Do we need a religion to believe in God?
- Thread starter Hime
- Start date
- 21 May 2003
- 14,310
- 4,404
- 30 Apr 2007
- 1,173
- 84
What the heck are you even saying here?
All I see here is dribble mixed in with an obvious undertone of religious biggotry.
If you're not going to contribute anything beyond chest-beating fanfare over your own religion then go wizz in another corner will you?
peresvet
後輩
- 3 Dec 2008
- 19
- 0
I do not understand your agression. I've never said of my own religion. I invite to discuss a question and express my own opinion. If you don't like it then don't demonstrate your own biggotry. If you have smth to say then speak, if you don't then I can only be sorry about it. All your malicious attacks have no ground at all. I've never said a word about my religion. I only express my view. It is you who accuse and abuse me. That is biggotry.
peresvet
後輩
- 3 Dec 2008
- 19
- 0
"God is perfection" doesn't mean that smth makes him perfect. I only wanted to say that God must be perfect, i.e. absolute, ideal. When we speak about God we should rely upon smth. I think that it's logical to begin with the question 'what is God'. If He is not perfect, then He is not God. Don't you think so? So his other features should be based on such idea.
Last edited:
- 30 Apr 2007
- 1,173
- 84
peresvet said:
Denouncing religion as a personal choice is one thing, but proclaiming your conception of God as being superior to another religion's is quite different.
peresvet
後輩
- 3 Dec 2008
- 19
- 0
When you choose a religion or adopt any idea that is mean that you are proclaiming that its conception is superior to others. That is the main idea of any discussion (including ancient FORUMS). I don't understand why it can be abusive when somebody says: "This idea is better then that". That is point of view. Why not? If you have another point of view that can't be abusive for me. I have not said my view is better. I meant that such view seems logical. Personality is superior than impersonal thing. Don't you think so? ("Superior" here means "more perfect").
I'm really sorry about your touchiness. If any dialogue seems so abusive to you, that's better not to take part in any forum or discussion at all.
Let me express my opinion about the question that the author of this thread made. Some religions believe in the same God but I think there has to be only one, and God to differentiate his own Truth from others sent his own Son to die for us, if not there would be many confusion. Christianism and Islam believe in the same God but believe in different prophets. My opinion is that all other religions think that the Messiah has to be someone brave (in the case of Judaism and Islam), but I think the one that fits better in that picture is Jesus himself who was meek, gentle and compassionate.
Ashikaga
もちもちした食感
- 19 Feb 2008
- 2,220
- 84
This is for a comparative religion study? Hmmm...
Since the OP seems to have reached a "conclusion", can we stop this now? Or change the title of the thread to "My God is better than yours (and if you're an Atheist, you're a Doofus)"?
Seriously, I really don't see the piont in many of these religion-related threads... but that's just me.
Since the OP seems to have reached a "conclusion", can we stop this now? Or change the title of the thread to "My God is better than yours (and if you're an Atheist, you're a Doofus)"?
Seriously, I really don't see the piont in many of these religion-related threads... but that's just me.
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
Let me guess, you are a christian.
And your evidence for this is what? A collection of gospels that have been debunked on many an occassion. A book that you know to be the truth, but largely ignored by the other two thirds of the planet? Yeh, that makes your god then right one
Thank for playing Ashikagas "my god is better than your god" game because....
Jesus compassionate? You have never read any of the gospels that St.Augustine removed.
BTW not all other religions have a messiah figure, that is judaic myth taken up by christian myth. Sheesh, if your going to make sweeping comments like this at least get your facts right.
I'm a doofus
U
user42784
Guest
I am a Christian and believe in God, I have read and studied all of the bible. I think the bible has a lot of good advice for how to be a good person.
peresvet
後輩
- 3 Dec 2008
- 19
- 0
Why you, western people, think that Christianity begins its history since St. Augustine? Christianity began long before him. The New Testament books canon have been formed for four centuries. When St. Augustine was knee high to grasshoper, Gospels existed in the form we know them now. Other gospels were removed because there were much noncences and absurdities in them (that was the result of meddling of gnostics and suchlike) and (that is more important) they didn't correspond to Christianity teaching. So, as you can see, Gospels were born by Christian teaching, not vice versa.
