Is there a GOD?

[Julia]

Another thing that has me confused is how far will man/woman get before before something is done about the destruction. We are born into this life and deal with what is happening the best (or worst) way we know how.From our parents and teachers and the undesirables we learn how to get through life but I`ll be hanged,drawn and quartered if they taught me how to care for the planet.
Island life taught me about recycling and not to waste food and water(or you get fed to the sharks).We get born,go to school ( I wish I was a kid forever)get taught how to wead & wight then off to work we trot.We go to work `cause ya needs the money son.Wiff da money you buy da food,wiff da money you buy da clothes and wiff da money you buy da house.So pack ya bags and pee off. And good luck.
25 years (good luck,bad luck.. who knows) later, after more slips,trips,falls,mistakes,babies,fights,drinks,crashes,pain,joy,happiness,laughs,contentment.... (the big picture ..not a pixel) I see that the same system still exists. Is there no other way?



AJ Hi,every single human being on this earth sins every day.I have many examples if anyone doubts this.You cannot be human and not sin.Investing in shares is one to begin with.

Why exactly is investing in shares a sin???

 

[Julia]

True knowing that there is a God can bring comfort and hope, but to follow the teachings of Jesus, takes a lot of courage and guts in a world that as I can see, has no interest in God.

It takes courage and strength to turn away from sin and walk God's way. It takes courage and strength to stand up against the peer pressures. It takes courage for the person on the job to take a stand against low humor, pornography, indecency and bad language.


...

Plenty of people manage to do the above without necessarily believing in God, though personally under certain circumstances I find the odd bit of bad language is entirely appropriate and satisfying.

 

[disarray]

the belief in the existence of a universally supreme being who loves humanity, takes a personal interest in the day to day mundanity of our lives and offers an eternal existence once the flesh dies is the height of human arrogance. we are so special god loves us most out of everything in an infinite universe? sure ....

go to the hubble space telescope site and look at some pictures of the universe. to comprehend such a scale and then somehow be able to relate all that hugeness to some 6 thousand year old mythical construct is delusional. i understand people need spirituality, but people should look further than the rantings of 6000 year old madmen.

any creature of sufficiently advanced technology and intelligence could appear as "godlike" to us, as we must seem godlike to cats and dogs. every day our doctors perform "miracles" that were unheard of 50 years ago, let alone 2000 (cure for leprosy anyone?). we create matter out of thin air, smash atoms together in particle accelerators and are about to form black holes in the laboratory. we are tinkering with the fundamental structure of the universe and there is no place for our current concept of "god" there. there is something however that is far more comforting - its called "nature".

noahs flood - many cultures have a "great flood" story. a good theory doing the rounds is that a very early civilisation living in the black sea basin got flushed out due to rising sea levels at the end of the last ice age and its descendents spread the word.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

human ancestry - we all evolved in africa 60 thousand years ago. we can track genetic markers to follow the migration of humans throughout the world.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

the nature of the universe - looking at the 10th dimension

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

playing with the fundamental forces of the universe at cern

http://unisci.com/stories/20014/1001012.htm

our current concept of god is primitive and outdated. as early christians laughed at fire worshipping pagans as primitive savages, so we can view christians / jews / muslims of today the same way. god needs an overhaul.

do humans need spirituality? a sense of place in an infinite universe? an acceptance of where we come from and where we go after we die? yes.

do we need a 6000 year old myth to tell us where to find this? no.

we need to kill god, but first we need a new spirituality, a new morality to fill the void. then maybe the world will be a better place.

p.s. for the christians - the Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5327692

 

[Rafa]

I find the odd bit of bad language is entirely appropriate and satisfying.

yes, why exactly is investing in shares a sin...?
its crap like this that makes people turn away from organised religion and GOD.


We really need to be sure that what comes from the mouth of ‘man’, is dealt with as such…

Its like the whole world is round thing… it has nothing to with Jesus / GOD. Everything to do with religious institutions in a desperate attempt to hold onto power.

That still happens to this day… you don’t have to go much further than Johnny Howard, with the children overboard saga… Didn’t see him get voted out for that… after all its just politics.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Why exactly is investing in shares a sin???

