Antlerman Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 It's a natural progression, or evolution, of religion. Religion is the reflection of human ideas of society and the world. We the culture grows, the belief changes. A hence why I say, Man creates God in his own image, and feeds him, so he can create man in his own image". The social construction of reality. God evolves as a being in the image of man. And not the individual, but man as society, their world-space they interact with others within. God is the overlay of that world-space. BTW, that is a brilliant observation that specific understandings of a deity directly gleaned from nature alone, does not bear out in anthropology to support a monotheist worldview. Monotheism is the result of social developments, specifically a tribe with a tribal deity trying to maintain national identity by transforming their local god, YHWH in this case, into a deity without borders while they themselves were in captivity away from their homeland. They didn't need to be in the land where their god's temple was. That was the genesis of the Jews god, from one within a pantheon of gods the Jews had, to the chosen and transcendental one in a sociopolitical development by a few political-religious leaders while in Babylonian captivity. Like our Muslim friend said.. man creates religion. Including all the ideas about this evolved God later adapted to their needs by Islam. Man creates God for social reasons, not be nature reveals it. No holy book tells the whole story, and none is therefore the right one above all others. They are works reflective of individuals in their world-space of their day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bela Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Hi guys! Thank’s for your replies. Wow.. Everybody bothered to respond to my stupid postings! Hahaha.. Don’t be so serious! I believe in what I believe. Antlerman: And sometimes intelligence misreads something non-intelligent as intelligent. -------------------- You tell it to Dr. Julia Hoffman. HanSolo: You're right, but this is also true: In case we can not prove or demonstrate that "something" exists, does it means that it exists? ----------------------- Then we are even! ATHEIST: I assure you, I in no way shape or form believe in a divine being of any type. Is that clear enough? ------------------------ Yes, sir! Then, you believe in ‘what you believed’. That’s what I mean by ‘atheistic god’. (“something” atheists believed in). Thank you everyone! It’s 12.32AM in Indonesia. Time to sleep! SELAMAT TIDUR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Wow - florduh, hans, and a.m. all thought I said something intelligent! *looks around for hidden camera* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I like this one.... "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it. The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. By his power he churned up the sea.... By his breath the skies become fair.... And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! How then can we understand the thunder of his power?" (Job 26:7-9, 11-14) Sounds like God is the powers of nature, quarks, and energy. That's what I see. "God" as the symbol of the Nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 A hence why I say, Man creates God in his own image, and feeds him, so he can create man in his own image". The social construction of reality. God evolves as a being in the image of man. And not the individual, but man as society, their world-space they interact with others within. God is the overlay of that world-space. More specifically, not God in the image of man (as individuals), but rather God in the image of culture, society, and humanity. The God image conforms to the idea of what humanity is and our purpose (also man-made). Our idea of purpose starts with (kind'a): "why are we here?", "why can I think?", "why can I do things and influence nature?" and the answer of course is: I'm chosen by the higher beings of nature. Which means, what humanity does, is what the gods want. BTW, that is a brilliant observation that specific understandings of a deity directly gleaned from nature alone, does not bear out in anthropology to support a monotheist worldview. Monotheism is the result of social developments, specifically a tribe with a tribal deity trying to maintain national identity by transforming their local god, YHWH in this case, into a deity without borders while they themselves were in captivity away from their homeland. They didn't need to be in the land where their god's temple was. That was the genesis of the Jews god, from one within a pantheon of gods the Jews had, to the chosen and transcendental one in a sociopolitical development by a few political-religious leaders while in Babylonian captivity. Very true. The transition from the religion where idols (images) were representative (symbols) of the divine, into an intangible, transcendent god, who doesn't need imagery. That's why the anti-idol laws probably came about. The god without a statue. Like our Muslim friend said.. man creates religion. Including all the ideas about this evolved God later adapted to their needs by Islam. Man creates God for social reasons, not be nature reveals it. No holy book tells the whole story, and none is therefore the right one above all others. They are works reflective of individuals in their world-space of their day. Individuals and society as a whole. I can see how trends in groups influence the ideas of god, and the individuals are resonating to the groups behavior and these ideas. It's an interaction between the one and the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Antlerman: And sometimes intelligence misreads something non-intelligent as intelligent. -------------------- You tell it to Dr. Julia Hoffman. Sure, I will. Put me in touch with her. Honestly, I'd bet she'd agree with my statement. It's pretty obvious actually. Ever heard of Anthropomorphizing? Attributing human characteristics to things? Our language is full of such things. Ever speak of your pet as being angry, or jealous? That is ascribing human qualities to non-human animals. Does you're having human emotions means you always recognize where they exist elsewhere?? Animals do not have human emotions. Humans do. This makes my point about misreading something possessing intelligence as well. You looking at the system of the universe and seeing order, and what you interpret as 'purpose', you then as one having intelligence "concludes" that you see that it possess intelligence. This is fulfilling exactly what I said. Intelligence misreads something as intelligent, just as you misread your pet as having human emotions. I'll bet she would agree with my comment, if she is qualified as a expert in any relevant field that is. What is Dr. Hoffman's degree in anyway, since you claim to understand she would disagree with my observation? Philosophy? Psychology? Sociology? Religious studies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 HanSolo: You're right, but this is also true: In case we can not prove or demonstrate that "something" exists, does it means that it exists? ----------------------- Then we are even! Agree. Regarding your response to Antlerman: who is Dr Julia Hoffman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Antlerman: And sometimes intelligence misreads something non-intelligent as intelligent. -------------------- You tell it to Dr. Julia Hoffman. Sure, I will. Put me in touch with her. Honestly, I'd bet she'd agree with my statement. This is fun. Bela in post #8 pulled the quote from Dr. Hoffman from my signature but didn't put quote marks around it. You can't get in touch with her. Dr. Julia Hoffman is a fictional character from the 1960's TV show "Dark Shadows". http://www.collinwood.net/cast/hall.htm Her character was a medical doctor. I can't be sure, but I think she would agree with Antler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Antlerman: And sometimes intelligence misreads something non-intelligent as intelligent. -------------------- You tell it to Dr. Julia Hoffman. Sure, I will. Put me in touch with her. Honestly, I'd bet she'd agree with my statement. This is fun. Bela in post #8 pulled the quote from Dr. Hoffman from my signature but didn't put quote marks around it. You can't get in touch with her. Dr. Julia Hoffman is a fictional character from the 1960's TV show "Dark Shadows". http://www.collinwood.net/cast/hall.htm Her character was a medical doctor. I can't be sure, but I think she would agree with Antler. Oh this is too funny. I'm having a battle of mind with someone citing a created Television show character as an authority? No wonder the response offered itself to me so easily. It's like Dr. Science, "Remember, he's not a real doctor.." 'That's right!,' says Dr. Science, 'I have a Master's degree... in science!'" I'm debating a TV Character! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Oh, I never got into the Dark Shadows. ... Hmm... it looks like there's a new production of a movie, with Jonny Depp in it. I guess I'll get a crash-course in Dark Shadow culture when it comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Alright, since I'm into debating literary characters now, send in the professor from Gilligan's Island! Watch me tear him apart too! Then let me at the Wizard of OZ! I'll bet I'll have him crying by then end of my dismantling his philosophies as well. I will prove my worldview, by proving them wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted August 20, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted August 20, 2009 Dark Shadows was great! I got to meet Jonathan Frid (Barnabas Collins) at a local TV station. Yes, he arrived in a coffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I like this one.... "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it. The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. By his power he churned up the sea.... By his breath the skies become fair.... And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! How then can we understand the thunder of his power?" (Job 26:7-9, 11-14) Sounds like God is the powers of nature, quarks, and energy. That's what I see. "God" as the symbol of the Nature. Yes, and to me it seems, that it's all about the unity of chaos and order. Job is pretty good as seeing the sense in nonsense! Ohhh...also all this quanta out there would be nothing without receivers, such as ourself, to, well, receive it. Yes, that was random... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Dark Shadows was great! I got to meet Jonathan Frid (Barnabas Collins) at a local TV station. Yes, he arrived in a coffin. When I was a pre-teeny-bopper, I had a tremendous crush on Barnabas Collins; couldn't wait to get home from school every afternoon to see my favorite vampire. (When you grow up in a non-fundy home, you get to do sinful things like enjoy juvenile pop culture. ) I was somewhat deflated recently after I heard about the new movie starring Johnny Depp and went searching the web to find out what Jonathan Frid is up to these days; on one website, I read that "A life-long bachelor, Frid refuses to discuss his personal life." I take that as code for "he's gay" and while there's nothing wrong with that, I was taken aback that my 11-year-old self was too naive to notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Dark Shadows was great! I got to meet Jonathan Frid (Barnabas Collins) at a local TV station. Yes, he arrived in a coffin. Jonathan Frid is a good sport. Wish I had the opportunity to see him. To Hans: Please see the original series on DVD. I seriously doubt if Tim Burton and Johnny Depp (good as they are) can duplicate the qualities of the original. Basically it was live television on a videotape, with all the mistakes-- and a very dreamlike quality. There has never been anything like it on TV, before or since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I am only addressing what the apostle Paul said, which is that people in other countries that never heard of Christ were "without excuse" because everything could be known from nature. It is ridiculous that someone could know all the Christian doctrines that Paul promulgates simply by looking at nature. This is something I've been thinking about lately. If the Bible says we are convicted by nature, and thereby without excuse, then why is specific belief in Jesus necessary for salvation? This seems highly unfair, providing the evidence to convict everyone in the world - even those blissfully ignorant jungle dwellers! - but not supplying them with equally nature-based saving knowledge of Jesus. How can God blame them for rejecting Christ if they have never heard of him and have no way of deducing the proper theology from nature? How can He convict them of this without providing equal opportunities for conviction and for salvation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I am only addressing what the apostle Paul said, which is that people in other countries that never heard of Christ were "without excuse" because everything could be known from nature. It is ridiculous that someone could know all the Christian doctrines that Paul promulgates simply by looking at nature. This is something I've been thinking about lately. If the Bible says we are convicted by nature, and thereby without excuse, then why is specific belief in Jesus necessary for salvation? This seems highly unfair, providing the evidence to convict everyone in the world - even those blissfully ignorant jungle dwellers! - but not supplying them with equally nature-based saving knowledge of Jesus. How can God blame them for rejecting Christ if they have never heard of him and have no way of deducing the proper theology from nature? How can He convict them of this without providing equal opportunities for conviction and for salvation? It's funny, I had these exact thoughts way back. Nature was always a source of inspiration for me, and how one could deduce from this a specific theology defied all reason! It always seemed an individual religious person (Paul in this case), was trying to make some case using whatever argument to further his agenda. It was logically inconsistent, as he make these various connections from the general splendor of nature and our existential response to it, to specific cultural views and supporting doctrines. It was half inspiration, half politics. And that was my impression at a mere 22 years of age. My opinion hasn't changed much. Anyway, you're thoughts are valid ones. I know them well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 The original Dark Shadows looked like the camera and film had been soaked in an opium bath before making each episode. It was quintessential 60s TV. I doubt that a remake will be anything like the original. Audiences would not stand for lengthy mood-setting sequences with little or no action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts