, no wonder they went into Iraq...
How could you not "personally believe in the existence" of astrology? Whether you believe its claims or not is another question, but it certainly exists! And I myself know plenty of witches. I think they're goofy, but there's no doubt they exist.
And, every time someone looks up and doesn't recognize what's flying over them, there's a UFO.
It doesn't give me a lot of faith in the skills of the pollsters...
And, every time someone looks up and doesn't recognize what's flying over them, there's a UFO.
It doesn't give me a lot of faith in the skills of the pollsters...
Well, Rob, I think it is kind of implied that the poll is asking if they think that the claims of astrology are true, that UFO's are indeed spaceships from another planet, (or perhaps from Earth at a different time), and that witches have more supernatural power than, say, your local real estate agent.
A person who does not believe in the supernatural power of witches is unlikely to refer to one who claims these powers as a witch. He might call her a "witch" with quotes, or a "so-called witch", or otherwise do something that clues the listener or reader in to the fact that he does not buy the claims of these people.
By the way, I just selected the name "Kelticwizard" because of my (half) Irish-American heritage and the fact that I am into electronics, which I regard as the real wizardry of this world. I'm not into hocus-pocus at all, though I do respect the right of people to adopt whatever spiritual belief they wish. I thought the idea of a guy with a long pointy hat working on an amp or speaker was a humorous image.
A person who does not believe in the supernatural power of witches is unlikely to refer to one who claims these powers as a witch. He might call her a "witch" with quotes, or a "so-called witch", or otherwise do something that clues the listener or reader in to the fact that he does not buy the claims of these people.
By the way, I just selected the name "Kelticwizard" because of my (half) Irish-American heritage and the fact that I am into electronics, which I regard as the real wizardry of this world. I'm not into hocus-pocus at all, though I do respect the right of people to adopt whatever spiritual belief they wish. I thought the idea of a guy with a long pointy hat working on an amp or speaker was a humorous image.
kelticwizard said:
Sure. But that kind of sloppiness means that a poll like this can't be interpreted in any meaningful way. Of the 92% of Americans who believe in god, what fraction believe in a personal god who cares what happens to them, and what fraction believe that god exists as a concept made up by primitive societies to explain the unexplainable? This poll is nothing but prejudices dressed up as a bar graph. But, then, I've been spending a lot of time reviewing journal articles lately, so I'm in a skeptical mood.
It would be interesting to find the people who believe in all of these -- I think I might have a business proposition for them.
Rob:
I don't think the poll is as inaccurate as you say. I cannot imagine many people, when asked if they believe in God, will say "yes" meaning that they believe the concept of God exists.
I think it is highly possible that people who have alternative concepts of God-such as "God is within us" can answer "yes" to that question. I think there are few people indeed who would say, "yes, I believe in Heaven" if they meant that Heaven is a concept useful for other people.
As far as everyone believing everything all at once-well, it does appear contradictory. But there are some people, intelligent ones, who feel that there is some higher power and that all belief systems expose some part of it, but no belief system reveals all of it.
On the other hand, there are others who believe just about any idea that comes down the pike. There are magazines which have mixed Biblical prophecy and UFO's together, apparently without recognizing some inherent contradictions there.
Well, heck, my hat is off to anyone who can make a living in the highly competitive publishing world!
I don't think the poll is as inaccurate as you say. I cannot imagine many people, when asked if they believe in God, will say "yes" meaning that they believe the concept of God exists.
I think it is highly possible that people who have alternative concepts of God-such as "God is within us" can answer "yes" to that question. I think there are few people indeed who would say, "yes, I believe in Heaven" if they meant that Heaven is a concept useful for other people.
As far as everyone believing everything all at once-well, it does appear contradictory. But there are some people, intelligent ones, who feel that there is some higher power and that all belief systems expose some part of it, but no belief system reveals all of it.
On the other hand, there are others who believe just about any idea that comes down the pike. There are magazines which have mixed Biblical prophecy and UFO's together, apparently without recognizing some inherent contradictions there.
Well, heck, my hat is off to anyone who can make a living in the highly competitive publishing world!
US Under Secretary Of Defense Thinks US Is Fighting Satan
The confirmed nominee for US Under Secretary of Defense thinks the US is presently fighting Satan in the War On Terrorism and that the presence of Satan was photographically visible in Somalia.
The plot thickens:
Have we appointed The Church Lady as Under Secretary Of Defense?
