Is there any meaning to us???

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Calling someone prissy is not not only not valid criticism, it's against the charter and I could have reported the post if I was petty enough. Needless to say I've lost the last little shred of interest I had in anything you have to say because it's clear you've taken to personally attacking me every time our paths cross. This is far from the first time but it will be the last

I apologise for causing any offence, none was intended. However, I just think that getting into a squabble about why I find Nietzsche more appealing than Dawkins is just a bit OTT

bayviewclose wrote: »

yeah that used to bug the **** out of me. thoughts about where we came from. used to have these episodes. not so much anymore. i think you have to live in the moment and keep busy.

Why not think about them instead of suppressing your thoughts about what is?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I apologise for causing any offence, none was intended. However, I just think that getting into a squabble about why I find Nietzsche more appealing than Dawkins is just a bit OTT

I've said it you many times before but I won't say it again: If you don't want to get into a 'squabble' about something then don't say it on a discussion forum, that's what blogs are for. And more to the point, don't tell someone they're "going off topic and getting prissy" for responding to something you said on a discussion forum. This is not your personal soap box where you can prattle on preaching about your ridiculous beliefs ad nauseum and have no one challenge you on just how ridiculous they are.

In All Fairness

Heh jakass thanks for the links.Wow that stuff is highbrow. Still don't know if you were berating me or complimenting me. All I was trying to say was that if you accept Jesus as the embodiment of God rather than as the actual son of God you do not have to make any assertions that are beyond the belief of most sceptics.
For example.
1) The virgin birth. Why hold to this when it is simpler to accept that Joseph getting her out before she was stoned proves that Jesus was a miracle and a child of supreme love.

2) Water into wine. Why not just say that his beauty and truth made people who were drinking water feel like it was the most expensive wine.

3) Raised from the Dead. This could just as easily apply to spirituality as physicality.

4) Loaves and the fishes. Everybody was so willing to share and to give to others it seemed that everyone had enough and plenty over.

I just feel that if you just accept that the word was made flesh and not the other way around everything is much clearer.Christianity becomes far more credible without the bible impo.

Would love some feedback if you've time. Cheers

Sam Vimes

In All Fairness wrote: »

3) Raised from the Dead. This could just as easily apply to spirituality as physicality.

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. (1 Cor 15:14).

philologos

In All Fairness wrote: »

Heh jakass thanks for the links.Wow that stuff is highbrow. Still don't know if you were berating me or complimenting me. All I was trying to say was that if you accept Jesus as the embodiment of God rather than as the actual son of God you do not have to make any assertions that are beyond the belief of most sceptics.

Complimenting.

In All Fairness wrote: »

For example.
1) The virgin birth. Why hold to this when it is simpler to accept that Joseph getting her out before she was stoned proves that Jesus was a miracle and a child of supreme love.

2) Water into wine. Why not just say that his beauty and truth made people who were drinking water feel like it was the most expensive wine.

3) Raised from the Dead. This could just as easily apply to spirituality as physicality.

4) Loaves and the fishes. Everybody was so willing to share and to give to others it seemed that everyone had enough and plenty over.

I would consider these as an excuse to water down the Biblical text. It's more "Christian-based humanism" rather than Christianity. It's perfectly reasonable if there is a God that created the universe as we see it to be able to perform miracles.

In All Fairness wrote: »

I just feel that if you just accept that the word was made flesh and not the other way around everything is much clearer.Christianity becomes far more credible without the bible impo.

Indeed, Jesus was the word of God. Yet the Bible contains the accounts of Jesus, the Apostles and former Jewish prophets. We cannot know the wisdom of former divine revelation without the Bible. I don't see how you suddenly come to the conclusion that "Christianity becomes far more credible without the Bible" when what we know about Christianity is based on the Bible.

In All Fairness wrote: »

Would love some feedback if you've time. Cheers

No problem.

Sam Vimes

In All Fairness wrote: »

I just feel that if you just accept that the word was made flesh and not the other way around everything is much clearer.Christianity becomes far more credible without the bible impo.

You'd like the Thomas Jefferson bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1][2]

togster

In All Fairness wrote: »

I am not sure if you have seen manic elation or not but you would be able to differentiate it from confidence.