- 30 Apr 2007
- 1,173
- 84
Incorrect, it simply means you have a personal belief. Claiming your belief is ultimately superior to others is a form of bigotry. Ideas of superiority and inferiority are the kind of useless drivel that has lead to wars in the past and created intolerance among people who have no other reason to dislike each other. This is why you encounter 'touchiness' from people like me; society at large has little patience for anyone who doesn't keep their religion to themselves and/or presents it in an aggressive, zero-tolerance manner. It's divisive rather than inclusive.
No, I don't think so.
And if you're going to try to discuss delicate subjects you may want to check a dictionary and confirm things like the difference between 'logical' and 'superior', they have different connotations.
You have 11 or 12 posts, all of them in this thread. So far as I can see, the only reason you're here is to extoll the virtues of your own religion/religious views.
A discussion by its very nature avoids drawing too many conclusions, definitive statements, etc., it's just a brain-storm of ideas, a comparison. You're conducting a debate. This is typical behaviour of the religiously over-zealous and intolerant, they cannot let it go until they've hammered their religious point of view into everyone else's head, like you're trying to do with me.
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
I know my christian history. The Catholic bible, in its current form was laid out by St.Augustine. It is from that point christianty formalises itself. I know there are other gospels, and they were not taken out because of absurdities, they were taken out by committee. The current gospels still have absurdities and inconsistances in them.
If you really know your history then you should also be aware that the entire doctrine of christianity was really founded by Paul of Tarsus.
I like the meddling of Gnostics as you call it. Pity you don't actually seem to know much about them. They just interpreted various books, including ones eventually removed, in a slightly different way. I have the gnostic texts. Interesting read. If anyone meddled it was various councils of so call theologians arguing with each other until Augustines opponent were either ridiculed or died. That still didn't stop the church from splitting anyway, hence all the orthodox eastern denominations. Couldn't decided on the nature of god. That is why the god of religions is such a messed up deity. All these rules that it must follow.
- 20 Nov 2007
- 46
- 0
if we like to thinks science/medicine
if we like to thinks science/medicine,we should not thinks with religion point of view,but if we are thinks with religion point that o.k..
icarus5
if we like to thinks science/medicine,we should not thinks with religion point of view,but if we are thinks with religion point that o.k..
icarus5
Manahaki_Kaori
Proud to be Pinoy
- 6 Jun 2007
- 146
- 0
It's a little bit of both really, as a mormon we're expected to be perfect (If we sin, in their eyes, we have to repent) to marry someone of our religion and believe what they want us to believe. I just think if you're a good person, and not mormon, it'd be good enough. And they want girls to find a return missionary to marry, but there are a lot of nice people who I would like to marry, who are not even close to that requirement.
I don't like the judgements the LDS church places on people, how they always say 'We should preach our gospel to all our non-member friends' but my friends always told me not to talk about church, so I never did.
As I said, if you're a good person, I believe you'll do well on your own, even if you don't have a religion.
peresvet
後輩
- 3 Dec 2008
- 19
- 0
"You can have your own belief, but you can't speak of it. If you are, you will be religious fanatic." You try to embed me such idea but it is not new. It's not your idea, you know. You have been taught by temporary society that such idea is true and you have no doubt about it. That's the trouble. You and others like you don't want to think a bit if such idea is false. Sorry but I can't do anything with it. You try to accuse me of bigotry, but you have no grounds. I explained what I had meant using the word ﾂ"superiorﾂ" (which has many connotations, as you proved by yourself), but you don't want to listen. ﾂ"What for?ﾂ" You have already labeled me as a religious fanatic. What can we discuss after that? Nothing!!!
Who could tell you that? Try to think by yourself and don't repeat somebody else's opinion without any thinking. Don't you know, what was the real reason of wars and blood in the past? Then read Machiavelli (excuse my spelling), or at least school history textbook, I think you have good school education in Japan. As for me, I have no free time to fill in the gaps in your education.
Your logic is like a rope of sand. You didn't take into account the fact that I was registered on this forum not so far. Actually, I wanted to communicate with foreigners in the English language and occasionally find myself on this forum. The first thread which seemed interesting for me was this thread (it wasn't the only one). I wanted to express my opinion and to discuss a question. I've never spoken of my religion, and never said that somebody's opinion foolish or smth like that, I never abused anybody, and nevertheless you accused me of bigotry and try to convince me of my inability to dialogue. I also have no much time to take part in several threads, that's why I'm here yet. So, as you can see, your logical order tumbled down like a house of cards.
- 30 Apr 2007
- 1,173
- 84
You can speak of it, but you cannot claim it's superior.
There's a difference that you don't get here which has nothing to do with one's ability to write, type, or discuss. When I say 'you can't', it doesn't mean you can't actually do it, you can do whatever the hell you want. What I mean has moreso to do with the principles involved. 'You can't' means it's not possible. That is, it's not possible to claim religious superiority without sounding like a bigot at the same time because
1) You can't prove that it is actually superior
2) More importantly it does harm to the religious freedom of others
Also, what's a temporary society?
Do you mean contemporary?
If you want to end the argument, simply take back what you said.
Say the following:
"My version of God is not superior to the Hindu version. Both versions are equally valid beliefs."
The fact that I criticize your religious bigotry does not make me a bigot you twit.
Who's opinion am I repeating? Machiavelli?? I am well aware of Machiavellian ideals regarding warfare but just because I think religion can be used to wage war doesn't mean I'm stealing Machiavelli's work. Look at the current 'war on terror'. Christian fundamentalists on one side, and Islamic fundamentalists on the other. That's ****** obvious isn't it? Among other devices, each side clearly uses religion in all its forms (patriotism can be easily defined as 'religion') in order to garner support for the war. Do we even need to speak of Israel and Palestine? What the heck am I stealing? This is common knowledge.
You think that simply because an individual says something that is mentioned in a book or that is common knowledge, the person is plagarizing? Then my friend, there is nothing new under the sun, and everything you think you know is also stolen work. I'll footnote my posts after you footnote yours.
Not quite.
Why should we be obligated to have a religion to believe in God? A religion is a big story written on what we call a Bible which describes a series of things to do or not to do (like praying). According to me, religion is the philosophy and God is what we believe. It is more appreciated to have our own believe without being religious because religions always been used to tell the population how to be a perfect citizen.
[impolite interjection][specifically not sarcasm]
Actually, it does. Not a religious bigot admittedly, but you are still displaying the intolerant attitude to, essentially, someone else intolerant attitude by refusing to accept it as legitimate.
Not that bigotry in itself is a bad thing, Mandated toleration for fools, children and fans of the ship named Enterprise at any level should never really be promoted as lack of persecution and revision is pretty much the inverse of natural selection/hand of the market/whatever the hell you want to call it, allowing systems that should not exist as they do to flourish and establish themselves to the point they cause decay/corruption in other systems. This can of course be taken too far, but thats not up for debate really.
[/specifically not sarcasm][/impolite interjection]
In support of this statement I offer:
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross
-- Sinclair Lewis
Although I would also point out that calling whatever this war on terror business is meant to be Crusade #1? reduces it to just one motivation, when it can be so conveniently be assigned that as opposed to a good old fashioned land grab, acts of national level destabalisation for patriotic gain [ala cold war] or even petty revenge taken slightly too far [The Internet tells me the first crop of soldiers after the wtc smackdown were shown footage of the collapse as part of their battlefield induction]. Not that Crusade #1? isn't valid; it would be so much simpler if that was indeed the only motivation, but simple things don't usually exist in the international political stage.
- 30 Apr 2007
- 1,173
- 84
peresvet
後輩
- 3 Dec 2008
- 19
- 0
That is mean to betray my own belief. It's a pity that you'll never understand it. Actually it was you who began to attack me. I only expressed my opinion and suggested discussing it. Whose feelings were hurt by me? According to following it was only your feelings. But you don't seem vulnerable. So I have the right to consider it a provocation. Having nothing to say ad rem you began to attack me. You labeled me as a religious fanatics and tried to humble me. You also demonstrated inability to hear the arguments of the opponent. So, not me, but you demonstrated bigotry and fanaticism.
Who is interested in the dialogue you began? Nobody is, except you. What are you continuing it for? To satisfy you own ambitions? Sorry, but it's not good and I'm not interested in taking part in such discussion. Go on with your self admiration but... without me.
