Actually buddha never claimed to be a god, and christianity does claim that all other gods are false in the old testament Exodus 20:3
ah but every religion is diff so we cun generalise and say tat all religion teach gd cos wad is gd? we need to go down to definitions again...sigh...do u noe y christians say theres onli one God? cos we define God diff from others...to most ppl, god means higher being, deity, enlightened maybe all-knowing...but to the creationists, God has 1 additional yet crucial meaning...tat is God means creator of the universe...so when we say there is onli 1 God, in essence we mean theres onli 1 creator...now if u take tis definition, then many religions will be eliminated...onli islam, christianity and judaism are left...
Originally posted by despondent:ah but every religion is diff so we cun generalise and say tat all religion teach gd cos wad is gd? we need to go down to definitions again...sigh...do u noe y christians say theres onli one God? cos we define God diff from others...to most ppl, god means higher being, deity, enlightened maybe all-knowing...but to the creationists, God has 1 additional yet crucial meaning...tat is God means creator of the universe...so when we say there is onli 1 God, in essence we mean theres onli 1 creator...now if u take tis definition, then many religions will be eliminated...onli islam, christianity and judaism are left...
Yes, every religion is different but the marriage example takes theism vs atheism as marriage is between yes and no. However the point you are making is between yes and yes, if you see what i mean. About the point of eliminations, i find your argument unsound, almost every major religion has a creation story. Hindus have their story, taoists have their story. Islam, Judaism and Christianity merely share monotheism. (if the story of the trinity is accepted)
so going by pascal's wager, wad it mean by God is actually referring to creator...so tat explains why it sways towards christianity and maybe judaism and islam as well....cos if no creator, i dun lose anything by believing in one...but if there is one and i dun believe, then i will be in trouble cos since He can create the whole universe, then He has to be very very powerful...lets not include whether he is gd or evil...
Originally posted by despondent:so going by pascal's wager, wad it mean by God is actually referring to creator...so tat explains why it sways towards christianity and maybe judaism and islam as well....cos if no creator, i dun lose anything by believing in one...but if there is one and i dun believe, then i will be in trouble cos since He can create the whole universe, then He has to be very very powerful...lets not include whether he is gd or evil...
My earlier post states that other religions have their creation stories as well. If there is a creator, how do you know he is the christian god?
but buddha nvr claimed to be creator...taoism in original essence wasnt abt deities at all...hindus cun even be sure if there is one...onli islam, judaism and christianity are clear there is one and onli one...
i am saying abt marrying and not marrying...cos u see, ppl here are saying tat there isnt sufficient/gd enuff evidence to prove existence of God so they dun believe...simply cos science can explain almost everything and evolution has gd evidence...so i am juz asking u to consider marriage...there are evidence on both sides...from the divorce rates as well as the blissful ones...so is there sufficient evidence? if not, y do we still marry despite the lack of evidence?
u need to 1st believe in creation then u can eliminate further...u ready for this?
Originally posted by despondent:but buddha nvr claimed to be creator...taoism in original essence wasnt abt deities at all...hindus cun even be sure if there is one...onli islam, judaism and christianity are clear there is one and onli one...
i am saying abt marrying and not marrying...cos u see, ppl here are saying tat there isnt sufficient/gd enuff evidence to prove existence of God so they dun believe...simply cos science can explain almost everything and evolution has gd evidence...so i am juz asking u to consider marriage...there are evidence on both sides...from the divorce rates as well as the blissful ones...so is there sufficient evidence? if not, y do we still marry despite the lack of evidence?
i am not ready for religion yet. i will believe in creator and believe that he is very very powerful provided this world is perfect, without natural disasters, humans will not die from diseases. or maybe i will believe in a religion without doubts if the followers of that religion will not die from diseases. but look around us, all the followers of all religion cannot escape from dying from diseases or accidents.
no matter how powerful he is, he must be kind. i will not submit myself to evil force.
Originally posted by despondent:but buddha nvr claimed to be creator...taoism in original essence wasnt abt deities at all...hindus cun even be sure if there is one...onli islam, judaism and christianity are clear there is one and onli one...
i am saying abt marrying and not marrying...cos u see, ppl here are saying tat there isnt sufficient/gd enuff evidence to prove existence of God so they dun believe...simply cos science can explain almost everything and evolution has gd evidence...so i am juz asking u to consider marriage...there are evidence on both sides...from the divorce rates as well as the blissful ones...so is there sufficient evidence? if not, y do we still marry despite the lack of evidence?
When you say "one" in the first paragraph do you mean creation or number of gods? This site speaks of the creation stories: http://www.innovationslearning.co.uk/subjects/re/information/creation/creation_home.htm
And that just lists a few of the creation stories. Back to marriage, unless the divorce rate is way above the number of people married, i conclude there is sufficient evidence for it
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:i am not ready for religion yet. i will believe in creator and believe that he is very very powerful provided this world is perfect, without natural disasters, humans will not die from diseases. or maybe i will believe in a religion without doubts if the followers of that religion will not die from diseases. but look around us, all the followers of all religion cannot escape from dying from diseases or accidents.
no matter how powerful he is, he must be kind. i will not submit myself to evil force.