Yes i have. Then again i've seen "ordinary" people get excited and depressed too. Granted the degrees are different. Most people are mentally ill to some degree.

In All Fairness wrote: »

People believe you because they can actually feel your confidence. They believe in you. Carrie Fisher got four films greenlighted in Hollywood one time before they could get her into Hospital.Top story btw. A friend with manic depression (successful businessman) bought a Ferrari while elated and another friend also successful businessman who was with him got caught up in his certainty of the future and bought a Mercedes. When they got yer man right he was able to give back the ferrari as he had been off his nut but the other poor divil had to keep the Merc.

I believe you. Some things can't be faked, and when it's true, people believe in you.

I see your point on Jesus.But i don't believe he was menatlly ill in the conventional conotations of the term itself. Your point about controlling your mind is intersting. That's what most spiritual practices are about. I just think Jesus was a guy who lived with his heart as you put it. Totally free of mental inprisonment (any thought/emotion/mind made insecurities/revenge/jealousy/emotional or psychological movement) I think he saw that as god. He was without sin so to speak.

His message has been twisted my numerous groups, religious and athiests and hundreds in between. I know i will tell a story today to someone and tomorrow i will hear a different version of the same one! People used what he said and twisted it and used for their own gain. And that is done all over the world in everyday. The idea of a guy in the clouds with a yes/no button is bull**** but for people who want to believe it's a saviour of sorts when life is right now and only ever now.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've said it you many times before but I won't say it again: If you don't want to get into a 'squabble' about something then don't say it on a discussion forum, that's what blogs are for.

Sam, just take a look back at the discussion. I explained it fully. You just didn't like my reason, and said that I should criticise Dawkins for his arguments rather than his quality of writing (Most people will agree that assessing on quality of writing is perfectly fine. Nietzsche happens to be a better writer.). I then said that I will assess Dawkins however I please. I think literary quality is why Nietzsche is far better than Dawkins. I said that clearly. You merely didn't like it. It's fine, but you have to admit, I explained my position. It's fine, I just think there is far more to be discussed than nitpicking over little tiny things like this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And more to the point, don't tell someone they're "going off topic and getting prissy" for responding to something you said on a discussion forum. This is not your personal soap box where you can prattle on preaching about your ridiculous beliefs ad nauseum and have no one challenge you on just how ridiculous they are.

Sam, I can assure you. I felt it was getting slightly pedantic when you were chastising me for saying that Nietzsche is a better writer because I just shouldn't be saying that. That isn't a good reason and you know it.

Anyhow. If any offence was caused, I apologise, but I certainly dealt with your points as fully as I could.

togster

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how you suddenly come to the conclusion that "Christianity becomes far more credible without the Bible" when what we know about Christianity is based on the Bible.

It's the way it's fed to the masses. I'm not talking about you personally but alot of the world is fed an idea of the future being better. After or before death but never right now. If only i could go there or buy that etc/ The words of Jesus have been used as a marketing ploy.

We can't even talk about what the man stood for before religion is brought into the equation and then endless debate about the bible ensues Where did Jesus say in the bible that he was going to go to "heaven" after his death?. it was written ages ago and the words they had different meanings now. We have i-pod in the dictionary now. Our terms of referance are not the same. Differnt times. Same interpretations can't apply. Christianity doesn't own Jesus. The man had inner peace, and he just wanted us all to have the same.

philologos

togster wrote: »

It's the way it's fed to the masses. I'm not talking about you personally but alot of the world is fed an idea of the future being better. After or before death but never right now. If only i could go there or buy that etc/ The words of Jesus have been used as a marketing ploy.

How is it fed to the masses? The New Testament has remained as we know it today since its books were first written in the 1st century AD. Fed to the masses indicates that there were serious textual corruptions. However theologically we have nothing to suggest this.

You'd be 100% correct to suggest that the church as an institution has underwent many trials. One of the most important stages of Christianity was allowing people to have the Bible to be able to check and balance how their church was being run, and what the pastor was saying.

However comparing Christianity to a propoganda machine, as something to be marketed or "fed to the masses" is disingenuous at best.

togster wrote: »

We can't even talk about what the man stood for before religion is brought into the equation and then endless debate about the bible ensues.

