Philosophy (2 Viewers)

[lengstar]

here's a question:

if a person has never heard of the word of God, yet continues to live a campassionate and benevalent lifestyle and helps other people, is he more deserving that a criminal who believes in God, yet still commits crimes only to pray for forgiveness of his sins?

and what of people who have no respect for other people, who think those that do not believe in God don't deserve to go to heaven, yet there are people who don't people in God and are much better people than those that do? who is more deserving? the stuck up elitist bitch or the humble person?

 

[sei]

Originally posted by mei_ling03
wow now this is the response i've been looking for! perhaps i'll read it closely later...

yeh, do you think you could please?
I didn't just write it for fun, but also to incite debate - where is everyone's responses to what i wrote?

Originally posted by mei_ling03
what are your study topics?

we study free will, determinism, God and evil, foreknowledge and fatalism, meaning of life, death, personal identity, truth, evidence, 'what is knowledge?', empiricism, idealism, causality, rationalism other minds scepticism, external worlds scepticism, moral knowledge.. all in one semester

Originally posted by lengstar
God is like aether, his existence is irrelevant.

could you explain this? (is this about special relativity?)

 

[freaking_out]

faar, u ppl write too much....no way, i would wanna do philosophy.

 

[AK Gumbi]

I believe the fundemental question is...why? i mean, one day, we may find out 'what' exactly the universe is, 'when' it came into existence, 'where' (it is irrelevant), we even may find out 'how' (scientific- a quantum fluctuation, religious- God created the Universe)...but i feel, we will never find out 'why'. Why was the Universe created???
As Stephen Hawking once said: "We will never know the mind of God."

 

[Overshoot]

Philosophy is good for drunken ramblings :/

 

[ajyt]

The debate about existence and/or characterisation of God is not a relevent topic. 'God' is simply a concept present in all human being's minds - it is fundamentally one's inner courage.

Some people believe in themselves. Others choose to personify this 'inner courage' and name it "God". As humans are inherently social creatures, it is easier to believe that our courage is a separate entity - a friend who will never leave us alone.

The other concept of God is the one that "created man". Humans, as naturally inquisitive creatures, cannot deal with uncertainty and unanswered questions. some people choose to represent all their unanswered questions as 'God'.

The plight to unify religion is painfully illogical, wrong, and fails to consider what God fundamentally is. It is every individual's own heart and mind.

 

[lengstar]

and what of people who disregard the concept of God?

 

[freaking_out]

Originally posted by Overshoot
Philosophy is good for drunken ramblings :/

agree... i mean, alot of it is just baseless speculation.

 

[ajyt]

eh? people who disregard the concept of God are not really diregarding the fundamental concept of God (inner courage). What they are disregarding is the mutated concept created by religion.

Religion is really just 'good advice' given to people on what's 'wrong' and 'right' in life. It is for people who need guidance and feel unsure about finding their own inner definition of self-worth.

However, what's 'wrong' and 'right' in life is obviously dependant on individual belief and social context. The proof is in the many 'revised' editions of the bible - advice must be changed to fit the changed 'moral standards'.

Anyway, the church was once used to control. The concept of God was, and has, been mutated. People now believe God is an external force of power or control.

This is the mutated concept that some people are really disregarding - believing in God should not be like living life by a law, which is what religion seems to impose 'God' as - a law. It's not - it's just advice for people to take, and in the end people need to believe in themselves.

Believing in God is an indirect way of believing in oneself. People who disregard it don't like the binding concept of religion, but their God resides in their inner source of self worth, courage, etc. I mean my source of courage or whatever comes from speaking to my stuffed toy-friend-dude. Others get it from their invisible friend, or themselves.

 

[ajyt]

I mean, if I asked a person - "What is God?", the first thing that pops into mind is the image of some holy dude who has heaps of power. That's an image created by religion.

The stories of God, etc were for the same purpose as "Little Red Riding Hood" - to teach little kids the moral of the story, not as a history lesson or a worshiping thing!

 

[mei_ling03]

hmm it appears i'm returned a lil late.. did anyone miss me?

before i go back to what sei said, as i said i would, i have to say i completely disagree with the idea of God as the 'inner force' or that basically He is anything you want him to be. this isn't really related to philosophy, but seeing as it seems that some physical 'proof' is needed, does it ever make you wonder how statues bleed, stigmata occurs, why people speak tongue (Holy language spoken unconsciously whilst praying), or why miracles occur? of course i can't answer this at this point, but does it ever make you think there's something more to this world, something supernatural? if you don't believe all that, you could also consider that there is the same amount of historical evidence that Jesus existed as there is for Julius Caesar. noone has a problem believing Caesar existed, why not Jesus and His work?

if you are to ask me, "but what about other religions and their miracles" or "what about those who are never exposed to religions".. my answer is that i don't know. i haven't had the chance to explore deeply all religions or enough experience of the world. but i still hold strong with my beliefs and will continue to as long as no-one else convinces me otherwise... it's a famous philosophy that it is better to believe in God than not to believe - if you're wrong, nothing can happen but good if you have followed the good preached by the religion. if you're right (and follow the teachings) you are most likely to be granted entry into Heaven. what i meant by "only limiting yourself" if you don't believe, is that you cut yourself from the possibilities and you are only left with damnation (such a cruel sounding word!).

