GameBanshee Forums

Oh, I hope I'm not starting anything I'll regret here...

Here is a thread devoted to pondering the mysteries of existence, specifically, the mystery that is the Divine. In other words, here's where we talk/debate about God and the Cosmos in general.

All right, let me propose a few guidelines we should follow:

1. ALL beliefs are welcome here. (Unless you sacrifice cats or something; you can take it over to the Aleister Crowley MB in that case...)
1A. Disagreement is not only tolerated, but encouraged! That is what makes for good debate. HOWEVER...

2. Let's express our disagreement in an intelligent fashion. Let's use logic instead of getting emotional and flaming people.

3. Let's be open-minded and willing to learn from one another, shall we?

All right, let's get the proverbial ball rolling. Anyone out there with a deep philosophical quandary we can start debating?...

[ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

I believe religion is a means to control. In the beginning it might had been more than this...now it's a way of controlling people.

Thanks for supporting my little thread, Weasel

Care to elaborate on that? Religion is a means of control...to what end? I assume you're talking about "organized," mainstream religion and not spirituality in general? What reason do you think such religions would have to control people -- what do they gain, etc.?

Anyone else care to comment?...

I pretty much agree with Weasel.
Fistly - I've never cared much for religion, because I found it did not apeal to me.
now that has been said I feel/think that for instance in christianity, it to my knowlegdem, states that people will get their reward in heaven, especially if they've had a poor life (for instance in poverty) - this IMHO seems like a brilliant way of keeping a hole people at bay with religion. Think of the medivale times, where a large group of people didn't have much and nobles and kings had pretty much everything.
They simply couldn't afford the people starting to question their right to rule.
I don't know much about other religions, so it is hard for me to come up with similarities, but looking at budisme, IIRC then this religion stated that one could reach nirvana by living as "pure" (badly translated, but I don't know the word I'm looking for in english) and "simple" as possible.
Again, this is to discourage people from seeking "earthly wealth" and thereby again the rich "ruleing" classes were more safe.
It also stated about reincarnation, where if you were born as a rich person or like a "god" (they weren't gods, but the closest thing to one) you would be reincarneted again as something "lowly" like an animal of some sort, and if you had live a hard/poor life - you would be rewarded with a better next life (if you didn't reach nirvana)

(IMHO)

IMHO =>
Religion is a means of comfort to people. Because different people have different needs, there are several different types of religion out there.

To fight other people because they have a different (or no) religion in this philosophy is nonsense, since your are condemning people for the way they seek comfort.

I feel that Desmond Morris also gave a good interpretation of religion. Please feel free to search the internet for this interpretation.

Originally posted by TheDeacon:
<STRONG><snip>
I feel that Desmond Morris also gave a good interpretation of religion. Please feel free to search the internet for this interpretation.</STRONG>

What - are you lazy???

Personally I feel that religion is a indeed a way of comforting people. We live in a situation where a lot of questions don't have clear answers. Religion steps in with most of these situations and it provides answers. There are people that agree with these answers or that are in need of answers, and they join a religion.

There are however also people that are willing to live with couple of question marks. One is not better or worse than the other.

There is nothing wrong with religious beliefs and believing in God. I however do question the way that some religions are set up on Earth.

Interesting topic.
I don't think that religion is necessarily a means of control, although in numerous cases it has certainly been employed as such. Beyond doubt, ruling elites in any number of countries have used religion in order to justify the most brutal oppresion imaginable. But, is this religion or simply a means of securing power? Indeed, how far can we really separate organized religion from politics?
I think that there is, nonetheless, a very distinct line between religion and spirituality. The latter is very much a deeply personal (and often highly interpretive) communion with something that is other. The former, IMHO anyway, tends toward a more clearly defined or codified set of perameters.
As far as my own personal quandry goes, I think that it is possible to be spiritual without necessarily being religious.

Hope I make sense, it's nearly 1 A.M here. I think I'll log off before I start confusing myself along with everyone else.

Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>I think that it is possible to be spiritual without necessarily being religious.
</STRONG>

I believe this would be me as well. I live by my own set of rules. I don't kill people, I don't steal, I don't sleep with my friends wife/girlfriends, I don't turn the other cheek (I know sometimes I need too).

I believe in absolute truth. Either there is a God or there isn't. I don't believe that depends on who is asking. However, I don't believe in telling others how to believe. Each person must find that out on their own. I have found something I believe to be true and I share it with those I know who are interested, but if I force it on others, it is only shunned. I can understand that. Who am I to tell you how to believe? Don't believe me, ask for yourself.
I don't believe debate is often the answer, because usually debate and contention go hand in hand. Contention does not foster spiritual discussion, in my experience. However, many here are discussing rather than contending, and several points have been made about religion in general that I think are valid.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>I believe religion is a means to control. In the beginning it might had been more than this...now it's a way of controlling people.</STRONG>

In general, I agree with Weasel. I am a deeply religous person, myself, but in most cases I see religion in today's society as a political and social force, and not a spiritual entity. Religion often IS just a force to control. It shouldn't be. God didn't intend it that way, did he? But it has evolved as such. However, this is what happens when man takes the reigns where God once drove.

How can a church try to seek policies that are socially acceptable? Is it acceptable to God? Or do his commandments conform to what is acceptable at the time? Shouldn't that be what matters, what is acceptable to god and not what is acceptable to man in this decade? Does God concern himself with political correctness?

Originally posted by Flagg:
<STRONG>There is nothing wrong with religious beliefs and believing in God. I however do question the way that some religions are set up on Earth.</STRONG>

Man-made religions tend to serve man. I guess I agree and I take that a step further. I question how some religions are created in the first place. Do they claim any divinity? Or are they just a bunch of people reading scripture and claiming to have figured it out on their own? Perhaps this is what you were getting at.

@Rail, I totally agree with you. I belief in an absolute truth. There either is a God or there is not. It is as simple as that. The question that remains is: which is true?

To be honest, I am not certain as to the answer to that simple question. I believe that I can be classified as an atheist. I am not saying that there is no God. To be honest, I also don't really care. I don't see how it would affect my life. I try to live the best life that I can live and I will see what will happen after that.

Originally posted by Flagg:
<STRONG>@Rail, I totally agree with you. I belief in an absolute truth. There either is a God or there is not. It is as simple as that. The question that remains is: which is true?

To be honest, I am not certain as to the answer to that simple question. I believe that I can be classified as an atheist. I am not saying that there is no God. To be honest, I also don't really care. I don't see how it would affect my life. I try to live the best life that I can live and I will see what will happen after that.</STRONG>

There are IMO only 2 solutions to such a question. Either a God will reveale himself or if sicence comes up with their unified "Theory of Everything"(don't know the precise english name for it, only the danish) where everything will be explainable by the laws of physics.
I don't think this question can be answered without either of these outcomes, because as long as there is uncertainties, there will always be room for speculation.
But finding a "Theroy of Everything" will cause an even greater upset than just the "dead of gods", because this theory will mean that mankind is controlled by the laws of physisc, and therefore haven't got a free will. (IMO - I might be wrong, but at present time, there is no way of telling )

@Xandax, would the discovery of such theory really change anything at all. If such a theory were indeed proven, then the only thing that changes is the fact that we know about it. It doesn't change anything at all. Flirting will still be fun.

Seriously though. How many of you out there, belief that all religions are interpretations of the same God?

I believe all religions have bits and pieces of the truth. Maybe at one point they were "true", but over time they have corrupted and fallen to the designs of man.

When you delve deep into a number of religions, it's amazing the similarities you find.

After doing observations, I do believe that every religion actually have the same God. God is Forgiving, Saviour, Revengeful....well too many to describe but if you see the main thing on that, God is the creator Amen

@Flagg, I don't think you're an atheist but rather perhaps a theist. One who believes there is a 'supreme being, god - or God if you prefer-' but that the answer to living one's life in a 'balanced' manner is up to the individual. Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and most of the 'founding fathers' of our country (USA) were theists. The main belief here is that 'yes there is a God, but He doesn't intervene'. Therefore He also doesn't tell us how to live our lives (not even through the 'revealed' writings of our fellow man).

