions of what enlightenment is.Conversion is certainly not the aim for an atheist, enlightenment is.
Guess you could sue God -
just like Billy Connolly did
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=169184&highlight=connolly#post169184
The Man Who Sued God
Directed by Mark Joffe
Written by John Clarke
Don Watson
Starring Billy Connolly
Judy Davis
Release date(s) 2001
Running time 97 mins
Country Australia
IMDb profile
DVD coverThe Man Who Sued God is a 2001 Australian movie in which Billy Connolly plays Steve Myers, an ex-lawyer who sues God because his boat is struck by lightning, and his insurance company refuses to pay, claiming it to be an act of God. By claiming to be God's representatives on Earth, the Christian and Jewish churches are held to be the liable party, putting them in the difficult position of either having to pay out large sums of money, or proving that God does not exist.
It has been said that despite a seemingly ludicrous premise, the movie is not as comedic as one would think, and deals with some very serious subjects, such as the ever-present threat of Australian bushfires, the church in contemporary society, and most notably; the role of large insurance companies and the way in which they can affect the people whose insurance claims are rejected, raising the very valid question, "Who actually decides if an event is an act of God or not, and who defines the nature of these acts ? Churches or Insurance companies ?"
Award-winning actress Judy Davis (who plays journalist Anna Redmond) is the wife of actor Colin Friels, who co-stars as Steve Myers's brother in the film.
This should be an easy question for a pantheist.Like either he's omnipotent or he isnt.
And even if an arsonist starts a bushfire - why then , couldn't he just organise a downpour ?
Exactly - throw out the Heaven and Hell stuff, and adopt the moral teachingsI think there are useful philosophies in every religion. Even an Atheist may use these philosophies to improve their life. As a couple of examples, there is the Golden Rule as expressed in the New Testament, and the Way of Water from The Tao Te Ching.
Maybe not those who worship multi religions, but perhaps some who draw from the texts of several religions (and discarding what one considers BS)
This should be an easy question for a pantheist.
Well even pantheism seems to be a broad church, as both those mentioned on the site and those of the Wicca religion are considered to be pantheists.???????????????????
haha - As a keyboard wielding MILITANT FUNDAMENTALIST Pantheist... "I object Your Honour - for I know not what about which they talk!!!":
Well even pantheism seems to be a broad church, as both those mentioned on the site and those of the Wicca religion are considered to be pantheists.
It should still be an easy question though... or is it?
Oh.Yep - Pantheism is a broad idea - I guess thats good really - plenty of room for everyone!
The question may or may not be an easy one... and i could comment... if I could pinpoint what the question is!!
ie omnipotent??; or bushfires/rainstorms?
Oh.
I'm seeing the question as: If God Is omnipotent, why doesn't he put out the fire with a rainstorm?
This presumes that God is separate from the fire. Whereas a pantheist (a theist pantheist anyway) believes that God is all and all is God, therefore the fire and God are one (as is humanity and all else) and just is. This means there is no reason to create a rainstorm (also God) to put out the fire. It would be God extinguishing God.
Substitute "God" for "Nature" as the case may be.
Am I losing anyone? LOL
I'm seeing the question as: If God Is omnipotent, why doesn't he put out the fire with a rainstorm?
You're one ahead of me Wayne (but I follow your reasoning about pantheism). I'm still trying to figure out why it's logically necessary to include "must extinguish all bushfires" in the definition of omnipotence.
Well, according to Billy Connolly / John Clarke,- IF the insurance coy calls it an act of God, and uses that excuse to "pass the buck" - then you should be able to sue him / her / it .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?