What's your religion?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

It seems like your not letting me "create" that border of humanity/"animals". Is there no difference between of love between "animals" and love between humans?

Do you propose there is, and if so how is it any different?

[Envy]

I have no idea what I am... But I just like to say "Progressive Christian", because if I am a Christian I am not a close-minded one and do not believe in using the Bible to make personal prejudices look good. (I believe it happens, but I do not believe in doing it myself.)

But sometimes I'm Agnostic, too. I don't really know what to believe. But most of the time I at least keep a belief in God. There was a few years that I was an atheist...

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Cipher

You shouldn't worry, in fact, I should not have even said that your words were offenses. It is already my full-knowing that we'd inevitably "accidentally" cross each others' ethnicity, we should just ignore it and rely more on our understanding of each other.

Your views of God seem rational, though I'd rather you look at God only and not the resulting society. There are, of course, theist-successful societies as well. We just don't know the ratios in it.

I don't blame god and religion as the roots of Evil (In my opinion, "if" there is a root of evil among humans, it's Humans themselves). As I said ealier, when it comes to some religious people I know. Some of them are great persons, and I don't care that some guys (and not all of them btw) in the past did a massacre in the name of god (or, as I believe, in the name of some evil people who used God as their own advantage). What I see is that there are great people like that. Now some people would say "they act like that because of some texts. They don't think by themselves blablabla", but who cares if those people are happy like that, and do good things in their life? In their cases, faith is not a bad thing at all. And if they are good persons because of their religions, and not because they are originally good people (i can't verify that), then again I don't care. They are just here, great, nice, they don't annoy me for what I think, and I share many principles and morals with them ; so at the end of the day, I appreciate them as individuals.

I, on the other hand, believe that religions do more *positive* than negative. It has, as you've stated, created "proper" morality( or did you say that?, sorry, I forgot.)

I did write something about justice and what happens after death in some religions, but erased it because I didn't want to create a possible meltdown. After having thought about it, I don't want to enter this debate.

It seems like your not letting me "create" that border of humanity/"animals". Is there no difference between of love between "animals" and love between humans?

Social evolution because of their faculty to question/create a lot of things (for the best or the worst) , maybe? Were humans all polygamous and heterosexual, like many other animals, at the beginning? And then some questionned those instinctives (given "if" what i said is instinctives) "rules"? or some of us "were already like the Macaws" and now have the possibilities to express it in our modern societies?

As I said, I put humans in the "animals" slot too, but imo there are some difference. Which lead me to:

Perhaps we could also learn something from "animals". Maybe we should also respect a rule we should not question?

As I said humans seem way more dangerous for their peers than any other animals from the same species in the same group.

I may have missed it, but I never heard, for example, stories about "pedophile meercat". Their reproduction is regulated and it seems that there is an instinctives rules to, for example, not try to procreate with a newborn meercat.

So why such thing happens in humans societies, and not, for example, among the meerkats?

So to reply to your question, maybe the humans world would be less dangerous if all and every humans were respecting instinctively some rules without even thinking about objecting (like not trying to rape a 2yo baby). I don't really know.

I also wonder if we would be more united if there was a species more powerful than us, and scare us. (It happens that i wonder how humanity will feel if aliens arrive, and show how much they are powerful in comparison to us ). That's why I made that assumption about god in my previous post. Maybe it helped humans to think there is a being more powerful than them (whether god exists or not for real).

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Do you propose there is, and if so how is it any different?

I did see different kind of love behaviors in the documentaries about animals that I watched (for example, Macaw VS Meerkat VS Cheetah), so why not?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Do you propose there is, and if so how is it any different?

I'm still in the midst of thinking about it...maybe I'll try reading something later or something.
But I guess, right now, we can go with that, "Animals" equaling Humans that is. Kinda hard for me to accept though.

Originally Posted by Narona

I also wonder if we would be more united if there was a species more powerful than us, and scare us. (It happens that i wonder how humanity will feel if aliens arrive, and show how much they are powerful in comparison to us ). That's why I made that assumption about god in my previous post. Maybe it helped humans to think there is a being more powerful than them (whether god exists or not for real).

God is an alien. Angels are aliens. So, following theism, aliens made us? Seems hysterical to me but Its quite an idea.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I'm still in the midst of thinking about it...maybe I'll try reading something later or something.
But I guess, right now, we can go with that, "Animals" equaling Humans that is. Kinda hard for me to accept though.

Being animals doesn't mean all species act the same way about everything.

While they seem to respect some rules (like no pedophile individual. at leats among the animals i saw in documentaries. Maybe it exists in some species after all), as I said to Chainlegacy, Love/affection feelings among Macaw was quite different than among Cheetahs in the documentaries I watched)

God is an alien. Angels are aliens. So, following theism, aliens made us? Seems hysterical to me but Its quite an idea.