We seem to be diving, here, into a nest of matters that refer to a whole range of religious subjects. It's almost worth starting a group of topics. Perhaps that will even happen.

I would agree with Weasel, religion has been used as a method of control, but I don't think use defines cause, at least in this case. Religion as such, IMO, is many things, among them, an attempt to comprehend the structural why's of the universe, as opposed to the how's. I suppose this is the "spiritualistic" aspect of religion. The "magical" aspect would be the attempt to harness forces beyond the control or understanding of humanity. I happen to believe there is much to both conclusions, since not all of the effects of the physical universe can be perceived as deriving from a physical cause; however, this aspect of religion is non-quantifiable, which makes it incompatible with scientific observation and measurement. So, back to the spiritualistic definition, for me...

My definition of deity, at the highest level, is of something so great that it is the sum of everything in the universe, and the universe itself--and one more. It is infinity, plus one. It is so all-encompassing that it cannot begin to be comprehended with the intellect or physical resources of the universe, which are, after all, a subset of this deity. As such, any attempts to form a credo based on this being's behavior and actions are like the remarks of the six blind men in the old Hindu story as they circle the elephant. ("It's like a snake!" says one, who touches its trunk. "No, it's a wall!" says another, who pats its side. "It's a tree stump in shape, you idiots!" calls a third, feeling a leg.)

If this story is extended in its dimensions as far as possible, we have billions of people wandering around this deity--actually, *inside* this deity, each person gathering its own ideas based upon the limitations of its life experiences (based, in turn, upon further limitations imposed by sensory apparatus). That anyone should presume to know this deity's laws I find a bit mad. That anyone should declare their sect alone knows these laws, and that all others must heed them, is (to me) preposterous.

I also believe that everything in creation exists within this deity, and therefore partakes of its nature. Creation is a godlike power, by my way of thinking; so is destruction. Creating a concept as you write dialog in a novel, summoning an emotion as you play on stage in an orchestra, giving birth to a child, or a duck egg--all this reveals the same power of creation at different levels.

So do the gods exist of various religions? Yes, even though they contradict one another. If enough people worship a being, I think that force of emotion, magnified over generations, does create something which has a separate reality. Not a physical reality, but a reality which can touch and influence its followers, and physical reality, too, at times.

Sounds strange? You bet! And I should mention that I see no problem with worshipping several of these dieties, as an aid to comprehending in god what cannot be comprehended when attempting to stare into the face of infinity. You can't worship infinity, there's nothing to grasp; but it's possible to concentrate one's worship over a lifetime some of the more limited godforms created to grasp the diety's nature, IMO, and in so doing, come to a better comprehension of those why's I referred to, above.

Not quite a pantheist, and certainly not a monotheist. There is a term for this worshipping-many-to-grasp-one, but I forget it at the moment. In any case, I hope the statement of some of my core beliefs don't offend anybody, here.

@Anatres, I actually don't know whether theist is the right term for me. I really simply don't care. I aknowledge the possibility that there is some superior being, but that is all. I also seriously entertain the possibility that there is some complete other explanation to our existence. Maybe there is no explanation at all, and that would still be fine with me.

@fable, 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. Have you ever read this? Robert Heinlen. Sounds very close to your core belief. I don't intend by that to cast aspersions on your beliefs. You make some very interesting and thought provoking points.

Another good set of books are Joseph Cambell's 'The Masks of God'. Wherein he explores cultural myth in conjunction with different cultures' core religious beliefs. From his works you can easily extrapolate that many 'gods' co-exist and that the underlying truth is that there is truely only one 'supreme being' and that He/She just wears different 'masks', as it were, to be recognized by differing cultures.

@Flagg, oh, I did misunderstand. I guess you could count me in that group (even if it is only a group of two) also. There may, or may not, be an overall explanation as to the existance of the Universe. But I will continue to operate on free will and the belief that morality is self-imposed (how ever one defines it).