The confirmed nominee for US Under Secretary of Defense thinks the US is presently fighting Satan in the War On Terrorism and that the presence of Satan was photographically visible in Somalia.
The plot thickens:
Have we appointed The Church Lady as Under Secretary Of Defense?
Attachments
I can't see why you couldn't beleive in all of those things at once. I can't see that any are mutually exclusive.
You can explain pretty much anything you want by saying its just the way god did it/wants it, and heaven and reincarnation aren't mutually exclusive, after all you keep getting reincarnated until you are good enough to be let into heaven...... and if you really stuff up you can go to hell......
Not saying I do beleive in all of them (or any of them) but I really can't see why it would be irrational to.
Obviously If you beleived in a particular contruct of God (for example the Christian god) then maybe you'd have problems, but if it's a general God, not one defined by rules then I think anything goes.
Regards,
Tony.
You can explain pretty much anything you want by saying its just the way god did it/wants it, and heaven and reincarnation aren't mutually exclusive, after all you keep getting reincarnated until you are good enough to be let into heaven...... and if you really stuff up you can go to hell
......Not saying I do beleive in all of them (or any of them) but I really can't see why it would be irrational to.
Obviously If you beleived in a particular contruct of God (for example the Christian god) then maybe you'd have problems, but if it's a general God, not one defined by rules then I think anything goes.
Regards,
Tony.
ashwin said:Hmm, 85% believe in heaven and 74% believe in hell. So there are some people who believe they'll go to heaven no matter what they do.
Boy, some people sure are smug
- Ashwin
And less people beleive in the devil than in hell.....hmmmm.......
Maybe some religions have heaven and not hell...... doesn't buddhism have heaven I don't remember there ever being any mention of hell while watching episodes of monkey when I was a kid
Regards,
Tony.
wintermute said:
Well, I'm quite prepared to believe that God's running hell
doesn't buddhism have heaven I don't remember there ever being any mention of hell while watching episodes of monkey when I was a kid
As far as I know, "core" Buddhism has no heaven and no hell, so it's not for the fainthearted!
Imagine asking a Zen master whether there's heaven and hell. Should elicit an interesting answer or a whack on the head
- Ashwin
Having the right information is key.
Allow me to elucidate for you the Christian Heaven and Hell. As a Christian myself, it bugs me to see that so many people think that pop culture or a tragically superficial skimming of the Bible can give them all the information they need.
One favorite question (and a perfectly legitimate one) is why, if the God of the Bible truly loves us, does Hell even have to exist?Here is an explanation of the Gospel (containing annotations for further elucidation of these questions) in the Reader's Digest Condensed Verison:
God created man to know Him. However, man was decieved by the enemy of men's souls (the Devil, Satan, etc...) that it is better to follow an impulse than to think through to the conclusion and the result. This placed in the minds of man an attitude of rebellion towards God (sin) which separated man from God. How did this separate us from God? Well, in order to enter into God's paradise (heaven) and to come to know Him as we were created to, we must satisfy a condition of holiness (a state of being completely set apart from sin). If this condition of holiness is not completely met, then man cannot go to be with God because no sin can be near God (meaning being in the same place that He is). The only other true option is to be separated completely from Him, in a state known as Hell. Why is Hell described as being as terrible as a lake of burning sulfur? Because as everything good comes from God who is the source of all good things, a place completely separate from God must also be completely separate from everything good, or it would not fit the requirements for a place completely separate from God. Of course, as a result of man's attitude (sinful nature) and acts (sins) of rebellion, this 'holiness' thing is all pretty much in the toilet. However, God had a plan which He even made known in the days of Abraham to send a provision for sin, in order to satisfy God's just nature. (Here's the explanation for this: Some people have the misconception that God is more interested in carrying out justice than knowing us, and this leads some to the belief that God somehow takes joy in sending people to Hell. However, this is not so. Justice is just a component of God's nature. In order for Him to accomplish His goal of coming to know us which the Bible tells us is God's ultimate goal, He had to make a provision for our sin that would satisfy His justice, but I'm coming to that.) The Law of Moses was given by God to keep society from going to pot in the time before this provision was to be sent. The words were given to the prophets of the coming provision for sin, and people believed in the Lord to save them before He even set foot on the earth in the person Jesus Christ. Christ came during a time in which many Jews (the Pharisees) had lost sight of the true meaning of the gift of the law of Moses and were more intent on following the law in letter, not in spirit (Pharisaism). This could, in a manner of speaking, be equated to a state of "not being able to see the forest for all the trees". One of the things that Jesus is noted in the gospels for is his many disputes with the Pharisees over the true meaning of the law. The Pharisees were worried about every little detail of the law (which is why so many of Christ's disputes with the pharisees were disputes over petty nitpicking). One, if especially prone to doing so, might wonder if Christ disputed with the Pharisees simply to try and get around the Law, but this reflects a superficial examination of the Gospels, one that also reflects a certain degree of paranoia. Because this is supposed to be the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of an explanation of Christianity and its spiritual principles, an in-depth examination of Christ's disputes with the Pharisees are outside the scope of this article to a certain degree. Christ acquired a large following, but He selected 12, who were especially opened to and comprehending of His message, to be closest to Him. These are those who are known as His "disciples". As Christ taught, his teachings stirred up more and more controversy in the society of the region, and more Pharisees, who felt threatened in their places of power, desired to see Christ eliminated. Jesus was brought to trial before the Roman judge Pontius Pilate, who found no fault with Jesus. However, Pilate had a failing, which was that instead of upholding justice, Pilate chose to do what would make him the most popular with the public. The public were decieved by the Jewish leaders, and in a boiling mob, expressed their desire to see Christ executed in the most painful, gruesome, and shameful way ever devised at the time, crucifixion. Pilate personally did not wish to see Christ executed, so as a last-ditch effort to get public sympathy for Jesus, Pilate ordered Him whipped with the Roman "cat of nine tails" whip which is a whip where the last few feet are leather strips, and at the end of each strip is either a metal weight or a fragment of bone. It was not uncommon for this torture implement to reduce a person to a mass of quivering flesh, and Christ's body was mangled to a state described as "beyond recognition" in an attempt to get the public to pity Jesus and allow Him to go free. The public initially reacted to Jesus' condition with shock and horror, but as it is written, the Jewish leaders managed to convince the mob that Jesus had not yet recieved suitable punishment. Pilate, allowing himself (and indeed, Roman justice itself) to be at the mercy of public opinion, ordered Christ to be crucified. I will spare you the in-depth description of the mechanics and physics of Roman crucifiction (a shameful, agonizing, and ultimately deadly punishment usually reserved for foreigners), but the short version is that Christ died. The Jewish leaders thought that this was the end of that story but on the third day of Chrst's death (the significance of the three days is that in the Jewish custom, after a person was dead for three days you could be pretty sure he was dead and wouldn't be coming back) Jesus rose and appeared to many including His disciples as proof that He was actually God's spirit in a man's body (hence the "concieved in the Holy Spirit" part) and that the sacrifice was accepted. This, as we see through the Bible and in the Gospels, was God's plan...to give the one concieved in the Holy Spirit as a final sacrifice and ultimate atonement for all sin past, present, and future...and by that sacrifice making we who are in Him able to satisfy God's condition of holiness and go and be with Him in heaven.
That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, annotated to provide extra help in understanding common problem areas and elucidate obscure terms. If you are going to bash my God and the book which contains His message for all mankind, please make sure you have all the information before doing so. Anoter web site I suggest for further reading is this one:
Tekton Apologetics Ministries
http://www.tektonics.org
That website is probably the most extensive and reliable website I have found on the subject of Christian apologetics (which is a field of Biblical scholarship that answers challenges to the Bible and studies the true meaning and significance of what is said in its pages.) Even a marginal understanding of Christian apologetics is necessary in order to have enough understanding to talk intelligently about this stuff, instead of just retyping things you cut-and-pasted off of atheist websites simply to look intellectual (or, dare I say, trendy?) to the more impressionable readers of this forum.
If you have further questions, or challenges directed towards me on the subject material of this article or my faith in general, please contact me through email: rbuszka@purdue.edu It is likely that this thread will turn into a mild debate and get locked by the moderators if we discuss in detail here (which has the potential to offend a lot of people). Also, I have tried to be as precise as is appropriate when writing my above post, but being an imperfect human as I am, it is likely that I have left out something crucial to proper understanding, or something else that really should have been in there anyway. If you feel I have screwed this up somehow, email me and let me know. I will try to respond within the week.
@ashwin: I have actually had a chance to talk with a Buddhist about these things and, as I came to understand from my conversation, Buddhists believe that people are selfish and before they can die (and, presumably, reach "nirvana") they must remove all selfishness from themselves in their life on earth or they have to get reincarnated and do it all over again until they get it right. (which might be like a kind of hell, depending on how you look at your life.)
