|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 18, 2008 20:35:14 GMT -4
Trevor,
Let me try and illustrate what I'm getting at. Let us say I live in a cold dark cavern, well actually I have a really nice mansion with lovely soft beds, heated pools, and the biggest buffet table you're ever seen, the location isn't great though, it's in a cold dark cavern, not that it matters because from inside the mansion you can't see the outside. I know that sooner or later everyone is going to come to that cavern, and I think that it'd be far better to be inside the mansion with the soft beds, the swimming pools and great food, than to have to remain outside in the cold, damp, and dark cavern. Trouble is that the door to the mansion has a security system I can't override or change. That security system won't allow anyone that isn't me inside, for ease we'll say it does a retina scan to determine that.
Now see, I have a problem. I want everyone to come to the party I'm going to throw, I know that they'll all be outside, but I also know that it's impossible to get them through the security system without it disintegrating them. What do I do?
Well the answer is sort of obvious. I give everyone my eye pattern. Easy right? Except… well since I can't do the eye change in the dark cavern, only people that aren't in the cavern and have never seen it, or my place, can under go the operation. What if they refuse to accept my offer of changing their eyes to mine? I can't force them to do it. Sure it'd hurt a little that they didn't want to accept the invite, but it's their choice. But is it then fair to claim that I'm upset and punishing people when they enter the cavern and can't come inside the mansion? Should I open the doors up anyway known that anyone without my eye pattern is going to die the moment they step over the threshold? How would I live with that, after all isn't it better for them to be alone in the dark, than a pile of dust on the floor?
If I have done everything I can to get people to the party and they won't listen, or think that there's a better party, or a different eye pattern that will get them in. How is it my fault when they get left in the dark cavern and can't get in?
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Feb 18, 2008 20:45:41 GMT -4
I have a better understanding - thanks.
My personal problem is that I want to join the party and not miss out but I have many doubts - if these doubts continue till I die I will miss out because then it's too late. I can't help the doubts that I have and nothing seems to get rid of them.
Hence why I call myself a scared agnostic. I would love to be with God after I die if he is there.
Do you see my dilema?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 18, 2008 21:19:47 GMT -4
I have a better understanding - thanks. My personal problem is that I want to join the party and not miss out but I have many doubts - if these doubts continue till I die I will miss out because then it's too late. I can't help the doubts that I have and nothing seems to get rid of them. Hence why I call myself a scared agnostic. I would love to be with God after I die if he is there. Do you see my dilema? Just convert to Roman Catholicism. Go to church every Sunday. Go to confession. Then you'll be no worse off than hundreds of millions of other Catholics. Seriously, I think the only option is to learn more about different faiths and maybe one of them will call out to you. Investigate Buddhism if you find Christianity really unapealling. Or others if you feel so inclined. More reading might convince you that being an atheist is fine.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 18, 2008 21:56:14 GMT -4
No. I say this because my studies don't lead to a form of Christianity that I want and suits me, but rather once I find out what the passages are saying one that means that I have to change me to match it. Trust me, it'd be far easier to simply interpret the Bible the way I wanted it to be and change it to suit me than the other way around. That is why deep study is important, and restudying, because if you stop when you think you have what you want to hear, you're likely missing the real message. Again I point out that noting that it doesn't apply is not the same as ignoring. Ignoring is considering it worthless and of no use, there is no part of the Bible that I believe fits into that category, there are parts that weren't written to us as the Church though, and in fact one can get themselves into a bigger mess trying to apply parts that aren't meant for you than you can by missing the parts that are. Take the Crusades for example. This came from the mistaken belief by the Church of the time that all the OT promises to Israel had been transferred to the Church and that Israel and the Jews were no longer relevant to God. By not being able to distinguish between God's dispensations to the Israelites and those to the Church, something was started that we are still paying for today. I've studied both quite deeply. I also believe that it works for more people than just me; my own faith and ideas aren't created in a vacuum. While I use the Bible as the foundation stone, listening and reading to other's interpretations, discussing it and learning more all help to craft what I believe. However, even on listening to others I always return to the Bible and see if their claims and ideas make sense in the big picture. I still do. Here we can certainly agree. Here's one mistake. I firmly believe that it is not possible to understand the NT without understanding the OT, it's like trying to understand WW2 without having studied WW1, you're missing a huge part of the story. The first part we'll have to agree to disagree on, Jesus in fact made a number of references that indicated that he was indeed God. The second part I will agree with you on, however I'd also point out that worse atrocities have been done ion the name of politics, especially Fascism and Communism. How many people did the Khmer Rouge kill? How about Stalin? Where killed in Rwanda? In a lot of other cases Religion has made a good fall guy (Serbia, Northern Ireland) but in reality it's been about who gets to control the dirt and religion is merely used as a way of getting people to accept your position over the other guys. I know that it seems strange, but I prefer to judge a faith or a religion on what it teaches, not on the people that claim to follow it. Should Islam be judged on the Koran and Mohamed's teaching, or on the actions of Osama Bin Laden and his ilk? I know you cover this further down, but personally I'd question if someone really is a Christian if all they did was read scriptures on Sunday. Going to Church makes you a Christian as much as going to Madison Square Gardens makes you as NBA star. This is a good question, and I think in some ways you have already answered it. Firstly though, what nations in the world are Christian? Oh, I know we like to claim that we are, but come on, honestly, what Nations really are Christian? What nations were founded on Christianity and still have a strong Christian faith through the majority of the population? Give up? Yeah, unfortunately I have too as well. Unfortunately a lot of people believe that to be a Christian they just have to attend a church and say they are a Christian. It doesn't work that way, you might as well go stand on the court with the Harlem Globe Trotters and claim you are an NBA player. (or the New York Patriots and claim you are an NFL player if anyone reading actually is an NBA player. ) Because you were in the RC church? Actually Biblically it's not sin to miss church and pointless going to see a priest to confess, where as drunkenness is specifically pointed out as wrong in God's eyes, but then no one ever accused the RC of accepting Biblical based teaching over Church Tradition. Well in a numbers game, if even 0.1% were bad apples, that'd still be 1 million of them. Unfortunately though it's worse, most people that claim to be Christian really have no idea of what it means. Even people I know that were raised in good churches still have little idea what is in the Bible. The number of "Christians" who have actually read the entire NT is low, about 40%, the number that have read the entire Bible is only around 2%. That means that about 98% of people who claim to be Christian have little to no idea about what they believe other than what they are told to believe! That is a truly sad and indicting fact again the mainstream churches. Most estimates by Churches over here in New Zealand is that even though we have about 65% of people saying they believe in God and are Christian in one form or another, in reality only about 3-5% really are. You put that into your billion people and… Tell me about it, you think it drives you crazy? Think how crazy it drives us when we are the ones that get tarred with the same brush! I seriously wonder if they had the message in the first place. Most of them grew up in a mainstream church because their parents went there. They keep going there, but really they don't listen much, they just want to "serve there time" and get out to go play golf or go fishing. They never bother reading the Bible at all, and really don't spend a lot of though on God outside of Church. They have never committed to anything, except maybe the church bake sale, but they know they are a Christian because they go to church every week. The thing is, that isn't what Christianity is all about, and when a person has a true committed faith in Jesus, it shows up. I can pick the real thing from the pretender very quick; there is often something about them that is different. It's hard to describe, but once you see it, you know it. I suggest that you do read the OT, you obviously missed a lot of it. There really is very little "wrath" of God in the OT, even in the books o f the Prophets. There are a number of times that the Israelites turned their back on God and he stopped protecting them allowing disaster to before them, but there are way more times that He is shown pouring out his blessings and promising them great things than there are Wrathful moments. I guess just like TV the wrathful bits make better screen play so the bits where God was blessing and protecting the people, or the mountains of praises given to Him in the Psalms and other book didn't make it to the entertainment section. So which bit do you find most confusing? The historical parts? The poetry? The writings of the prophets? The Epistles? I've read it all numerous times (well okay I have only read Lamentation once, but it sort of depressing, and I have only re-read Job piecewise, but the rest of it numerous times) and I don't find it confusing at all, but perhaps that is due to having worked out which parts are written to who and not trying to force all the parts onto everybody.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 18, 2008 22:01:34 GMT -4
