Why seek "God"?

[Silmarien]

Found it. It was sixty years later.

Very Heraclitean. I like it.

Calvinists, by the grace of God, would handle counseling depression and self-hatred, from principles of the Bible. You treat people with grace, love, dignity and respect, but you don't compromise on the truth. There really is no way to Biblically counsel and unbeliever unless God has first done a work of grace in their heart and saved them from their sin.

Ephesians 4:15-16 ESV Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, (16) from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

I don't necessarily mean counselling, or unbelievers, for that matter. Just in general. We're on the same page in that sin, for lack of a better term, is real and serious. I have no use for Augustine's interpretation, but I think it self-evident that the species isn't what it should be. I just worry about a one-size-fits-all approach to the concept of sin, since it's something that's going to affect everyone differently, and in the more insidious cases, you're using a battering ram when you should be using a scalpel. You end up compounding the problem, not making it better.

 

[toLiJC]

Perhaps so. Is that an official judgment of a prophet of the true One, or a personal opinion?

My foundation rests on personal knowledge, not blind faith. If that is dullness, then I am content to be dull.

that your religion is both, bind faith and dullness, you don't realize and don't take into account too many (important) things/facts, but at the same time you behave as if you are on top of everything more than anyone else

if we change, then let's at least change for the better, not for the worse

stop writing to me if your argument is a straw man argument - you wrote too many posts with such an argument

Blessings

 

[ananda]

that your religion is both, bind faith and dullness, you don't realize and don't take into account too many (important) things/facts, but at the same time you behave as if you are on top of everything more than anyone else

if we change, then let's at least change for the better, not for the worse

What facts am I not taking into account? How am I changing for the worse?

stop writing to me if your argument is a straw man argument - you wrote too many posts with such an argument

Blessings

You are participating in my thread, so technically you're writing to me.

How are my arguments strawmen? I'm pointing out how your arguments are built on an insecure foundation.

 

[Agueli]

Why do people seek "God"?

Buddhism explains our search in terms of dukkha (aka suffering, discontentment, displeasure, etc.). That is, because of dukkha, we seek out god(s), saviors, prophets, psychics, doctors, politicians, love, food, money, sex, sleep, entertainment, etc.

Why not address dukkha itself, as the Lord Buddha taught, instead of seeking to treat its symptoms? Dig out the roots (of dukkha), instead of endlessly snipping its offshoots.

I didn't seek him, I knew he existed and wanted to know more about what he wanted. Islam is a religion of service to our Lord, Buddhism is just self help philosophy, Christianity is somewhere in between. I'm bettered as a reward for serving God, not self improvement schemes.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

We're on the same page in that sin, for lack of a better term, is real and serious. I have no use for Augustine's interpretation, but I think it self-evident that the species isn't what it should be.

Weird.
"Sin" is something that didn't even make sense to me during my Christian upbringing, and it makes even less sense now that I'm more familiar with the intricacies of this particular concept - and know other approaches to morality and the human condition as well.

I can see why people living in a largely unknown world filled with seemingly supernatural phenomena (natural disasters, epidemics, etc.) would turn to moral failures as a source of calamity, and would seek to appease spirits, gods, or the One God by seeking to recompensate these powers for any transgressions or offenses.

But from a 21st century perspective, this approach is awfully lacking.
We KNOW the finite lifespan of our bodies has got nothing to do with moral failure.
We KNOW floods are no more caused by angry river gods than lightning strikes are caused by hammer-wielding warriors with short tempers.

Even as a measurement of morality, "sin" leaves much to be desired, because it is tied to the woefully culture-specific taboos and conventions of the ancient Israelites, and fails to account for the fact that everybody's the hero of their own story, in their own minds.

 

[ananda]

I didn't seek him, I knew he existed and wanted to know more about what he wanted. Islam is a religion of service to our Lord, Buddhism is just self help philosophy, Christianity is somewhere in between. I'm bettered as a reward for serving God, not self improvement schemes.