Hi julia , how`s it going,in reply to your question..

Gluttony ,greed and wrath are three sins that being involved in shares brings out.
Here is what ASX determines as ethical ...
Ethical investing
Many investors want their investment holdings to reflect their values, and support companies that behave in ways they consider appropriate or responsible. That is why growing numbers are getting behind investment managers that are perceived to be doing the right thing on a range of ethical, social and environmental issues.

BUT..my reasoning is that polluting the earth is a sin.All companies to a greater or lesser degree contribute to the pollution.In the products they use :steels,plastics,paints,rubbers,glass,paper,ceramics (have a look around there`s more).These products,although some are recycled, MOST goes to the hole in the ground near your city or town.

Good day to you ma`am.

 

[2020hindsight]

An example of how you have to define your terms :-
a sin in archery means you missed the bullseye.
And a greater the distance you miss by, the bigger the sin

I wonder if that also applies for guilt-edged swords ?

Is making a motsa on the market sinful? - depends on what you do with the money (is my guess)
(and is losing a motsa sinful? lol - probably, again depends on what you would have done with etc)

Is gambling at the STAR casino beyond your means sinful?
Is gambling on the ASX casino beyond your means sinful?
What do you mean by beyond your means?
Is it a sin to take a profit?
Is it a sin not to take a profit? ahhh SHUDDUP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation. The English word sin was originally an archery term. The distance from the center of the bullseye to the point where an arrow struck is known as the 'sin of the arrow'. Sin is often used meaning an action thought of as wrong or prohibited however in some religions (most notably Christianity), sin or sinning is not something that is done but rather a state of mind.

In monotheistic religions, the code of conduct is determined by God. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienative might be termed "sinful".

Common ideas surrounding sin in various religions include:
a. Punishment for sins, from other people, from God either in life or in afterlife, or from the Universe in general.
b. The question of whether or not an act must be intentional to be sinful.
c. The idea that one's conscience should produce guilt for a knowing sin.
d. A scheme for determining the seriousness of the sin.
e. Repentance from (expressing regret for and determining not to commit) sin, and atonement (repayment) for past deeds.
f. The possibility of forgiveness of sins, often through communication with a deity or intermediary; in Christianity often referred to as salvation.

Like the priest in the pulpit going through the ten commandments ..
couldn't help noticing a bloke in the 5th row get really agitated when he said "though shalt not steal" - and he determined to talk to him after the service to see what was troubling him. But when he got to the "though shalt not commit adultery" the fellow seemed to relax.

Meeting him on the way out he asked the man why etcetc.
well said the fellow, when you said "thou shalt not steal", I thought "where the heck's my coat!!" but then when you said "thou shalt not commit adultery" I remembered where I'd left it.
(sheesh !!! how OLD are these jokes )

 

[2020hindsight]

In the buddhist sense, I'd say any gambling is a "negative" and "far too likely to lead to suffering" - but not a sin, mainly because they don't have sins (according to Wikipedia anyway)
just a guess, I'll happily be corrected by someone who knows Buddhism better than I.

In summary, it would seem that in most religions,
"if you win, then its no sin
if you lose, it's ..
back to the booze(?)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin Buddhist views of sin
Buddhism doesn't recognize the idea behind Sin because in Buddhism, instead, there is a Cause-Effect Theory, known as Karma, or action. In general, Buddhism illustrates intentions as the cause of Karma, either good or bad. Furthermore, most thoughts in any being's mind can be negative.

Vipaka, the result of your Karma, may create low quality living, hardships, destruction and all means of disharmony in life and it may also create the healthy living, easiness, and harmony in life. Good deeds produce good results while bad deeds produce bad results. Karma and Vipaka is your own action and result.

Pañcasīla (Pāli) is the fundamental code of Buddhist ethics, willingly undertaken by lay followers of Gautama Buddha. It is a basic understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path, which is a buddhist teaching on ways to stop suffering.