@wintermute: Perhaps you'd like to email me and we can talk about the value of God having a specific nature instead of the idea of a God with an amorphous nature.
Allow me to elucidate for you the Christian Heaven and Hell. As a Christian myself, it bugs me to see that so many people think that pop culture or a tragically superficial skimming of the Bible can give them all the information they need.
One favorite question (and a perfectly legitimate one) is why, if the God of the Bible truly loves us, does Hell even have to exist?Here is an explanation of the Gospel (containing annotations for further elucidation of these questions) in the Reader's Digest Condensed Verison:
God created man to know Him. However, man was decieved by the enemy of men's souls (the Devil, Satan, etc...) that it is better to follow an impulse than to think through to the conclusion and the result. This placed in the minds of man an attitude of rebellion towards God (sin) which separated man from God. How did this separate us from God? Well, in order to enter into God's paradise (heaven) and to come to know Him as we were created to, we must satisfy a condition of holiness (a state of being completely set apart from sin). If this condition of holiness is not completely met, then man cannot go to be with God because no sin can be near God (meaning being in the same place that He is). The only other true option is to be separated completely from Him, in a state known as Hell. Why is Hell described as being as terrible as a lake of burning sulfur? Because as everything good comes from God who is the source of all good things, a place completely separate from God must also be completely separate from everything good, or it would not fit the requirements for a place completely separate from God. Of course, as a result of man's attitude (sinful nature) and acts (sins) of rebellion, this 'holiness' thing is all pretty much in the toilet. However, God had a plan which He even made known in the days of Abraham to send a provision for sin, in order to satisfy God's just nature. (Here's the explanation for this: Some people have the misconception that God is more interested in carrying out justice than knowing us, and this leads some to the belief that God somehow takes joy in sending people to Hell. However, this is not so. Justice is just a component of God's nature. In order for Him to accomplish His goal of coming to know us which the Bible tells us is God's ultimate goal, He had to make a provision for our sin that would satisfy His justice, but I'm coming to that.) The Law of Moses was given by God to keep society from going to pot in the time before this provision was to be sent. The words were given to the prophets of the coming provision for sin, and people believed in the Lord to save them before He even set foot on the earth in the person Jesus Christ. Christ came during a time in which many Jews (the Pharisees) had lost sight of the true meaning of the gift of the law of Moses and were more intent on following the law in letter, not in spirit (Pharisaism). This could, in a manner of speaking, be equated to a state of "not being able to see the forest for all the trees". One of the things that Jesus is noted in the gospels for is his many disputes with the Pharisees over the true meaning of the law. The Pharisees were worried about every little detail of the law (which is why so many of Christ's disputes with the pharisees were disputes over petty nitpicking). One, if especially prone to doing so, might wonder if Christ disputed with the Pharisees simply to try and get around the Law, but this reflects a superficial examination of the Gospels, one that also reflects a certain degree of paranoia. Because this is supposed to be the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of an explanation of Christianity and its spiritual principles, an in-depth examination of Christ's disputes with the Pharisees are outside the scope of this article to a certain degree. Christ acquired a large following, but He selected 12, who were especially opened to and comprehending of His message, to be closest to Him. These are those who are known as His "disciples". As Christ taught, his teachings stirred up more and more controversy in the society of the region, and more Pharisees, who felt threatened in their places of power, desired to see Christ eliminated. Jesus was brought to trial before the Roman judge Pontius Pilate, who found no fault with Jesus. However, Pilate had a failing, which was that instead of upholding justice, Pilate chose to do what would make him the most popular with the public. The public were decieved by the Jewish leaders, and in a boiling mob, expressed their desire to see Christ executed in the most painful, gruesome, and shameful way ever devised at the time, crucifixion. Pilate personally did not wish to see Christ executed, so as a last-ditch effort to get public sympathy for Jesus, Pilate ordered Him whipped with the Roman "cat of nine tails" whip which is a whip where the last few feet are leather strips, and at the end of each strip is either a metal weight or a fragment of bone. It was not uncommon for this torture implement to reduce a person to a mass of quivering flesh, and Christ's body was mangled to a state described as "beyond recognition" in an attempt to get the public to pity Jesus and allow Him to go free. The public initially reacted to Jesus' condition with shock and horror, but as it is written, the Jewish leaders managed to convince the mob that Jesus had not yet recieved suitable punishment. Pilate, allowing himself (and indeed, Roman justice itself) to be at the mercy of public opinion, ordered Christ to be crucified. I will spare you the in-depth description of the mechanics and physics of Roman crucifiction (a shameful, agonizing, and ultimately deadly punishment usually reserved for foreigners), but the short version is that Christ died. The Jewish leaders thought that this was the end of that story but on the third day of Chrst's death (the significance of the three days is that in the Jewish custom, after a person was dead for three days you could be pretty sure he was dead and wouldn't be coming back) Jesus rose and appeared to many including His disciples as proof that He was actually God's spirit in a man's body (hence the "concieved in the Holy Spirit" part) and that the sacrifice was accepted. This, as we see through the Bible and in the Gospels, was God's plan...to give the one concieved in the Holy Spirit as a final sacrifice and ultimate atonement for all sin past, present, and future...and by that sacrifice making we who are in Him able to satisfy God's condition of holiness and go and be with Him in heaven.
