Are you religious?

Now there's a black & white statement if I ever saw one. So riddle me this, Skaara. Is it just to forgive Oliver O'Grady? (By the way, to those whom it may concern, have a look at the documentary Deliver Us from Evil (2006))

Except that your proof isn't proof but illogical and dilusional ramblings, you see, and ours isn't.

 

I wouldn't say "illogical and delusional", but you make a good point.

 

According to the Bible, God means that it is Just to Forgive those who deep-heartedly regret their sin, and intend to never do it again. Now, that's another grey-colored morale that you didn't think of, huh?

YOU might not personally forgive someone, because you cannot know if they actually are speaking the truth when they say they regret what they've done. Most likely, they'd be lying. If Oliver O'Grady Suddenly said that he regrets it, he'd most likely be lying, yes. According to the bible, though, God is allknowing, which means that He would know wether O'Grady really regretted it or not.

Take for example that Anders Behring Breivik actually wasn't an extremist within politics, he just happened to have a second personality that is crazy, and the true and actual Breivik is actually an unusually humble forgiving and friendly soul that cries and cries about what his other personality have done. Would you be so stone-hearted and send him to jail where he'd live his whole life, rather than to a mental hospital where he'd stay for 20 years, or maybe shorter if showing symptomes of recovering and getting rid of the second personality?

As a side note, I'd like to mention how I find your examplewise use of a religious leader rather non-surprising. I find your use of Oliver O'grady as more than just an example, but as a strong point and statement, when thinking of how there are so many other alternatives that you'd think of before Oliver, like for example Adolf Hitler, which would have been a much more efficient example. (Sorry if I'm offending you, I don't mean to )

 

Everytime I look at this thread, I'm somewhat between the state of happiness and depression. For starters, I'm happy your acting like men in discussing a topic that would lead most 'civilized' scholars into large tantrums. Kudos to you guys. On the other hand, I feel sad that a lot of people would never follow your examples. I guess we all have our problems.

I'd just want to chime in a bit here.

God, in the catholic dogma taught to us in the Philippines, is an incomprehendable being. Think Cthulu except benevolent. He has human qualities, but he isn't bound to laws of humanity. We might be able to appear as one form, but in belief, God can appear in many, without bounds, with an erratic behavior. In human terms, the closest word that can fit him is bipolar. So, that would explain his actions if you were wondering.

It's kinda like a plastic knife and a titanium knife. Both are knives, yes? Of course, I just said they were knives (lol, silly me). They both cut, and do what all knives do. This difference is that one knife is hard and the other is flexible.

Now if I tried to break the steel knife, (it'd be damn well near impossible) I'd only end up bending it, rendering it useless for cutting. But if I tried to break the plastic knife (which, I'd succeed at) I'd end up having two pieces of plastic, one sharp and the other dull. The plastic may be in two, but it still allows me to cut through my pizza. I don't know if that made any lick of sense, but I think it did.

God, as my teacher explained it, is a loving deity, but is easily jealous, but despite it, he makes a point to it that he watches the world as it turns, and lets us, his creation, set a path for ourselves. Imagine this: You raised a puppy from its birth. Its parents died and you were the only one there to give it care, love, food, shelter and the such. One day, you bring your puppy out for a walk. As you buy a hotdog from your favorite stand, you notice your puppy slowly walk away and head for another man. That man then looks at it, and picks it up for himself. You, as its owner and caretaker, would feel betrayed, would you not? But, then the man thinks to himself, "If I went there and ordered that man to give me back my dog, Adam might think of my as a spiteful and selfish master. But if I would wait, and see what would happen, this would mean two things: Adam would set off with the man and live with him, or he'd come back to find me, waiting here. Either way, this'd let him understand that, I, as his owner, love him with all my heart, and that I want him to be the one in charge of his life."