Pancasila
I undertake the rule to refrain from destroying living creatures.
I undertake the rule to refrain from taking that which is not given.
I undertake the rule to refrain from sexual misconduct.
I undertake the rule to refrain from incorrect speech.
I undertake the rule to refrain from intoxicants which lead to carelessness.
Noble Eightfold Path
Right View
Right Intention
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Work
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration
These ultimately lead to cessation of suffering and thus is a way to be free of Samsara. After that, Nirvana is achieved.

 

[Mousie]

If the human sepecies as we know it were obliterated by say a comet hitting earth.
What would we be left with?
No religion.
Evolution would continue until another life form evolved that had conscious thought.
Would it not be natural as they evolved to then start again with Sun,Mountain,Sea etc worship to explain to the developing mind the un explainable.
Are we so primative that even when we can explain the un explainable we chose to ignore it---for a time anyway.

Many of the Old religious ways of primative people are looked upon as laughable now.
Perhaps in not so many years so to will todays civilisations also be laughed at for their fanaticism and primative beliefs.

Mind you power in religion guarentees a long fight between rational arguement and dogged determination in the spreading of "faith".

tech/a,

Yes, I believe this whole cycle of animisme (hope that's the spelling) will repeat itself if we're wiped off the face of the earth. The very reason why some of our ancestors started worshipping the various things of nature is because they can't see the overall picture (of a God-created universe) YET. In most cases that require a change in mindset, humans need time (oftentimes lots of it) to adapt. Let's not laugh at them; just let them be.

BTW, I do agree that religion is more about a form of control than about discovering God himself; a lot of rules added onto the seekers of God did much to disillusion the masses as to question God's very existence himself!

Mousie, I don't understand your first paragraph,

Robroy, for your convenience, I quote a previous passage of mine, written before your post.

This is now encroaching into another creationism vs evolutionism battle, where (again!) each side will believe what they want to believe.

I cannot explain what I can't see, ie whether we existed as a result of evolution or creation. FWIW, believing in creationism or evolutionism or anything at all, involves faith in the accuracy of your judgment of the (academic/scientific/etc.) material presented to you. Yes, including the "The God Delusion" book you're currently reading! (at that time, this was referring to tech/a; now, it is Robroy's various scientific sources)

But what I can see is that nature is the purest form of life itself; no one can claim to have manipulated nature (save genetic modification) and its seasons, and the way it makes you feel toward everything else nature since the day you're born to present you their beliefs and worldview. And that is how I know God exists; as simple, as pure and as unadulterated as that.

but below that you said:

"...has anyone noticed how, if God does not exist since the beginning of time, we keep on debating these kinda things month after month, year after year, decade after decade, centuries after centuries, even millenia after millenia? Interesting, ain't it?"

I think that just underlines my point about our religious hard wiring. It goes back millennia (the singular is 'millennium' BTW), and will no doubt be around for as long as we're here (about another 50 years or so, the way global warming is going). It doesn't say anything about the existence of God, just about our proclivity to believe.

And why would we be hard-wired to believe in God?

It is because God made us. There are only two entities that could have created us and this whole shebang we call the "universe", a "who" and a "what". How could a "what" possibly make us out to be God-wired? I shall quote a yet still further back post I made on this thread:

Just as science is meant to be a study as to how things work, these studies will, if done correctly and without bias, ultimately and unfailingly point to the intricacy and remarkableness of how things are. We could not have just existed out of thin air, nor could things past have. This remarkable excellence with which things are made alone points to a higher power at work; one which we cannot even begin to comprehend its brain power.

Things can't just exist and fall in place; they need something to move it. If you want to see your business get started, you go get it started; you don't sit and wait. Why then do the seasons come and go? Who could have motivated the change in seasons? Who could have put those systems in place?

Maybe the "who" should have been "what", I hear you say. Well then, how does this "what" enable us to care about these questions as we gaze at things created by this "what"? A "what" is an object; a "who" is a person. How can a "what" make us feel with our heart how amazing the wind, the sun, and the moon and the stars are? How can a "what" make us love another person, if that "what" created us all? The "what" has got to have feelings to give us feelings. We couldn't give of something we don't already have.