I have a better understanding - thanks. My personal problem is that I want to join the party and not miss out but I have many doubts - if these doubts continue till I die I will miss out because then it's too late. I can't help the doubts that I have and nothing seems to get rid of them. Hence why I call myself a scared agnostic. I would love to be with God after I die if he is there. Do you see my dilema? I can see your dilema, and really can't offer a suggestion that will really help, except learn more and go as deep into it as it takes for you to come to a conclusion one way or the other. Unlike Ginne's suggest I'd warn you to steer clear of the mainstream churches, though you'd probably find the Apostolic or Pentacostal Churches rather intimidating to start out. In the end all you can really do is go to the source, read what you can and ask God that if He really is there that He'll reveal himself to you, then open your mind and go with your heart.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Feb 18, 2008 23:16:13 GMT -4
Thanks PW,
I guess you can see that I want to believe. You are a gentleman.
Ginnie unfortunately I don't think Atheism is fine, I know too many and far from being, as they like to call themselves, humanists, I find them to be smug, arrogant beings, who project an air of superiority that they know the truth and that anybody who believes in anything are fools. They then go on with all the atheistic arguments about burden of proof etc. and profess to use scientific evidence of absence to prove God doesn't exist. In my opinion if you use science to find proof, all that can be said is there is no proof yet. They should keep on looking. Even though I am agnostic I don't want to play any part in an atheistc belief. I just plain don't like it.
Its almost like taking great delight in telling six year olds that Santa doesn't exist and watching their faces for a hint of disapointment.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 18, 2008 23:53:31 GMT -4
Trevor, while there are certainly arrogant atheists, they pale in comparison to the smug Christians, at least in numbers. I also know quite a few atheists who don't worry about what others believe so long as those others don't expect them to believe the same thing.
PW, way to miss my point, there. I'm saying it's arrogant of you to say that I tailor my religion to suit my needs while saying yours is correct. You do not know yours is correct; you believe yours is correct. So do I, even though it's because it's what I already believed--would you have chosen the faith you have if you didn't believe it? Would you have accepted the things you do and thrown out the things you do were it not that it's what you already believed? Why on Earth wouldn't you? Why would you choose a belief system that believed things you didn't and try to change your beliefs to fit it? That simply doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Feb 18, 2008 23:56:29 GMT -4
Its almost like taking great delight in telling six year olds that Santa doesn't exist and watching their faces for a hint of disapointment. Yeah, but Santa doesn't exist. Is it possible that this is somehow a typically North American or Anglosphere thing? Over here religion isn't discussed much in mixed company. We pretty much have a live-and-let-live attitude about it. It's a private thing.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 19, 2008 2:17:04 GMT -4
The US is a more religious nation than Northern Europe, and religion is a bigger deal here than it generally is there. In fact whether or not religion should be viewed as a private thing has been a big topic of discussion in this election cycle, with one candidate who wears his religion on his sleave and another that was considered by many to be a member of a fringe cult.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 19, 2008 19:02:37 GMT -4
