For the sake of accuracy in response, I've taken the liberty of numbering the main points of the previous posts so that I may respond accordingly to each individual comment.
hence all one is left with is temporary attachments and coping mechanisms to deal with the inherent problems - enter the Buddhist doctrine et al
destructive to what?
IF something can be destroyed, its a sure sign that it is material.
1) The only thing destroyed by attachment to god is ignorance
Some would say that its constitutional - IOW its a symptom of life, period.
2) Its an extended sense of self - my people, my country, my family, etc. IOW the key dynamic in such an act is a sense of self (a particular body that took place in a particular environment and will shortly cease to exist) as applied to other similar temporally designated living entities - hence it's subject to all the failings and frustrations of attachment in a temporary world.
3)Then they are dealing with subreligious principles (technically called upadharama - or a nearness to dharma).
IOW religion that doesn't deal with service to god (somewhere down the line) is simply another facet of conditioned existence (albeit it may be striving to a higher wrung of conditioned existence, but nevertheless remains by the standard parameters of conditioned existence - namely suffering in a temporary world)
I am not sure what you mean by a moral code applied to the supernatural.
4) At a guess though, I am not talking about applying coping mechanisms to deal with material existence (such as strengthening practices of tolerance and renunciation - which btw, are practices adverse to what was earlier mentioned as constitutional). I am talking about entering a state where the moral necessity for altruism (IOW "good acts" tempered by healthy doses of renunciation, sacrifice and tolerance) is non-existent namely because the conditions commonly attributed to conditioned existence are non- existent.
IOW an environment where attachment is allowed free reign since such notions of renunciation and austerity are meaningless since the required suffering that gives them meaning (ie temporary existence in a temporary world with a temporary sense of self) is non-existent.
1) On what grounds is this evident? The opposite effect comes to mind when you state that by acknowledging and attaching one’s self to God that one is, essentially, no longer ignorant.
If anything, by that supernatural attachment, one is simply ignoring one’s own self and the reality of the world around them by attaching themselves to the quite unproven ideology of a being which cannot be perceived within the realm of our senses. It is that blind faith, hence the 'blind', that results in the ignorance of the true nature of this earth and of reality itself.
2) Now, we touch on the world of physics and, more specifically, into Einstein's theory of relativity - but with a twist to accommodate the reference of human condition and existence.
This argument is only valid when you place the center of existence and experience in yourself. What happens when you base experience and from another point, say that of a stem of grass or of God itself? "My" becomes "The".
But that's a whole different discussion.
3) So religion isn't religion if it doesn't revolve around the idea of a God and the service to it? That seems a bit egotistical and ultimately closed-minded. Is it not, in your opinion, possible that one can achieve a higher existence as well as higher morality and furthered awareness without the revolvement of one’s own self to God?
4) This has nothing to do with coping mechanisms. I am referring to the basic fundamental difference among various religions and their individual interpretations of the supernatural; (God, the afterlife, existence of a soul, eating meat, etc). The basic moral differences between each religion and each subtopic are the focus. Most theists set their morals in the worship of God. If you don't believe in or worship God, it is immoral. Buddhists on the other hand, don't take the same moral stance; they do not place their moral standards in such belief.
Thank you, John.
1) The obvious counter-argument would be, the same hypothetical almighty god has also created (or allowed to be created) man-eating crocodiles, yet it's not healthy to be eaten by one. Very, very few Christians I'm aware of leap all the way from "God is good" to "all the world and all that's in it is good".
In fact, the Christian Bible is quite clear on the world (or all the universe, depending on how you translate "kosmos" from the Greek) being in the hands of Satan. See eg 1 John 5:19 and parallels. In Genesis, it says all the earth is cursed for the sake of Original Sin.
2) Fundamentalists, who take the Bible somewhat literally, quite logically conclude that life on earth is in and of itself a punishment. In this they hearken back all the way to St Augustine in the 4th century, if not before. The presence of false religions (which again according to the Bible are scams set up by Satan and his demons to lure people down into hell) is then also proof of this -- they're here for the purpose to test and tempt man, so only those of pure faith can be saved.
3) God, being omnipotent, omniscient and inscrutable, allows it all for reasons we can't guess. He works in strange ways, as the proverbial saying goes.
1) The ideas that "God is good" and that "all God's creation is good" really aren't that far apart, according to their theology. The simple ideas and beliefs that most Christians uphold is that A) God is good. B) God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. C) God wants the best for us.
In those beliefs one could argue that if God is truly A, B and C, then that because he is B, then he would ensure that we do have a perfect existence - that suffering would be non-existent, that the universe would be perfectly made in our favor. Of course, neither are the case. The morality of God, according to most Abrahamic religions, seems quite flawed. And I'd go so far as to even say that basic human and social moral constructs are higher and more deserving of respect and admiration than that of the God that is written about in the Old and New Testaments.
If God truly was working for our best interest, he wouldn't (according to the Bible), have created the flood, natural disasters, disease, pestilence, illness, or even the fruit of the tree of knowledge in the beginning. The serpent would have never existed, nor even the simple temptation of the fruit.
And to go a few steps further, God - if he was truly omniscient and omnipresent, wouldn't have been able to lose Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, as is presented in Genesis 3:9. Of course, this isn't the only example we have, again, according to the Bible, that God is clearly not an all-knowing, all-present being.
2) Yes, it is not a distant fact that we are born into suffering. It is an ongoing struggle of survival which contains the inevitability and certainty of death, regardless of how well we attempt to live our lives. The fact that the Bible expresses such a view is not evident or supportive of the books credibility. It is merely a fact of life, interpreted and translated into that which can be expressed to the religious, though I would hope that, religious or not, everyone has the common sense to acknowledge that living is a struggle of survival and that the only option in the end is death. And that is why, I believe, that religions exist in the first place; to find an alternative to death (life after death). That is the core of religious belief and motivation. We want to live. If we are promised life beyond life, we want it and we will do anything to ensure that we get it, including the adherence to morally bankrupt and contradictory dogmas.
3) The excuse that God is unknowable and thus impossible of our understanding and that we must simply have blind faith is a non-evidential argument that holds no credibility, much less moral comfort. And the paradoxical hypocrisy that I find in this argument is that Christians claim as fact that they know the truth and that it is written in the Bible. They say that they know God's word and his will. Furthermore, many go leaps and bounds further to claim that God speaks directly to them and that they have a "personal relationship with Jesus/God". YET, in the very next sentence, when confronted with an inquiry which neither them nor their faith can answer, they shy down and say, word for word, the very thing you have.
Some people say that. Some other people say that it is precisely religion that can make soldiers good soldiers.
This is a fictional example (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY61XmDJ-1w), but after seeing it, I am inclined to think that such people as that sniper indeed exist.
Personally, I'd rather not have a sniper who has to stop, pray, and kiss is rosary or cross every time he has to pull the trigger. It's a waste of time. You're either mentally stable enough to be able to deal with trials of war by yourself, or you're not. You're either a good shot or you're not. There is no evidence to support that ritual increases ability or skill.
Sure. But the results you get from that might not be the most there is.
Agree'd. However, the same can be said from reading the Bible, can it not?
