Spillover from "Share Your Spiritual Beliefs" Thread

[Mole]

When the Athenian council asked Paul where he will build his temple they were astonished when he told them that his god will not need a temple.

They were very disappointed to here this, and he told them they were very ignorant.

Jesus doesn't need us to house him. God made the universe and he doesn't need us to make him a home.

That's what the bible say's.

We can't believe everything the Bible says because it says contradictory things and they can't all be right. The Bible is internally inconsistent.

 

[Argus]

We can't believe everything the Bible says because it says contradictory things and they can't all be right. The Bible is internally inconsistent.

It's in historical agreement in the secular realm that Paul went to the Athenian Council.

 

[Kollin]

So you believe in the Trinity for rational reasons and don't believe in Zeus or Poseidon for rational reasons.

So as far as Zeus or Poseidon are concerned, you are an atheist. But as far as the Trinity is concerned, you are a theist.

Now you're trying to engage me in a debate about religion which if I understand was not the purpose of this thread. I don't have it all figured out, Victor. My point in asserting that was that at first I did believe it because I was raised with it, but after doing some research I decided to hold on to those beliefs. I haven't found any other belief systems to be as compelling.

I will ask you this: Do you personally know anyone that worships Zeus or Poseidan? If they did exist, would not they have some worshippers?

 

[Amargith]

Both Zeus and Poseidon are gods of a pagan religion and both are supernatural.

If you ask any pagan, they will tell you that the Gods are part of Nature. We don't agree on much, but this happens to be one thing we do agree on, mostly. They rule a dominion, are limited in their power, are not allmighty at all and are bound by their own laws and the laws of this existence. They also have their flaws and strenghts. Magic, Gods, spirits, the underworld, none of it is supernatural. It is part of our universe, part of Nature, therefore 'natural'. It's often not understood/misunderstood by those that do not practise our ways.

The only thing that I consider unnatural is undead and aberrations (aka Frankenstein like shit). And those too, are not supernatural, but unnatural.

 

[Unique]

Of the six thousand million or so in the world, almost all received their religion at their mother's knee.

So almost all of six thousand million people have received their religion without any kind of critical thought whatsoever.

And if I understand you, this has been denied to you.

And as there has never been a civilization not based on a religion, your patrimony has been denied to you.

So if I understand you, you have been shut out of the most fundamental part of your civilization.

You have been deracinated.

Correct I wasn't brain washed at an early age

I sense however that you are trying to bait me into debating you, this isn't the point of this thread and you don't have any kind of worthy argument anyway

For your information though Australia is 70% christian if that's what you meant by it being denied to me, nothing has been denied of me, you assume way too much for the little information you have

 

[Mole]

If you ask any pagan, they will tell you that the Gods are part of Nature. We don't agree on much, but this happens to be one thing we do agree on, mostly. They rule a dominion, are limited in their power, are not allmighty at all and are bound by their own laws and the laws of this existence. They also have their flaws and strenghts. Magic, Gods, spirits, the underworld, none of it is supernatural. It is part of our universe, part of Nature, therefore 'natural'. It's often not understood/misunderstood by those that do not practise our ways.

The only thing that I consider unnatural is undead and aberrations (aka Frankenstein like shit). And those too, are not supernatural, but unnatural.

Science studies nature. Science does not study magic, gods, spirits or the underworld - because they are supernatural.

So to call magic, gods, spirits and the underworld, natural is called special pleading.

 

[Amargith]

Science studies nature. Science does not study magic, gods, spirits or the underworld - because they are supernatural.

So to call magic, gods, spirits and the underworld, natural is called special pleading.

Ahh the old science argument. Yeah. So..since science hasn't investigated and studied magic, gods, spirits or the underworld..scientists know just by divine inspiration, with 100 percent certainty that these things aren't part of Nature? Kewl.

 

[Mole]

Correct I wasn't brain washed at an early age

I sense however that you are trying to bait me into debating you, this isn't the point of this thread and you don't have any kind of worthy argument anyway

For your information though Australia is 70% christian if that's what you meant by it being denied to me, nothing has been denied of me, you assume way too much for the little information you have

Deracinated means to be cut off from your roots.

And the fact that you call your patrimony brain washing shows not only are you deracinated but you deny it as well. And why not, it would be too painful to face - it would mean facing a permanent cultural impoverishment.

Fair better to call your rightful inheritance brain washing. It also has the advantage of being part of deracinated popular culture.

 

[Mole]

Ahh the old science argument. Yeah. So..since science hasn't investigated and studied magic, gods, spirits or the underworld..scientists know just by divine inspiration, with 100 percent certainty that these things aren't part of Nature? Kewl.

In English we make the distinction between the natural and the supernatural.

And it is becoming plain that you do not make this distinction.

And as we perceive by making distinctions, it is not surprising you do not see.

 

[Mole]

I will ask you this: Do you personally know anyone that worships Zeus or Poseidan? If they did exist, would not they have some worshippers?

All of Ancient Greece worshipped Zeus and Poseidon. But today no one worships Zeus or Poseidon.

In the same way that people worship the Trinity today but in the future no one will worship the Trinity.

And it is quite likely they will be worshipping some other god.

 

[Amargith]

In English we make the distinction between the natural and the supernatural.

And it is becoming plain that you do not make this distinction.

And as we perceive by making distinctions, it is not surprising you do not see.

It's ironic that those that actually work with the stuff you refer to as 'supernatural', those that are interested in this stuff and do study it, don't consider it supernatural at all. Makes you wonder who's right..

