All religions are false (One Truth)

Discussion in 'Theology' started by Gatekeeper, Aug 19, 2010.

  1. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    Religions have been attempting to place restrictions on man since their introduction in our world. Even so, all religions are false, and not one (As practiced today) lends to us any good end.

    I am a Christian however (Ironic?) but I am not religious (At least not in the sense that I adhere to Christianity's legalistic doctrines and laws). Christianity was never meant to be a religion, but rather a way of life (Demonstrated by Jesus).

    Bear with me for a moment ....

    If God is love, and God is also Spirit, and the Spirit is truth, then isn't it the Spirit of love (God) that we ought to be honoring? Jesus did, so why not us? He did show us how to live [for] God after all, just as He showed us the importance of living [for] others. We do so by submitting to God, who is our true "Father".

    Why then did Jesus suggest that the Scribes and Pharisees father was the devil? We cannot serve two masters and expect to stand, nor are we to be "luke warm". We pay homage to the 'force' we desire most (Good "God" or evil "Devil") whereby we (By our own desires) become the children thereof, which is why Jesus was so hard on the Scribes and Pharisees.

    They were extremely religious (As are many) but the truth was not in them because their father was the devil (Evil) and he was a liar, and murderer from the 'beginning'. Liar meaning one whom lies against the truth, which is to say against the Spirit (Love), which is the "truth" the NT scriptures speaks of.

    Jesus spoke the truth, yet they (And many still) rejected it (Love) in favor of evil. God is love, and it is only through His Spirit that any of us have any hope at all. We are called to worship (Honor) God in Spirit and in truth, and forsake our vain idols (False gods) in favor of the one "True" God who is love.

    All religions are false. There is but one truth and that truth is "love", and the only moral standard that we (Mankind) are expected to utilize and live through in our daily lives. Love is our moral compass, and the only "moral" standard able to govern our ethical behavior (For all time).

    What it comes down to is our desires. Do we desire "Love or Lust"/"Good or Evil"/"God or Devil". Both forces certainly exist, and it is through us that one or the other rules on earth. We are the vessels through which these forces operate, and it is through our actions that they are released upon mankind.

    Discuss?

    GK
     
  2. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    er... i think you're being a little negative. to quote the famous systems theorist w. edwards deming, "all models are wrong, but some are useful". i would say something like this about religion insofar as i believe that religion teaches us to know G!D and know ourselves. of course this is hardly possible, but it is better than not making the effort. in any case, i think you can disprove such a categorical statement pretty easily by saying that religion, for example, demonstrably teaches people to, say, give to charity, which is a "good end", many more of which are readily available. in terms of Ultimate Reality, i dare say they have a degree of falsehood, but then again so does the entire universe.

    gosh, if you think christianity's legalistic, what must you think of the other abrahamic religions?

    there are a lot of questionable assumptions here - firstly, that G!D Is love - well, i dare say, but that rather flies in the face of isaiah: "I Am G!D, I Make peace and Create evil". i find it rather odd to have an idea that there is any place, area or concept somehow "free" of G!D, unless you end up with a sort of dualistic, zoroastrian idea of the universe with two powers, one good, one evil, which is not what i'd call monotheism. next, if G!D Is Everything, by definition, G!D Is also No-Thing, as it were, which is a famously prevalent mystical idea, which in hebrew we call "'EYN-SOF". "undiluted" G!D, as it were, is simply too much for us to grasp - it is all possibilities at all points where physical laws do not exist. i suppose you could call that "spirit" if you like, but it is also actual; G!D Is also the natural laws of the universe, if you like, which are the most tangible expression of "Truth". but G!D Is also the "dark matter", if you like, things which don't show up on that scale, things which aren't measurable, of which naturally "love" could be considered one. we too are "made of G!D", in the sense that G!D Is All - so not only are *we* part of G!D and vice-versa, but so is everything from rocks to rock music to the contents of alien sock drawers. the Torah tells us we are made "in the Divine Image", however, which means what exactly? one of the ways we understand that is to hypothesise that we *imitate* G!D as best we can. now, obviously this can involve love and truth and so forth, but this does not mean that G!D is not involved with, say, hate, or, say, fish. of course it is not so easy to say, therefore, what we should "honour" - but that, for me, is what Revelation is about - that's G!D's way of Telling us what, of all the myriad aspects of Creation, is most important. it may be odd things (like, if you're jewish, dietary laws) or it may be massively obvious universal things (e.g. love your neighbour as yourself, seek peace, etc) but the most salient thing about G!D is Complexity and Comprehensiveness.

