Religion Vs God

[earth]

just my 2 cents on extra terrestrial life.. ok think of a football stadium nfl football stadium go to the cent of the field on the 50 yard line now stick a needle in the turn the tip of thatlets say for arguments sace its 1mm sphere.. now take a marble and place that 1mm sphere in the absolutle center of the mable the tip of the needle is earth the our most advanced technology can see out to the mable.. yet the universe is as big as the entire fooball stadium parking lot included

so what some of you are saying there is no other life other than whats on our planet are basing that fact on the mable when there is the rest of the football stadium there could be another 1mm sphere wtih life on it.. as for now your 100% right there is no other life that we know of in that sphere but to say there is no other life in the stadium "giving the endless universe a size" is outrageous and extremly narrow/closed minded

just my 2 cents

The public thinking about extraterrestials can be found in opinion polls.
Opinion polls about extraterrestrials are most revealing…..from the encyclopedia of science…..
A 1997 Time/Yankelovich poll revealed that one third of Americans are convinced that intelligent beings from other worlds have visited the Earth. Of these, nearly two-thirds believe an alien spacecraft came down near Roswell and four-fifths believe the US government is not telling all that it knows about UFOs. In a 1998 poll conducted by the Marist Institute for the Planetary Society, 60 percent of those interviewed thought that there was intelligent life on other planets and of these, 47 percent thought that intelligence elsewhere would be more advanced than us, 40 percent thought it would be at about the same level, and only 13 percent thought it would be less advanced. To the question "Do you think life on other planets is friendly or hostile?", 86 percent thought it would be friendly and 14 percent hostile.

An excerpt from the Library of Halexandria
In polls on the subject, a clear majority of Americans and/or Europeans are definitive on the subject that yes, there is something out there. If you then add anyone believing in a supreme being, angels, divas, gods and goddesses which derive from or spent most of their time off the planet, then by definition, all of these people believe in extraterrestrials.

 

[Lori_7]

Yes,
revelations17:15 & :18
15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

What does those verses mean to you? The Beast mentioned in Rev. chapter 17 has a number and the number is 666. Do you know the meaning of the number 666?

Can Revelations be interpreted correctly? Who is going to interpret Rev. correctly?

did you read that the city sits on seven hills?

 

[Lori_7]

Okay, all christians claim they are born again and have the holy spirit. Do they?

Who can say for sure if a person has the holy spirit and born again or not? In my opinion no one can. Its taken by faith and not fact.

i can say for sure, but i can't speak for anyone else. it's a pretty big deal...hard to miss or mistake. impossible actually (imo).

 

[earth]

did you read that the city sits on seven hills?

To me it seems the author is decribing Rome. The waters are representative of all the peoples' Romans conquered during those days. The great harlot is all the different religions the Roman elite was integrating into the Roman society. It was customary for Rome to integrate other cultures Gods into their own making Rome the harlot.

Question: what happened to the Great harlot? Well, the pope sits there now.

Revelations is sold as predictor concerning the fate of humankind. Actually the prophetic revelation was directed toward the Roman empire.

 

[NMSquirrel]

ok..my take on aliens..
sure..too many solar systems to discount aliens..
(i have actually asked this of several pastors..they said if they were their belief would be seriously shaken..)

two thoughts..
i like to entertain the idea of aliens seeding life,but they ran out of money and forgot about us...

aliens did land on earth and interbred with humans,(homoerectus vs homosapiens?)..they did it so long ago that there is no genetic difference anymore between the two..(see the current Batalstar galactica finale)

anyway..aliens are way off topic...

 

[Jan Ardena]

NMSquirrel,

qualified by whom? (jesus excluded from this as i do believe he was qualified by god)

Out of curiosity, what makes you "believe he was qualified by god"?

ok..i may agree with you on this one(you will have to elaborate on your idea of religion)..as i tend to associate religion with the organizations/institutes..but i am also argueing that man still corrupts it.

The word "religion" is said to come from the (latin i think) term re-ligare, -ligare meaning to join/bind, re- meaning again.
To bind again, with God. Which makes sense when you read any scripture.
In the OT you can see how this is played out through Adam, who was once
joined to God, then he became loose, and then had the task of finding his way back to his original position. That, IMO, is the simplest way to understand religion.
Religion is passed down from God to man. It starts out pure, then over time becomes diluted with irreligious, man-made principles, till it is no longer the same. At that point, religion has to become manifest again, to cater for the new type of consciousness, and so on. This is my understanding.

now this i will seriously argue with..this is not the only way..
you are stating that god cannot communicate directly to us,that he honors some sort of chain of command,IOW how is that person getting his knowledge/wisdom and why is he so special to god that god would instruct him and not me?

