Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Perhaps I should explain that my opinions about institutionalized religion stem from the fact that I was a catholic, though my parents were not strict about it.

There are several fundamental concepts in the catholic faith that I've thought long and hard about (and sometimes talked about with devout catholics), and several of them go against everything I hold true. Inherited sin / baptism is one of those things.

Each time I concluded that each of these concepts cannot be true, it was like a domino falling down.
And as with dominos, if the first and fundamental ones start falling, the rest goes down automatically.
And in the end I found catholicism to be a false structure of premises that I don't want to be part of because there was nothing left to believe in, aside from the general mesage in the bible.

From that position, I looked at other religions, and found that they all have mutually exclusive basic concepts. And while I do not kow the details of each, I figured that there is no point in joining a religion if I don't agree with the basics.

So gradually, I found that I don't really need the instituationalization. I cut out the middle man instead.
If I feel like it, I can talk directly with God, however I name him, her, or them. If I pray, I will do it my way.
I figure that if I honestly follow my heart and try to be a decent human being, it'll be allright in the end.

Originally Posted by JMS

Are you available for baby sitting Bruno?

No problem. I'll do it for free even. Travelling will be a killer though.

I see that around me a lot=understandable.

Speaking of fundamental concepts, I am always amazed at the labyrinthine thinking that religion relies on in an attempt at self preservation.

Take the idea of "Sin."

Guilt is the device without which sin could not exist. Why do we feel guilt?

Religion however, has used guilt to build some mighty big and long lasting battlements!

Sin is a silly idea, as are most of the mechanisms used by the worlds religions, to control it's constituents.

The fortress can be toppled easily when one exposes the basic pretense of what I like to call the "Imaginarium."

"Then, in a poof of logic, he ceased to exist!" Douglas Adams

I don't know what all the different flavors of Christianity are, or how much this really relates to the topic at hand about God in general, but here is one of the things the Christian Bible has to say about inherited sin

before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

mischievous, it's true that without being told what sin is, you won't feel very guilty at all. But how can that be an argument against sin itself? Without guilt, you may not recognize sin, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A blind man can argue all day long that light doesn't exist

Originally Posted by JMS

Being baptized as they do in church is only symbolic of what should happen in our hearts! Our very hearts should be baptized in the love of God and filled with the spirit that should guide us the rest of our days! To my mind, this is what is almost complete in a childs heart, and will come to completion as long as we guide our children, and not get in the way of their natural progression to this end!

This is the core principle that every good person should strive for. If it takes religion for you to get there, great! If not, great!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I don't know what all the different flavors of Christianity are, or how much this really relates to the topic at hand about God in general, but here is one of the things the Christian Bible has to say about inherited sin

mischievous, it's true that without being told what sin is, you won't feel very guilty at all. But how can that be an argument against sin itself? Without guilt, you may not recognize sin, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A blind man can argue all day long that light doesn't exist

I posit the idea that guilt, the mechanism the churchmen have preyed upon and labeled it sin, is a learned behavior. We categorize someone without guilt is a psychopath. However, you don't need religion or an invisible construct to govern a society or individual.

One can feel guilt without having been raised in a religion or knowledge of religion.

Sin does not exist. It's only a concept.

Simple answer.

You must be taught something is wrong. You are born an atheist. You must be taught a belief system, it doesn't come naturally. You must be taught about guilt, or in the christian vernacular, sin.

Sin is not like light, you cannot prove sin, or God for that mater, exists. Unlike light, big difference.

Originally Posted by mischievous

You must be taught a belief system.

Well, I follow you up to a point, but it breaks down because who taught the first guy to have a belief system? And who taught him? etc

And if someone came up with it on his or her own, why did they do that? If it was self-taught, then why would that person have any reason to feel guilt?

The light analogy proves a different point though. You cannot prove to the blind man that light is visible or that visibility even exists unless he chooses to believe what you say about it. He has no way to observe the visible spectrum that you claim is visible. Even if he did have an indirect method, he'd still have to believe his own observations and inferences

Everything you and I have proof of are really just concepts we've chosen to believe but we're not right just because we've accepted the evidence we have as proof

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Well, I follow you up to a point, but it breaks down because who taught the first guy to have a belief system? And who taught him? etc

And if someone came up with it on his or her own, why did they do that? If it was self-taught, then why would that person have any reason to feel guilt?

The light analogy proves a different point though. You cannot prove to the blind man that light is visible or that visibility even exists unless he chooses to believe what you say about it. He has no way to observe the visible spectrum that you claim is visible. Even if he did have an indirect method, he'd still have to believe his own observations and inferences

Everything you and I have proof of are really just concepts we've chosen to believe but we're not right just because we've accepted the evidence we have as proof

Ahh the good old first cause argument. That doesn't hold water for long, thanks.

Your position that someone couldn't have come up with this on their own is only valid if you can point to a single point of origin. Are you saying that man just suddenly appeared and that these ideas were impressed upon him from an outside source? Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar.

I can prove light exists to a blind man easy. Stand him out in the sun long enough, and he'll get burned!

He is blind. We are talking about a sensing organ. You don't have a guilt organ or a god shaped hole.

I can prove more than just concepts and so can you. The Philosophers game of concepts and in-substantiation is just that, a game. The universe will continue to exist long after we are gone my friend.

I'm not sure I understand your last statement fully though. Are you saying you cannot ever trust any evidence? Ever?

I can prove light exists to a blind man easy. Stand him out in the sun long enough, and he'll get burned!

Put him ina darkened oven, and he will also get burned....