Printable View
I wonder if what hoi polloi believe in is a vague and general "goodness" perhaps personified by a man or an elephant. No dogma, no real preconceptions. Then along come people who crave power and hijack this general concept as a tool or a weapon, saying, "You must believe this way, or observe these rites (and pay these dues or tithes to me) if you ever hope to attain salvation."
I've never believed this to be the case. I think it's the other way around. People have used their education, observations and intelligence to piece together a model of the world that looks coherent. We have up until quite recently had quite good reasons to believe in some sort of supernatural power.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Why God is such a popular theory still today I think is because it requires the least amount of work. A bit like biological organisms are very complex, therefore God must have done it. By claiming it is too complex to have come about spontaneously, we make it unnecessary for our selves to study it. Since we already know the answer. It's a method of doing away with the unknown and explaining it. I think the God theory is for people who don't like not knowing and don't have the patience of finding out. Today with the body of scientific work being the way it is, the only way to "know" it all, is to be religious. But that's just my own private theory.
People often want leaders, people who take charge, and who have done their homework. That's why I'm against direct democracy. I vote because I don't have the time and energy to devote myself to politics. I trust my doctor, estate agent and so on. This isn't a sign of weakness, but necessity. If we believe in God, we'll want somebody who's studied it more than us to inform us.
It's about who you trust. If you're a Catholic, you trust the pope more than scientists. Nobody hijacked anything. The popes power is enforced from the bottom up. Nobody today is forced to believe in God. They might be forced to go to Church, but faith is an intensely private matter. It's only in the head. Also religion changes. The Christian church's most important foundation used to be the "great chain of being". Nobody believes in that any more. Nobody. Christianity from just a few hundred years ago is dead. Nothing remains except it's name. Not even the Bible. It's simply interpreted completely differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being
The problem of religion isn't that it can be hijacked by spiritually corrupt men. It's the religion itself. What if you do get 72 virgins if you blow yourself up? The problem is it's followers who make far too low demands on evidence and logical consistency. People who have opinions on things they haven't studied. The various moral messages are of no consequence. They aren't the reason anybody uses to support their faith. But that's just my highly personal opinion.
The problem of religion isn't that it can be hijacked by spiritually corrupt men. I think the next statement:It's the religion itself. should be stated like this: it is also the religion itself. There is tremendous insight in Tom's statement. I think this statement summarizes all the good pints on which he has already commented.
The Christianity we have today is not the Christian religion of which history tells us. But I don't think the majority of Christians are aware of this fact. Maybe because God said "I change not" Christians came to believe that they should not change, thusly making no effort to change. (I don't want to raise the old question of whether or not God is the only absolute and does not change.)
True Christianity has outgrown the old model of history. Too many Christians have been too slow to reject the behaviors of past Christianity. Racial prejudice is an example that comes to mind. Slavery should have been abolished before 1865 as with many other behaviors. True Christians should have and did lead the charge in the abolition of such evils.
As man sees the model better, he needs to change to reflect the model. That's called walking in the light. Many churches are dominated by spiritually corrupt men. These men lust stayed there like frogs in slow to boil water unit they cooked to death without knowing it. Some have escaped, though, and are doing just fine.
I ignore burned frogs and admit the problem with religion as being unable to make religion relative to the present day. One of the recent threads here says "Christians scare me. I have not read that thread yet. But the author is talking about the old corrupt religion that has been stolen away. My religion is not like that.
I hope this helps
To be honest, I got lost in this thread many postings back, and I started it! In fact, that just about marks the point I got lost - lol.
In this debate we should start out by accepting that God exists, if even if we don't believe it, at least until the only logical argument left is that he cannot. (I realise that Tom will say something like, all arguments ultimately prove his non-existence ... but please be patient.)
As I see it, the weight of argument here was that it is logically impossible for God to be perfect, and the consensus also seemed to be that God was either evil or not omniscient (he is unable to know what he has determined to be unknowable). Either way, it was wrong of him to "test" mankind if he knew in advance we would fail - if that's what he did, or it was wanton of him to play dice with our fate, knowing us to be imperfect creations.
wmrs describes a new religion with the same God. How has Jehova been reformed?