I didn't state that.
The question is; are we at the point where we are ready for direct communion with God?
For example, we communicate differently to a child, than we would to an
adult, because the child is still in developmental stages of consciousness.
What does IOW mean? I can never remember to ask that.

If you look in the scriptures you can understand that God is there before the creation of the earth and mankind. You can also understand that God is not alone. From vedic accounts this can be understood from before the creation of the universe. He is always in the company of devotees.
God sends His devotees to distribute religion.

he teaches all of us the same things...there are some religious leaders that help to make it clearer,IMO these type are also far and few between.

"Religious leaders" and "devotees" are different categories.
Usually after the religious method has been demonstrated to be righteous (in the case of Jesus, I understand it was through the performance of miracles, and phrophecy), an organistation is set up through the deciples who carry out the instruction, passing on the method generation after generation.
This is my understanding.

IOW if god told you to do something and man told you to do something else,who would you listen to?

I would like to think I would listen to God.

if i am understanding this correctly..this is where i see god..i would only delete the first word religion, and change the next one to 'God'
and i think irreligion (dunno if this is a real word but it fits)
is what i am argueing against

I would argue, at that point there is no difference between God, His instruction, and His devotees, while symultaneously remaining distinct from them. I know that sounds extremely contradictory, but there is logic to it from the perspective of spirit.
Irreligion, is religion which has become degraded, where the point of devotion, and surrender is not God, but some concoction.
It's like the atheist always say; "man created god in man's image", or something like that.

...distracting,yes..but not to a point that it creates divisions among believers..

It can do.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

My notions about religion are probably very atheistic as well, even though I may not be aware of that at all.

I don't think there is any in-between, we are either atheistic, or theistic.

You mention personal choice. I am finding this crucial.
A popular atheist notion is that knowledge, if it is to be any kind of proper knowledge, has to be objective, impersonal, beyond personal choice - what one consider to be real should be more than just a matter of personal choice.

There are, IMO, different types of knowledge.
Knowledge of how a car works would be great if you broke down in the middle of no where, with no form of communication. It would be great if you wanted to be a mechanic. But apart from that it serves little purpose, if any.
No human being can be personally satisfied by that type of knowledge alone.

Hence many atheists tend to discard as invalid anything that looks like it has been arrived at by choice, and accept only that which has been arrived at by the workings of natural laws.

Only when debating, or discussing religion.
Outside of that they are like anybody else.

jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

NMSquirrel,
Out of curiosity, what makes you "believe he was qualified by god"?

um son of God,trinity,transfigured..raised from dead..perform miracles..healed,fed,pooped..also noah and moses were also qualified by god pry david,
don't know if disciples performed miracles..(didn't paul go into an oven?)

The word "religion" is said to come from the (latin i think) term re-ligare, -ligare meaning to join/bind, re- meaning again.
To bind again, with God. Which makes sense when you read any scripture.
In the OT you can see how this is played out through Adam, who was once
joined to God, then he became loose, and then had the task of finding his way back to his original position.

joined?..
this isn't quite how i think of it..
i think adam was created by god to have the ability to choose,god wanted this creation to know he had the ability to choose,so he let satan test adam and eve by putting the apple there..now that we knew that we could make our own choices..god sent us out to make our own way in the world,we as humans did not want to leave the comfort of our gods presence(hey we got whatever we wanted..),we did not understand this(getting kicked out) was a good thing (we still don't) we thought we were being punished and ever since then we have been trying to get back into gods presence any way a man can think of..

(not quite sure how to tie this in but i believe it is related..read the discussion between me and dyw.)

That, IMO, is the simplest way to understand religion.
Religion is passed down from God to man. It starts out pure, then over time becomes diluted with irreligious, man-made principles, till it is no longer the same. ]

this is what i believe is happening..

At that point, religion has to become manifest again, to cater for the new type of consciousness, and so on. This is my understanding.

something needs to happen..alot of religions believe it has to be an end of the world thing..i think humanity may be able to slow this down or speed it up but they will not be able to stop it..

The question is; are we at the point where we are ready for direct communion with God?

no..why would we be,we don't do what he asks of us,we act like we don't hear him, he is trying to teach us but our own humanity gets in the way..

What does IOW mean? I can never remember to ask that.

in other words

If you look in the scriptures you can understand that God is there before the creation of the earth and mankind. You can also understand that God is not alone.

he had the angels,they had no freedom to choose,he got bored of that real quick..(how would you end up feeling if everyone did what you told them.we would be stuck with only what we could think of and we would get sick of them not being able to think for themselves..)