If we don't have a consistent source as to what the man said and did, we don't have anything to deal with. We could make up whatever Jesus we like. However, the New Testament is by far the most likely to be authentic given the dating and the amount of manuscripts we have to attest for it.

togster wrote: »

Where did Jesus say in the bible that he was going to go to "heaven" after his death?

Jesus said that He would be seated at the right hand of the Father. This is a Jewish claim made about the Messiah in the book of Psalms and in other Jewish prophetic literature.

togster wrote: »

It was written ages ago and the words they had different meanings now. We have i-pod in the dictionary now. Our terms of referance are not the same.

I'm aware of the presence of "i-pod" in the English dictionary, however, we have people who study and are fluent in the Ancient Greek that was used in the New Testament. We can discern what Jesus said, what cultural axioms were used in the text and from this using exegesis we can determine what the most likely interpretation of a passage was in a Jewish context in the first century. We have the means to study this effectively. It isn't as postmodern as you describe

togster wrote: »

Differnt times. Same interpretations can't apply. Christianity doesn't own Jesus. The man had inner peace, and he just wanted us all to have the same.

Christianity doesn't own Jesus no. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists etc have altered the being of Jesus to their particular faiths. However, what Christians do hold is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation of the life of Jesus.

Hinduism and Buddhism claim that there are many ways to reach salvation. Christianity claims there is only one. The case is likewise true of Islam with "People of the Book".

The Jesus of Christianity, and the Jesus of Islam, the Jesus of Hinduism, the Jesus of Buddhism. They contradict eachother fundementally and we know that the Jesus as described in Christianity by far predates any other making it the most likely to be authentic. That's just my take on it

larchielads

Hi original poster here.

Just been skimming through peoples opinions and most of them are about god and jesus and what have you which i expected cos that is what we are brought up to believe but i would like to hear more on anything other than god and jesus that "might" have created us and everythig else. i do appreciate everyones opinion i'd like to hear from people who think that its other than god.

All in all its interesting reading so please keep them coming no matter what you believe

thank you all.

CuLT

Sam, you're being much more unreasonable than Jakkass in this thread ( despite the fact that I would be more on your side of the fence than his, although neither atheist or theist ). Honestly, if you think that a description like "prissy" is abuse then you need to either check the dictionary or get some thicker skin, dude, and stop "threatening" to report Jakkass for disagreeing with you.

You'll probably be called more than "1. excessively prim, proper, particular or fussy" in your time on Boards

Also, it looks like you're being personally offended by criticism of Richard Dawkins, which frankly makes about as much sense as Irish people tearing each other apart because they like opposing foreign football teams. It's attaching your ego/personal sense of worth to (effectively) a belief, which just puts your position on the other side of the same coin as religion.

Terry

Sam Vimes, nice youtube clip.
Speaking of contradictions;

Jakkass wrote: »

He's arguably one of the best writers in the last 500 years. If his ideas didn't influence Hitler I would probably be a little bit more appreciative of him. Certainly if I were to consider a group of writers for a compendium of literature on secular understanding I would personally include him far quicker than Dawkins or Hitchens. Hitchens I will say is entertaining however.

Hitler killed Catholics and Jews because they were Catholics and Jews and not protestant.
This was religious genocide brought about by biblical interpretation.

Do you think less of the bible because of Hitler's use of it?

larchielads wrote: »

Hi original poster here.

Just been skimming through peoples opinions and most of them are about god and jesus and what have you which i expected cos that is what we are brought up to believe but i would like to hear more on anything other than god and jesus that "might" have created us and everythig else. i do appreciate everyones opinion i'd like to hear from people who think that its other than god.

All in all its interesting reading so please keep them coming no matter what you believe

thank you all.

This song answers all your questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXbDPE3iL68

jumpguy

I'm a Christian and I don't think the meaning of life revolves solely around religion...Without life as we know it, does that mean there's still no life? Imagine the earth, a rocky, dusty planet with nothing on it. Is it still not a rocky, dusty planet? It exists... This might not make much sense, but it's incredibly hard to put my thinking into words.
Anyway, life is quite amazing. Everyone put on Earth influences another person's life on earth, hopefully for the good, but sometimes for worse. Imagine if some random person was not born on Earth. Who would know the difference it'd make? Just think of yourself and how much people's lives you've influence, directly and indirectly, no matter how slight. Everyone is here for a reason.