But you still haven't answered the question on how you tell the difference? What is the difference between true and false Christianity? How can you tell whether somebody is following the correct message of Jesus or not? Isn't there the possibility that all Christians are wrong? Isn't there a possibility that God exists but everybody that has ever lived has so far misunderstood him and his message? What if it really is the Greek that will inhibit thy girth?Quote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
I have no problems discussing hypothetical theories. The Christian theory of God is in philosophy known as the "Unmoved Mover" theory. It was thoroughly explored long before Christianity was invented. So I don't think there's a conflict between exploring a specific facet of a God theory and being atheist. My end goal isn't to attack religion, but to kill off logical dead ends. So we can spend our time exploring/debating paths which hypothetically can lead somewhere. Dead ends are just a waste of time for everybody. Religious and secular alike.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
If we accept that the Bible is not a finished product, but simply an attempt to write down how far we'd come so far in the exploration of God ca AD 350. If we do, there are solutions.
For example, if I'd be Christian, a solution to the theodicy paradox I might use is to reject good and evil as concepts. Reject that evil is a motivator for humans. And see humanity as solely motivated by fulfilling base human needs. And then see the labels of good and evil, as a method of grouping behaviour into ranks depending on how helpful it can be to society at large. If we have this interpretation then God is freed from what humans label as good and evil. But it of course means that God is neither good nor evil.
But if we cling to the Bible as free from fault there are no solutions as the one I described. Then the Christian theory of God is just plain broken/incomplete with irreconcilable problems. Hence the Christian paradoxes. Another word for it is false faith. And this is by logical necessity. You could go the other way and reject logic. But I doubt that is much of solution in the long run.
Which of the mainstream Christian faiths continue to hold the Bible as free from fault? A quick skim over Wikipedia indicates that the main faiths hold the Bible to have been inspired by God, and this is represented in both tradition and in scripture. I believe that this means that conflicts are recognised and that the Pope, Council of Bishops, Holy Synod or some other authoritive body will then determine what the correct interpreation is.
It is clearly recognised that the Bible, to be "properly" understood must be "properly" interpreted, and, where there is doubt, the Church must give its definitive guidance.
Other faiths - more fundamentalist in nature, it seems, believe the Bible to be without error ... mostly, the King James Bible, or its equivalent in other languages.
But having said that, it is no help with my original question. Although Tom's "solution to thodicy" might be. There is no good, and no evil. Indeed, before Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit, they had no concept of such things. But then the "subtil" serpent said to Eve, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat [the forbidden fruit], then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:5) And so it transpired, they ate, and knew good and evil (ie, they became aware of their nakedness, and were ashamed).
As a result, God banished Man from the Garden of Eden, and posted Cherubims to guard the way to the Tree of Life:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
Gen 3:22-23
I conclude God was jealous of his divinity and wished to prevent mankind becoming immortal and omniscient.
TYWD
Exactly. Here's more on it:Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
I'd call your attitude very modern.
BTW Christian fundamentalism by definition means they believe in Biblical inerrancy and is a philosophical and logical dead end.
Anthropomorphism per chance? Aren't you now starting to read in human qualities in God. Why would an omnipotent entity be jealous? Isn't jealousy expression of man's competitive nature? Why would anything omnipotent compete with anybody ever about anything? It'd win every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Let's assume God exists. Maybe it's more like this. God speaks the "Truth" to people. But what they hear/understand/interpret is an adapted version to the culture they live in. This is including the authors of the Bible and any other holy text. As human culture evolves and the more we hear the same divine messages we will eventually get it. And now human spiritual evolution is somewhere in the middle. How about that theory? It holds together logically, doesn't it? It doesn't offend anybodies religious sensitivities either, does it?
I personally don't think this is very satisfactory since it doesn't answer the question why God would do it. But then again, neither does inerrant Christianity either. And none of us could even begin to reason about what an omnipotent being would or wouldn't do, so anything could be true.
[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;562764]
Aren't you now starting to read in human qualities in God.
QUOTE]
Very probably I am. But I used the term "jealous" to mean "protective": God wanted to protect his divinity from becoming commonplace by preventing Adam from eating from the Tree of Life. I was not suggesting competition between God and Adam.
I am begining to think of God as a rather insecure divinity who needed to be oppressive to demonstrate his power.