    do you mean "mammon"? this is the hebrew word for money. it is simply an accusation of corruption.

    obviously, i would find this problematic, because judaism grew out of many of the beliefs and practices of the pharisees, although of course the "new testament" cannot be relied on as an accurate and comprehensive account of events, as it was written long afterwards by people who weren't there and had quite a different agenda.

    says you. i don't see it that way at all.

    umph. that may well be the case, but it's not terribly practical. can love organise how people drive around in cars? can love organise a justice system? i'm afraid that sooner or later it comes down to detail, which is one thing that revolutionaries always forget. this has happened numerous times in history and the christians, the samaritans, the karaites and the various gnostics all discovered that they'd need their own "legalistic" frameworks to make sense of it all, because humans need procedures to live by.

    now this i agree with (except the devil bit), but the point is this - it is for us to decide whether to use our free will for good or evil and it is also for us to decide what good or evil actually is. that was what we took on when we decided to "choose choice" in the garden of eden and thus become fully human. human *action* is the only thing we can actually control, so it is that which becomes the focus, which of course is why we need to look at actions and activities - this naturally brings us right back to "legalistic" procedures again!

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  3. bhaktajan

    bhaktajan Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    10



    Here One Truth:

    So much depends on religious and theological affiliations??????

    World-wide economic depression & wars & natural catastrophes can really depress a person. "Always look on the bright side of life!"


    B] Jay-Z holds the top spot on Forbes' Hip-Hop Cash Kings list with 2006 earnings of $34 million, trailed by “Fiddy” (as 50 Cent is known to fans) with $32 million. Diddy nabbed the No. 3 spot with total earnings of $28 million.

    http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/15/hip-hop-millionaires-biz-cx_lg_0816hiphop.html

    http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/igetmoney-remix-50cent-biz-media-cz_lg_0918bizigetmoney.html



    C] Wow so many people the world over committing crimes because over theological debates.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/328143/World-Prison-Population-List-2007

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison



    Prison population per 100,000 inhabitants[11]


    Country


    Prison population
    per 100,000 inhabitants



    United States
    of America



    756[17]


    Russian
    Federation



    611


    New
    Zealand



    186


    Australia


    157


    United
    Kingdom



    148


    Netherlands


    128


    Canada


    107


    Italy


    104


    South Korea


    104


    Germany


    95


    Turkey


    91


    France


    85


    Sweden


    82


    Denmark


    77


    Japan


    62


    Iceland


    40


    India


    22
     
  4. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Wow, are you actually telling me that those wackos over there in BUDDHIST countries tend to have LESS violent crime, and don't go about so bloodthirsty ... wreaking all sorts of havoc in someone or other's `HOLY name?'

    No way, man. Makes noooo sense! :rolleyes:
     
  5. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    God is good (Love), which is the creative force in existence. We (Mankind) are both good and evil, which is evidenced by our deeds. All religions are false, there is but one "truth", or rather one "way" that leads to life, and that is "love". Until mankind can desire love above the evil in our hearts, we will continue to fall.

    If religions were true, they would lead us to a good end, but there are falsehoods in every religion, and it is in those falsehoods that leads us (Mankind) to further descent.

    Hehe, You don't want to know ....

    Yes, I believe there are two "forces" that are in opposition to one another, and it is through mankind that these forces are released upon the world. Mankind was created with these two forces in us, as a part of who we are.

    The reason there is but one "True" God is that both 'forces' will eventually lead us to the same end "Love". Even so, mankind must first experience the pangs of evil before we desire God (Love) above Evil (Lust). Lust being our intense longing for the forbidden, i.e evil. Lust is mankind's desire to do evil deeds.

    God is the positive, creative force in existence, and the Devil is the negative, destructive force in existence. Mankind were created with both forces within us, whereby we choose one over the other according to our desires.

    So, your god is both good and evil? If this is true, then mankind are in effect gods also. Even so, a man cannot serve two masters, we must choose between the two opposing forces if we wish to stand. We fall due to our propensity to desire evil above good. We are slaves to our desires after all. Even so, one day we [will] choose life (Love) above death (lust). Why? Because all things lead us to that end (Even evil).