PW, way to miss my point, there. I'm saying it's arrogant of you to say that I tailor my religion to suit my needs while saying yours is correct. You do not know yours is correct; you believe yours is correct. So do I, even though it's because it's what I already believed--would you have chosen the faith you have if you didn't believe it? Would you have accepted the things you do and thrown out the things you do were it not that it's what you already believed? Why on Earth wouldn't you? Why would you choose a belief system that believed things you didn't and try to change your beliefs to fit it? That simply doesn't make any sense. Why doesn't it make sense? When I first became a Christian I didn't know a lot of the stuff I do now, I knew enough to make the decision that based on the evidence it was correct, but many of the details have come from very long study since then. If through my studying of the Bible it had been clear that a Christian was still under law and had to obey it, then I'd have had to change my life and beliefs to meet those rules, does that mean that I would have already believed that to follow the law was right before I choose Christianity? No. Does that mean that had I learned that a Christian had to follow the Law I'd have thrown it away and gone to find something that fit me better? Again No. As I have pointed out a few times, I choose Christianity because to me it makes the most sense, not because it fits the way I'd like to live. If it was up to me to have a religion that fit the way I wanted to be and what I'd like to believe in I'd pick one that let me do whatever I wanted and as long as I did more good stuff, I'd get a better reincarnation next time. I love the idea of being able to come back and have another go, to see the world through new eyes and get to do things I don't get to do in this life. The issue is that as much as I would want to believe it, I know in my heart that it's not real. I have come to the beliefs I have now through finding the evidence and building them over time, not by deciding what I believed in and then finding and fitting a system about what I had already determined. That means that I believe things now that I didn't before I was a Christian, or even when I was a new Christian. It also means that I have on occasion had to discard and/or change my belief based on the evidence I have found during study, that things I thought were true aren't, or things that I thought weren't true are. It's been a long road to where I am now, and I certainly didn't start out believing all the things I do now, I simply followed the evidence here. Now fair enough, I did look at a few options and determine which I believed was right, but it wasn't a measure of what they believed versus what I already believed, it was what they believed versus the evidence they had for that belief and how much sense it made to me. I looked for one I could believe in because it made sense to me, not one that fitted either what I already believed or even exactly what I wanted to believe. The only thing I really believed a lot at the time was that there was a God and he/she/it wanted to know me as I did him/her/it. Christianity stood out to me as having something none of the others I knew of did. Again it would be fair to say that having been brought up around Christianity (I'm in a country where the major religion is Christianity in some form and my Grandmother was a regular churchgoer as was my sister) that I knew more about Christianity than the others, but looking back I didn't think I knew that much more about it than I did about Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, and I certainly knew very little about the Christianity I follow now. In a way I feel that we're chasing each other around the bush here. I'm certainly in agreement that a person, me included, would not pick a belief that they didn't believe in and then force themselves to do so, there obviously has to be some core of belief there to start with, but what I disagree with is that we all then mould the details of that belief to fit what we already believe, or want to believe. For me that core belief started with the decision was that the Bible is in fact God's word and then through that the realisation that Jesus was who he said he was. At that point I was going to pick Christianity in some form or other, but the form I ended up with is one that I have had to change expectations and beliefs to meet, I didn't pick Christianity and then make the form I believed in match up with what I wanted to have, nor did I look about at the different denominations and decide which one looked like it'd suit me best based on what I already believed, instead again I looked at what they taught and what the Bible taught and compared them, making my decisions based on how close what they were teaching matched what the Bible was teaching. To me that is simply logical, why would you believe or accept something that is contrary to the evidence you have? So in a way I did choice a belief system that included things I didn't believe. It certainly started with the core of what I believed, but the rest of it I had to learn and then fit myself to what I learned, not simply make up a system that suited my beliefs at the time. The mainstream version of it also contains a huge amount of stuff I certainly don't believe in, both the Catholic and Anglican (Church of England for the Brits and Episcopalian for the Americans) have a lot of things in them I don't believe in, but they still claim to be Christian. So when I became a Christian there were certainly things I knew of in it that I didn't believe. Some of them I still don't believe, some things I did believe I now don't, and some things I was ignorant of I have now researched and come to a conclusion on, but I certainly didn't not have the same beliefs before I became a