I talked about it recently on msn with Kusa-san (who is a pure Science-based person, isn't it, Kusa? ), and I explained to him how my father sees as amusing that maybe we're a creation of god but that the God in question is actually aliens who are just doing a little experimentation

[TinyRedLeaf]

My father died of liver cancer in 1998. I was 23.

Spoiler for being a very long read:

I was not there as he entered the final stages of his disease. I was away, in Britain, undergoing my second year in university.

I had suspected that something was amiss that winter in 1997. While taking me to Singapore's Changi Airport that year, my parents had agreed to my suggestion that they should visit me during my spring break the following year.

However, that winter, they decided not to come after all. I can't remember the reason my mother gave — it was probably something to do with my father's business, about him being too busy with work.

I remember I didn't think much about it. As the boss of his own textile factory, my father had always been a very busy man. Starting from when I was 10, I was a "latch-key kid": I returned home from school every day to an empty apartment — as the dutiful wife, my mother was as good as conscripted to help my father compile the business' accounts.

My parents would usually get home at around 9pm or 10pm. Sometimes they would be quarrelling. My father had a quick mind — and also a quick temper. My mother bore the brunt of it, often stoically.

I hated my father. I was my mother's son.

============

I was 18. My father was diagnosed with liver cancer. I had just learnt how to ride a bicycle. I wanted a bike of my own. I didn't care that my father had just contracted a very serious illness, one that was normally supposed to kill a patient within six months of diagnosis.

No, it was not because I didn't care — rather, it was because the seriousness of the situation didn't register in my spoilt, 18-year-old consciousness. Petulantly, I demanded a bike and gave up, only reluctantly, after my mother told me, voice quavering, that she had enough to worry about without having to worry about me riding on Singapore's bicycle-unfriendly roads.

I turned 19. Through some miracle, my father met one of the top surgeons in Singapore at the time. After examining my father, he was convinced he could delay the onset of the tumour through surgery and aggressive chemotherapy. Against the odds, the treatment worked.

My father must have been under a lot of pain. But I didn't feel any of it. A part of me felt that he deserved it.

============

I was 20. I was an officer cadet. During one gruelling exercise, my company went for three days and two nights without sleep, digging trenches in preparation for a stubborn defence. I realised, not for the first time in nine months of harsh training, how truly pathetic I really was. Physically and mentally, I was a mess. My palms, tender from a life spared from heavy chores, were covered in blood where multiple blisters had burst after three days of ceaseless digging with spades and bayonets.

That weekend, the night immediately after the mission, I could barely muster the strength to call my father: Could he give me a lift home from camp, please?

It was nearly midnight. Dad had just recovered from a do-or-die surgery barely a year ago. He was under a constant regimen of painkillers. He had just got home from work.

He came to pick me up, that midnight, without a word of complaint.

============

It was the summer of '98. I had completed my second-year exams and the holidays were approaching. My mother finally broke the news: Come home as soon as possible.

The day I returned home to Singapore, my heart lurched. I could barely recognise Dad. He had lost over 10kg, a ghastly, jaundiced shadow of himself. He struggled up from bed and wept the moment he saw me. I'm so sorry, he sobbed, I'm so sorry.

The tumour had returned — as though that were his fault.

Within a month, he was gone.

Before he departed, he became a Buddhist. He had been a freethinker his whole life. During feverish fits, in the middle of night, at the hospital where he spent his final weeks, he claimed to see bloody visions of Hell. My friend, a resident doctor at the time, told me it was the morphine talking. I didn't know what to think.

I was there, beside him, as he gradually lost control of his bodily functions. I was there, that afternoon, as he wheezed his final breath — I heard my first death rattle.

I didn't feel a thing.

At his funeral and at the cremation, I cried, but only because my mother and relatives were wailing so pitifully that I couldn't help myself. Deep down, I didn't feel a thing.

To my numb horror, I realised: I never really knew Dad; I had spent so much of my life hating him, I barely remember loving him.

============

It was 2002. I was 27. I had already been working for two years. I had just returned from my first trip to Japan with two friends. I was sorting my photographs.

And then, suddenly, I saw Dad, in the photo, looking at me with a broad, silly grin, so happy was he to be in Japan for his very first time.

I am my father's son. That night, I wept.



This I believe: I believe that death is our single greatest fear. I believe that religion was born partly as a result of that fear. Seeing my mother faithfully continue the annual rituals to commemorate Dad's death anniversary, I believe that religion offers comfort to the living, those who are left behind.

