Why ppl need GOD!!!!

[Morchaoron]

Religion is about more than how the earth was created as well. The core of every religion is belief in something transcendental, so if you only look at this part they can all be right .

they believe in 'something transcendental' through their teachings, if those teachings turn out to be bullshit (take all ancient pagan religions for example) they could ofcourse continue to believe that there is 'something transcendental' and may be right if there actually is something transcendental, but for them it is not about the 'something transcendental' part itself, but about the dogma, about how this transcedental part is going to affect them now and in the future...

 

[tris-]

still no one replyed to my q so i will pose it again, mainly at the religious people. i would be interested to know what you have to say!

if all these idols of the past apparently came from a god, why did they stop coming when science was 'discoverd'.
why since science, do miraculous things and higher beings not come from heaven and throw miracles left and right?
why since science, did it all stop?

possibly cos it didnt happen in the first place? thats what i think.

 

[noblok]

they believe in 'something transcendental' through their teachings, if those teachings turn out to be bullshit (take all ancient pagan religions for example) they could ofcourse continue to believe that there is 'something transcendental' and may be right if there actually is something transcendental, but for them it is not about the 'something transcendental' part itself, but about the dogma, about how this transcedental part is going to affect them now and in the future...

Fair enough. Only one can possibly be right when it comes to the dogmatics . I think religion is about more than the dogmatics imposed by some old book/teachings/... though.

possibly cos it didnt happen in the first place? thats what i think.

Off course they didn't and being religious doesn't mean that you have to believe all these stores. The bible (just as all other myths) isn't written in descritptive language, but in "disclosure language" (I. Ramsey). When the bible says that God is your father it doesn't mean that god impregnated your mother, but rather that God should be seen along the lines of a father.

 

[tris-]

but that doesnt explain why these things stopped when science was 'discoverd'.

if it was all well and good and happend all the time then it shouldnt suddenly stop should it.

 

[noblok]

I think the fact that the religions got institutionalised is to blame for that. Things tend to evolve slower when institutionalised. Also, there is no real need to add anything else to the religion as it is, there are enough myths to show you the direction in which to think already.

Another thing could be that being situated in the past is inherent to all myths and it's just the influence of tradition. Greek myths were also situated in the past, even before science was discovered.

What kind of stories are you thinking of by the way?

 

[tris-]

everything in the old and new testaments tbh.

 

[noblok]

I think it might help if you consider them all as the parables Jesus tells. Not "true" in the scientific way, but they show/teach you something nonetheless.

 

[tris-]

i mean specifically the ones that supposedly did happen. i dont know which ones as my bible studying stopped when i was in primary school.

but the ones that supposedly did happen, why do things like that no longer occure? like i said before, why they stopped since science was 'discoverd'?

 

[noblok]

Because they didn't happen. Treat them as parables, not as true stories. They are not written in descriptive language, but in "disclosure language".

Why did there no longer appear any of those parables? I think this is because of two reasons:
a) Religions got institutionalised, stories got written down in holy books etc. Once you have a set of stories for your doctrine it's not that usual that other ones are added.
b) There simply were enough myths to show you a direction in which to think.

Why are they told as true stories then and not clearly marked as parables? I think this is because of the tradition. Myths have always been situated in the past and told as if they had truely happened. This doesn't mean that you should take them literally though.

I don't think they stopped hapening because of science, since older myths were also situated in the past and never in present times. Depending on when you consider science to be 'discovered' off course, but I think the most important in this aspect is historical research, which was started after the Greek myths.

 

[tris-]

maybe i imagined them then lol.
i was also sure there is stories in the bible that are meant to be true and others which are just fiction.

but if you say they arnt, then i shall believe you

 

[noblok]

Well, I suppose there are people who consider the bible to be factually true. Most sensible people realise that walking over water, surviving being eaten by a whale, etc is impossible though .

 

[Raven]

i thought the old testament was supposed to be made up and the new one true, at least some of the stories in the new testament are fact, a lot of the things did indeed happen. its actually quite a good read, the new testament.

 

[tris-]

ah raven. a new addition to the situation here. so i WAS right thinking that some of them are implyed as fact?

well then i return to my previous stance

noblok, how could u decieve me like that?!

 

[noblok]

One of the new things of christianity was that it interweaves history and religion like this. Some of the things in the old testament happened as well. It's basically the history of the Jewish people, with some religious things thrown in. Hence the ammount of bloodshed, it wasn't quite a happy history. This probably doesn't make it any easier to figure out what to interpret as a fact and what as religious language .

The Jewish did travel through the dessert to find a good place to settle. It is unlikely that this place was promised to them by a god and even more unlikely that this god guided them in the shape of a massive column of fire. Jesus did actually exist, it is unlikely that he walked over water, cured blind people, etc.

I probably should've said this earlier. Chrisitanity (and I think islam as well) isn't quite identical to myths, it's more like myths incorporated in history. However, christianity originated after historic research, so I still don't believe these stories stopped being created because of science .

 

[Morphius]

did god have sex with mommy?

 

[Morchaoron]

Fair enough. Only one can possibly be right when it comes to the dogmatics . I think religion is about more than the dogmatics imposed by some old book/teachings/... though.

more in what way? i have met very few people who believe that there is a god but dont follow a religion...

 

[noblok]

Ah, but isn't deism a religion as well? It all depends on how you interpret the concept of religion off course, but even for most (western) "catholics" all the dogmatics aren't that important. Most of them don't consider homosexuality a disease, don't think Harry Potter is a tool of Satan and all that stuff. I'd say that they just think that there is a god and agree with the basic christian values (10 commandments etc.)

Edit: when I said I thought it's about more than dogmatics, I meant that I think that in essence religion is a way to express a spiritual experience/attitude to life.

 

[Jjuraa]

It strikes me as funny how everyone is claiming to be aethist these days, almost like people are trying to claim some sort of pseudo-cool from being a calm, calculated figure with science and reason on their side...

I'd offer a caution to those people however. Fair enough, you believe there is no god, and you believe it will all the certaintly that people a few hundred years ago had that the world was flat.

You can't say "Oh but we have science now" and try and prove the non-existance of god through that. Thats completely irrational, back in the "dark ages" as you guys would probably put it, they still believed they had science, they were still 100% sure they were right and had proof beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that (we assume) they were dead wrong, should give you cause to doubt our own scientific knowledge, rather than rebuff theirs.

Edit: I'm not trying to argue either the existance or non-existance of God. My stance is one of "wait and see" as i fail to see conclusive evidence from either side.

 

[tris-]

think im gonna live all my life not believing.
then as im dieing, ask for a vicar/priest to read me my last rights or what ever it is.

apparently thats the only thing you need to to be accepted into heaven.
btw, im only basing all this from watching constantine so it maybe wrong. but if you cant live your life like a film story then whats left to do?