Christian, or even on becoming one, that I do now. I also want to point out that I don't pick and choose what to believe, or arbitrarily throw stuff out or accept stuff. You seem to think that since it's in the Bible it must be followed, even when the Bible itself states that it doesn't. It's not me that made the choice on what was written to the Israelites and what was written to the Church, God made the choice and then made it clear through Paul, the other Apostles, and early Church leaders as to what rules had to be followed by the Church. Very early on the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem had the chance to say, "Yes the followers of Christ DO have to obey the Law." A lot of the Jewish members in Jerusalem were in fact doing so. There was a discussion about the issue because of Paul's teaching of the Gentiles was not including the Law. The elders of the Church, including James, determined then that the only rules the Gentiles needed to follow, apart from what Paul had taught, were to "abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." (Acts 21:24) Since their discussion was on this exact topic based in the difference between the Jerusalem Jewish converts (who were still following the Law) and the foreign converts, Jewish and Gentile, (who were not following the Law, but rather Christ's commands) why then did the eldership determine that only these four things were important to be followed, aside from what was already being done? Why did they not write to the Gentile church and say, "You need to follow the books of the Law" if it was required? The answer is quite obvious, they knew that it wasn't, that a new period of Grace had started and that while many still clung to their traditions and customs, Jesus' work on the cross had brought a fulfilment of the law allowing us to die to it and then be raised again him to be free from its bondage and under God's grace. You continue to say that I throw these things out, but if I was to decide that a Christian had to obey the Law, surely I'd then be able to be accused of throwing out all the parts that state unambiguously that the Christian has died to the Law and is no longer bound by it. Instead I have let those that were at the founding of the Church make those decisions for me, and they very clearly did so, confirming Paul's writings that the Church was not bound by the Law, but rather the commandments that were re-emphasised by Jesus with only the addition of four rules that were already in place prior to the Law being given by Moses. (The prohibition on eating meat with blood in it or blood is found in Genesis 9:4). Now to me that speaks volumes on the matter. (I'd note here that most of the main tenants of the NT Church are found to have their precursors somewhere in Genesis, thus predating the Law, which makes it more understandable why the four rules given by the Jerusalem Council of Elders during Paul's time also predate the Law.) Now you might think that I'm belabouring this point, but honestly I think it is an important one, one that I have done a huge amount of study into. One of the reasons is I know of people that contend that the Christian is to obey the Sabbath. One of them I had a very long discussion with, and he made a strong argument for his belief and also claimed that it's wrong to use Sunday as the Christian Sabbath that we should have it between Friday evening and Saturday evening as the Jews do. As a result I went back to the Bible and delved in deep to locate the answer. At the time I wasn't sure what the answer would be, I knew what my belief was on the matter, but I had no idea if I was right or if I was going to have to change my beliefs. However in looking for it I discovered that the answer is we don't need to obey the Sabbath law, and in fact the Church started meeting on a Sunday very early on because they would go to the synagogues on the Sabbath to talk to people about Christ. If you go back into the OT (you know that part you keep claiming I ignore or throw away,) it states: 12 Then the LORD said to Moses, 13 "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites foreverExodus 31:12-13, 16-17 (NIV) So who is the Sabbath for? Exodus makes it pretty clear I think, it says it. It is a Covenant (an agreement/contract) between God and the Israelites. It doesn't say God and everyone, and so if you aren't an Israelite then you have no business sticking you nose into it. It's rather interesting that Jesus restated ALL of the 10 Commandments, but one. He never re-established the Sabbath for the Church, and since he spoke on that subject a number of times you'd think he would have made it clear if it was to apply to the Church. I guess he knew something about the Law and how it would affect the Church as well as God's dispensations to us. So that settled the matter for me, but before I started looking into it, and went back to the original reasons for the Sabbath I had no idea if my belief was right or not. Had I discovered that I was wrong then I'd have had to change my beliefs, again fitting my beliefs to what the evidence showed. This is how I have always come to my beliefs, through study, finding the evidence, then determining what the answer is based on that evidence, and using it to reinforce a currently held belief, or changing that belief to fit the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 19, 2008 20:20:42 GMT -4