How do you know "he existed"?

 

[Swan7]

I didn't seek him, I knew he existed and wanted to know more about what he wanted. Islam is a religion of service to our Lord, Buddhism is just self help philosophy, Christianity is somewhere in between. I'm bettered as a reward for serving God, not self improvement schemes.

I'm right there with ya. I knew He existed too and my mother just kindly directed me toward Him as a child. My whole life people have tried to "convert" me into their religions, but every time I felt God's Hand tug mine, like the loving Father He is.

 

[toLiJC]

What facts am I not taking into account? How am I changing for the worse?

You are writing to me, and participating in my thread - I am not forcing you to.

How are my arguments strawmen? I'm pointing out how your arguments are built on an insecure foundation.

come on, you filled your thread with straw man arguments without agreeing with the sound truth, it is visibly a blatant game of imposition, not faithfulness to the truth

there have been millions of people living in a fantasy world, everyone could read e.g. harry potter and become a part of that fictional world, which would not be so bad for certain people if they were not religious and didn't follow fantastic/false religion(s) with which they committed spiritual unrighteousness - for example people might live only in such a world but thus none of them might work for effective salvation and many of their neighbors/cohabitants might suffer inopportunely and die prematurely even because there might be no one to save another if all people lived only in an illusory world, the situation with buddhism is the same, buddhists live in a reputed higher world but thus they are visibly unable to save their neighbors/cohabitants...

Blessings

 

[ananda]

come on, you filled your thread with straw man arguments without agreeing with the sound truth, it is visibly a blatant game of imposition, not faithfulness to the truth

Quoting words from a book is irrelevant, if I question the book itself. If anything, your arguments are strawmen in context of my OP.

there have been millions of people living in a fantasy world, everyone could read e.g. harry potter and become a part of that fictional world, which would not be so bad for certain people if they were not religious and didn't follow fantastic/false religion(s) with which they committed spiritual unrighteousness - for example people might live only in such a world but thus none of them might work for effective salvation and many of their neighbors/cohabitants might suffer inopportunely and die prematurely even because there might be no one to save another if all people lived only in an illusory world, the situation with buddhism is the same, buddhists live in a reputed higher world but thus they are visibly unable to save their neighbors/cohabitants...

Blessings

Save people from what?

 

[Silmarien]

Weird.
"Sin" is something that didn't even make sense to me during my Christian upbringing, and it makes even less sense now that I'm more familiar with the intricacies of this particular concept - and know other approaches to morality and the human condition as well.

I can see why people living in a largely unknown world filled with seemingly supernatural phenomena (natural disasters, epidemics, etc.) would turn to moral failures as a source of calamity, and would seek to appease spirits, gods, or the One God by seeking to recompensate these powers for any transgressions or offenses.

But from a 21st century perspective, this approach is awfully lacking.
We KNOW the finite lifespan of our bodies has got nothing to do with moral failure.
We KNOW floods are no more caused by angry river gods than lightning strikes are caused by hammer-wielding warriors with short tempers.

Even as a measurement of morality, "sin" leaves much to be desired, because it is tied to the woefully culture-specific taboos and conventions of the ancient Israelites, and fails to account for the fact that everybody's the hero of their own story, in their own minds.

I don't entirely disagree, but I use the word because I think it's silly for me to want to get involved with Christianity without getting comfortable with the terminology. (Hilariously enough, the first word I had to get used to again was "God." #panentheist problems) But yeah, I'm not thrilled with all the baggage that comes attached to the word "sin", but I do think that evolutionary processes are responsible both for human morality and spirituality and for our difficulty living up to our own standards. I think we're a beautiful mess, but I still think we're a mess. It's a dichotomy that seems to be everywhere, which is why I don't care for "total depravity" or completely optimistic readings of the situation.