I feel that christianity heaps upon layers and layers of explanation. From the various ways in which people pick and choose what to believe from the bible, to what the church says. When do the people say, enough is enough?
one means onli one creator...i tink i mentioned tat...gods are false means they are not the real supreme ruler on the basis tat they didnt create the universe...
again, allowing sth doesnt mean not noeing and being powerless in preventing...today i may hav the energy to bend an iron rod but does it mean i must exert full force all the time on all things? so if there were times when i chose not to bend the iron rod, does it mean i am less strong/powerless towards bending it? apply this to allowing disasters to happen...
since u are not ready for religion, then we will leave the discussion as it is for now...cos to eliminate further u must be ready for religion...
Originally posted by despondent:one means onli one creator...i tink i mentioned tat...gods are false means they are not the real supreme ruler on the basis tat they didnt create the universe...
again, allowing sth doesnt mean not noeing and being powerless in preventing...today i may hav the energy to bend an iron rod but does it mean i must exert full force all the time on all things? so if there were times when i chose not to bend the iron rod, does it mean i am less strong/powerless towards bending it? apply this to allowing disasters to happen...
since u are not ready for religion, then we will leave the discussion as it is for now...cos to eliminate further u must be ready for religion...
For the creation part other religions may say that the gods worked together to create the universe, mentioned in my post above.
In the part about the iron rod, that would make a case for a deistic god, not one depicted by christianity which cares about the human race. Alternatively it could also be said that there is nothing there to influence the bending of the rod
haha...let juz forget it...my starting pt is tat of a creationist...its a completely diff starting pt from urs...to be very frank, ur rebuttal are not substantial to me juz as mine isnt to u...which is y i said tat we will leave the discussion as it is...
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:Let me use your example of the child. The caning is to teach a lesson, send a message. However what can the genocides and deaths from natural disasters tell us? Furthermore the disasters mostly hit the impoverished.
I tell you, you will never get a sane and coherent reply on this or other questions posed, cos they are not god. can they speak for god? even so, you will get different answers from believers cos thats their own opinions. they are entitled to their opinion as the saying goes.
so you see, if you want to obtain an answer to the world problems or ills, do not seek the answers/solutions from them cos thay have no answers. all they will tell you is how has it all planned out or punishments, or this is a test for them set up by god. so in the end, you will get a myriad of answers to the questions asked.
its better to rely on modern science, chemistry, physics, economics, mathematics and medicine to seek for answers to the world's ills like genocide, poverty, hunger, corruption etc etc. its better to be self reliant than rely on an imagined divine being its existence is yet to be proved.
I tend to be skeptical of healings even though I am a Christian... but more so because I came from a background of pentecostal abuse where people were quick to declare miracles without really checking if it really happened? A few years of this tends to make one cynical... at least to people going around trying to claim things without verification.
On the other hand, I still do believe healings happen because I have witnessed them first hand. A person who was deaf could suddenly hear, and unless he was a plant put into the crowd to decieve us, then very likely this was a miracle.
I believe that real miracles should hold up to medical and scientific checking... if they are real they made a real physical change.
It is naive to think that modern science, chemistry, physics and economics and what have you not will provide the answer to the world's ills. Practically because I believe human nature to be far more telling. These things are just tools and they can, and have been abused. Science has provided us many benefits, but also plenty of evils and pains. The worship of science as the salvation to our issues in my opinion, is a misguided path. Science is a tool, and a powerful one at that. But is is limited by our morality, which is derived from some other source.
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I tend to be skeptical of healings even though I am a Christian... but more so because I came from a background of pentecostal abuse where people were quick to declare miracles without really checking if it really happened? A few years of this tends to make one cynical... at least to people going around trying to claim things without verification.
On the other hand, I still do believe healings happen because I have witnessed them first hand. A person who was deaf could suddenly hear, and unless he was a plant put into the crowd to decieve us, then very likely this was a miracle.
I believe that real miracles should hold up to medical and scientific checking... if they are real they made a real physical change.
It is naive to think that modern science, chemistry, physics and economics and what have you not will provide the answer to the world's ills. Practically because I believe human nature to be far more telling. These things are just tools and they can, and have been abused. Science has provided us many benefits, but also plenty of evils and pains. The worship of science as the salvation to our issues in my opinion, is a misguided path. Science is a tool, and a powerful one at that. But is is limited by our morality, which is derived from some other source.
Religious miracles is a personal thing, can you really test it in a lab?
Like you believe it's naive to think that modern science will provide the answer to the world's ills, I believe it's naive to think that only religions can provide the answer to world's ills.
Worship of science? Science is a God?
Funny how you said science are just tools and can be abused then later you stated that science bring evils and pains to us.
