Well, I can't believe the number of responses this thread has generated. I don't know whether to be happy about it or apologize for starting it. I just thought it was a column that might generate some thought for the "lounge" and to tell you the truth, I honestly can't believe it was even published. More surprisingly, in the two days since, there have been no letters published from readers in the "Letters to the Editor" column referring to it. Hmm.... Anyway, the page has since been replaced by another commentary from this guy, so time to move on.... but, before we do, I must point out that I still agree with him. I don't practice any religion and I try very hard, despite what's going on in the world, not to think about religion at all. I don't think I will ever truly understand why, in the 21st century, people can ever believe in this stuff. However, when people ask me whether I believe in God, I have to answer that yes, I do, not because I do, because I definitely don't, but because if I answer sincerely, sadly, I know I will have no friends and be totally alone in this world. Sad, but true.....
Organized religion
- Thread starter meee
- Start date
Goober, I still value your opinion even though we have different viewpoints and I would never ignore anyone. Have a great day, and I do mean that sincerely. Hope to meet you in person someday (and no discussion on this subject).
Spirituality and the religious impulse may be rooted in the biology of the brain. More specifically, the part of the brain called the posterior superior parietal lobe or orientation association area (OAA). God won't go away easily when the need to believe is part of being human.
www.csp.org/chrestomathy/why_god.html
d
www.csp.org/chrestomathy/why_god.html
d
Re: And That Is Precisely Why....
d
Or did God plant the religious impulse(OAA) in you?Willywants said:....man created god/God!
Willy
d
Here We Go Again!
If, as the bible supposes, I was created in God's image, I would be minus such impulse!
Such impulse would not be present in God as He is God with no need for such impulse! How could that then be a part of his supposed creation?
Willy
If, as the bible supposes, I was created in God's image, I would be minus such impulse!
Such impulse would not be present in God as He is God with no need for such impulse! How could that then be a part of his supposed creation?
Willy
Re: Here We Go Again!
(from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"): "'I refuse to prove that I exist', says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I'm nothing." "But", said Man, "the Babel-fish is a dead-giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so, therefore, you don't - QED!" "Oh, dear!", says God, "I hadn't though of that!", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh! That was easy!", says Man, and for an encore he proves that black is white, and gets killed at the next Zebra Crossing."
If you were a literalist, then yes you would be right. But the Bible means that man is created in God's image symbolically, meaning with a soul and a will and with free thought/choice. God is not human.Willywants said:If, as the bible supposes, I was created in God's image, I would be minus such impulse!
Such impulse would not be present in God as He is God with no need for such impulse! How could that then be a part of his supposed creation?
Willy
(from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"): "'I refuse to prove that I exist', says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I'm nothing." "But", said Man, "the Babel-fish is a dead-giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so, therefore, you don't - QED!" "Oh, dear!", says God, "I hadn't though of that!", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh! That was easy!", says Man, and for an encore he proves that black is white, and gets killed at the next Zebra Crossing."
And Again!
Does not bringing symbolism into it then lend credence to the possibility that man did create God in man's image? Or to be what man wanted God to be? Is man's God not just man's answer to all the mysteries that surround him?
Religion on the board! Yuck!
Ever feel like you have fallen into someones well laid trap?
Proselytizing should be labelled sinful!
Willy
Does not bringing symbolism into it then lend credence to the possibility that man did create God in man's image? Or to be what man wanted God to be? Is man's God not just man's answer to all the mysteries that surround him?
Religion on the board! Yuck!
Ever feel like you have fallen into someones well laid trap?
Proselytizing should be labelled sinful!
Willy
Re: And Again!
If you look at all the prophesies of the Messiah's coming (Jesus to the Christians, a player to be determined later to the Jews) and read them literally, then Jesus didn't fit.
If you look at all the prophesies and read them symbolically, then Jesus does fit.
ie. "I will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days."
Literal: Get your hammers and Skil saws out
Symbolical: I'm going to die and become alive again in three days.
There are many people who read the Bible literally. They say God created the earth in seven days, 5000 years ago. They say that since the Bible says that women should be silent, men should lord it over women. They are wrong, IMHO.
In the examples above, I think the creation story is a demonstration that God guided the creation of the earth and the universe. How, I don't know. I believe in the big bang, personally. Many don't.
The Bible says that women should be silent. Some have used this as an argument against women's suffrage and women's rights in general. I disagree. There was a problem in one of the churches, that women were bickering and gossipping in the back of the church during worship. So Paul said for them to shut up.