Also, I'd like to set it to stone here, if any of you need to know:
- I have my own interpretations of the God. At any point, if you find anything out of the Catholic Dogma (I was/am raised Catholic, and still go to a Catholic school (like there's any other in my country nowadays)), it's likely from my own interpretation and I simply forgot to site it.
- I believe the Church (or simply the Catholic Church), though a sweet and beautiful idea, is a corruption of what it was suppose to be. I believe that if Christianity were to release itself from the hypocritical leash of the Church, and start a new order, we would be able to reach our calling as Sons of the Lord.
- Though I think of the Church as littered with many hypocrites, I believe that it's not right to think that all of the Church is filled with hypocrites. I hate a lot of priests for their biased and bigoted sermons and homilies, but I also like a lot of priests for having intellectual, amusing, relate-able, and logical lectures.
- I believe that until we can advance fully into moral flexibility, religion is a valuable safeguard to the morality of many and should not be ridiculed in any way unless you want to get shivved. If you want to get my meaning, I think looking at Libyan protesters would do well to take my point.

 

Very, very, very good examples, illustrations and points stated there, Dahksinol. I am impressed
That's a very interesting view on God, there. I find it logical. Though, I am pretty sure that I know what the bible says. It's not God causing the suffering in this world. Let me tell you shortly what Jehova's Witnesses main belief is:

God made Adam and Eve in the garden. Satan, God's angel, betrayed God by lying and telling Eve that the forbidden fruit (Which was meant as a proof of loyalty towards God by not being eaten) would give her the strength and abilities of God. She ate it, and had Adam eat it too, also aware that it's the fruit from the tree. God banned them from the garden, as he had warned them about. Under Satan's rebellion, he believed that he could rule the world much better than God could, so God gave him the opportunity to prove it. God threw him and his followers to earth, where Adam and Eve were, and allowed Satan to rule the earth for a certain ammount of time. God did this, because his Angels were watching, and God knew that Satan would fail and disprove himself, instead of God just saying "no u" and vaporizing him.

During Satan's rule, God connected to people he found suitable to write the bible, inspired by God himself. They weren't writing their own understandings of God, they were writing exactly what God told/made them do. The humanity was forsaken because they had inherited Adam and Eve's sins. God sendt his son, Jesus, to earth, where he taught people about God and trained and teached apostles. Jesus gave his holy and sacred life to humanity (It was his own choice, not God's) so that they one day might be salvated when they are ready to, as a repay for Adam and Eve's sins. Jesus was brought back to life and went back to God later.

We are still in Satan's hollow hand, and he is the one corrupting the world. He's not doing it directly. He's using sneaky tricks. From something as big as war between nations or religions, to minor things like violent video-games and movies. He's doing it via humanity, causing them to corrupt themselves. God is not doing any of this, but he lets it happen. A certain religion was to be reborn as the apostles died out eventually. Charles T Russel started the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. The bible tells us to study it thoroughly and follow its teaching and advices. And especially to let the world know the truth, and get the chance to actually recieve it. The bible says that people who are right in spirit, will recieve the truth and be given the chance to accept it. So, that is why we go from door to door, delivering litterature.
EDIT: I forgot to say the main point in our belief. Those who follow the bible and gain knowledge about Jesus and the truth, will be spared when Armagheddon comes, and will be placed in the new Garden, in other words Paradise, under the rule of Jesus and God in a new world where there are no tears, no scream, no pain, no agony, no suffering, no hunger, no death etc etc. And we don't believe in Hell by the way. We believe it is just a metaphor, not only because God would never do such a thing, but also because of relations to "hell" in the bible which describes what it actually is.

Absolutely all of this is based on thorough study of the bible, and nothing of it is twisted because of personal wishes. There are no one on the top of this. Nobody is hauling in the volunteerly donated money to Jehovah's witnesses. It's used to build new and bigger Kingdom Halls (Jehovah's Witnesses' "church") and the production of new litterature.

On another note, I can understand Cerberus for disliking how religion slows down scientific progress, because it does in most cases. Take for example the Amish people who live old-fashioned because of their belief, in the old times when christianity prevented science, and causes like this that still happens. (Though, this is not a reason to disrespect people and/or religions).
Jehovah's Witnesses are in no way warring, corrupting or slowing down scientific progress, so I hope you keep in mind, Cerberus, that you are not criticising my religion at all. Beside the fact that it believes in God, I don't think that you would find anything to really hate my Religion for.