God I hate philosophy. Thinking about the meaning of life will only make your head explode. Stop debating it, and just live it. You'll have loads of time to think about it when you're old and toothless with nothing to do.

Terry

jumpguy wrote: »

I'm a Christian and I don't think the meaning of life revolves solely around religion...Without life as we know it, does that mean there's still no life? Imagine the earth, a rocky, dusty planet with nothing on it. Is it still not a rocky, dusty planet? It exists... This might not make much sense, but it's incredibly hard to put my thinking into words.
Anyway, life is quite amazing. Everyone put on Earth influences another person's life on earth, hopefully for the good, but sometimes for worse. Imagine if some random person was not born on Earth. Who would know the difference it'd make? Just think of yourself and how much people's lives you've influence, directly and indirectly, no matter how slight. Everyone is here for a reason.

God I hate philosophy. Thinking about the meaning of life will only make your head explode. Stop debating it, and just live it. You'll have loads of time to think about it when you're old and toothless with nothing to do.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.
I think he had a plan after that.

Poor bastard must have been really bored.

Professey Chin

This thread really hurts my head

philologos

Terry wrote: »

Hitler killed Catholics and Jews because they were Catholics and Jews and not protestant.
This was religious genocide brought about by biblical interpretation.

Hitler was raised a Catholic. First point. Hitler didn't really care much about religion if we look at Nazi plans to destroy Christianity after Judaism. Rather religion was a tool.

His aim was to sieze and grab Lebensraum and to purify the people who were in it. He wanted a pure German people. As such I'd deem it more to do with race and nationalism than religion. Jews were seen as unclean and corrupt. Homosexuals were considered to be unclean, Jehovahs Witnesses, the disabled. I don't think there was much "Christian" about Hitler, he merely used it

Check this link out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Private_statements

Terry wrote: »

Do you think less of the bible because of Hitler's use of it?

However, I do agree with you that just because Hitler used Nietzsche doesn't mean that I can't appreciate some of the work he did. I agree with that much and perhaps it was a hasty comparison to bring in.

Sam Vimes

CuLT wrote: »

Sam, you're being much more unreasonable than Jakkass in this thread ( despite the fact that I would be more on your side of the fence than his, although neither atheist or theist ). Honestly, if you think that a description like "prissy" is abuse then you need to either check the dictionary or get some thicker skin, dude, and stop "threatening" to report Jakkass for disagreeing with you.

You'll probably be called more than "1. excessively prim, proper, particular or fussy" in your time on Boards

Also, it looks like you're being personally offended by criticism of Richard Dawkins, which frankly makes about as much sense as Irish people tearing each other apart because they like opposing foreign football teams. It's attaching your ego/personal sense of worth to (effectively) a belief, which just puts your position on the other side of the same coin as religion.

Let's just say that if you had as much experience of the guy as I do you wouldn't be saying that

I'm not taking his dismissal of dawkins personally, his calling him feeble because of his writing style and calling me prissy are both symptoms of the same recurring problem, an overwhelming desire to find any excuse to avoid thinking about what anyone who disagrees with him has to say. It does get very frustrating the 5000th time he misses the point

Latchy

Terry wrote: »

We're just here. There's nothing more to our existence.

Wish somebody would explain that to the catholic church then we could tell all their of priests to fcuk off .

jumpguy

Hitler was an insane fúcker who hated people he thought of as inferior (Eastern Europeans, Jews, handicapped people, gypsies, etc). I'd nearly think he was an xenophobe (fear of unknown people/stangers). His thoughts were most certainly not guided by religion, and he never used it as an excuse for his actions. Weren't facists against religion anyway? I doubt he was much guided by it.
He took advantage of a poor, bitter country who only listened to his words of "freedom", "prosperity" and "employment" to gain power.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Let's just say that if you had as much experience of the guy as I do you wouldn't be saying that

I'm sure CuLT has encountered many of my posts before.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not taking his dismissal of dawkins personally, his calling him feeble because of his writing style and calling me prissy are both symptoms of the same recurring problem, an overwhelming desire to find any excuse to avoid thinking about what anyone who disagrees with him has to say. It does get very frustrating the 5000th time he misses the point

Sam, all I said was, Nietzsche was a better advocate of personal secularism than Dawkins or Hitchens will ever be. How did you manage to get offended by that? Seriously. Nietzsche was just a better advocate in my eyes.