[QUOTE=ThisYouWillDo;562765]Couldn't that simply be down to human interpretation? If we interpret Gods activities and messages as humans we're bound to insert all kinds of unwarranted judgements on why God did what and his motivations. If God lies beyond our scope of good and evil it is very hard for us to make any judgements as to what Gods character is.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;562770]Our concept of good and evil comes from God, does it not? At least in the Western world, those areas once dominated by the Catholic Church, our laws and morals are derived from the Bible. And the Bible is God's word, is it not? So we must conclude that God's character is similar to our own.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Of course, it could be that God is more like American lawmakers, passing down his commandments as they pass down laws, but absolving himself from adhering to those commandments, as our lawmakers will absolve themselves.
More likely, though, is that God evolves over time just as humanity does. As humanity became more "civilized" so did God, or our perception of God. As the Church fragmented and developed into multiple religions, so did God. Now each religion has their own concept of what God is and what he wants us to do. The only thing they are even remotely united in is their fear and hatred of nonbelievers.
[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;562770]But I don't believe he does lie beyond our scope of good and evil: and the passage I quoted form Genesis supports this view because it says that, after they ate the Forbidden Fruit, they knew good and evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
In the USA about 80% of the adult population believes in God. A good percentage of these believers are un-churched. A smaller percentage of those who do attend church are really dogmatic about their beliefs. Most of the population of our country is rather casual about the belief in God. It is my opinion that most believers prefer to avoid such labels as radical, fanatical, close-minded, etc. These people can be called the middle of the road group that both political parties must appeal to in order to win elections.
Most of the middle of the road persons think of themselves as fair minded, thoughtful, and discrete in behavior. But I doubt that very few of these people have thought out and then accepted the system of ethics, ontology, cosmology, epistemology, logic or science. Most people seem to be programmed to be pragmatist from birth. Baby cries. Baby is fed. Baby learns crying is good. Latter in life this behavior must be changed. Eventually to get what it wants the chjld must learn to talk and to ask for what it wants. The baby grows to this mature stage without thinking out the complete process.
In just as a real process a mature adult has worked out fundamental beliefs about the universe and the God in that universe. He may not have taken time to consciously think through his ontological belief about God, but this does not mean that his belief about being does not work for him. Problems will occur when his beliefs competes or interferes with other peoples' belief system. Then comes war, fights, murder, etc.
It is at this point that reassessment of values and beliefs of being need to be made. The person who does the reassessment is the philosopher. The philosopher of religion has a big job and must use all his tools. His tools are reasoning, logic, intuition, science, experience, and objectivity. Closely related to intuition is revelation, innate knowledge and self evident truths (see the Constitution of the USA).
After having used all the tools of philosophy, the philosopher still must admit that God or truth can not be defiantly proven to be. He will have discovered much evidence through a careful study of history, man, an man's reaction to what man called God, but the true philosopher will admit that there is good arguments against whatever has been chosen to be the truth.
In the end the true philosopher will be forced to chose the theory of the universe that makes the most sense to him, all this while he continues to study ontology and cosmology. He choses because life must go forward while searching to know more about God.
I hope this helps.
Do I believe in miracles? Yes! Do I believe in God? Yes!
Many years of thought and study has gone into my philosophy of religion. I have done this study NOT to be able to make smart ass remarks to others about their experience with God. It has been a study to help me understand how I should live and behave.
In justifying my belief in God, the first step was to determine what cosmological world or universe was this in which we live.There is no need for me to tell you what I think the universe is like. Certainly any of you could come forth with an argument against this view and also there are many Sophist out there willing to tare down others to win an argument or show how smart they are.
First, admitting the universe was like such and such, then God would be like this in that universe. For example, in Determinism the belief is that everything in the universe was predetermined when God first moved the first atom. Determinism was predisposed to the belief in a cause and effect universe. God did not even have to be aware or conscious to be the prime mover or God. Even your resistance to Determinism was predetermined.
I believe in cause and effect but my universe allows for, and in fact, requires reasoning. So, what would my God be like? From the basic belief in a particular universe, what ethical code should I follow? That was easily determined after deducing what God was like and how God intended for man to behave in his universe. The process is so simple that I am amazed that so many philosophers who search for the truth about God have overlooked it. This is the method used in schools of philosophy in colleges and universities to study religion throughout the world. There is plenty of information out there to help any serious person to build his conception of the universe.
I hope this helps.