Originally posted by ajyt

The concept of God was, and has, been mutated. People now believe God is an external force of power or control.

how exactly has the concept of God changed? is there any historical proof? i would, however, agree with the idea that the concept of God has changed from an external force to an 'inner force' in our society. from my knowledge, Judaism is the oldest religion known and i don't know of any historical proof that the concept of God has changed as you have described. Christianity follows on from Judaism, and i still don't see where this concept has changed. please enlighten me.

 

[mei_ling03]

Originally posted by lengstar
here's a question:

if a person has never heard of the word of God, yet continues to live a campassionate and benevalent lifestyle and helps other people, is he more deserving that a criminal who believes in God, yet still commits crimes only to pray for forgiveness of his sins?

and what of people who have no respect for other people, who think those that do not believe in God don't deserve to go to heaven, yet there are people who don't people in God and are much better people than those that do? who is more deserving? the stuck up elitist bitch or the humble person?

for those who have never heard of God, i freely admit that i don't know what happens in their situation. but as for those who 'believe' in God and don't follow His ways - this does not mean that this person is truly following God.. and in my view, not necessarily correct, this person should not be considered any more deserving than another. let me quote from 1 John 4: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.... Whoevever lives in love lives in God, and God in him (perhaps this answers the first question).... For anyone who says "I love God", yet hates his brother, is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen... Whoever loves God must also love his brother." does this answer your question?

 

[ajyt]

argh! i knew it - every time i get into a debate about this stuff it always leads to.. well debate. (sigh).

firstly, it's clear that there was a period in history when the church was a body of power - like the time of Saint Joan. when i say the concept changed, i refer to the way religion is classed, and the way God is directly linked with religion.

before i blabber on, i should say that my perspective is more on the scientific side. i believe in the power of belief and the power of the mind. i do, however, have my doubts about very 'deliberate' miracles such as the parting of the sea, etc.

One 'miracle' i believe is the story with the Bhudda - once he was confronted by some people with swords. he wasn't frightened and didn't feel any hatred and didn't move, so when the bad guy brought the sword down on him, the sword stopped before it cut the Bhudda. myself, i attribute this miracle to the power of the mind.

what i'm trying to say is that i believe God is the mind's way of solving problems. for example, a child who is a 'loner' might have an imaginery friend to talk to. Another friend of mine once argued: your friends and family are here now to help you through, but what if one day you're all alone, and the whole world is against you? The only one who will be there for you is God.

True. But i repeat, it all comes down to believing in oneself. if it comforts your mind to believe that an enourmous power is helping you, then so be it. in the end, the power lies in the power of belief. Not belief in something else, but belief that you can do it.

And about religion. Fervent followers of the church need not baulk at non-followers. I'm saying that the church and religion is a separate entity from God. Tupac once said: ..why doesn't the church open its doors to the homeless?
i ask: why is the church divided amonst itself? why do the different religions have friction between them, and why does the classing of belief - religion - establish yet more lines of differences and conflict of opinion in society? Aside from the purposes of political gain, wars are waged fundamentally because of differences in opinion. Petty disagreements like these evolve into hostility.

Now think about this - if unification of the religions was achieved, that would illiminate these differences. Conversely, if the classing of belief was erradicated, so would be the established borders of differences amongst believers.

What i'm trying to get at in any of my arguments is that: i really do think people should not mix the concept of religion and the church, with the concept of the mind, belief, and God.

 

[mei_ling03]

Originally posted by sei
How on earth do you know he doesn't write down these statements? (that God does not write our life out) Are you omniscient? Are you implying (even though you said he can) that he really CAN'T write them down and is bound by his decisions? Because the point is that he CAN and that proves that life is predetermined if you believe in an omniscient God (you are not understanding this are you?

lol @ the omniscient statement about me..hehe i find that quite funny.. anyway i see what you are trying to say, but as annoying as this may seem, i disagree. umm..simple way to explain.. ok ( i know this sounds stupid): we are lab rats that WILL choose our way through life and in a way, WE have already made ourselves a maze to travel through til we reach the other side (death). God is the person who looks down upon us and sees what we'll do and where we'll go - our names are already (or not) written in the "Book of the Lamb" (Lamb = Jesus). does this make sense? if so, i hope you at least see where i've been coming from...
one more thing before it's asked: no, i don't believe in fate. we choose our own destinies. hmm you could say i believe in a "half-fate" - that we are living out our choices.
God is never bound by anything.

Originally posted by sei
The above (from you) clearly shows that you are implying that God is either NOT omnipotent (all powerful) or not wholly good as He either:
1.Had to give the Devil power (which challenges God's omnipotence), or
2.Chose to give the Devil power (which challenges God being wholly good).
And further to that, you wrote that God gave us the choice between evil and good, not two goods -this has been written plenty of times, at least add something to it. How about explaining WHY evil HAS to exist? And WHY God made evil exist? I already wrote all those counters against why people typically say God allowed evil to exist or created evil. Have a read of them, and tell me WHY God made evil exist when he didn't have to.

lol am i God? clearly not. how am i supposed to know WHY he made his choices? all i know is WHAT were his choices because it is written there in the Bible. i still don't understand why choosing to allow Satin's power on earth challenges God being wholly good. God isn't Satin.

Originally posted by sei
OK so you are implying that he is not wholly good then. If he has the power to intervene in natural disasters (as you said he did), yet CHOOSES not too, he cannot be a wholly good being. Think about it.
The 'new life' argument from a natural disaster is pretty poor -it seems like you're grabbing at straws to try to justify such a disaster of mass-scale and show that some good comes out of it when God does not intervene. I don't think it's very comforting knowing that a few organisms ("new life") may grow out of the wreck caused by a natural disaster that killed hundreds or thousands of people. The 'new life' argument also proposes that life after the disaster is better than life before (otherwise why would an all-powerful, wholly good God allow it?). I'm sure the families of the thousands who died would disagree that life is better after it (and it is clearly an event that an all-powerful and wholly good being could and would have prevented).

i think you're reading into the statement about disasters bringing new life too much. all i was trying to say is that WE don't always see why things happen and the good that can come out of these disasters (e.g. building of a person, compassion between people,etc). all these questions about WHY God does things or allows things to occur i cannot answer. once again, i'm not God. because things don't benefit us directly doesn't make them evil. i can't explain why babies die, why people suffer, why disasters occur. you can ask God that.

Originally posted by sei
There was no argument as such that God has been subjected to some causal law, it was a counter -ie in case someone was going to say that evil was a means to good.
What do you mean by driving force coming from within him rather than an external force? Can you clarify that thanks.

ok sorry i'm just confused. i thought he/she was saying what a friend of mine was saying to me before: that if God is so complete, why did he make humans and not be satisfied with just existing. what my friend was saying was that something external must have 'pressured' God to create us.

Originally posted by sei
Who are WE to try to comprehend him? Presumably WE are his people mei ling, who He created. Christians are meant to be in a loving bond with God, and to love him intimately. I'm sure you would like to have knowledge about the being who you believe is responsible ultimately for your life, a being that you not only love intimately, but trust wholly, through your faith.

And would you mind explaining what exactly we are limiting on ourselves by trying to seek a fuller understanding of God?

i said who are we to comprehend him, to summarise his power and choices in a paragraph. i meant that we will never FULLY understand him, that's why He is God. therefore we should not claim to know. i should have expressed myself better. there is no reason why we shouldn't seek a fuller understanding of God - that's why i'd like to do philosophy too to challenge or cement my beliefs.
i meant limiting ourselves in trying to prove that God does not exist (i answered that in my 3rd last post).

 

[ajyt]

Oh yes -

i never intended to imply Jesus did not exist. But his strories, i believe, are there to tell a moral story. I repeat, the story of "Little Red Riding Hood" teaches little kiddies not to sidetrack and talk to strangers. The original story has been revised many times to teach varied moral stories.

The story is taken for its teachings, and we learn from that. Jesus was a good guy who did good stuff and inspired some people. Then some people chose to write stories to exhibit those morals.

And now you've forced me to say this -- if non-religious people cut themselves from possibilities, I say that people who adopt a particular religion are in fact the ones who confine their way of thinking into a set domain. Saint Joan wasn't religious - she believed in her God. See the difference?

 

[mei_ling03]

i know this is irrelevant but i don't believe in the power of "saints". saints are just people that other people elected as "holy". sorry, it always ticks me off...

i'd like to stay and argue.. but dishes have to be washed, etc etc
see you all in 8 days...SCHOOOOOLLIES!!!!!!!