SUMMARY: This is where the "what" gives way to a "who". A mere object could not possibly have such power over both things of the mind and things of the heart. This power, this higher being, has gotta be something capable of relational powers. This has to be GOD...

I rest my case.

The creation of the Universe by the Big Bang is not faith-based, it's the hypothesis for which we have by far the most evidence. Do some reading in the physics field and you will see what I mean.

You asked me to explain more clearly how organic life arose spontaneously. I could try - but I'm not an organic chemist, so I would refer you to the works of Richard Dawkins, who describes the original process of the creation of life - and outlines the voluminous evidence for it - in several thick books, such as 'The Selfish Gene'.

Again, as explained above, when it comes to making a choice between believing what I see of nature with my own eyes and believing in the accuracy of Richard Dawkins' works, I'd have to decline the latter.

"We don't need religion to survive." (Etc.)

I think you're confusing your atheist friend's survival with 'survival' of our species in the evolutionary sense. You really have to do some reading on evolution - it's how you got here after all - so we can discuss this with a bit of common ground.

Basically, religion gave us meaning and bound communities together, and provided moral codes, which helped Homo Sapiens hunting bands to survive bleak winters, sabre-toothed tigers, each other, etc.

It's true that the scientific findings on the brain don't refute the existence of God. But they do refute the claim that 'divine' experiences are proof of God.

I smell a contradiction. If they don't refute the existence of God, they can't refute that 'divine' experiences are proof of God, could they?

'Divine' experiences, like everything else nature, are proof of God.

"The entire nature points out God's existence to me, deafeningly loud and clear, even in the silence of the fields."

I had that same feeling for many years. Sadly, I have been cured by education. I am adapted by evolution to feel that way. I am also adapted by evolution to love my children more than yours. That doesn't objectively prove that my children are better (or more loveable) than yours. It merely proves that the impulse is there in me.

Agreed about the impulse part.

Education is important, but when we become convicted by it to deny even what remaining pureness that exists in front of them, we become just another cog in a wheel.

Speaking of education, I fully agree and identify with Richard Branson who said "I learnt more about business in three months doing it myself than I could have in three years doing a business degree".

Mousie you stated several times over that God exists - without offering any evidence as yet.

I've presented my evidence. Now it's your turn.

Robroy, I believe what is here should be more than adequate evidence, without relying on faith of any sort.

My issue with this argument is that with science we can analyse and present evidence simply because we have a theory and we prove it. Eg, earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, AIDS is a homosexual disease: long before we have the foresight to question these things, these fallacies are as much a part of the human consciousness/belief system as the suppositions we now hold dear.

That is, with time, the human race has discovered certain things we believe to be incontrovertible truths. But our endeavours, our discoveries are boxed within the framework of human understanding and rationality and seem to be limited to linear time. Such as DNA - the human body has always been there, but 17th century doctors no more conceived this than a means of sending digital data down a thin, flexible glass pipe at light speed.

If a=b+c, then c=a-b, right?

My take on it is YES, FOR NOW.

If you take it there is a GOD, then no theorem can hope to define something that is completely immeasurable.

And if you have proven that "c" does that mean there is not a "d(c)" somewhere around the corner. People of faith hold to a theory that does not really change - That art Thou (or a similar construct) - forever and a day. Science holds to laws that are much more mutable and one-day we may discover yet more about the universe we spin around in.

For now, we cannot rationalise the irrational - some people can live with faith, others need logic. The melding of the two is not sensible. The proving of one thing does not disprove the other. For many, even the evidence of no god, is of God, since everything is God.

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[Julia]

Hi julia , how`s it going,in reply to your question..

Gluttony ,greed and wrath are three sins that being involved in shares brings out.
Here is what ASX determines as ethical ...
Ethical investing
Many investors want their investment holdings to reflect their values, and support companies that behave in ways they consider appropriate or responsible. That is why growing numbers are getting behind investment managers that are perceived to be doing the right thing on a range of ethical, social and environmental issues.