The man who invented/discovered the Christian notion of God was Aristotle. The theory of the Unmoved Mover. He makes a rather complex argument for this theory and that argument is called the cosmological argument. This is the logical foundation Christianity still is dependent on. The universe has to have a beginning. According to Christianity, this by necessity, has to be God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_view_of_God
Aristotle reasoned that since God was the initiator of all movement and actions he was also the originator of thought.
God is omnipotent and had everything he wanted. This is supported by a rather complex argument. This argumentation is also critical for the Christian theory of God. But here is where Aristotle differs a bit from modern Christian thought. He reasoned that all our emotions are based on things we lack. God doesn't lack anything therefore has no emotions. God is pure thought. His theory is a lot more complex than this. This was just a short run down of it. I didn't find the complete argumentation, but I'm sure I can dig it up if given enough time.
Philo of Alexandria shoehorned this theory into Judaism, and hey presto we've got Christianity. We actually also got Judaism as we know it today. It wasn't monotheist before this.
Anyway... This was a long winded way of saying that there are plenty of philosophical arguments for God being neither good nor evil, and this is the roots of Christianity. By claiming God is good you're standing up in the boat inserting all kinds of logical inconsistencies. It's a very complex theory and best not tampered with if you want coherence.
How do you know whether the goodness of God is just not wishful thinking from your side? Are there any logical arguments supporting God being good? Anyway... this is very complicated. Every act has a consequence and by being good to somebody God is bound to be evil to somebody somewhere.
The theory that God is good is not an easy theory to support. I don't know any philosopher who has managed. Thomas Aquinas just made the statement that God is good, because God is perfect and goodness is intrinsic with perfection. I personally can't see how that follows logically. I'd love to be enlightened.
Is that necessarily so? Is there always a consequence? If so, is it always "equal and opposite"?Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
I think that by being good to someone, he is simply favouring that person above others (and that he probably wants something in return, such as worship).
There's a couple of logical problems here. If God is love and loves everybody, (possibly equally as much) he wouldn't favour one person above another. Ever... Humans are social creatures. Our status and happiness is relative to our peers. If God is favouring one over an other he is being cruel to those who don't get the extra help, isn't he?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
The second problem is financial. Let's say you're a baker or a fishmonger in Jerusalem ca AD 33 and a no good hippie turns up, magically conjures up bread and fish and distributes it for free. What happens to your sales? What if you're dependent on your sales to feed your family? The economy is very delicately balanced, if God does anything to effect the financial market, no matter how minute, there will always be a loser somewhere.
Of course he could simply be focused on saving people from having accidents which would save them from losses that nobody counted on, which will probably have a very slight impact. But that brings us to the next problem. If he loves all of us and is omnipotent, why would any of us ever have any accidents? He's omnipotent! It wouldn't cost him anything. It would be no effort on Gods side. He's beyond time itself. He could be at every point in time and place at all times. If anybody has an accident it must be because it is in Gods plan. It is what he wants. In a universe with a omnipotent being, everything that happens, happens because that is what God actively lets happen. It is what God wants, if that is even the correct term for it.
One solution could be deism. God never does anything. He started time and movement with one big bang and then went back to doing what he'd been doing prior to creating time, (how's that for logical conundrum?). This way God could still be good but understanding the implications of the impact of his own meddling he does nothing.
Yeah... this is pretty ranty. But this is the land of the hypothetical spirals of limitless imagination.
Why would an omnipotent being want to be worshipped? What could he/it possibly gain from that? He has everything. He's omnipotent! Why would an omnipotent being want anything at all? What needs could the desires of an omnipotent being possibly fulfil? Aristotle travelled down this philosophical road a long time ago and you'll be hard pressed to argue against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
The God theory is only simple if you anthropomorphise God, but that would in turn would imply that God isn't omnipotent. So that's out of the question. There is no way God can have human emotions and still be omnipotent. The unmoved mover is philosophically a very complicated solution to the origins of the Universe. But in this area science really doesn't have any better explanation so it's a bit premature to rule out the possibility of there being no unmoved mover at all. As far as science is concerned it's just as a likely, (or unlikely) theory as any other.