Ginnie unfortunately I don't think Atheism is fine, I know too many and far from being, as they like to call themselves, humanists, I find them to be smug, arrogant beings, who project an air of superiority that they know the truth and that anybody who believes in anything are fools. They then go on with all the atheistic arguments about burden of proof etc. and profess to use scientific evidence of absence to prove God doesn't exist. In my opinion if you use science to find proof, all that can be said is there is no proof yet. They should keep on looking. Even though I am agnostic I don't want to play any part in an atheistic belief. I just plain don't like it. Its almost like taking great delight in telling six year olds that Santa doesn't exist and watching their faces for a hint of disappointment. Trevor, I can see where you are coming from. I am an agnostic, except to Jason who considers me an atheist. ;D (EDITED TO ADD STRIKETHROUGH. Sorry Jason!) PW, it's good you've found your God. Funny thing though, is I sort of took a path you did for a few years. And the more I read the Bible, the more I realized that it wasn't true. I've never bought the idea that it was written in a different age, to a different culture etc. If God kills children three thousand years ago, that tells me it isn't God. No ifs, ands or buts about it. It tells me that the words are coming from a human brain, with human weaknesses. And if God's word got garbled in going from God to human, it shows me that it shouldn't be scripture at all, but a corrupted translation that shouldn't be followed by two billion people. Most Christians say, "but if you read the Bible" - well, I've tried and it is just so darned faulty that I had no choice but to abandon it. Now maybe I'm not smart enough to understand the deep meanings buried within the text, maybe you need to be a scholar to fully understand its context, history and details. If that is the case, then the common man shouldn't be exposed to it, as there is too much room for misinterpretation. Of course most people leave that part to their priests, pastors or preacher. Funny though how they can be poles apart in their exposition of God's WORD. If the Bible is supposed to be the actual words of God, then I have great confidence that the Christian and Jewish God does not exist, and do not in the slightest feel fearful of some wrath in the future or spending eternity in Hell (pick whatever version of Hell you want). As an Agnostic, and in this period of my life, I leave open the question of whether a God exists. If some day I am divinely inspired or have a revelation, I think I am the type of person that would accept it and perhaps even welcome it. I am pessimistic about that possibility though. If it was up to me to have a religion that fit the way I wanted to be and what I'd like to believe in I'd pick one that let me do whatever I wanted and as long as I did more good stuff, I'd get a better reincarnation next timeThis seems like a reference to Buddhism. If so, you're completely missing the point of what Buddhism is, I think. When I considered myself a Buddhist (from age 18 to about 30), I found it more difficult than Christianity. The path seemed so long - maybe millions of years as opposed to eighty. To balance the goodness that one must achieve, or to put it another way - to eliminate the desires that a human craves and to balance that with living in our society in the 20th century was a sobering reality. How good must a person be? You can't consciously do bad things because you don't know the extent of what effect the action has on your karma. By 'doing whatever you wanted' could set it back a hundred lifetimes - you wouldn't know. Would that be worth it? If earthly existence is an illusion, it is still hard to realize that every second of your life. In between lives, people seem to be drawn back to the womb because it is safe and comfortable. It is very difficult to have the wisdom and confidence in that state to keep going towards Nirvana. Temptation to please yourself, even in its most benign forms is overwhelming for most because on Earth we are these human creatures with a dulled intellect and a fragile confidence in our ability to resist the hedonistic ways and joys that are all around us, or sometimes just around the corner. To go straight on - not to turn those corners is not an easy thing to do. You risk alienating your friends, family, co-workers and anybody else in your life. How do you welcome not having the pleasures most others have? I remember being told a few times in those years , "but Paul, you wouldn't do that, would you?" - in a sarcastic way. It's not comforting to be humiliated because you don't want to do something you consider against your belief. To be a Buddhist means to me being able to sacrifice the pleasures of today for a enlightened tomorrow. It means not being dependent on life's little pills, to be able to break free and