 

Rolf, I mean no offense when I say this, but your over-use of exclamation marks makes you seem a little aggressive. I would appreciate if you used less of them, as this is a serious and mature discussion, not an argumentation.

 

The bot didn't post here out of fear, HA.

I may not believe in God, but I'll be damned if I don't raise my kids in the same way I was. Religion was technically "forced" upon me; I was baptized as a baby. In all seriousness, I believe a child should be mature before making a life-changing decision regarding their personal beliefs.

But religion taught me morals. If you think about it, one could relate it to "Santa Claus", or whatever version your culture uses. You tell the child about Santa, knowing he doesn't exist, but it's better than saying to the child: "Santa doesn't exist, you won't be getting presents on Christmas day", ya know?

A child needs that larger-than-life figure during development, not really as a faith-figure, but more of a comforter. Those are my views, at least.

 

Peas and rice... Too much madness to reply to. *lazy mode activated*

 

There is nothing foolish with worshipping something you can't see or understand. You say it is foolish to believe in something I can't see, but Rolf, I can't see you, and you can't see me. You only see my posts through the net. How sure can I be, can YOU be, that You or I really exists when you can't see me and I can't see you? Half the time, I don't get your crazy rants about how religion is illogical and all, but still I believe that you aren't a troll (no offence, but your overuse of exclamation points, as Skaara said, was giving me that vibe) and therefore believe that I should converse with you.

See what I mean?

 

Believing in someone over the internet is completely different than believing in a higher power. Not a very good metaphor, to be frank.

What else could he be, a bot? A highly dedicated bot that's been posting here for months?

 

Alright, I know, that metaphor was bad (it seemed smart at the time, but I guess rereading it know proves otherwise :tsk but you got the point.

 

There is a big difference, indeed. But I understand Pyotr's point. We believe that we breathe oxygen, we believe in space, we believe that planets and suns are round like a ball, and that there are trillibillions of stars and planets and galaxies, yet we can't see any of this? (We can see some of it through telescope of course, but how many of us who believe in it, have actually tried seeing through a telescope at all? I know I haven't ).

 

Oh the irony. The beautiful irony. Skaara, you don't seem to realize how much this says about you and your naive points of view.

 

Okay, then let's undo all the telescope-viewable things from my point, but keep oxygen and add other things that we really can't see, like the wind.
You can't see the wind itself, but you know that it's there because you can see the consequences of it; It moves your sailboat, it makes waves on the sea, it makes the leaves on trees and bushes rattle, it makes the rain drop skewly. You can feel it blowing on your skin. You know that it comes from somewhere. You hear about it on the weather channel. Science prooves that it moves with some currents from here and there on earth. But you can never see the wind itself. It's invisible, but it still exists, and it causes changes around you, everywhere. From cleaning the rotten leaves away from your lawn, to creating huge hurricanes and tornadoes that kills people and destroys cities to ruins. You believe in it, and you know that it's there. Not because you can see it, but because you can see what it does, you can feel what it does.
I think the wind is a perfect illustration of believing in higher existance(s).

 

Let's shut off your air supply and see if you can exist without it, shall we? What's that Skaara? You can't breathe? You're choking? Correct! 1 - 1 = 0.
Now, let's eliminate god and see if you can exist without it. You're still here and nothing has changed because no substraction could be made in the first place. 1 - 0 = 1.

In short: it has been scientifically proven that oxygen exists and that we need it. God cannot be proven scientifically and - I'm getting a bit fed up with having to repeat myself and with you not understanding the bloody logic behind it but again - for the last time: one cannot prove a negative. God is trivial, which it shouldn't be if it is as important to us as religion claims it to be.

 

Then undo the oxygen and use my example of the wind, friend. I know that there is no way to scientifically prove that God exists. I'm just trying to make Dahksinol's point more clear and understandable, that it's not nonsense and unlogical to believe in something you can't directly see.