Those who read the Bible and pull out one or two verses and live their lives/criticize other people based on that, are dead wrong IMHO.
*sigh*Willywants said:Does not bringing symbolism into it then lend credence to the possibility that man did create God in man's image? Or to be what man wanted God to be? Is man's God not just man's answer to all the mysteries that surround him?
If you look at all the prophesies of the Messiah's coming (Jesus to the Christians, a player to be determined later to the Jews) and read them literally, then Jesus didn't fit.
If you look at all the prophesies and read them symbolically, then Jesus does fit.
ie. "I will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days."
Literal: Get your hammers and Skil saws out
Symbolical: I'm going to die and become alive again in three days.
There are many people who read the Bible literally. They say God created the earth in seven days, 5000 years ago. They say that since the Bible says that women should be silent, men should lord it over women. They are wrong, IMHO.
In the examples above, I think the creation story is a demonstration that God guided the creation of the earth and the universe. How, I don't know. I believe in the big bang, personally. Many don't.
The Bible says that women should be silent. Some have used this as an argument against women's suffrage and women's rights in general. I disagree. There was a problem in one of the churches, that women were bickering and gossipping in the back of the church during worship. So Paul said for them to shut up.
Those who read the Bible and pull out one or two verses and live their lives/criticize other people based on that, are dead wrong IMHO.
Re: Here We Go Again!
The religious impulse is a need to feel connected to something greater than oneself. The OAA part of the brain creates this impulse as a consequence of denying it sensual stimulation. The OAA's main purpose is to orient us in physical space. It functions as a means to draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else. In Darwin terms, it is a survival device, keeping us separated from the dangers out there. If the OAA is denied stimulation from our senses, such as in deep prayer or meditation, it no longer receives information on the boundaries between the self and the outside world. The self starts to feel interwoven with everything and everyone. Borderlines between the self and the world become blurred and we perceive a spiritual connection to the greatness of everything. We become one with God (or any other name you want to place on the greater everything). Or is that God becomes one with us? Either way the perception can feel unquestionably real.
Why would you deny God(if he exists) an impulse to feel connected to us?
d
WillyWillywants said:
Such impulse would not be present in God as He is God with no need for such impulse! How could that then be a part of his supposed creation?
Willy
The religious impulse is a need to feel connected to something greater than oneself. The OAA part of the brain creates this impulse as a consequence of denying it sensual stimulation. The OAA's main purpose is to orient us in physical space. It functions as a means to draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else. In Darwin terms, it is a survival device, keeping us separated from the dangers out there. If the OAA is denied stimulation from our senses, such as in deep prayer or meditation, it no longer receives information on the boundaries between the self and the outside world. The self starts to feel interwoven with everything and everyone. Borderlines between the self and the world become blurred and we perceive a spiritual connection to the greatness of everything. We become one with God (or any other name you want to place on the greater everything). Or is that God becomes one with us? Either way the perception can feel unquestionably real.
Why would you deny God(if he exists) an impulse to feel connected to us?
d
Because.....
....I am but one form of animal life on this earth, albeit supposedly the most rational!
That man can think and question and reason, does not, in my view, elevate him to the hierarchal pinnacle of all species!
It is man, at his most egotistical, that has placed himself in that position!
One just has to look around in the macro sense to understand the sad existence to which man has consigned himself!
And IMHO, it is man's doing not God's or whoever's!
In a world where "survival of the fittest" still prevails as a credo, man has chosen to survive at the expense of all other things natural on earth! No other life form chooses to survive at the expense of nature, only at the expense of that necessary to fill the tummy!
All animate life has two impulses, to procreate and to survive! If man has created a third, or even more impulses, that is soley his doing for egotistical reasons!
Goober, son of George, brother to Joey, Your heavy sighs are really unwarranted! I basically agree with you!
Willy
....I am but one form of animal life on this earth, albeit supposedly the most rational!
That man can think and question and reason, does not, in my view, elevate him to the hierarchal pinnacle of all species!
It is man, at his most egotistical, that has placed himself in that position!
One just has to look around in the macro sense to understand the sad existence to which man has consigned himself!
And IMHO, it is man's doing not God's or whoever's!
In a world where "survival of the fittest" still prevails as a credo, man has chosen to survive at the expense of all other things natural on earth! No other life form chooses to survive at the expense of nature, only at the expense of that necessary to fill the tummy!
All animate life has two impulses, to procreate and to survive! If man has created a third, or even more impulses, that is soley his doing for egotistical reasons!
Goober, son of George, brother to Joey, Your heavy sighs are really unwarranted! I basically agree with you!
Willy