Science has provided us benefits but also "evil" and pains as said by you but I believe religions brought the same things to us.
Originally posted by RoyFang:
Religious miracles is a personal thing, can you really test it in a lab?
Like you believe it's naive to think that modern science will provide the answer to the world's ills, I believe it's naive to think that only religions can provide the answer to world's ills.
Worship of science? Science is a God?
Funny how you said science are just tools and can be abused then later you stated that science bring evils and pains to us.
Science has provided us benefits but also "evil" and pains as said by you but I believe religions brought the same things to us.
You are just restating my point. It is erronous to refer to Science or Religion as a "thing" that automatically determines the behaviour of those who hail by them. At the end of the day people still have the choice to make what they have of it.
Simply put, the worship of science, is ironically, the almost religious faith some put in Science to be the solution of all of mankind's problems... as if the invention of nuclear weapons, super-diseases due to antibiotic abuse, and what have you not.
However I do not see how religion can be "good" or "bad" going from a naturalistic perspective. Good and bad, in the naturalistic perspective, are just irrational human illusions created by society to control its members. It has no real relation to the universe. What is good for one man may be bad for another. The only thing that matters is power and the will to apply it.
By trying to say religion brings "bad" things, one is actually betraying the fact that he has no been able to shed religious thought, this irrational belief in the "goodness" or "badness" of things. One does not need to have a religion in order to behave religiously... the tons of athiests who reject religion, but yet still think mankind is bound by some arbitary moral law that certain behaviours are "bad" are a prime example.
There is no good or bad behaviour, just behaviour that people put labels on.
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:You are just restating my point. It is erronous to refer to Science or Religion as a "thing" that automatically determines the behaviour of those who hail by them. At the end of the day people still have the choice to make what they have of it.
Simply put, the worship of science, is ironically, the almost religious faith some put in Science to be the solution of all of mankind's problems... as if the invention of nuclear weapons, super-diseases due to antibiotic abuse, and what have you not.
However I do not see how religion can be "good" or "bad" going from a naturalistic perspective. Good and bad, in the naturalistic perspective, are just irrational human illusions created by society to control its members. It has no real relation to the universe. What is good for one man may be bad for another. The only thing that matters is power and the will to apply it.
By trying to say religion brings "bad" things, one is actually betraying the fact that he has no been able to shed religious thought, this irrational belief in the "goodness" or "badness" of things. One does not need to have a religion in order to behave religiously... the tons of athiests who reject religion, but yet still think mankind is bound by some arbitary moral law that certain behaviours are "bad" are a prime example.
There is no good or bad behaviour, just behaviour that people put labels on.
The progress of science may have brought troubles and ills, but it is an undeniable fact that you are enjoying the great benefits it brought. You get to see doctors that don't just prescribe "magic" potions, neither do you have to live in caves.
I would not describe any sort of behaviour as being religious, due to the fact that with or without religion, one can still choose his own behaviour, thus no need to bring religion into the picture at all. This arbitrary moral law you stated, everyone lives by it. This "law" changes with the times, like how in the past it was common to keep slaves, be racist etc. We even judge the Bible by the moral standards we hold now, or we would be taking the old testament literally. An example in the new testament is when jesus tells his disciples to hate their families, but many christians don't view this as literal. Why ever not? In the end I agree with your last sentence.
i only like tis sentence
I believe that real miracles should hold up to medical and scientific checking... if they are real they made a real physical change.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:i only like tis sentence
I believe that real miracles should hold up to medical and scientific checking... if they are real they made a real physical change.
Funny thing is that some christians claim that after someone has visited a holy place and accepted their medical condition, thats a miracle.
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:However I do not see how religion can be "good" or "bad" going from a naturalistic perspective. Good and bad, in the naturalistic perspective, are just irrational human illusions created by society to control its members. It has no real relation to the universe. What is good for one man may be bad for another. The only thing that matters is power and the will to apply it.
By trying to say religion brings "bad" things, one is actually betraying the fact that he has no been able to shed religious thought, this irrational belief in the "goodness" or "badness" of things. One does not need to have a religion in order to behave religiously... the tons of athiests who reject religion, but yet still think mankind is bound by some arbitary moral law that certain behaviours are "bad" are a prime example.
There is no good or bad behaviour, just behaviour that people put labels on.
Then wouldn't it be funny that you said: Science has provided us many benefits, but also plenty of evils and pains. When it's not Science rather it's us humans who provided our kind with the benefits, evils and pains? Isn't it like slapping yourself in the mouth?
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:Funny thing is that some christians claim that after someone has visited a holy place and accepted their medical condition, thats a miracle.
Do you mean that his condition did not change after a visit to a holy place?
That's not a miracle.
Originally posted by googoomuck:Do you mean that his condition did not change after a visit to a holy place?
That's not a miracle.
Yeah, no change, just that he didn't feel depressed anymore.
these people are demeaning the word "miracle"
I oso know some Farlonggone got miracle healing too.