    I've often thought that all things were God, but if God is good, then all things cannot be a part of God simply because evil exists. It seems much more probable that two forces (Good and evil) are in opposition to one another, yet both work together to ensure that mankind will become suitable caretakers over the earth.

    We were made in the image of God (Good), but also in the image of the Devil (Evil). God is simply a term used to identify the positive, and creative force in life, whereas the term Devil is used to identify the negative, and destructive force in life. God (Good/Love) is a force, not necessarily an entity. The same is true for the devil.

    No, I mean evil.

    I submit that Judaism is false also, being that there can be only "one" truth. Jesus represented that truth (Love), and lived His life through it. His Father was love (Good/God), but the Pharisees father was the devil (Evil). They sought to kill Jesus after all, and simply because He called them out on their evil ways.

    That is because you do not believe Jesus spoke the truth.
    We won't need laws to govern our lives in the end. All we need is God (Love). Love is a moral compass, and if we utilize it in all we do the kingdom (Paradise) will be realized on earth. Even so, mankind is wicked, so laws are needed (for now). They make (Made) the way straight for Jesus, and they do the same for us.

    Even so, the spiritual law of love is preferred before the laws given through Moses. This is because love was in the beginning, and it was acting in opposition to love that mankind fell from Gods grace.

    We have no free will. We act on our strongest desire. Both good and evil lead us to desire that which is good, but it takes time for us to come to this point. Religion places restrictions on man, when the only thing forbidden (Even today) is acting in opposition to God who is love.

    All religions are false, even Christianity as practiced today. Even Judaism, and Islam, and Hindu, etc. There is but one truth, and the NT scriptures tell us what it is. The Spirit is "truth", and that "Spirit" is love (Who is God)

    GK
     
  6. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    I thought Buddhism was a philosophy and not a religion? Buddhist don't attempt to convert converts to their way of thinking (At least not by force). They are quite peaceful, even if their philosophy is (In part) lacking.
     
  7. Paladin

    Paladin Purchased Bewilderment

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    1

    Uh oh... :D
     
  8. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    :eek: Well, if I'm wrong about Buddhism being peaceful, yet lacking in other aspects, then I will accept correction graciously, hehe!
     
  9. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    well, you're just offering two somewhat simplistic assertions here, rather than an argument. why is love always "good"? can love never be destructive or harmful? can love prevent, lead to punishment? can't love kill under some circumstances? then why is "love" always "good"? as for love being creative, can love not sometimes prevent creation, or stand in the way of change? as for creation, can it not sometimes be violent and destructive? your entire axiomatic basis here is pretty questionable.

    then what about "hate the sin, love the sinner"? if my child does something naughty, are they therefore intrinsically "bad"? is this evidence of their "bad" nature? this is a pretty negative view of people. and can't certain deeds be both "good" or "bad", based on context?

    but not only are your assertions flawed and your terminology vague to the point of uselessness, what evidence do you have that "all" religions miss the "way" apart from one? what evidence do you have that this "one way" *does* lead to "love" (which, of course, can sometimes mean death, not "life"?)

    more question-begging - who says we are falling, or that "desiring love", whatever that means, will stop this falling? falling from where? to where?

    defined how?

    name one in mine.

    actually, that is exactly what i want to know. did you check the sign on the top of the website? it says "interfaith dialogue"

    ok, but as i've said, why can both forces not come from G!D?

    in which case calling it "love" is somewhat misleading. you might be better advised to call it "reunification".

    but "evil" cannot exist without "good" to measure itself against, therefore either evil is caused by the absence of good, in which case good kind of causes evil by being good. besides, both "good" and "evil" deeds are contextual as well. as for "the forbidden", who does the forbidding? where's that written down? who's enforcing that it's forbidden? how do i tell whether a particular thing is forbidden or not? sounds somewhat "legalistic" to me. in my tradition, we speak of an "evil inclination", but we also say that 'the evil inclination is "very good" (in fact, this is the exact "very good" from the creation account, check the wording) because without it, people wouldn't engage in business, build houses, procreate, or otherwise better themselves or develop'. we have a legend that the talmudic rabbis once proved this by imprisoning the "evil inclination" and realised that everyone just started staying in bed all day so nothing got done.

    what, like G!D Can't Be Negative and Destructive? did the devil bring the flood, or destroy sodom and gomorrah?

    G!D Is not "my god" - G!D Is G!D Is G!D. good and evil are human approximations. they do not apply to G!D. G!D Established the concepts but is not subject to them. that's what Being Infinite Divine is all about. something might look pretty bad to me (e.g. stealing) but how could the concept of stealing be applied to G!D? to come to that, how can the concept of "love" be applied to G!D? what we experience as "love", "anger", "evil", "good" are simply how we interpret things that are too subtle and complex at the level of the universe for us to understand; that doesn't mean we can't have a moral response to them based on trying to do the right thing and, indeed, we believe that's what G!D Wants us to do, but we can't possibly do anything but believe that, philosophically speaking. all we can do is be conscious of our own limitations and inadequacies and it is then that we begin to approach G!D-Consciousness, if you like. for me, the fallacy of christianity is that it supposed that G!D would have to incarnate as a fallible human, G!D Forbid, to really understand and experience that - like G!D Isn't Capable of Experiencing everything we experience from more perspectives than we can possibly imagine even ones that only exist in potentia (from our point of view, that is).

    we don't deny that there is a choice and that we must try to choose the good over the evil, but it is supremely egotistical to imagine that that also somehow applies to the Divine.

    i don't understand this. haven't you read the book of job? theodicy is an intractable philosophical issue. this problem becomes far more manageable when you understand that the definition of "All" has to include the possibility of "evil" to be complete. if you understand that evil is estrangement from G!D, but that "there is no place empty of G!D" as it says in the zohar - and the same is attributed to one of the imams of the shi'a, i believe.

    but why is that incompatible with them both "working for" G!D?

    throw me a frickin' bone here - what evidence are you going on for the second bit of the sentence?

    says you. but assertion is cheap - why don't you try backing that one up? who says the "new testament" is "truth"? there are some pretty large holes in its version of events which are explainable by early church polemic, not actual documentary evidence of the beliefs and practices of the jews at the time.

    the thing is, i think jesus was a pretty good bloke and taught some really good stuff - but the good stuff was not significantly different from what the sages taught and, frankly, there's nothing there that's worth starting a new religion over; there's very little in, say, the sermon on the mount that isn't taught every week in synagogues to this day. and, of course, there is some pretty rubbish stuff in the new testament as well, which isn't really that attributable to jesus, but is more obviously put in by people who had never actually met the guy and lived some time later - paul springs to mind immediately. what if jesus was right, but his followers got completely the wrong idea about what he was trying to do? for me, "you are peter, the rock" - this is a statement of frustration: "you must have rocks in your head - and you're going to build a whole fecking edifice on top of that, idiot". and, of course, none of this means that he had to be anything other than an exceptional teacher and human being. as for the idea that because jesus "represented the truth and lived his life through it", that certainly doesn't mean that nobody else ever could have - human history is full of tales of people who lived "perfect" lives.

    have you any evidence for this other than "because i say so"?

    rubbish. who is the "they"? crucifixion is a roman punishment, not a jewish one; the court proceedings described in the new testament would have been completely invalid under jewish law as extensively documented from contemporary accounts. of course, it could have been a kangaroo court got up by corrupt individuals, but that is a sad fact of life, not an indictment of judaism as a religion.

    *sigh* well, possibly, but we really can't know until the Mashiah shows up, so it's a bit of a moot point, isn't it? surely what we need to know is what to do *right now*?

    really? tell that to someone who starts having an affair with someone that he genuinely falls in love with but is already married. tell that to every gay person in the world, if you don't think what they fall in is love, or moral.

    not for us it isn't. that is why it is called "a law for YOU FOREVER", see genesis 13:15, exodus 3:15, 12:14, 12:17, 12:24, 15:18, 28:43, 29:28, 30:21, 32:13, leviticus 6:18, 6:22, 7:36, 10:9, 10:15, 16:29, 16:31, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 25:34... actually, there are so many of these it runs to several pages:

    Bible Concordance: Forever
    Bible Concordance: Forevermore

    umph, we don't interpret it that way - remember, the fruit was from the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil - in other words, to know whether what you were doing was a sin or not; without free-will, there can be no sin.

    this is a fundamental point of difference between us:

    are you suggesting that this does not mean that we have a choice to make? you even said it yourself. the ability to make choices means we have free will.

    you're starting to sound like that rodger tutt bloke who never shuts up about how even if you overrule your strongest desire, the overruling therefore becomes your strongest desire and so you're still acting on your strongest desire. it's a circular argument - but to act correctly is to make your "strongest desire" the desire to choose the "good".

    except for us - i refer you to the earlier references to "forever"

    in short, this argument simply doesn't stand up, it is pure assertion and it even lacks internal coherence.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  10. Paladin

    Paladin Purchased Bewilderment

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    1
    So what part did you see as lacking?
     
  11. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    Jesus was as you say setting a pace an example of 'a way of life' for one to call oneself a christian, is to follow this exact pace/example as best they can. And he did it because? He was paid? Hobby? Day job? No he claimed to do it for your benefit in this and the next life..... To knowingly reject and to not "adhere to christianity's legalistic doctrines and laws" Just seems like you're simply not what you claim to be. *shrugs* Just call um' as I see um'.
     
  12. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Religion is not all about placing restrictions on human behaviour. Very often, it is about inspiring people to action on important matters.

    What do you actually mean by "religion?" When I use the word "religion" I am not talking about a concrete entity, but an abstract concept that represents or refers to a dynamic, spiritual phenomenon. This dynamic phenomenon is a human movement, a socio-political and communal phenomenon that tries its best to fulfill the ideals of the abstract notion of the "religion." It includes the various factions involved in achieving those ideals, the human element, the dogma, the ideology, the commentary, debates, views, opinions, conflicts, controversies and bickering that occurs in people's attempts to fulfill the mission and ultimate purpose of the abstract notion of the religion.

    When I use the word "religion," I refer to an abstraction. I refer to the coarse-grained aspects of the concept, not the finer-grained aspects. I usually refer to the finer-grained aspects as "ideology," not religion.

    Religion to me is about the vision, the ideals, the mission and purpose of a movement or tradition. Ideology is the implementation, the initiative, the policy. Religion to me is the "spirit" and "soul" of the phenomenon while ideology is the "flesh."

    A lot of people put both the two together when they say "religion." The "spirit" and "soul" is lumped together with the "flesh." I am not talking here about a proper usage of words. I am just pointing out that I think we mean different things when we use this word.

    To say that all religions are "false" is to say that all religions are "dead, damned, empty and useless" in the spirit as well as the flesh and I don't agree with that idea.

    Every religion has a soul and that soul has a life. That soul is alive. That soul is the collective psyche of the community of the people dedicating and devoting themselves to its tradition. The "life" or "vitality" of that religion is in the people. Spiritual life starts with humanity. All (or most) religions are about humanity. Humanity is the soul of religion. The vitality is in the humanity and human element of a religion.

    A religion is alive because we are alive. The question is what we do with our humanity. We sustain our human souls by loving our own humanity. We destroy that soul by destroying and harming each other. Whatever is harmful to our humanity is harmful to the soul of a religion.

    Whatever "truth" we learn and discover are things we deem to be rational with the knowledge and experience we have accumulated in our life journey so far. Adherents and devotees to all religious traditions must learn to think in rational ways and to treat their humanity with the proper respect. This means that all religious traditions will discover "truth" in their efforts to fulfill their mission or achieve their goals and ideals.

    My conclusion is that there must be "truth" in all religions. In saying there is "truth" in all religions I am not saying they are right about everything. They are simply right about a lot of things.

    Do religions lead to good? My response to your statement about religion not leading to goodness is that religion is neither good or bad. The adherent or devotee must always choose how to use their tradition to guide them to doing good.

    I am Christian and I choose think of myself as "religious." I do consider Christianity to be a religion based on the concept I described. Christianity is a religion, but not an ideology. Christianity is the abstraction. Ideology is what Christians choose to promote as an agenda.

    Christianity isn't supposed to be legalistic. Christianity was about opposing legalism. Unfortunately I think due to some very misguided leadership we have allowed some nutcases to twist it into a very legalistic, dehumanising and insensitive religion, which is very far from the original ideal of opposing legalism. Some very misguided Christians have promoted some pretty bad and harmful agendas.

    I think Jesus was rebuking fundamentalists. The fundamentalists liked vilifying and demonising people for failing to conform to their legalistic approach to religion. Jesus said their father was the devil because they were heartless people and they were doing a lot of harm. Their heartless approach to religion violated the dignity of their fellow human adherents. This would have made it harder for their victims to be good religious people. I don't think Jesus meant all Pharisees, just the ones he was speaking to when he said that. Not all Pharisees thought, taught or believed the same thing. They would have had various factions.

