Kasper wrote: I do not believe that just saying you're sorry for a sin makes up for it. However, you need not be sorry, because since Jezus' resurrection you will go to heaven anyway. So why do good, if it's not gonna get you anything that doing bad won't get you? I suppose that's morality.
Emma_85 wrote: The Protestant view is indeed very bleak, because you can only hope for slavation, it's not certain...
Emma_85 wrote:I don't know too many Christians, but none of them actually believe the Bible...
Emma_85 wrote:(a debate with the bishop of Speyer may be interesting, but I doubt he'd want to speak to me).
kalailan wrote: i am very curious about it as i do not understand how one can live an entire life knowing that we are born in sin and that the heart of man is bad. and i say this with respect to the religion. i just don't understand it.
Being sorry for a sin (and asking for forgiveness) does not make up for it.
God forgives this sin for Christ's sake i.e; because Christ made up for it.
So why do good? Out of love. Do you treat your wife or mother or child properly because it will get you somewhere or because you love him or her?
If that is the case then you don't know any Christians.
Emma_85 wrote:Being sorry for a sin (and asking for forgiveness) does not make up for it.
God forgives this sin for Christ's sake i.e; because Christ made up for it.
So why do good? Out of love. Do you treat your wife or mother or child properly because it will get you somewhere or because you love him or her?
That is the view that the Catholic Church takes, are you Catholic? I thought the Netherlands were mostly protestant. Of course being Protestant doesn't mean you can't believe that, it's just that this is one of the points why Luther and others rejected the Catholic Church.
Emma_85 wrote:
I just think it's strange (and wrong) when people go and 'build' their own religion to fit their life, because then all it is is comforting, but by no means can they then say they believe it because it's true. They also loose any right they may claim to have to go and call atheists immoral or to force their religion on to non-Christians.
Kasper wrote:Right. (bedankt voor die nutteloze informatie)
kasper wrote:(Sorry I don't know how to do the quote thing you guys do.)
kasper wrote:The question is: what is the purpose of religion?
Kasper wrote:Interesting point: "Home-made religions are not even comforting" (Sorry I don't know how to do the quote thing you guys do.)
The question is: what is the purpose of religion?
Is it to seek truth, or is it to give us hope, strength, a purpose to live and accept suffering, to make us happy perhaps? Or, in other words, what is more important, truth or happiness?
Christian religion is so simple, it says but one thing (much like all major religions in the world): 'be moral.'
Morality is home-made.
If a God is the reason, so I do not think that he/she/it could have any interrest that we can find it out, because (as rimon-jad had explained it so nicely) our sense is limited by this God ( is it not a main feature of a God that he/she/it avoids any clear apperance of himself ?)
Kalailan wrote:Emma_85 wrote:Come on, you promised me you'd debate religion with me again ages ago![]()
i do not think of god as a being at. i do not think he is angry, happy, loving, and that's because i don't think there is a him
Emma: why do you think God has any plans or interests that we can never know?
Kalailan: i don't think he does. i think we just cannot know because of our nature, and because thats not the reason we are here for.
Kalailan: i think we can know. some of it at least.
Fist of all I think it is not necessary if we consider God as a person or something which – like light - infiltrates the space. But it must be something which have or had at least any influence of us (think of religion ). And I think we share - in general - common values about what is good or wrong with him. And God is standing beyond the time, he is “Lord of the Time” so to speak. Because he must be there before this universe came into existence and he will be there when this universe is no more.
assumed that there is a God
Emma_85 wrote:We have free will, and until some brain researcher can prove me wrong on this - absolutely wrong - I will probably continue to believe it, as so far humans are still very unpredictable.
Emma_85 wrote:But this is the problem: how can something like free will originate for something totally causal, and predetermined?
emma_85 wrote:Does that mean you do not think God has a consciousness or a mind? Is he perfect, as in he never changes his mind at all... it's always in one state that never changes?
emma_85 wrote:If that is so, then he doesn't have a conscious mind, as the definition of that is that it is something ever changing, that feels emotions and thinks things over.
emma"_85]
If he is really unchanging, then how can that be called consciousness? You could just as well call it a number or anything else - you could just call it (God) the cause of the universe,
[/quote]
i think its not far from my belief.
[quote="emma_85 wrote: Or if all he is a 'plan' then you could just as well call him the laws of physics, could you not?
Emma_85 wrote:Do you have any links to any websites on this or can you recommend any books?
So you believe, God made us so that we know what good and evil is?
If he calculated everything so that humans would come about through evolution, then why not calculate that bit about good and evil too, why tinker with our minds later on?
But this is the problem: how can something like free will originate for something totally causal, and predetermined?
copain wrote:(And by the way the question if God had any clear idea about us humans at the very beginning of evolution or if he had just looked around as this process of evolution was going on an then „choose“ his favourite is not very important, what really matters is the fact that he was willing to give this ability to the creature which seems suitable to him).
He must do so, because if the ability to become a complex counsiousness and to know about good and evil were part of the evolution itself than it would have been possible that more than one species would have become this ability through evolution and therefore he had to often to interfere preventing this. And it seems likely that he want only once species with that ability only because there is only one species there – we humans.
And for a second reason he must later on tinker with our minds.
If this ability where part of evolution and evolution as part of this material world has to face an end somewhere in the future this ability will have doomed to die also. But as part of the soul it has to return back to it´s source , back to God, so it have to be seperate from evolution.
I do not see any contradiction about free will and the causality of this world ! Because we have no other possibility as to act in the term of cause and effect, and our will have to obey about this.![]()
The problem with the free will is more evident in our struggle with our natural behaviours (like the sexual drive or the our strive about possession (like power, money,food))
The question is how dominant is the influence from our environment and our genes of this „free“ will.![]()
If he cannot look into the future from this vantage point, then he isn’t omnipotent either... in that case he is not a God. God by definition must be omnipotent, or there is no way he could just make souls out of nothing, that are nothing physical, but still for some reason something
Again you are saying that God is not omnipotent, for if he was, then he could have devised a plan to make sure that only one species would evolve. Anyway, are you sure only one evolved?
The problem is that if everything is just cause an effect, then you have the problem that everything, not only our outside world, is predetermined. Every electron, every neuron... they all cause thoughts and such... I hope this is not true, and that not everything is quite cause and effect, so I’ll definitely make sure I take a look at quantum theory. If quantum theory is the key to free will though and no God is necessary for free will to work.
Emma_85 wrote:The problem is that if everything is just cause an effect, then you have the problem that everything, not only our outside world, is predetermined. Every electron, every neuron... they all cause thoughts and such... I hope this is not true, and that not everything is quite cause and effect, so I’ll definitely make sure I take a look at quantum theory. If quantum theory is the key to free will though and no God is necessary for free will to work.
i am these days at the process of thinking this out; i disagree with some of the things i previously said.
threewood wrote:
I believe, and only because of my religion, that this neutral thing is god
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests