User Avatar Image

Theology

posted by kaptein_kaffe on - last edited - Viewed by 1.3K users

Discussing religion is generally a very bad idea on the internet, but there are a lot of down to earth and rational people on this forum so I decided to give it a go.

I want to hear your beliefs. Also, try to keep an open mind and show respect to other people's opinions. I don't care weather you're a fanatic catholic, fanatic atheist or whatever. Arguing about "who's right" is just a terrible cliche.

Personally I believe that there is a god. I'm not agnostic, I believe in god, but that's just my own spiritual reflection on it. I don't judge other religions and say that "this is right", it's more along the lines of Baruch de Spinoza's take on it where you see god as everything. Maybe there's a word for what that is, I don't know. I prefer to look at everything that is beyond our understanding with humility. Most of my religious knowledge lies within catholicism and I generally agree with the ten commandments, but I also believe that the religion is blurred for the sake of politics, ways of maintaining order and fanatic influences (edit: + things that are lost in translation). In short, I'm a read between the lines kind of guy.

My knowledge on the subject is limited, so it's possible that I won't be able to keep up with the discussion. I'd just like to hear your views :)

305 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Iryon said: 2. As theology is an ancient field of study, there certainly is a name for your type of belief. I can't name it though, as you did not yet specify if you just believe that God is everything, God is in everything, everything is God or everything is part of God ... I think there are more directions of this but I can't remember what they are called and what the exact difference in meaning is.



    I would say that I believe that God is in everything if I had to pick one of those.

    I believe that there is a God but I go by my own beliefs. That's basically humility, forgiveness, good intentions, ethical behavior and rational thinking. I don't choose to believe strictly in one religion, I choose to believe in the things that make sense to me. Or to put it in another way, I believe that everything is one religion.

    I'd love to know what that kind of belief is called though, for the sake of future references.

  • @kaptein_kaffe said: I would say that I believe that God is in everything if I had to pick one of those.

    I believe that there is a God but I go by my own beliefs. That's basically humility, forgiveness, good intentions, ethical behavior and rational thinking. I don't choose to believe strictly in one religion, I choose to believe in the things that make sense to me. Or to put it in another way, I believe that everything is one religion.

    I'd love to know what that kind of belief is called though, for the sake of future references.



    Pantheism?

  • There are questions that are not meant for children to answers simply because they dont have the sufficient maturity to answer. Humans are not meant to answer the existential questions. What happens after death? When did all began? Are questions that never NEVER will mankind be able to answer.

    Science has it's limits and people depend alot on it and put their all faith that what science says, it's 100% accurate. And forget that science is an enterprise, a business that protect it's own commandment, but shares also it's contradiction. No one on Earth holds the truth to it, but those who choose to believe must do so with atleast a small portion of faith. You see mankind over estimate themselves so much it once considered themselves the center of the universe. Once Science got their big triumph (rightfully so in the dark ages of inquisitions) it has gone in the same direction the antique catholic church went. Deeming all that can be observed, hypothetise, experimented and tested as something that can reach a 100% conclusion. Yet science has made mistakes, is unable to provide full answers and even acknowledge the existence of love, hate, just because its not matter but a social construction.

    I can't personally fathom to not consider Jesus as not unnatural when theres too much historic consistency to his acts, miracles, and life on Earth. There are 4 books, one written carefully by a doctor who repeat the words of Jesus in Crucifixion. Theres even books that predate the times of Jesus that announce what he will do since Genesis and yet theres no formal answer or logical explanation. Theres also absolutely no man on earth that has divided the times like Jesus has done in a way with BC AC. His influence was so strong that no man, has been able to leave such a profound and concrete trace of his acts like he did. 2000 + years after his death, cultures, economy and laws are based on what he spoke and talked about. He changed the laws written in stones to laws written in the heart of mankind.

    And last but not least my personal experience with having cancer after a couple of months born, and the pcitures taken are so profound that science is left baffled not finding the answers to the reason of why i am alive. Yet it is this things that science is unable to address adequately. If it wans't God, then my body suddently developed defense system to attack and aggresive cancer that almost killed me?

  • @Everlast said: And last but not least my personal experience with having cancer after a couple of months born, and the pcitures taken are so profound that science is left baffled not finding the answers to the reason of why i am alive. Yet it is this things that science is unable to address adequately. If it wans't God, then my body suddently developed defense system to attack and aggresive cancer that almost killed me?



    :) Wow.

  • @patters said: Neo-Paganism is a blanket term for a lot of things, in the same way Paganism is a blanket term/insult which refers to everything which isn't Christian, Jewish or Islamic.



    Indeed, but the term is also used for a specific tree of polytheistic nature religions. For example, a Hindu may be "pagan", but he/she isn't "Pagan".

  • @Everlast said: Science has it's limits and people depend alot on it and put their all faith that what science says, it's 100% accurate. And forget that science is an enterprise, a business that protect it's own commandment, but shares also it's contradiction. No one on Earth holds the truth to it, but those who choose to believe must do so with atleast a small portion of faith. You see mankind over estimate themselves so much it once considered themselves the center of the universe. Once Science got their big triumph (rightfully so in the dark ages of inquisitions) it has gone in the same direction the antique catholic church went. Deeming all that can be observed, hypothetise, experimented and tested as something that can reach a 100% conclusion. Yet science has made mistakes, is unable to provide full answers and even acknowledge the existence of love, hate, just because its not matter but a social construction.



