When it comes to God
- Thread starter GottaBigOne
- Start date
I agree that Bahá'í and Eastern Orthodoxy should be included. I know for a fact that we have some Eastern Orthodox members here. Wicca, however, is included in Pantheism. The witches in Salem, Massachussetts, are members of the Pantheistic Congregations of America, and the official Salem Witch is an ordained Pantheistic minister.
Pantheism as observed in many congregations does indeed believe in 'supernatural beings'. (See my above post.) They revere a god, but the goddess is a more powerful force. The Pantheistic Congregations of America considers Pantheism to be a modern pagan religion. They finally realise that Wicca does not, in fact, have the unbroken three millennia-old tradition that they formerly touted, but is a nature religion concocted in relatively recent times.
headbang8
Admired Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2004
- Posts
- 1,619
- Media
- 12
- Likes
- 811
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
- Sexuality
- 80% Gay, 20% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Let's look at it this way.
Imagine you're an ant, crawling across a sidewalk with all your other little ant friends. A giant object (which human beings would identify as a shoe) descends to earth, crushes a few score of you, and disappears back into the heavens.
Now the remaining ants, if they were capable of thought, might explain this as an act of god. Though we humans know that there is an all-too-mortal explanation.
Science increasingly can explain acts of god, fate, and even the birth of the planet--if not the universe. Yet.
We now know that thunder does not come from Thor, typhoons are not Neptune's anger made visible, nor are plagues of locusts explained by anything other than the fact that they're hungry. Will there be an explanation for the creation of the universe? Hmmm...that's a tough one. But I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be.
I don't assert that we MUST find an explanation in science for everything, but the track record seems pretty good. My belief is that there is a "scientific" explanation for most of the phenomena in the universe, including the phenomanon of my being able to contemplate it.
And I hold that belief simply on the balance of probability I impute from what I see and have been told--I have no more mystical faith in science than in a god.
But you never know: God might start talking to us again and I'll have to eat crow at Confession. Thanks heavens that if He exists, He's merciful nowadays.
By the way, has anyone else noticed? He seems to have changed since He had kids; starting a family really settled Him down and mellowed Him out. Nice to see.
So that's why I chose agnostic theist rather than agnostic atheist,though in truth I lean toward the latter. Maybe I should change the vote. That poor soul who declared himself to be our only agnostic atheist must be feeling lonely. In so many ways.
Yours Faithfully,
headbang8
P.S. I'm getting on a plane this afternoon. Do you think this post might have been a bad move?
Imagine you're an ant, crawling across a sidewalk with all your other little ant friends. A giant object (which human beings would identify as a shoe) descends to earth, crushes a few score of you, and disappears back into the heavens.
Now the remaining ants, if they were capable of thought, might explain this as an act of god. Though we humans know that there is an all-too-mortal explanation.
Science increasingly can explain acts of god, fate, and even the birth of the planet--if not the universe. Yet.
We now know that thunder does not come from Thor, typhoons are not Neptune's anger made visible, nor are plagues of locusts explained by anything other than the fact that they're hungry. Will there be an explanation for the creation of the universe? Hmmm...that's a tough one. But I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be.
I don't assert that we MUST find an explanation in science for everything, but the track record seems pretty good. My belief is that there is a "scientific" explanation for most of the phenomena in the universe, including the phenomanon of my being able to contemplate it.
And I hold that belief simply on the balance of probability I impute from what I see and have been told--I have no more mystical faith in science than in a god.
But you never know: God might start talking to us again and I'll have to eat crow at Confession. Thanks heavens that if He exists, He's merciful nowadays.
By the way, has anyone else noticed? He seems to have changed since He had kids; starting a family really settled Him down and mellowed Him out. Nice to see.
So that's why I chose agnostic theist rather than agnostic atheist,though in truth I lean toward the latter. Maybe I should change the vote. That poor soul who declared himself to be our only agnostic atheist must be feeling lonely. In so many ways.
Yours Faithfully,
headbang8
P.S. I'm getting on a plane this afternoon. Do you think this post might have been a bad move?
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Amazing how some people "know" that God exists and some others "know" that there is no God.
An agnostic isn't sure. And that strikes me as the most honest interpretation of this world.
Either way, if God exists, all the atheists claiming otherwise won't destroy him (her).
and if He doesn't exist, then sorry all you church-goers, but the same applies in reverse.
Perhaps we find out down the road. -_-
An agnostic isn't sure. And that strikes me as the most honest interpretation of this world.
Either way, if God exists, all the atheists claiming otherwise won't destroy him (her).
and if He doesn't exist, then sorry all you church-goers, but the same applies in reverse.