BUT..my reasoning is that polluting the earth is a sin.All companies to a greater or lesser degree contribute to the pollution.In the products they use :steels,plastics,paints,rubbers,glass,paper,ceramics (have a look around there`s more).These products,although some are recycled, MOST goes to the hole in the ground near your city or town.

Good day to you ma`am.

You are, of course, entitled to your view.
I'm just finding it a bit hard not to indulge in some of the previously referred to bad language in response.

 

[retroaugogo]

Seems rather silly discussing types of sins when people don't even acknowledge the existance of God.

Like talking about methods of daytrading when the person has no interest in the stockmarket.


If they come into contact with a perfect God they'll soon realise that they are clothed in very filthy rags

 

[Rafa]

You are, of course, entitled to your view.
I'm just finding it a bit hard not to indulge in some of the previously referred to bad language in response.

Julia, you can take it from me, that if you do indulge in the aforementioned bad language in response to this post, it WILL NOT be a SIN

 

[wayneL]

Seems rather silly discussing types of sins when people don't even acknowledge the existance of God.

Like talking about methods of daytrading when the person has no interest in the stockmarket.

Actually "sin" is a judeo/christian concept. Along the lines of Buddhism (as pointed out by 2020) one can be a believer in (insert favourite pseudonym) and reject the concept of sin. I'm sure Christians will jump up and down over this but rejection of "sin" does not preclude the person from trying to do "right" such as in the Noble Eightfold Path, Tao and the Jedi Code . Subtle, but very important difference.

In the Christian (et al) tradition, people try to do right because they are scared of being chucked in hell. Negative.

In other traditions, people try to do right just because it is right. Positive. Even atheists and agnostics may live by this concept.

What is right and wrong? That is the fantastic journey of life. You get to learn that as you go along... or, as I am beginning to learn, everything is right and everything is wrong, and all at the same time. It just depends how you look at it.

More clutter of ideas.:

Note: I'm probably just saying the same thing as others above.

 

[wayneL]

though personally under certain circumstances I find the odd bit of bad language is entirely appropriate and satisfying.

Julia

Where I live, "bad language" is just verbal padding. What could be said in 5-8 words in "basic English" takes 16 words.

I suppose as people rarely have anything worthwhile to say outside of footy and beer, it keeps the conversation going a bit longer.

I'm with you though Julia, I like to save it for when appropriate.... er, sometimes inappropriate, but HIGHLY satisfying.

 

[retroaugogo]

In the Christian (et al) tradition, people try to do right because they are scared of being chucked in hell. Negative.

In other traditions, people try to do right just because it is right. Positive. Even atheists and agnostics may live by this concept.

Actually as a christian I try do do right because it pleases God, not because I have anything to gain or lose from it.It's not a chore,more a mark of respect.
When you have a relationship with someone you want to please them.

Of course nobody is perfect.That's where forgiveness is sought.



Sin wouldn't be so attractive if the wages were paid immediately."
Unknown, Author

 

[Dukey]

Hi julia , how`s it going,in reply to your question..

Gluttony ,greed and wrath are three sins that being involved in shares brings out.
Here is what ASX determines as ethical ...
Ethical investing
Many investors want their investment holdings to reflect their values, and support companies that behave in ways they consider appropriate or responsible. That is why growing numbers are getting behind investment managers that are perceived to be doing the right thing on a range of ethical, social and environmental issues.

BUT..my reasoning is that polluting the earth is a sin.All companies to a greater or lesser degree contribute to the pollution.In the products they use :steels,plastics,paints,rubbers,glass,paper,ceramics (have a look around there`s more).These products,although some are recycled, MOST goes to the hole in the ground near your city or town.

Good day to you ma`am.

Sorry WISYWYG - I`m not quite getting something here - in DIRE need of clarification...
1. By your own definition Share traders or even investors are SINNERS.
2. Now, we all know - or at least those who subscribe to the Almight God theory apparently know - that sinners will be punished in hell for all eternity...boiling cauldrens, flaming torches on the ass - all that juicy stuff.
3. We can also presume from your previous posts that you are one of those who believe in the Almighty.

