Soleron said:
But God's word is ambigious. Which version should I believe? By choosing a version, might I not be wrong compared to someone who chose otherwise? |
Choose the version you yourself see as the most fitting to you. Free will is a wonderful thing
Player1x3 said:
Choose the version you yourself see as the most fitting to you. Free will is a wonderful thing |
Oh ok you're a deist. So you might as well be atheist for all the effect it has on the world, you just use different terms to describe nature etc.
This thread isn't really about you then.
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Still, this thread can be applied to anyone who doesn't believe in everything that supposedly defines their deity/deities. It is all about people who are creating their own religions to different degrees. |
So what you're saying, essentially, is that people must conform with your view of what constitutes a legitimate interpretation of a Holy Book in ortder to have any sort of legitimate basis for belief.
I agree in a general sense that people can only know the will of God through His revealed word, but I disagree that any one person can say what is THE correct way to interpret the entire canon of a religion. For instance in Islam there's a saying something along the lines that every word in the Quran has 70 meanings. So a single 10 letter sentence from the Quran has 10^70 meanings. Which means it is literally impossible for any one person to truly know the Quran, indeed it's impossible for all Muslims collectively to truly know the Quran. If the Quran is the word of God and that Islamic saying is true (more or less, i.e. that there are many layers of meaning in the revealed words of the Holy Books).
There was an Iranian scholar in the 19th century who wrote an entire treatise on the various meanings of first letter of the Quran (B).
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
Soleron said:
Oh ok you're a deist. So you might as well be atheist for all the effect it has on the world, you just use different terms to describe nature etc. This thread isn't really about you then. |
My views on God are deistic, but my spirituality and morals are more connected to christian teachings (the original ones, not altered by Romans and Byzantines)
And im never ever in my life going to consider, even for a second, being an atheist
binary solo said:
So what you're saying, essentially, is that people must conform with your view of what constitutes a legitimate interpretation of a Holy Book in ortder to have any sort of legitimate basis for belief. I agree in a general sense that people can only know the will of God through His revealed word, but I disagree that any one person can say what is THE correct way to interpret the entire canon of a religion. For instance in Islam there's a saying something along the lines that every word in the Quran has 70 meanings. So a single 10 letter sentence from the Quran has 10^70 meanings. Which means it is literally impossible for any one person to truly know the Quran, indeed it's impossible for all Muslims collectively to truly know the Quran. If the Quran is the word of God and that Islamic saying is true (more or less, i.e. that there are many layers of meaning in the revealed words of the Holy Books). There was an Iranian scholar in the 19th century who wrote an entire treatise on the various meanings of first letter of the Quran (B). |
This isn't about the meaning(s) of what supposedly is God's word, but rather people's definitions of God, who is only identifiable through what's written in the Bible. One person may believe that God is perfectly okay with gays getting married despite what the Bible says, another may believe that God has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. Those two people have made gods that only exist in their minds, taking a guess at what the actual God (assuming there is one) really is and what his opinion is.
I say that it's foolish to actually believe in a god that you yourself (generally speaking, of course) has created, and that is what this thread is about.
lol reminds me of this analogy my (semi) religious friend gave me.
It went like this: Say you're at the bus station and you wanna go home, but none of the buses has any indication as to its destination. You can either choose to remain at the station (i.e. atheist), or choose one and hope it gets you home (choose a religion).
I couldn't help but lol 
| miz1q2w3e said: lol reminds me of this analogy my (semi) religious friend gave me. It went like this: Say you're at the bus station and you wanna go home, but none of the buses has any indication as to its destination. You can either choose to remain at the station (i.e. atheist), or choose one and hope it gets you home (choose a religion). I couldn't help but lol |
interesting indeed. But I don't see how being "stuck" somewhere equates to being atheist. Also, the person wants to go home. Atheists don't necessarily have any destination to which they want to go. Certainly not one where they need to make guesses.
| Player1x3 said: 1. No, morality has more to do with manners, proper behaviour and ethics and it's objective, unlike spirituality which varies very much from person to person. Although i agree, there are similarly between definitions. 2. That means discovering the path to your inner happiness and peace with your soul and conscience. 3. Why are you even asking all this if you dont believe in it? 4. It's not like you're ever going to see the world outside its material form |
1. Well, it can be defined as character then, correct?
2. okay. Trying to be happy and making peace with yourself. Your terminology was confusing.
3. Different people have different definitions of spirituality. I obviously didn't know what your definition of spirituality was. So I didn't know if I believed in it or not.
4. What does with anything you've said? I don't think you've made any mentions of any nonmaterial entities.
Player1x3 said:
My views on God are deistic, but my spirituality and morals are more connected to christian teachings (the original ones, not altered by Romans and Byzantines) Why? The Christian God implies a whole bunch of stuff that conflicts with a non-involved God. If you were born in isolation of Christianity, I bet a million dollars those ideas wouldn't be part of your beliefs. Humans are very impressionable. If you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, you must believe he was mortal. Hence his ideas are more philosophy than religion, and come from the same place yours come from: thought. And im never ever in my life going to consider, even for a second, being an atheist This is the stupid part of your beliefs. You must ALWAYS consider that you might be wrong, because it's very unlikely that 6 billion people are completely wrong and you are completely right. Even as a 99% atheist I accept that sufficient direct evidence of a creator could lead me to believe in one, and that my moral ideas may not be ideal, and that there possibly is a Hell people get sent to if they do certain things, so I'd consider avoiding those things. |
| miz1q2w3e said: lol reminds me of this analogy my (semi) religious friend gave me. It went like this: Say you're at the bus station and you wanna go home, but none of the buses has any indication as to its destination. You can either choose to remain at the station (i.e. atheist), or choose one and hope it gets you home (choose a religion). I couldn't help but lol |
Interesting. So religion (the bus) will get you somewhere in life, with the chance of getting into heaven (home) with hope to carry and motivate you during the trip, while atheism (remain on station) will get you absolutely nowhere?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