I'm not making any claims that my understanding of the logical implications of the Christian theory of God is complete. Many much more intelligent men, (and women) than me have explored this much more fully. I'm sure there's a whole host of things I haven't thought of. But for Christianity the sad fact is that nobody has yet been able to tie up the bag. Nobody has been able to present a complete hypothetical model for how a universe with a Christian God will work. We're still in the fact finding stage. And God doesn't seem to be in a hurry to help us out in solving this problem.
I don't quite buy the idea that helping one person over all others means he is being cruel to everyone else. If he takes something away from all the others to give to the favoured one, then, yes, I agree.
I like the idea of deism.
As for God's quid pro quo, I agree, what could an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity possibly want from us? Yet the accounts we have seem to speak of his anger when disobeyed and of the harshness of his retribution; of his tantrums where he meets decadence, such that he destroys cities, and, worse, how he floods the whole world, killing virtually every single person alive at the time. And, according to those accounts, all he really wanted was to be loved.
And this reveals him to be less than omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent - or at least, it does to me.
TYWD
And then of course there's the possibility that God isn't omnipotent. But this is just the limited picture we get from our little corner of the universe. We have no idea where it ends, do we?
The problem with this is of course that well... who the fuck am I?!? The greatest minds of humanity has wrestled with just this questions for 2300 years and not gotten anywhere. So I wouldn't be surprised if I miss something important.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Still... it's not clear what is God's actions and what is human interpretations of God's actions. Let's say there's an earthquake which leads to one side winning a battle. Maybe the earthquake was completely unrelated to either of the battling forces? But the winning side might interpret it as God intervening on their behalf... if they're theists of course. But it would just be pure assumption from their part.
edit: I would like to make it perfectly clear that in the few previous posts I've just been philosophising freely. Shopenhauer managed to break the problem down and made the problems with the God theory very easy to understand. He made it perfectly clear that God as defined by Christians is at best unknowable. The Unmoved Mover theory doesn't have to exist by necessity as Aristotle claimed. It's just one possibly theory among an infinite of theories. Any other religion might have nailed that one. Or quite possibly, which is the most probable..we're all wrong. If the Cosmological Argument doesn't by necessity have to hold we can't deduce anything from it. BTW, for those who haven't read a boat load of philosophy. "By necessity" in philosophneese is a fancy schmancy way of saying that it's an absolute truth or constant given the scenario. Anyhoo... So if the Cosmological Argument isn't always an absolute truth because any other solution is unthinkable, we've pulled out the rug under Christianities most critical and fundamental argument. If this is up for debate... then so is absolutely everything else about Christianity.
That is why no philosopher after Shopenhaur is Christian. Either they made/make a big deal about being atheists, (the vast majority) or they simply said, "who cares. It's impossible to say anything about it or argue in any direction". And don't make the mistake of thinking, "who cares about philosophers. They'll just question anything for the sake of it". Christianity is the invention of Philosophers. Everything attributed to being said by Jesus was first penned by the philosopher Philo of Alexandria. The Christian theory of the universe is purely a philosophers model of the universe. It's impossible to link the alleged miracles in the Bible to any specific religion. Even if they did take place just as described, they don't strengthen the case for Aristotle's Unmoved Mover theory. It could be the result of any religions Gods, or none of them. And this is assuming they actually took place. No, it's not a question of faith. If you think it is, you haven't understood the word "faith". Even if you're one of those who have spoken to God and Jesus in person, or even have them as close personal friends... doesn't add to the Unmoved Mover theory. You still can't tell the God you're speaking to is omnipotent. Do you think the ants crawling around our feet think we're omnipotent... I mean if they could ponder about the nature of the universe. You have no platform from which to measure of make judgements.
I do enjoy having a little bit of cerebral exercise regarding the nature of God if he/it did exist. But we're pretty far from reaching a stage where anything can be deduced. And we're pretty far from a position where Christian faith is even worth considering. We're still in the fact finding stage.
Somebody said it, I forget who, but it does make sense:
There are absolutely no absolutes!
The end.
It's still hard to argue for either side. But the relativists seem to be winning today. It's at least all the vogue nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
But it's important to keep in mind that if we prove relativism we have proven God doesn't exist because nothing is more absolute than the Unmoved Mover. It's a critical part of the theory.
edit: I tried to track it down. But I think the specific quote is just one of those things that's been floating around forums for a long time.
edit2: The Christian God is the solution to Plato's problem of the source of moral and physical absolutes. If we reject that there are absolutes we've also removed the necessity of the Unmoved Mover. If we are relativist and Christian, we're simply lost the roots of our religion. Then it's a house built on mud.