I don't know how Dad managed to live with liver cancer for nearly five years. I don't know why his cancer returned. I don't know what he saw, and whether he is in heaven or hell.

Frankly, I don't care.

I know that he was proud of me, and that he loved me. I know that he lives on in me. I know I will not fail him.

And that, is all I really need to know.

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Narona

I talked about it recently on msn with Kusa-san (who is a pure Science-based person, isn't it, Kusa? )

Yep mostly

But as I said earlier on this topic, I find that more probable that human being was created by Alien than by god (since I don't believe in God to begin with). For me, it's a possibility even if most people think that's just crazy In that scenario, God is just a way to describe a powerful being who are not human : An alien.

By the way, some people always wondered that if alien exist why don't they show up ? For me it's because, if they show up, it will be a social disaster. I mean, for example, how people who believe in God will react if they learn than God is just an Alien ? It will be disastrous.

Something that I find interesting are scientist who believe in God. I always wondered how they can be scientist and believe in God ?

[bhl88]

lol alien

I mean, for example, how people who believe in God will react if they learn than God is just an Alien ?

lol mixed reactions. a.) People will worship that alien b.) People will commit suicide.
c.) People will reason that God disguised himself as an alien.

Something that I find interesting are scientist who believe in God. I always wondered how they can be scientist and believe in God ?

I think science tries to explain religion and religion was the basis of science (I think). In all religions, water is the basic part of life: The Bible mentioned water and so did the others.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Narona

I did see different kind of love behaviors in the documentaries about animals that I watched (for example, Macaw VS Meerkat VS Cheetah), so why not?

And we're only discussing mammals and birds, thus far - some parents in the animal kingdom would consider their offspring a hearty meal.

Certainly, love differs from species to species, but there is an evolutionary link that has been handed down that has caused that love to branch into the many different forms we see in the animals of today. So, while different in execution, the base for that love is the same in humans and other animals.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Cub-Sama

Where was it stated anywhere that we should celebrate our fellow man is being sent to hell? I thought we were supposed to mourn such things as the person is feeling eternal damnation or maybe that was just a typo

It wasn't a typo.

Babies aren't judged by the same standards of a person capable to decide and make their own opinion about the world, babies have no understanding of right and wrong and they are pure until their parents teach them to do bad things and even then they are not punishable because they don't know its wrong. That is why God said we should be pure like children, also who says it is God that gives all diseases did you forget that there is a being that we also believe exists called the devil that does unspeakable evils.

Since my first answer was deleted, I'll keep it shorter: I understand that you believe that babies are sent to heaven regardless. But I have doubts about the canonicity of such a claim, because of Christian concepts such as "Original Sin" or "Limbo".

[Vexx]

The disposition of baby souls depends on which sect of Christianity you subscribe to (and how it interprets the baptism process).

[Cub-Sama]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Since my first answer was deleted, I'll keep it shorter: I understand that you believe that babies are sent to heaven regardless. But I have doubts about the canonicity of such a claim, because of Christian concepts such as "Original Sin" or "Limbo".

Limbo was a concept brought about in medival times I dont think a lot of people believe it today and original sin was wiped away by Christ as I have said before.

[Spike'sRose]

So many different views... An interesting read through the thread, to be sure.

Religion is a touchy subject, and therefore I steer clear of it, mostly.

I refuse to be lumped into any category or "group" in anyway. I don't believe in any religion, but I have respect for faith. To me, faith is more wonderful than a lebel of a religion. ^.^ In that regard you can faith in anything, regardless of if it's truly a deity or not. Whatever makes you feel whole as a person, or gives you strength in times of need.

Many would call me an athiest simply based on solid fact. But there's more to me then a word can really describe. Besides, I don't agree with most of what athiests say anyway. *shrug* Categorize me if you like, it won't effect me... That's what I always say.

I like to stick with the "I don't really know" thought. I don't know if there is a God, or heaven or hell... I don't know anything beyond what science has shown me... So I will accpet the unknown, and live my life as a decent person. And, if I'm lucky, I will have all the ultimate knowledge when I die.

I also think that we, as humans, wouldn't be able to handle the true knowledge of "what's out there" in our current state. There could be solid proof of one thing or another, and one group of people would still shout out against it. That's they way humans are now. *shrug* If God were to show himself, I know myself and many, many others who would question him, and want answers from him before believing even then.

Buuut... that's just my opinion. ^.^ I respect everyone's views, though too.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Cub-Sama

Limbo was a concept brought about in medival times

As an apocryphal alternative to outright Hell. So, yeah.