    I think of humanity as our moral compass.:) Like bananabrain has said, if you fall in love with a woman, it can cause you to do some not so nice (and/or noble and honourable) things -- either to yourself, to the woman or to someone else. I think we must contemplate what it means to be human before we can decide how to love. What does it mean to live, to be alive? What is a meaningful existence? What does it mean to treat yourself and others with dignity? Understanding of the self will lead to understanding of others. Knowing how to love oneself will therefore help you to love others. Selfishness, the evil of all evils, is the beginning of love.
     
  13. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    No. It's done by tea.


    Why are you conflating people with a teaching? A person can call themselves a Buddhist but commit an act of wilful violence. However, that does not change the "philosophy" which is explicitly non-viloent.

    s.
     
  14. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    Perhaps without our ability to destroy, we would be unable to prevent destruction ourselves. When we act on love, we are acting in a manner that would be self preserving. Not only for us but the rest of humanity.

    Self preservation is our prime instinct, but if we are destroying to preserve ourselves and our families when faced with destruction (Say a murderer), then yes that would be considered good, being that the murderer would be acting in opposition to love itself.

    Love is always positive, but acting in opposition to love will always produce a negative.

    What if there is no good or evil in reality, but only what is wise and unwise for humanity? This is certainly a possibility, no? Love would be wise, whereas acting in opposition [to] love would be unwise.

    All religions miss the way because all religions are false (To some extent) The includes Christianity. The only thing we need concern ourselves with is acting, and living through "love".

    Perhaps we are on a continual pilgrimage whereby we are able to explore, create, destroy, and rebuild what we lost. It is not a bad thing (IMO). I for one would rather discover life instead of having all the answers [to] life be present in me at birth.

    How boring and placid life would be if we were unable to grow, and explore, and discover, and learn new things. How boring would life be if we are incapable of making mistakes, whereby we would be unable to discover deeper meanings and timeless truths through them?

    Religions lead us to no good end. Some want us to believe in supernatural entities that punish us for our disobedience. Who demand our worship, who destroy entire peoples, who hate the so called "wicked", etc. All this leads man to judge those who not prescribe to their religions.

    What if God (Your God and all others) are a figment of mankind's imagination, and the only true God, or rather "force" able to get mankind back to good is "love"? This is certainly a possibility is it not? Love is what it is. It is a force able to lead mankind to a better world.

    I have come to realize that evil does NOT exist at all. There are only wise and unwise actions, which lead to negative and positive consequence for man. The only reason the concept of something forbidden exist is because there are certain actions mankind are able to make that brings forth negative consequence. There is nothing literally "forbidden', but only wise and unwise actions that lead mankind to life or death.

    [If] God is the creator of all things, then why would [He] destroy what He created at all? It makes much more sense that God (As scripture states) Rested from [all] His work after He finished creating, and has left mankind to discover life themselves.

    What if God is simply the creative force in nature, and all the attributes attributed to god are the vain imaginations of men? Seriously .... I suppose God could be both creative and destructive, but is He angry, wrathful, and does He truly demand worship? That's where most religions fall on their faces, they attribute the emotions and ways of man to the Creator of life, which ultimately pollutes His image.

    Christianity is false as well, there is only one truth, and I'm one who believes that this truth is love. Jesus is no more God incarnate than I am, but He did show us how to live effectively.

    What is the divine?

    Again, what if there is no good and evil, but only wise and unwise actions that have positive and negative consequences? Evil is a product of man because evil is dependent upon the subjective experiences of man. I realize I used the term evil in my post. Even so, evil does not exist except for in the minds of mankind. The same is quite possibly true for the Abrahamic God.

    We learn from our mistakes, no? You suggest that God creates both good and evil, right? He did create man all who is capable of making unwise decisions, which lead to negative consequence after all, but I highly doubt that God is dishing out punishment on mankind. We live in a world of law and consequence, and the so called "punishments" and "rewards" are built into life itself.

    God is a metaphor for "Good", while Devil is a metaphor for "Evil". Both of which are dependent upon the subjective experiences of man, so it is quite likely that God simply conveys the creative aspects of life, whereas the opposite is true for the Devil.