So - if you WISYWIG are investing or trading in any shares - then you are by your own argument sinning (& knowingly), and therefore condemning yourself to Hell!!!:whip

Please tell me if my logic is flawed??
On the other hand ... maybe you don't actually own any shares - and are simply a 'contientious observer' of the market.????

 

[constable]

Actually as a christian I try do do right because it pleases God, not because I have anything to gain or lose from it.It's not a chore,more a mark of respect.
When you have a relationship with someone you want to please them.

Of course nobody is perfect.That's where forgiveness is sought.



Sin wouldn't be so attractive if the wages were paid immediately."
Unknown, Author

Having a relationship with a "god" and wanting to please them, sure does sound strange when you put it like that. Glad we still dont sacrifice lambs especially with its price at the butchers!
Are you sure "god" is not just an imaginary friend for adults?

 

[happytown]

well as posted previously i was researching and on the hunt for a god on account of feeling somewhat like i was missing out on something fantabulous

success

and through this i feel i can once and for all answer the question monstrum that has vexed all since the birth of this thread

for i am now a rumsfeldian

and the answer follows,

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

blessed harmony bestowed upon thy all (in lieu of a meditative and deeply understanding smiley)

 

[Robroy]

Wow, that's interesting, and would obviously be very controversial - Is this covered in any of those references you mention, Rob.?

No, though you can read about it in 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Pagels, and in many other books.

Actually it's well-accepted by Bible scholars. The reason it sounds controversial is that we live in a Christian society and it is a bedrock belief that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. The fact that that was cooked up in the third century is never mentioned.

The story of the gospels is the story of most good ideas: rapidly co-opted by the powerful for their own ends. (George Bush shoring up the Bible Belt vote to ensure backing for the slaughter in Iraq is a modern example.)

Constantine, the Emperor who called the Council of Nicea (mentioned by another poster here) told the attending bishops that from now on Jesus was divine and had existed from the beginning of time. He was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Till that point the majority of Christians believed otherwise.

After that point, those who disputed the Constantine view were censured, even put to the sword. Their gospels - in which Jesus, for example, taught meditation, and preached against a church hierarchy - were burned.

A set of these scriptures was only rediscovered in 1947. It's called the Nag Hammadi find. At that point Christianity should have collapsed - but of course the power of denial being what it is, nothing happened at all.

Constantine had a number of gods by the way - his favourite was the sun god, Sol Invictus. Rather an irony given that he was the founder of the Christian Church.

Anyway, despite all that, I am no Christian-basher. I live in Thailand, and the greatest suffering in this part of the world is by the hundreds of thousands of Burmese who are driven from their homes at gunpoint by their military government (because they belong to the wrong ethnic group mostly).

Thousands of them live in scratch camps in the jungle. If you walk through eastern Burma you will sometimes find a couple of hundred of them sitting under a group of trees, having just watched their village get burned down and been told to leave the area - wondering what the hell to do next.

Anyway, the only people who give a toss about these guys are Christian missionaries. (The Buddhist Thais don't care about them - they believe it's their karma.) The Christians - a group called the Free Burma Rangers is particularly active - go into the jungle unarmed, carrying food, medicines and even schoolbooks for the kids. They've saved hundreds of lives, maybe thousands. They help these people to relocate, build new villages, whatever. Occasionally one of the Christians steps on a landmine; they also get sick. They don't see their families for months at a time. But the keep going, and they don't care about the religion of those they help: Buddhists, Christians and animists all get the same treatment.

So I am in the curious position of admiring many Christians - especially ones out this way: home-grown bible-bashers I can take or leave - but not believing in God.

 

[Julia]

Julia, you can take it from me, that if you do indulge in the aforementioned bad language in response to this post, it WILL NOT be a SIN

Thanks, Rafa. I'm suitably reassured.
I think it might have been being addressed as ma'am that got to me on top of the questionable content of the message.

 

[Julia]

In the Christian (et al) tradition, people try to do right because they are scared of being chucked in hell. Negative.

In other traditions, people try to do right just because it is right. Positive. Even atheists and agnostics may live by this concept.

Exactly. I find the concept that only those who believe in God have any understanding of a moral and ethical philosophy patronising and completely unrealistic.