That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, annotated to provide extra help in understanding common problem areas and elucidate obscure terms. If you are going to bash my God and the book which contains His message for all mankind, please make sure you have all the information before doing so. Anoter web site I suggest for further reading is this one:
Tekton Apologetics Ministries
http://www.tektonics.org
That website is probably the most extensive and reliable website I have found on the subject of Christian apologetics (which is a field of Biblical scholarship that answers challenges to the Bible and studies the true meaning and significance of what is said in its pages.) Even a marginal understanding of Christian apologetics is necessary in order to have enough understanding to talk intelligently about this stuff, instead of just retyping things you cut-and-pasted off of atheist websites simply to look intellectual (or, dare I say, trendy?) to the more impressionable readers of this forum.
If you have further questions, or challenges directed towards me on the subject material of this article or my faith in general, please contact me through email: rbuszka@purdue.edu It is likely that this thread will turn into a mild debate and get locked by the moderators if we discuss in detail here (which has the potential to offend a lot of people). Also, I have tried to be as precise as is appropriate when writing my above post, but being an imperfect human as I am, it is likely that I have left out something crucial to proper understanding, or something else that really should have been in there anyway. If you feel I have screwed this up somehow, email me and let me know. I will try to respond within the week.
@ashwin: I have actually had a chance to talk with a Buddhist about these things and, as I came to understand from my conversation, Buddhists believe that people are selfish and before they can die (and, presumably, reach "nirvana") they must remove all selfishness from themselves in their life on earth or they have to get reincarnated and do it all over again until they get it right. (which might be like a kind of hell, depending on how you look at your life.)
@wintermute: Perhaps you'd like to email me and we can talk about the value of God having a specific nature instead of the idea of a God with an amorphous nature.
BAM:
I am sorry if you are "bugged" by this thread. I admit I took a little bit of a chance starting it, but I have come to greatly respect the intentions and the intelligence of the posters on this forum.
As we see in newspapers and on TV, religion has a great deal to do with today's news. Frankly, I find that surprising. I grew up in a working class New York City neighborhood, where Catholics, Jews, Greek Orthodox and even a few Protestants, (LOL, most of the USA is Protestant), shared the neighborhood without religion becoming an issue. I grow increasingly weary that people cannot grasp the simple concept that people of different religions can get along beautifully if they simply realize that their religion is part of their private life, not their public life.
Public life = Work, politics, and taxpayer supported institutions such as public schools
Private life = Family, religion
So when I came across the opinion poll, I decided on a whim to post it here and see how the forum runs with it.
Since I did the only cut-and-paste job on the thread, I assume you meant myself when you complained about cut-and-pasting from atheist sites. Well, one cut-and-paste was from the LA Times, a large general circulation newspaper, and the other is from CNN. The LA Times article was reprinted on a liberal site, but I only found that out later, and anyway the site does not appear to be atheistic in it's theme.
I pointed to General Boykin as one example of someone who cannot separate his private life from his public one. If he wants to believe that the War On Terror is between Christian and Muslim civilizations, he can certainly do so privately. When he dresses in full uniform and gives speeches to church groups to that effect, I would say that he is intentionally trying to mislead his audience that his opinions have official weight.
Far more worrisome is the fact that this fellow's specialty is coordinating intelligence services. That means looking at evidence such as photographs for what may be useful information that can help the success of our military operations. General Boykin feels he is seeing not uniforms or evidence of certain groups in these photographs, but demonic presences! Suffice it to say, our fighting forces deserve more professional military intelligence than that when they are in the field.