I dont think a lot of people believe it today

Yes, a lot of people seem to treat religion as a buffet rather than a table d'hôte affair. That's probably why they came up with limbo in the first place: not comfortable with sending babies to hell. Is it really the way organised religion is supposed to work, though?

and original sin was wiped away by Christ as I have said before.

For the believers, which babies are not.

And even if babies are spared, it's hardly the only thing that makes me think unbelievers are really unpopular with Christians - as a matter of doctrine, not actual feelings from the actual Christians.

[Cub-Sama]

Originally Posted by Spike'sRose

I also think that we, as humans, wouldn't be able to handle the true knowledge of "what's out there" in our current state. There could be solid proof of one thing or another, and one group of people would still shout out against it. That's they way humans are now. *shrug* If God were to show himself, I know myself and many, many others who would question him, and want answers from him before believing even then.

If God were to show himself his power and glory would be so great before we even lay sight on him our puny coporeal bodies would destroy themselves instantly and the universe will be destroyed from his sheer awesomeness and the universe as we know it will end.

[xris]

Recents posts moved to a new thread, Varieties of Theism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Deism, Pantheism, and More

Originally Posted by xris

And again....

Before this thread is dragged off-topic yet agian, please remember the actual topic, that is if you are religious or not.

Some of the recent discussion might be better suited in threads such as Creationism / Intelligent design for example.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

Yep mostly

But as I said earlier on this topic, I find that more probable that human being was created by Alien than by god (since I don't believe in God to begin with). For me, it's a possibility even if most people think that's just crazy In that scenario, God is just a way to describe a powerful being who are not human : An alien.

By the way, some people always wondered that if alien exist why don't they show up ? For me it's because, if they show up, it will be a social disaster. I mean, for example, how people who believe in God will react if they learn than God is just an Alien ? It will be disastrous.

Something that I find interesting are scientist who believe in God. I always wondered how they can be scientist and believe in God ?

Because God is an Alien, in *some* sense. He's not inhabiting the earth so I think you can include him in that group---though the two doesn't seem to fit each other.

But if your a religious scientist, I'm pretty sure you could scientifically and religiously tie in things well. In fact, my religion believes, if science and religion were truly the correct ones, they would complement each other.

Speaking of science, True "science" is actually debatable. The science with no laws (passing speeds of light), as oppose to the science with the universal "laws" we have, is the science that extends above "science". Our "science" is....a system. We're following that system. But *that* system may not be the only system.

So what I'm saying is, science and its laws can alternately change within different *dimensions*.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yes, a lot of people seem to treat religion as a buffet rather than a table d'hôte affair. That's probably why they came up with limbo in the first place: not comfortable with sending babies to hell. Is it really the way organised religion is supposed to work, though?


For the believers, which babies are not.

And even if babies are spared, it's hardly the only thing that makes me think unbelievers are really unpopular with Christians - as a matter of doctrine, not actual feelings from the actual Christians.

Yeah, Islam is a much better religion.

Originally Posted by Cub-Sama

If God were to show himself his power and glory would be so great before we even lay sight on him our puny coporeal bodies would destroy themselves instantly and the universe will be destroyed from his sheer awesomeness and the universe as we know it will end.

Interesting theory. So, what's *your* religion?

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

So what I'm saying is, science and its laws can alternately change within different *dimensions*.

No, if natural laws are different in a different dimension, then it is the role of science to find out what the new set of laws are.

I am very annoyed by the fact that people cannot distinguish the differences between science, which is a system of logic and experimentation to understand how the world works, and nature, which is how the world works.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

No, if natural laws are different in a different dimension, then it is the role of science to find out what the new set of laws are.

Which is basically my point. "Science"(which is our current science) isn't as "universal" as you think it is.

I am very annoyed by the fact that people cannot distinguish the differences between science, which is a system of logic and experimentation to understand how the world works, and nature, which is how the world works.

Science, itself, may or may not be how the world works. We *might* be trapped in a "scientific" limitation.

Ok, seems out of topic, but, in a twisted sense, I'm seeing "Science" as a form of religion...somehow.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Which is basically my point. "Science"(which is our current science) isn't as "universal" as you think they are.

You mean "nature," or "scientific knowledge," not the scientific process itself.

Science, itself, may or may not be how the world works. We *might* be trapped in a "scientific" limitation.

The limitation is the limitation of our knowledge (our understanding of nature). Our limits will increase once our technology improves, so that we can gather more data and perform more experiments.

"Science" as a religion only occurs when a person is under the impression that our knowledge is absolutely correct, rather than understanding that our current knowledge of natural laws is an approximation that fits the data we've gathered. Newton's laws fit his knowledge at the time, but Einstein's fit even better because he had more data available. There are also strange dogma that scientists have had that were proven wrong, such as brain neurons not being able to grow in adulthood.