pursue the grandeur of simplicity. To be able to look everyone in the eye and say to them, "I care about you". Not eating meat, of course or partaking in any food or product that derives from another fellow being. It means being about to feel pain and excepting it without complaint. It means being able to laugh when bad things happen, but also being constructive enough to help heal the hurt and do so willingly and without reservation. PW, I'm telling you - I'm not strong enough spiritually to do all that. So what do I do? Like most average folk I guess - don't lie, steal, cheat and try to treat people decently. But I have my own house, five guitars, three computers, two thousand books, four hundred CD's, three televisions, cable, DVD's...you know what I mean. Do I need all that stuff? What's weird is that most of my neighbours have even more than I. Different stuff, but stuff nonetheless. My son considers us 'poor' because his friends parents have bigger houses, two cars, cottages and they go on vacation every year. Geesh, we can hardly afford to go camping for a few days in the summer. But I still live better off than 90% of the world's population. Somehow, in the back of my mind, that makes me feel guilty of something , as if my lifestyle is supported by the suffering of others. That prospect doesn't jive with what my heart tells me about life here and how to live my life. Shouldn't I care much more about what the other 90% of the world is going through? Shouldn't I be giving back to this world more than I get from it? I don't have to eat meat. I don't have to wear leather shoes. I don't need to watch TV and live in so much comfort. Can't I be better than I am. Yes. Am I willing to be right now? No. Why? Because I'm selfish. I KNOW that. I can hardly call myself 'good' until I reconcile how I'm living to how I believe. Maybe some day I'll be brave enough to be who I ought to be. Maybe I was too weak to remain Buddhist, but I hope there were other reasons for me leaving that path. Alas, I'm still searching... Cheers! oh trevor, may I suggest a book? Borrow from the library, you don't need to buy it: Ethics for the New Millenium by the Dalai Lama www.amazon.com/Ethics-New-Millennium-Dalai-Lama/dp/1573228834/ref=pd_bbs_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203472490&sr=8-5
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 19, 2008 21:50:41 GMT -4
I am an agnostic, except to Jason who considers me an atheist. ;D Did I ever say I thought you were an atheist?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 19, 2008 22:04:23 GMT -4
I am an agnostic, except to Jason who considers me an atheist. ;D Did I ever say I thought you were an atheist? No you did not - I just checked the threads. Sorry Jason, everytime these terms come up, I get mixed up. My apologies. If you don't mind I'm going to strikethrough that comment from me. I will delete it if you wish me to. It is so hard to describe what I believe. I don't believe in God. I believe there is a possibility that God exists. Agnostic, right?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 19, 2008 23:59:15 GMT -4
That's what I call agnostic, yes.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 20, 2008 13:33:58 GMT -4
PW, it's good you've found your God. Funny thing though, is I sort of took a path you did for a few years. And the more I read the Bible, the more I realized that it wasn't true. I've never bought the idea that it was written in a different age, to a different culture etc. If God kills children three thousand years ago, that tells me it isn't God. No ifs, ands or buts about it. It tells me that the words are coming from a human brain, with human weaknesses. This rests on the assumption that there are never any circumstances where the killing of children can be morally acceptable. Is that really the case? Every war kills many children. The US killed a lot of children during World War II with its bombing campaigns against the Axis Powers. Does that mean that particular war was not morally defensible? And when all we have is a brief account of an event that occurred thousands of years ago, are we really in a position to judge the morality of the actions of those invovled? The LDS position is that you look to additional scripture and modern prophets in order to help you in interpreting the Bible. With the context of other revelations many things that are obscure in the Bible by itself become much clearer. How do you know if these modern revelations are authentic? The same way you can know if the Bible is authentic - through study and prayer. If, as we claim, God really cares about people and wants them to find the right path, then He will help you to find it. If you honestly seek a personal revelation from God you will eventually receive one. It may take some time, but it will occur if you really want it to. Of course, once you receive it you will have to act on it, and that can be almost more difficult than living without it was. I don't know that PhantomWolf is referring to Buddhism in particular. It sounds like the vague sort of new-age reincarnation beliefs that some people have rather than Buddhism per se.
|
|