The last cut-and-paste was of a very famous Saturday Night Live character, The Church Lady, and was meant to humorously make the point that I would expect Boykin's statements to be coming from the mouth of Dana Carvey's satirical character than I would from the newly appointed Under Secretary of Defense.
I feel that people's religious spiritual beliefs should be respected, but I also felt that this particular website was capable of taking a look at religion and world events with some honesty and humor.
Was I wrong to think so?
I am sorry if you are "bugged" by this thread. I admit I took a little bit of a chance starting it, but I have come to greatly respect the intentions and the intelligence of the posters on this forum.
As we see in newspapers and on TV, religion has a great deal to do with today's news. Frankly, I find that surprising. I grew up in a working class New York City neighborhood, where Catholics, Jews, Greek Orthodox and even a few Protestants, (LOL, most of the USA is Protestant), shared the neighborhood without religion becoming an issue. I grow increasingly weary that people cannot grasp the simple concept that people of different religions can get along beautifully if they simply realize that their religion is part of their private life, not their public life.
Public life = Work, politics, and taxpayer supported institutions such as public schools
Private life = Family, religion
So when I came across the opinion poll, I decided on a whim to post it here and see how the forum runs with it.
Since I did the only cut-and-paste job on the thread, I assume you meant myself when you complained about cut-and-pasting from atheist sites. Well, one cut-and-paste was from the LA Times, a large general circulation newspaper, and the other is from CNN. The LA Times article was reprinted on a liberal site, but I only found that out later, and anyway the site does not appear to be atheistic in it's theme.
I pointed to General Boykin as one example of someone who cannot separate his private life from his public one. If he wants to believe that the War On Terror is between Christian and Muslim civilizations, he can certainly do so privately. When he dresses in full uniform and gives speeches to church groups to that effect, I would say that he is intentionally trying to mislead his audience that his opinions have official weight.
Far more worrisome is the fact that this fellow's specialty is coordinating intelligence services. That means looking at evidence such as photographs for what may be useful information that can help the success of our military operations. General Boykin feels he is seeing not uniforms or evidence of certain groups in these photographs, but demonic presences! Suffice it to say, our fighting forces deserve more professional military intelligence than that when they are in the field.
The last cut-and-paste was of a very famous Saturday Night Live character, The Church Lady, and was meant to humorously make the point that I would expect Boykin's statements to be coming from the mouth of Dana Carvey's satirical character than I would from the newly appointed Under Secretary of Defense.
I feel that people's religious spiritual beliefs should be respected, but I also felt that this particular website was capable of taking a look at religion and world events with some honesty and humor.
Was I wrong to think so?
Hi BAM,
I would not call myself an atheist, and I did not intend to challenge anyone's beliefs here. However, with whatever limited understanding I have on these subjects, may I say this : it seems to me that the ancient Indian outlook to life, God etc. is fundamentally different from the Christian one. Certainly there is love and even fear of God, recorded as early as the Rigveda (purported to be the oldest Indian scripture). But there seems to be no notion of man's being fundamentally sinful. And in certain passages, there is even doubt regarding God, see for e.g.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm
In these matters, I am a humble person, and I would never imagine that one culture/religion or the other is the better one. It is for each of us to find our own way and to recognise each one's right to find their own way.
And may I say that I think a sense of humour (well intentioned humour, not pointless jeering and parodying) about my own beliefs is essential to ensure that I don't get caught up in the letter and miss the spirit of what I believe in. That is what allows me to expand my understanding.
Sincerely,
Ashwin
I would not call myself an atheist, and I did not intend to challenge anyone's beliefs here. However, with whatever limited understanding I have on these subjects, may I say this : it seems to me that the ancient Indian outlook to life, God etc. is fundamentally different from the Christian one. Certainly there is love and even fear of God, recorded as early as the Rigveda (purported to be the oldest Indian scripture). But there seems to be no notion of man's being fundamentally sinful. And in certain passages, there is even doubt regarding God, see for e.g.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm
In these matters, I am a humble person, and I would never imagine that one culture/religion or the other is the better one. It is for each of us to find our own way and to recognise each one's right to find their own way.
And may I say that I think a sense of humour (well intentioned humour, not pointless jeering and parodying) about my own beliefs is essential to ensure that I don't get caught up in the letter and miss the spirit of what I believe in. That is what allows me to expand my understanding.
Sincerely,
Ashwin
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.