    I said that love is "Truth", not the NT. Much like the OT scriptures. They are not truth, but they [do] contain truths.

    I agree ....

    Do have evidence for your assertions? Evidence is hard to come by when it comes to any religion.

    Love one another, bro. Love is the only moral standard available to mankind that can govern our ethical decisions [for] all time. Not man made laws, but the very act of living through the Spirit of love.

    We are often driven by our lusts, if a man has an affair with another woman, is he truly acting on love, or is he acting on lust? It takes time to 'fall in love' after all. As far as homosexuals go .... Who cares? Who are we to judge the way they have chosen to live. Intolerance stems from religion too, or so it seems.

    You base this on the assumption that your religion is true. My premise is that your religion is not true.

    There are only wise and unwise actions, both of which lead us to the same end. Sin is simply making a mistake whereby a negative is produced.

    Yup

    We are simply driven by our desires, and we cannot choose aside from what we desire most.

    So be it .... I'm not above correction. Roger is correct when he suggests that we have no 'free' will. (Another topic though).

    If our actions are in opposition to love then we are acting unwisely, which is why I suggest that this [is] the "forbidden". Otherwise, we are able to live, and play, and have a jolly good time. ;)

    GK
     
  15. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    I don't know, Paladin? I'm not schooled in Buddhist philosophy, but no one religion, or philosophy has [all] the answers to life. We are on a journey whereby we are able to discover life ourselves and in our own time. I for one believe loving one another is a good place to start that discovery of life. We don't need philosophy, nor do we need religion. All we need is love; love is all we need.
     
  16. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    Love is not legalistic; it is Spirit. A necessity to believe in the trinity, baptism, etc. are legalistic doctrines. I don't prescribe to, nor adhere to the either. I do however, believe in love "The way" of life as demonstrated by Jesus. The rest is baggage, man ....
     
  17. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    How ironic that you bring up the "baggage". Indeed Jesus told his disciples to take nothing with them, but the clothes on their back, while they preached the good news...not even food. And if they were welcomed then they were to accept what was offered them. And if they were not welcomed, then they simply left the town, and kicked the dust from their sandals as they left the town limits. Not even the clinging of dust to their shoes.

    I have traveled alot in 31 years, but the easiest time I've ever had traveling, was when I took very little with me. A uniform, and a change of civilian clothes. I've been able to go for two weeks like this (getting only what I needed at the places I was working at).

    Dry clean the uniform every two days, and wash the other set of clothes every two days. I breaze through airport security, buy little bottles of hygiene products, don't get caught up in baggage claim issues, move light and quick.

    Maybe, dumping baggage is a brilliant and simple idea, which lets us focus on the main goal...:)
     
  18. Gatekeeper

    Gatekeeper Shades of Reason

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    39
    Sure it is, Salty. Religions may have good intentions, but their practices ultimately hinder our growth as a collective whole.

    "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
    But the finer grained aspects of the religion are en-grained in the religion itself. I understand that they mean well, but they hinder us by their ideologies, and often times this is cause of great conflicts.

    Then love is my "religion".

    They are false, salty .... I call em like I see em. A religion dies when it is forced on others, demanding that others adhere to the religions precepts.
    I see your point, but this does not negate the fact that all religion (In part) are false. There is but one truth, one way, one life. That truth, way, and life is surely "love".

    People are free to practice their religions, but this doesn't mean that what they believe is true, no? Truth can be examined, and identified, and measured not only by scientific tools but through human experience. If a religion has a positive effect on some, but not on others, then what does this say of that religion?
    I agree, but in order to find truth then won't they one day have to question their practices, and legal precepts, and doctrines, etc."

    I agree, and likewise there must be falsehoods in all religions.

    Fair enough ....

    Christianity was never meant to be a religion, but rather a way of life.
    Agreed ....
    Perhaps, but being that he called them children of the devil (Evil) I think He wasn't speaking to fundamentalism, but rather how they lived there lives.

    Isn't that what life is about? Self discovery, and learning how to live effectively, and in a manner beneficial to the whole?

    James
     
  19. Virtual_Cliff

    Virtual_Cliff New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd like to see how that correlates to the wealth gap between richest and poorest within countries.
     
  20. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    I don't think it matters, as it is a skewed perspective, without taking all issues into consideration.
     

Share This Page