I find that most things that were considered 'supernatural' in the day, have become part of science these days and are very natural. Hypnosis is an example. Bacteria is another. As science progresses, they discover that many of the things considered supernatural and magical are in fact natural processes, things we just hadn't figured out yet.

And we'd be arrogant to think that we've discovered everything by now. So yeah..feel free to keep calling those things supernatural. Just know that others consider them very much natural.

 

[Amargith]

All of Ancient Greece worshipped Zeus and Poseidon. But today no one worships Zeus or Poseidon.

In the same way that people worship the Trinity today but in the future no one will worship the Trinity.

And it is quite likely they will be worshipping some other god.

:rolli: Get your facts straight or stop making statements about topics you clearly need more schooling on. Hellenic Pagans are still present in this day and age.

 

[Mole]

:rolli: Get your facts straight or stop making statements about topics you clearly need more schooling on. Hellenic Pagans are still present in this day and age.

You simply have to read the history of the Romantic Movement and the New Age to discover where present day pagans came from.

 

[Amargith]

You simply have to read the history of the Romantic Movement and the New Age to discover where present day pagans came from.

The origin of the movement doesn't discount the fact that these people still worship those Gods.

 

[Mole]

The origin of the movement doesn't discount the fact that these people still worship those Gods.

I don't think we are on the same page.

 

[Amargith]

I don't think we are on the same page.

That was clear to me a while ago already.

 

[Jaguar]

Am I the only one scared by this thread?

The only thing that scared me was my desire to take an axe to someone's head, in this thread.

 

[Xander]

Actually, I find it interesting how some seem to be struggling with the act of identifying themselves positively on their own terms without directly pitting themselves against another POV expressed in the thread. I didn't think it would be so hard.

Errm isn't it a case of "I'm Spartacus" kind of combined with societies which only recognise accredited sources without ever pausing to question who gives credit to the accreditor and so forth?

I mean someone stating that they believe the world is made with cheese is treated as someone of dubious intellect but someone who belongs to a whole group of people who think the world is made with cheese is either afforded more leeway or is treated as a fanatic and feared.

Association with a recognisable name, something to affiliate to is desirable and indeed practical... it's just not that easy when you think they're all equally full of rose food and rose petals...

 

[Heart&Brain]

Do you?

Tell me why you believe. Or, conversely, why you choose to disbelieve.

I'm not starting this thread to fertilize a battleground. Spirituality is an intimate experience. It is not concerned with empirical logic beyond what works for the individual. To that end, I'm not looking to debate.

Only to share.

So, tell me: What do you believe?


Edit: Just to be clear, the intent of this thread is to allow folks to weigh in on their personal spiritual ideology; it's not an opportunity for religious debate. There are countless other threads available in which that is a possibility.

You can have personal tastes that doesn't interfere with the personal preferences of others. Whether you prefer beef over pork, indie over heavy, green over blue, introversion over extraversion etc., personal preferences can coexist without contradiction as to what is real and not.

But it doesn't make sense to call a religious belief "personal" since it is by definition cosmological and universal in scope. To believe in any religious worldview is to believe it exists outside yourself, that it is true for everybody, no matter what they may believe themselves.

To spell it out: You don't believe you alone will get reincarnated while other's won't. You can't believe that some astrological 'star-influence' only hit you at birth, but failed to influence the un-believers. And the moral one: Do any Catholics think that only Catholic gays will spend their afterlife tortured in hell while homosexual Zeus-believers will be spared? Etc. ad nauseam.

Thus every religious belief will per definition claim validity for everybody - explicitly or implicitly dependent on what they can best get away in the context.

Claims of religious faith are 'strong claims' because either they are valid independant of personal taste or they are invalid. So are claims of gravitational laws. While there is nothing wrong with strong claims as such, they will of course need to be backed by equally strong reasons to be granted status as anything more than personal fantasies.

Religious attempts at defining our shared world must be challenged, it must be held responsible for internal inconsistencies and external counterevidence. Because they are invariably speaking about the life and the world of everybody, religious ideas can't be allowed to hide behind the protection of 'personal taste', that we provide personal sexual or gastronomic preferences. Actually this protection express the strong claim that who people screw and what eat is their personal judgment alone, provided the don't hinder others' ability to judge these matters for themselves. Which religious morality invariably does.

I believe gravitational laws are true about the world. Not because of a personal taste, but because of strong arguments, strong evidence and strong theoretical consistency. This opens the peossibility that an even stronger theory might come up in the future, which would force me to change belief. To say "Personally I believe in gravitation" would be just as non-sensical as saying "I believe in a God that only exists for me until I change my taste tomorrow."

To accept double standards when socially forming ideas on what our world is all about would be to give in to powerplays and injustice. Religious belief should not be given a free ride, but be subjected to critique and rejection, just like every other strong and influential claim about impersonal, shared conditions - be it scientific, political, ethical, historical, technical, psychological etc.


This 'personal faith' stuff is just an excuse for religions not to face the music of criticism and responsibility.

 

[Moiety]

You can have personal tastes that doesn't interfere with the personal preferences of others. Whether you prefer beef over pork, indie over heavy, green over blue, introversion over extraversion etc., personal preferences can coexist without contradiction as to what is real and not. ...

<long post>

...This 'personal faith' stuff is just an excuse for religions not to face the music of criticism and responsibility.

Very well put Heart&Brain.