TomOfSweden with having pointed out these truths, you have assisted all Christians in what they must argue in defending their faith, if only we will listen to you. Plato's God was absolute. So is the Christian God. The Absolute does not change. Change is an appearance and not really real. The the secret is to continue to have a better revealing of the Absolute.
That is what history and the Bible does. History and the Bible should both be viewed as a revealing by those who believe in the Absolute. God does not change but our conception of God improves. There are serous consequences for the world if Christians do not view history and the Bible from their world system's point of view, that is. that God is Absolute.
Christians falsely believe the Book of Revelation in the Bible is prophesy. Thus, they come up with many self-fulfilling prophesies that even our nation's politics is conjoined. The belief by both the Muslims and Christians that there is to be one last battle in the last days is a very dangerous prophsey in a nuclear age.
The first chapter of the Book of Revelation states clearly that the book is a revealing of Jesus Christ, that is, the Absolute. Author of books and T.V. ministers ignore this fact as they create scenarios for the end of days that can not be found in the Bible.
Well, I have really stepped into shit now! To argue from the point of view of the revelation of God, the revealing, will not go well with many ministers and authors who are making millions$ by scaring people about the last days as they continue their possible self-fulfilling statements.
If you all get a moment, you should read this short story. It written by the writer of Dilbert (the comic) its called God Debris and it has alot of stuff in there to make you think.
http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/...ods_Debris.pdf
I said earlier that my goal wasn't to discredit religion. I really don't. I'd say your above account is completely correct. But it still hinges on there being absolute truths we can know. This is not a matter of belief or faith. This is science. And we cannot prove either side.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
If you do think it is down to faith you haven't understood the word. Faith is when you've measured enough times to be sure that every time you measure the result will be the same. This is when we make the leap of faith.
Kierkegaard reasoned that humanity will never be able to know and therefore if we are to make any meaning of life, forced to make a leap to faith. But this was in the 1840'ies. I'd say he was probably a bit premature in his assessment. Science has progressed with leaps and bounds since then. There's no reason any more to make a leap to faith. Taking an informed leap of faith is actually possible in these informed times. The problem is of course that we're swamped by too much information and no single person can sort it our by themselves. But that is not the problem of truth/God. That is just the situation we find ourselves in and which we'll have to deal with. And the Christian theory of God is much to vague and abstract to be applicable to today's science. The Bible needs an update to be relevant in today's society. At least if you care about truth.
I personally see the Bible as a summation of what we knew, or thought we knew in 350 AD. But it was a snapshot of it's time. Modern science is the same Bible but for today. A snapshot of our time. Maybe truth is absolute. Maybe. Maybe science will find constants somewhere. Maybe. But it's not a matter of faith. Faith cannot change what is true. It is a matter of continued research by those who have devoted their lives to finding truth using the tools with which it is potentially possible. No, I'm not talking about Kukulcan priests smoking peyote or the Pope swigging wine.
But I'll admit that having this approach takes away the simplicity of getting the "truth" in easily digestible MTV formated packaging. It means you actually need to make an effort. You can't just sit and be opinionated on forums and read one single book.
Just to let you know, I'm already laughing out loud at p 9 ... and it's a funnier and easier read than summaries of Shopenhauer!Quote:
Originally Posted by Silus
I've only read the introduction and I'm already hooked. Sounds like it's right up my alley!Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
I may not believe in a Christian God myself, but I do think that the point of God is that he is perfect; as in he is all-knowing, all-loving, omnipresent and all the rest of it.
God created a world which was allowed to 'Fall' not because he was wasn't perfect and therefore incapable of creating a perfect world; but because he wanted to create a world with free will, and without the possibility of sin and the option to sin there is no freedom. Which in turn means there is no faith and no choice with religion, meaning that people cannot become Christian and choose to go towards God.
It's a difficult debate, but I do think that it's in the very nature of the Christian God that he is perfect. It may not always seem that way but that's my understanding of it.
I think it's rather that us as humans can't understand what perfection is, and that's the main problem when deciding what is and isn't perfect - because everyone has their own definition of what the 'ideal' is.