    Whathever who says Science has to be 100% accurate and anything that cannot be proved by science is false, I'm pretty sure is not a scientist itself. The actual science is just a bunch of assumptions which cannot be proved false for the moment. And it's more of a proof of our own limits. Also, it's a proof of the fact humans likes to go beyond of our limits and try to figure out what's here. And, seriously, if there's a great believer of god, it's a scientist.

  • @thesporkman said: Pantheism?



    Sounds about right :D

  • I think this is part of the misunderstanding of what science is. Science is just a name we give to what we either know or assume to be true (i.e., "science" means "that which is true"). This means that something can't be considered true in any terms other than scientific ones. If there is a God, for example, then "there is a God" will be a scientific fact (i.e., a truth). By saying "there is a God, but science can't explain it", however, you're saying "there is a God, but this is not knowable as fact", which is a more verbose way of saying "there isn't a God."

    Edit: Just as an addendum, science can't be wrong about things - scientists can. In fact, scientists like finding out that they're wrong because it's a step further towards finding the scientific truth they're looking for.

  • It's amazing how many views there are on this subject! No one has yet agreed with someone else on this forum 100%.

    Personally, I believe there is a God. (I'm a brought up Christian btw). I also believe in angels, and I like the idea of both Guardian Angels watching over us and the idea that angels walk among us.

    @Chyron8472 said: I come at that from the standpoint of saying that God created time and space itself, so He doesn't have to live in it. The fact that we live in a universe of linear time, and so can't comprehend existence outside it, doesn't mean it's not possible.

    And also, if one were to think outside the context of linear time, where time as we understand it doesn't exist, then to spend "eternity" with or without God has a different meaning.

    This I like too. I'm going to think about this a lot more. Thanks for sharing it. And thanks for starting this thread. I love hearing peoples viewpoints, especially on such a complex subject!

  • @Everlast said: There are questions that are not meant for children to answers simply because they dont have the sufficient maturity to answer. Humans are not meant to answer the existential questions. What happens after death? When did all began? Are questions that never NEVER will mankind be able to answer.

    Science has it's limits and people depend alot on it and put their all faith that what science says, it's 100% accurate. And forget that science is an enterprise, a business that protect it's own commandment, but shares also it's contradiction. No one on Earth holds the truth to it, but those who choose to believe must do so with atleast a small portion of faith. You see mankind over estimate themselves so much it once considered themselves the center of the universe. Once Science got their big triumph (rightfully so in the dark ages of inquisitions) it has gone in the same direction the antique catholic church went. Deeming all that can be observed, hypothetise, experimented and tested as something that can reach a 100% conclusion. Yet science has made mistakes, is unable to provide full answers and even acknowledge the existence of love, hate, just because its not matter but a social construction.

    I can't personally fathom to not consider Jesus as not unnatural when theres too much historic consistency to his acts, miracles, and life on Earth. There are 4 books, one written carefully by a doctor who repeat the words of Jesus in Crucifixion. Theres even books that predate the times of Jesus that announce what he will do since Genesis and yet theres no formal answer or logical explanation. Theres also absolutely no man on earth that has divided the times like Jesus has done in a way with BC AC. His influence was so strong that no man, has been able to leave such a profound and concrete trace of his acts like he did. 2000 + years after his death, cultures, economy and laws are based on what he spoke and talked about. He changed the laws written in stones to laws written in the heart of mankind.

    And last but not least my personal experience with having cancer after a couple of months born, and the pcitures taken are so profound that science is left baffled not finding the answers to the reason of why i am alive. Yet it is this things that science is unable to address adequately. If it wans't God, then my body suddently developed defense system to attack and aggresive cancer that almost killed me?



    You are entering a difficult territory when you try to explain the existence of God through logic or facts. The bible is very inconsistent, and an enormous amount of claims made in the book are obviously historically erroneous. The earth was not created in six days, nor was it created 6000 years (or so) ago, there was no mass extinction through floods four thousand years ago, and there is not a shred of proof that thousands of jews wandered through the desert for 40 years - it's even highly unlikely that Egypt ever had a sizeable population of jewish slaves.

    The fact that christianity has had a huge cultural impact on the western civilizations is not proof of anything. An Indian hindu or a Saudi-Arabian muslim could use this very same logic to prove the validity of their gods and myths. Other religions are extremely influential in other parts of the world - perhaps even more than christianity in people's day-to-day life.

    Anecdotes about how people suddenly recover from a seemingly terminal illness can be attributed to any number of causes. It is wonderful that you made a full recovery, but ask yourself why God would intervene and heal just you. Millions of children die every year from various diseases and ailments. Why would God ignore so many, yet help a tiny, miniscule fraction seemingly at random (and also, seemingly, without regard for the religion of the parents). And, of course, "God exists" does in no way follow logically from "science does not know everything".

Add Comment