I'm also a wild existentialist who's long dwelt on the issue of self-knowledge and the problems it causes us. Which... I mean, I don't believe in Adam and Eve, but I am intrigued that it points to something that I think is a source of existential suffering anyway. So I'm comfortable with the whole train of thought, especially if you take the EO approach of sin as a spiritual illness to be treated. (I don't really do Courtroom Christianity, which I think is a product of Medieval secular influences anyway.)

So... if you're going to define "sin" as anything that perverts the image of God in humankind, I don't think it's a concept to be discarded entirely. (Of course, what exactly "image of God" means is another question entirely.) I don't think it has much worth if it's just a list of activities to be avoided, though.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

When did I claim your interaction with the man was dysfunctional?

Well from my perspective an action that causes suffering is causing an element of dysfunction and it's to be observed, understood and changed if possible. No you made no such claim but I interpreted it as such from that perspective.

 

[ananda]

Well from my perspective an action that causes suffering is causing an element of dysfunction and it's to be observed, understood and changed if possible. No you made no such claim but I interpreted it as such from that perspective.

I see all action as a combination of both functional and dysfunctional.

 

[Agueli]

How do you know "he existed"?

Because the universe was created by something. To disbelieve in God is to believe in the fallacy that something comes from nothing.

 

[TheOldWays]

double post

 

[TheOldWays]

Because the universe was created by something. To disbelieve in God is to believe in the fallacy that something comes from nothing.

how do you know it was your particular God and not another?

 

[Agueli]

i think ananda won the 'debate'. i didn't really see a satisfactory answer from you the entire thread.

The problem with these sorts of discussions is if the atheist is also a positivist (one that thinks only things that can be empirically shown exist) there's no going anywhere. Not all atheists are positivists, but many prominent ones are.


Thankfully, the philosophy community sees positivism for what it is, nonsense.



It would be so great if positivism was made illegal.

 

[TheOldWays]

The problem with these sorts of discussions is if the atheist is also a positivist (one that thinks only things that can be empirically shown exist) there's no going anywhere. Not all atheists are positivists, but many prominent ones are.

i'm not an atheist but I see your point.

Thankfully, the philosophy community sees positivism for what it is, nonsense.

i see no problem if extraordinary claims are made that some proof is offered.

my point is simply not against God or gods. Just why your God? That's all.

 

[ananda]

Because the universe was created by something. To disbelieve in God is to believe in the fallacy that something comes from nothing.

Your statement assumes multiple premises, none of which I know for myself:

• You're assuming that the "universe" exists independently from your mind or your experiences;
• You're assuming that the "universe" was created;
• You're assuming that the "universe" was created by "God" (an infinite, intelligent, almighty being?);
• You're assuming that the "universe" was created by your deity and not another deity.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

I see all action as a combination of both functional and dysfunctional.

I disagree I think it's contextual, which is why I said what I said. Taken as read and with no projection of the mind into some perceived future event, or some perceived outcome that may or may not occur, my interaction with the man was fully functional. I met him as an equal, and needed his help finding a coffee shop that was open. He engaged me as an equal, his demeanour was upbeat and bright answering my question and upon giving me the answer I told him that I didn't like the coffee from McDonalds. I literally had the small note in my hand as I was running with no pockets in my shorts and giving him the money was a spontaneous act, with no thinking attached as such. We both provided each other's need, and my want of the coffee took its rightful place. The mind is an evolutionary tool to create, and it's ability to project, imagine, and think into past and future can corrode the present. Your previous comments about us both perhaps going on to experience dukkaha was just that, it was a projection of your mind into a future event that may or may not occur, but has no basis of truth in that regard, it's a possibility among many. All religious/philosophical concepts involving after death outcomes work this way, and in fact they were born this way, as a projection of the mind into a future event. They all have the potential to corrode the present moment. The world we currently see is a corrosion of the present moment.

 

[ananda]

Your previous comments about us both perhaps going on to experience dukkaha was just that, it was a projection of your mind into a future event that may or may not occur, but has no basis of truth in that regard, it's a possibility among many.

Perhaps so.

I can only speak from my personal experience.