Perhaps we find out down the road. -_-
This reminds me of a story about an atheist during a tourist stop at a monastery. He was told that this monastic order was completely dedicated to prayer and ministry to the poor. The atheist explained his views and told one of the monks, "If I'm right, you've wasted a lifetime." The monk replied, "And if you're wrong, you've wasted eternity."
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Lol, kinda like a cartoon I saw once, probably in a church bulletin:
"God is dead"- Nietche
"Neitche is dead"- God
funny stuff, I'm still riding the fence.
"God is dead"- Nietche
"Neitche is dead"- God
funny stuff, I'm still riding the fence.
- jonb,
Yeah, but the whole concept of hell is the logical equivalent of protection money; original sin ensures that everyone who doesn't believe (regardless of their life) will go to hell, and atonement ensures that everyone who does believe (regardless of their life) will go to heaven.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
This reminds me of a story about an atheist during a tourist stop at a monastery. He was told that this monastic order was completely dedicated to prayer and ministry to the poor. The atheist explained his views and told one of the monks, "If I'm right, you've wasted a lifetime." The monk replied, "And if you're wrong, you've wasted eternity." [/b][/quote]
This is whats called "Pascal's Wager" or a derivitive of it anyway. It doesn't say anything about the validity any either of the beliefs, it only tries to make a point that its "safer" to believe than not to. But there really is no "safe" route in this scenario because if the monk was wrong about budhism or wahtever leading to Nirvana and lets say the Christian God existed than he too would have wasted eternity. There is no way to know what faith actually is the "right" one so we are all in a sense making a wager, and all of the risks are basically the same for all of us. The athiest uses reason however to arrive at his beliefs so In my opinion, albeit a biased one, the atheist has the best chance at being correct.
To make another point: I as an athiest do not pretned to "know" that there is no God. That is not what athiesm is. People often misunderstand it that way and take it to mean that an athiesm believes there is no god. This is not true. An athiest is one who does not believe in a god. There is a distinction there, I hope it is self evident. Athiesm is a lack of belief, not a belief. The two forms of athiesm I have listed though make a clarification. Implicit Athiesm is what I just described. Its athiesm at its basest. Explicit athiesm takes it a step forward and states that some or all the gods that one has heard of do not and sometimes cannot exist. The one i really think can not exist is the traditional Judeo-Christian God of Moses, Abraham, and Jesus. The reason I feel like I can make this assertion is that the concepts of this god are usually inherently self-contradictory. The laws of logic prevent it from existing in any real manner. Something can not be itself and also not itself, to be so would be ridiculous, i hope we can all agree on that. A "square-Circle" does not and can not possibly exist, so in the same manner a God that entails such a contradiction can not exist either. I do not however mantain that no god can ever exist, just the ones I've heard about.
Wow, great topic. I didn't respond to the poll because I can't definitively place it.
I was baptised Roman Catholic, but I'm not religious in that sense. God, as traditionally defined, doesn't fit so well into my beliefs, although a higher power does.
My beliefs tend to combine aspects of Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and others... more a way of conducting myself rather than worshiping something that can't touched or seen or smelled.
I was baptised Roman Catholic, but I'm not religious in that sense. God, as traditionally defined, doesn't fit so well into my beliefs, although a higher power does.
My beliefs tend to combine aspects of Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and others... more a way of conducting myself rather than worshiping something that can't touched or seen or smelled.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Very nice, Jay. Kahlil Gibran is one of my favorite philosophers too. I'm in agreement with both of you on this. Structured religion is just too non-inclusive for me to find any real connection.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
My first religious interest was with Zen Buddhism, funny how I'm almost all the way back to that now. Maybe it's not funny.
Perverse dieties, Jon? If we were created in the image of God, wouldn't it almost necessarily be so?
Perverse dieties, Jon? If we were created in the image of God, wouldn't it almost necessarily be so?
Javierdude22:
I believe in the God of Abraham and Moses and His Son Jesus Christ...I could personally care less in what way I chose to do that. I was baptised Catholic through my Spanish descent and attend church in a protestant one although occassionally Catholic.
Lately I have started to more and more distance myself from many institutional rules and regulations of the Christian churches and. They can really suck, and in many cases make people oblivious to the real point of being a Christian. The church to me is a building where I listen to God's word, and where I talk with the Big Man Upstairs. C'est tout.
Care to explain? What exactly is the contradiction?
I believe in the God of Abraham and Moses and His Son Jesus Christ...I could personally care less in what way I chose to do that. I was baptised Catholic through my Spanish descent and attend church in a protestant one although occassionally Catholic.
Lately I have started to more and more distance myself from many institutional rules and regulations of the Christian churches and. They can really suck, and in many cases make people oblivious to the real point of being a Christian. The church to me is a building where I listen to God's word, and where I talk with the Big Man Upstairs. C'est tout.