From vedic accounts this can be understood from before the creation of the universe. He is always in the company of devotees.
God sends His devotees to distribute religion.

i read this as devotees= angels..
and yes i believe that angels also can communicate god will to us,sometimes in humanform.(but again we still get to choose whether we listen to them or not)

"Religious leaders" and "devotees" are different categories.
Usually after the religious method has been demonstrated to be righteous (in the case of Jesus, I understand it was through the performance of miracles, and phrophecy), an organistation is set up through the deciples who carry out the instruction, passing on the method generation after generation.
This is my understanding.

not sure about bold part..
yes,passing knowledge from gen to gen..how many of those gens added their own personal 'flavor' into the mix..some good some bad..

I would argue, at that point there is no difference between God, His instruction, and His devotees, while symultaneously remaining distinct from them. I know that sounds extremely contradictory, but there is logic to it from the perspective of spirit.

this would requireing an understanding of the trinity concept.
see comment here..

Irreligion, is religion which has become degraded, where the point of devotion, and surrender is not God, but some concoction.
It's like the atheist always say; "man created god in man's image", or something like that.

this i definately agree with..i am liking that word irreligion

I would like to think I would listen to God.

been waiting for someone to say that in this context...

there is a thoughtline that assumes the antichrist is one person (i starting to believe it is any and everyone who talks against god/christ..thereby becoming anti-christ.)
back to my point..
if the antichrist is one person,it is usually agreed upon that he came from us,born, raised by us,..
my question then becomes if god were to come before you and tell you that he wants you to be the antichrist, would you?(you still can choose,he can find someone else..)(dunno if i would..i would like to think i would just to please him..could be fun...)
does that mean he has to send you to hell because you did not obey him?
i think not..

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Great post chris geat post.

Thank you I thought so too...ha.

At least somebody acknowledged it...

 

[wynn]

My notions about religion are probably very atheistic as well, even though I may not be aware of that at all.

I don't think there is any in-between, we are either atheistic, or theistic.

How does atheism exist, what does it pertain to? Is it a quality of the intelligence or the mind, or of the soul as such?

By saying that my notions about religion are probably very atheistic as well, I meant that many of my notions about religion are as if they would be written by atheists.

For example, I tend to think that in order to rightfully practice a religion, one must first have objective proof or at least objective justification of God's existence and nature (ie. such proof or justification that if anyone asks me why I believe in God, I can answer them in such a manner that they are convinced of my reasons); and that without such proof or justification one may not have belief in God nor may one act on belief in God.
This is a characteristic atheist notion, although also employed by some religionists (such as when Christian challenge members of other theistic religions).

There are, IMO, different types of knowledge.
Knowledge of how a car works would be great if you broke down in the middle of no where, with no form of communication. It would be great if you wanted to be a mechanic. But apart from that it serves little purpose, if any.
No human being can be personally satisfied by that type of knowledge alone.

I agree, and acquiring such material knowledge seems to perpetuate material anxiety ("I need to learn how to defend myself against a robber, then I need to learn how to defend myself against a dog, then I need to learn how to defend myself against a ... I need to learn what to do in case of bankruptcy, if a fire burns down my house, if ... if I get this sickness if I get that sickness, how to prevent this, how to prevent that ..." - it's an endless list).

Hence many atheists tend to discard as invalid anything that looks like it has been arrived at by choice, and accept only that which has been arrived at by the workings of natural laws.

Only when debating, or discussing religion.
Outside of that they are like anybody else.

Indeed.

 

[NMSquirrel]

For example, I tend to think that in order to rightfully practice a religion, one must first have objective proof or at least objective justification of God's existence and nature

there are some who go to church and perform their ritual without any belief in god..i think they do it for social credit..
and objectivity is the atheist claim..they want objectivity

(ie. such proof or justification that if anyone asks me why I believe in God, I can answer them in such a manner that they are convinced of my reasons);

again this is what atheist want..truth is (imo) if someone asks why i believe in god i will tell them..but that doesn't mean i am trying to convince them he exists or that my reasons are objective..

and that without such proof or justification one may not have belief in God nor may not act on belief in God.

this is funny..so a corrolation would be since dark energy/matter has not been proven i have no right to speak for it or talk to anyone about it,
or even discuss it to try and further my understanding of it..

This is a characteristic atheist notion, although also employed by some religionists (such as when Christian challenge members of other theistic religions).

oh..you did say these are atheistic viewpoints..

 

[jpappl]

NMSquirrel,

“ (ie. such proof or justification that if anyone asks me why I believe in God, I can answer them in such a manner that they are convinced of my reasons); ”

again this is what atheist want..truth is (imo) if someone asks why i believe in god i will tell them..but that doesn't mean i am trying to convince them he exists or that my reasons are objective..

Why not. Signal brings up a good point.

Why is it only what atheists want. You should want to know why you believe in something like god, you should have your justifications.

If you don't then you might as well believe in the tooth fairy as well.