 

[ajyt]

for god's sake, that's not the point!

 

[ajyt]

.. and i too have a body to wash

 

[sei]

Originally posted by mei_ling03
lol @ the omniscient statement about me..hehe i find that quite funny.. anyway i see what you are trying to say, but as annoying as this may seem, i disagree. umm..simple way to explain.. ok ( i know this sounds stupid): we are lab rats that WILL choose our way through life and in a way, WE have already made ourselves a maze to travel through til we reach the other side (death). God is the person who looks down upon us and sees what we'll do and where we'll go - our names are already (or not) written in the "Book of the Lamb" (Lamb = Jesus). does this make sense? if so, i hope you at least see where i've been coming from...
one more thing before it's asked: no, i don't believe in fate. we choose our own destinies. hmm you could say i believe in a "half-fate" - that we are living out our choices.
God is never bound by anything.

Didn't you read my post about if God left a list on earth detailing exactly what would happen in our lives? How come you didn't respond to this? You disagreeing just shows that you didn't consider what I wrote because not only did you not respond to it, but you still (for whatever reason) chose to inform us yet again that you (baselessly) disagree. Even your rat example contradicts what you are saying 'we have already made ourselves a maze to travel through' -even that statement implies predeterminism. Respond to my earlier example if God put that list of our life's events in front of us on earth.

Originally posted by mei_ling03
lol am i God? clearly not. how am i supposed to know WHY he made his choices? all i know is WHAT were his choices because it is written there in the Bible. i still don't understand why choosing to allow Satin's power on earth challenges God being wholly good. God isn't Satin.

Choosing to ALLOW Satan's power challenges God being wholly good (100% good) or being omnipotent because if God WAS wholly good he wouldn't allow ANY evil event to happen (which he does by allowing Satan power) and if he was omnipotent he would have the power to stop Satan from ever having power over earth. Since you say he CHOSE to allow Satan power on earth it shows that you do not really believe him to be wholly good, because he is allowing the existence of a being who will create things and acts that are not good (and since according to the Bible God is omniscient, he knows this will happen too!).
Can't you see the contradiction? Or am I wasting my time here because you are the only one replying to my arguments, and you are oblivious to the contradictions in your own posts, let alone how you never admit your arguments are weak or uninformed when I take them apart.

Originally posted by mei_ling03
i said who are we to comprehend him, to summarise his power and choices in a paragraph. i meant that we will never FULLY understand him, that's why He is God. therefore we should not claim to know. i should have expressed myself better. there is no reason why we shouldn't seek a fuller understanding of God - that's why i'd like to do philosophy too to challenge or cement my beliefs.

I can nearly guarantee you now that any delving into philosophy on your part will definitely not cement your beliefs about God. Conversely, you'll find that a lot of philosophy challenges fundamental beliefs about God.

Originally posted by mei_ling03
i meant limiting ourselves in trying to prove that God does not exist (i answered that in my 3rd last post).

I haven't tried to prove that God doesn't exist -don't make things up. Therefore, I'm not limiting myself.

Originally posted by mei_ling03
i know this is irrelevant but i don't believe in the power of "saints". saints are just people that other people elected as "holy". sorry, it always ticks me off...

You don't believe in the power of Saints? Do you understand HOW they actually come to be Saints?

 

[Gregor Samsa]

I'm also interested in Existensialism, and some other forms of philosophy, especially in trying to view the links between them, for instance, how some Existensialist doctrines are actually quite similar to those of the ancient Stoics; namely that, existence is absurd, yet we must try to make the best of it while we are in possession of life, Waste no more time debating what a good man is. Be one-Marcus Aurelius.

Quite similar to Camus in 'The Myth Of Sisyphus', except in this case, the contrast is between absurd existence (existensialism) and the inevitability of death (Stoicism, although that's not the only tenet of this philosophical 'branch'.)

Another 'link', I feel, is shown in King Lear, which can be read in this fashion, with Lear, Gloucester and Edgar enduring their sufferings in a chaotic world, only to each experience some form of redemption.

When we are born, we cry that we are come to this great stage of fools-Lear.

Henceforth, I'll bear out pain until it do cry out 'Enough, Enough' and die.-Gloucester.

Men must endure their going hence even as their coming hither. Ripeness is all-Edgar.

This is an example of another area of philosophy that interests me, how is it reflected in texts and societal discourse? How does it interact? (Russell defined philosophy as being effectively a bridge between religion and science). Camus states that All novels are philosophical texts, and in that sense, philosophy is much more widespread currently than most people give it credit for. Of course, the ambiguity of the questions being 'answered' is what makes philosophy such an ongoing pursuit.