Do you not realise that Nietzsche saying "God is dead, we have killed him you and I" disagrees with my Christianity just as much as Dawkins disagrees with my Christianity? I believe in comparison to Nietzsche in quality, Dawkins is feeble, yes.

Both are atheists. I disagree with both. I appreciate Nietzsche more than Dawkins. That's surely not that bad is it?

As for prissy, the definition CuLT provided is accurate, you were being particular and fussy. Look, it's fine, it's not a big deal lets move on with the discussion though, please!

Terry

That wikipedia article has nothing definitive in it.

Due to the fact that we know very little about Hitler's private life, we can only speculate.
In saying that, records do show that religion and spirituality did play a big part in his life.
To dismiss that part of his thinking would be wrong.

Fair enough on the last part of your post.

Terry

Latchy wrote: »

Wish somebody would explain that to the catholic church then we could tell all their of priests to fcuk off .

Any time I go to a wedding or Christening, I question the priest on all things religious.
I tend to be dragged away by some devout Catholic though.

The priest usually is quite willing to talk (One told me that there is no definitive date on the birth of Christ and that it's just an estimation based on the lunar calendar), but the devout Catholic doesn't like his religious leaders being questioned.

philologos

Terry wrote: »

In saying that, records do show that religion and spirituality did play a big part in his life.

Do they?

According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.

I'm not sure if they did. Hitler did use religion to pursue some of his goals but he had limited success in using Christianity for the Nazi agenda.

There is less controversy about other statements. Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Nazi plans to destroy Christianity have been confirmed. Why would a Christian Hitler want to destroy the Church to impose a racial religion?

Spiritoftheseventies

didnt supress them. what i said that for no reason i used to have these episodes when i was younger i had these thoughts about where we came from and all this eternity stuff. things going on for ever and ever. found that very weird.

Latchy

Terry wrote: »

Any time I go to a wedding or Christening, I question the priest on all things religious.
I tend to be dragged away by some devout Catholic though.

The priest usually is quite willing to talk (One told me that there is no definitive date on the birth of Christ and that it's just an estimation based on the lunar calendar), but the devout Catholic doesn't like his religious leaders being questioned.

Indeed , I have never met a priest in my life that radiated any sort of godliness ,quite the opposite in fact and the devout cathoilc is even scarier .He and the priest go hand in hand .

sells

i think we do matter, but maybe not a reason...i think their would be a human reason why where her but not a universal one. We are here to show love and all that stuff...or maybe were the first intelligent species in the universe and where here to be the teachers of all life......maybe we, humans in the future made human life altogether...we may never find out.

philologos

sells wrote: »

i think we do matter, but maybe not a reason...i think their would be a human reason why where her but not a universal one. We are here to show love and all that stuff...or maybe were the first intelligent species in the universe and where here to be the teachers of all life......maybe we, humans in the future made human life altogether...we may never find out.

Just to clarify, by a human reason, you mean that people make up their own meanings to suit them? I suppose that is really the only solution if you do not believe there is any purpose or reason for the universe. That's my problem, I just can't believe that

However, if there is no reason for the universe, it seems the most reasonable hypothesis that humans created meaning for themselves. I'm not convinced that there isn't a universal reason for the universe though

How could humans in the future make human life altogether though? That's extra confusing. Who would have made the humans in the future, to make the humans now?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, all I said was, Nietzsche was a better advocate of personal secularism than Dawkins or Hitchens will ever be. How did you manage to get offended by that?

That's not what you first said and that's not what I got offended at but I've got a pain in my face arguing with you so if you want to think that, that's your right

Dido1

cruiser178 wrote: »

I get regular erections,there for ,i am

lol

Very interesting thread, some posts a bit long winded tho. Personally i think you never know when your time is up, live your life to the full... after all it ain't no dress rehersal and basically be NICE!