“ This is a characteristic atheist notion, although also employed by some religionists (such as when Christian challenge members of other theistic religions). ”

oh..you did say these are atheistic viewpoints..

It's a characteristic atheist notion because we don't believe in a sky being that has no evidence to support such a belief.

It is also as he pointed out how a person of another faith would challenge your belief because it is not the same as theirs.

The question is, have you scrutinized your beliefs and established rational justifications for it.

 

[NMSquirrel]

The question is, have you scrutinized your beliefs and established rational justifications for it.

rational justifications?.this implies i have to justify it for others...

i am always questioning my beliefs..(test all things hold on to what is good)..it does not say hold on to what is 'right'..it does not say hold on to what is 'reasonable'.. nor does it include 'justifiable'..it says hold on to what is Good..(somewhere in proverbs..)

most atheist do not consider this when they are argueing..
(the good part..) they tend to focus on all the bad stuff..
(hmmm...isn't there a parallel with disscussions on pot smoking?:shrug

 

[jpappl]

rational justifications?.this implies i have to justify it for others...

i am always questioning my beliefs..(test all things hold on to what is good)..it does not say hold on to what is 'right'..it does not say hold on to what is 'reasonable'.. nor does it include 'justifiable'..it says hold on to what is Good..(somewhere in proverbs..)

most atheist do not consider this when they are argueing..
(the good part..) they tend to focus on all the bad stuff..
(hmmm...isn't there a parallel with disscussions on pot smoking?:shrug

No, I am only asking that you justify it to yourself. Otherwise you can also believe in the tooth fairy, the tooth fairy is good.

Maybe "IT" mean't hold on to what is good being hold on to what is right.

Good = Right = Correct = Valid

The bigger question is do you exclude that which is known to be correct, valid and justified in order to maintain the current belief.

That my friend is delusion.

 

[NMSquirrel]

The bigger question is do you exclude that which is known to be correct, valid and justified in order to maintain the current belief.

all those things are subjective..
you are asking if i would change my mind if someone else were to come up with their own version of what is correct/valid/justified..

That my friend is delusion.

that is very a subjective opinion..it assumes you know for a fact that he does not exist..(absence of evidence is not evidence..)
so here we go round again..i can just as easily claim you are delusional for refusing to see him....

but then again the delusional card belongs in the delusional thread..

 

[earth]

that is very a subjective opinion..it assumes you know for a fact that he does not exist..(absence of evidence is not evidence..)
so here we go round again..i can just as easily claim you are delusional for refusing to see him....

See him in what context? I could ask you what does God look like.

 

[lightgigantic]

See him in what context? I could ask you what does God look like.

well just like the contexts that surround the president I guess - IOW he is seen according to one way by his wife, another by the public, another by the opposition, etc

 

[NMSquirrel]

See him in what context? I could ask you what does God look like.

he looks like me!

 

[jpappl]

NM,

Originally Posted by jpappl
The bigger question is do you exclude that which is known to be correct, valid and justified in order to maintain the current belief. ”

all those things are subjective..
you are asking if i would change my mind if someone else were to come up with their own version of what is correct/valid/justified..

Close, I am asking if someone were to provide evidence that contradicts and falsifies your belief and you do not have evidence to falsify theirs, then would you continue to believe in yours even if has been falsified.

IOW change with the valid information.

that is very a subjective opinion..it assumes you know for a fact that he does not exist..(absence of evidence is not evidence..)

I don't know for a fact he doesn't exist. But if I claim something does exist, the proof is on me. So in this case the proof is on you. Which we know you don't have. So it's a legitimate question to an answer we already have, at least for now.

so here we go round again..i can just as easily claim you are delusional for refusing to see him....

See what ? Where ? You can see him ?

You can't prove something does not exist.

 

[NMSquirrel]

NM,
Close, I am asking if someone were to provide evidence that contradicts and falsifies your belief and you do not have evidence to falsify theirs, then would you continue to believe in yours even if has been falsified.
IOW change with the valid information.
I don't know for a fact he doesn't exist. But if I claim something does exist, the proof is on me. So in this case the proof is on you. Which we know you don't have. So it's a legitimate question to an answer we already have, at least for now.
See what ? Where ? You can see him ?
You can't prove something does not exist.

are you really asking that or are you asking if it were proven that god did not exist would i still believe?

i can ask the same..again circular..whatever point the atheist make is the same point the theist make....it does no good to argue about this.
the best thing to do is for you to quit trying to prove that god does not exist..and i am sure you would say the same to me..er..wait a minute..you are asking for proof of gods existence..does that mean you would be willing to believe?
do you want to believe?
is the only thing stopping you from believing is proof?
or are you just using that card to justify your own sense of worthlessness..(read disscussion between me and dyw before getting defensive..)