• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Talking with God

i against i said:
now you're just trying to muddle the definition of "faith" and make another esoteric point.
Click to expand...

faith to me is belief in something that you cannot prove to another.

i against i said:
what does this even mean?
Click to expand...
what i meant by that is something you obviously would rather not think for yourself about.

at some point in life, more happens then we are prepared for, or no one can help and answer for us, this is why dependency on external sources bothers me so much.
 
external sources like religion?

i've been doing your "don't speak for 12 hours" and received no revalations.
 
yes, external sources like religion.

_________

KamMoye said:
God is not at odds with faith. Faith and science are complements, as Einstein made clear.

Eastern "religions" like Buddhism/Taoism/Hinduism (science of yoga, dah foo) make that very clear.
Click to expand...

Science and religion are to compliment each other, agreed, not disprove one the other, which is what has happened as a question of faith.
 
Last edited:
God is not at odds with faith. Faith and science are complements, as Einstein made clear.

Eastern "religions" like Buddhism/Taoism/Hinduism (science of yoga, dah foo) make that very clear.
 
KamMoye said:
God is not at odds with faith. Faith and science are complements, as Einstein made clear.

Eastern "religions" like Buddhism/Taoism/Hinduism (science of yoga, dah foo) make that very clear.
Click to expand...

well, they're not really religions, they are primarily interested in an experience, not a doctrine or a belief or a faith, but a real experience that you have.
 
KamMoye said:
Faith and science are complements, as Einstein made clear.
Click to expand...

what do you mean by this? i think the only thing he made clear is religions willingness to twist anything positive said by a scientist for their own ends.

how can they be compliments? religion is based on belief despite the absence of evidence (the definition of faith) and science is based on the opposite.
 
i against i said:
what do you mean by this?
Click to expand...

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Einstein

how can they be compliments? religion is based on belief despite the absence of evidence (the definition of faith) and science is based on the opposite.
Click to expand...

By that definition the religions I named aren't necessarily religions, which is why I put them in quotes.

Eastern religions depend on personal evidence, or as I've read elsewhere, transjective evidence:

Transcendentally objective. Having an independent existence, but dependent on the state of the observer to access, experience and verify. Transjective truths are not universally verifiable by just anyone, as only those with sufficient conscious development can access and realize them. Transjective phenomena are not universally experienceable because they, too, depend on the observer. Examples include gnostic revelations and paranormal experiences.

Whereas objective truths and phenomena are strictly those based in our physical realm of existence, transjective truths and phenomena may be based in other realms and higher planes of existence. Senses other than the first five may be required to perceive them.
Click to expand...
 
They're like two sides of the same coin. You're so focused on hating religion that you can't see the twofold nature.
 
i against i said:
what do you mean by this? i think the only thing he made clear is religions willingness to twist anything positive said by a scientist for their own ends.

how can they be compliments? religion is based on belief despite the absence of evidence (the definition of faith) and science is based on the opposite.
Click to expand...

Science and Spirituality are almost identical in many aspects. Science was invented by Christians to help us be healthier and make more sense of our life, especially how we relate on a micro macro cosmical level to the rest of the universe(s) and spirituality. Einstein is the one who disputed the concept of "aether", but also believes as I do that the planets are resting in something, like water, and we are the fish who cant readily perceive the water, or the bowl.

According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist.
-Einstein

If there is only empty space, with no suns nor planets in it, then space loses its substantiality.
-Buddha

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.
-Einstein

All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements...are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of the mind.
-Buddha

_________
They were both tapped into something similar.
 
KamMoye said:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Einstein
Click to expand...

einstein also said "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

!!4iV4HF9R34g said:
They're like two sides of the same coin. You're so focused on hating religion that you can't see the twofold nature.
Click to expand...

i would argue that you are blinded, and it's not hate, it's disgust. i have been a fervent disciple, i have read much of the bible in detail and that is what caused me to reject it. from my previous post we see that god commanded people to commit murder, yet if someone murdered today and firmly believed god told them to (as opposed to attempting to appear insane) they would be laughed at, and rightly so. somehow the modern god only commands people to do good, when the bible contains countless examples of god commanding or condoning acts that are abhorrent (such as murder, slavery and rape)

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies." (deuteronomy 20:10-14)

panic in paradise said:
Science and Spirituality are almost identical in many aspects. Science was invented by Christians to help us be healthier and make more sense of our life, especially how we relate on a micro macro cosmical level to the rest of the universe(s) and spirituality. Einstein is the one who disputed the concept of "aether", but also believes as I do that the planets are resting in something, like water, and we are the fish who cant readily perceive the water, or the bowl.
Click to expand...

what? science predates christianity, how can you even suggest this?
 
this needs it own thread.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The question of whether 'science' and 'religion' as such are fundamentally at odds has already been done to death, here and elsewhere. UTFSE, and I'm sure you'll find a winner.

Oh yeah, and, cut the off-topic chatter kids, or I'll start replacing the contents of your posts with Groucho one-liners and/or Hitler quotes.
 
Man, what does the old testament's god commanding rape and murder have ANYTHING to do with the argument???
It seriously has no bearing whatsoever on the case that science and spirituality are two techniques used to discover the truths of life.

^Agreed though, this is such a tangent.
 
!!4iV4HF9R34g said:
Man, what does the old testament's god commanding rape and murder have ANYTHING to do with the argument???
Click to expand...

no it doesn't, but i wasn't using it for that point, i was using it in the context of the OP, given that the topic is about talking to a christian god. my question is:

"if someone murdered today and firmly believed god told them to (as opposed to attempting to appear insane) they would be laughed at, and rightly so. somehow the modern god only commands people to do good, when the bible contains countless examples of god commanding or condoning acts that are abhorrent (such as murder, slavery and rape)"

so why is it (in the modern time) only considered "hearing god" if he commands you to do "good" things, yet you're considered crazy if god commands you to do "bad" things, when he previously did that in abundance?
 
Okay, that's more clear.

The old testament god was a vengeful god. He was wrathful because he had tried to create man in his image, supposedly divine. Except, because of Free Agency and The Fall, man became sinful. Man corrupted itself, and this obviously made god angry. He was much more anthromorphic during these times apparently.
However, in the New Testament, Jesus was born. And apparently, having a kid can make you a bit more compassionate and soft. So Jesus' message was of love and tolerance and acceptance, rather than simply devotion and obediance.

Also, most modern catholics and christians believe that the Old Testament is allegorical.
 
PiP you gotta work on comprehension too dude..
That's like, literally what I said.
That Jesus is the reason for the discrepancy between Old Testament and New Testament god..
 
So Jesus' message was of love and tolerance and acceptance
Click to expand...

Love thy neighbor as thyself was straight out of the OT. I see it more as social conditions of the times being reflected, the old days of Israel and Judea under Roman occupancy had people living with very different dangers, so different aspects of G-d's relationship with man were emphasized. Mainly though, Jesus seemed to be about getting behind the spirit of the Law and religion, rather than than blind adherence to the letter and empty ritualism. He didn't find the Torah to be objectionable, just people's approach to it, and their approach to the Lord Himself.

Well, I'm not denying the validity of the OT vs NT line of thought altogether, one can definitely make a good case for it, but I do not adhere to that perspective nor do I find it useful. But this is off topic anyway, so whatever.


And PiP, you ought to visit us more often, you and MDAO. PD could use some enrichment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top