Darth Dane

I want to be all powerful, I need all knowledge. Let me imagine a being that has these properties. Yes, I understand the idea of god in term of my own needs and wants.

Would it be fair to say that that is what happened some 2000+ years ago. Someone started to lead others, and backed up their claims with a "God" as a pressuring argument. "You can't see my God, but my God is almighty, and if you do not followe the rules of my God, you will be cast in the fiery pits of Hell."

Regardless if God Is or God is not, the idea of God has been used to pressure people into doing their bidding. Those who are the top of this hierachy, priests, popes and so on, are the one who tells us what God wants and how we should understand the holy texts.

Has Religion become a powertool, and not a path for self-realization?

Religion has become a mover of the masses, for those who wants power for whatever end.

My "God" doesn't want power as such, not as a means and end in and of itself. If it brings happiness for people then power is good, but if power brings sadness to a few, how good is this God?

Those who in the name of whatever "God", brings death, sadness, hunger, pollution, war, hate and suffering, are representing a "God" which I can't align with.

Human actions reveal what kind of "God" they follow, regardless of what comes out of their mouth i.e. Crusades and so on.

Does our actions reveal which "God" or "commandments" we follow?


Love seems to be a good option, whether or not God is.





DD - Love Spliff

John Page

Has Love become a powertool, and not a path for self-realization?

Darth Dane

Has Love become a powertool, and not a path for self-realization?

Being cheeky eh?

Love is a powertool for your self and others, Love doesn't kill....we can kill in the name of Love, but Love doesn't kill.

Love gives freely, and is free in and of itself, so Love as I see it, can't become a manipulating force, because of the inherent qualitites to Love...which we attribute of course.

Love is like the nightingale that is trapped in a cage, if tarpped i.e. no free will, then it won't sing.

So choosing Love liberates. Choosing Love is self-realization



DD - Love Spliff

John Page

guns don't kill........

There are many cases in history where people have died for love, such instances being idealized in opera - Tosca etc.

Cheers, John

Darth Dane

There are many cases in history where people have died for love, such instances being idealized in opera - Tosca etc.


Yes, of course Jesus being the prime example.

They died for Love.

But dying for the Love of your country by killing others, isn't the Love I am talking about here.




DD - Love Spliff

John Page

Well, Tosca didn't die for the love of her country.

Back to the OP, though, do you consider love to be perfect?

Darth Dane

Well, Tosca didn't die for the love of her country.

What kind of Love did she die for?

Back to the OP, though, do you consider love to be perfect?

Love is in and of itself perfect, humans ways of dealing with Love is more often than not, imperfect.

Love and the expression of Love is two different things, but obviously closely connected.




DD - Love Spliff

Patroclus

Are you so sure that it is about some guy 2000+ years ago that made-up a God? Of course, it is possible. However, I doubt that the whole "rules" idea really came into play until a bit later.

Most of society, until the common era (and even then...) believed in multiple dieties. Hence, no single god was all-powerful. There were some, like Zeus/ Jupiter, who had supreme power. But even their wills could be thwarted. In such societies, you see people running around trying to please the gods so that they will not be struck dead. In the Odyssey, Poseidon keeps Odysseus on wild chase around the earth until Odysseus learns that "Man is nothing without the gods." Babylonian culture takes it one step further by suggesting that the gods rely on humanity to get work done. The Aztec universe required human blood for its continuance--imagine the horror of the Aztecs when the conquistodors told them they must stop.

Monotheism presented a much different challenge. In Judeo/Christian and Muslim cultures, pleasing God is not about rendering needed service in order to preserve one's life. Rather, works are an act of duty, ideally compelled by love, in preparation for an afterlife--death is always in the equation anway.

I think the reason for this is the simple logical question: "If God is all-powerful, God has all necessities, and lacks nothing. Therefore, God does not require obedience in order to be sustained or supported in the colective thought." The concept is that God has chosen to desire obedience.

But, what kind of obedience is meant by this. In Judaism, the older way was through animal sacrifices and certain ceremonies. Some, who still believe the temple will be rebuilt, expect sacrifices to continue eventually. For Muslim cultures, there is also the question of ritual that must be adhered to for full acceptance. In Christianity, the only obedience that is required (under most schools of thought) is that of belief.

For each of these belief systems, the common element is a dialog. The God, in some way or another (The Prophet(s), Jesus, etc.), reveals his/her existence. The believer then acknowledges this existence through the prescribed ritual or acceptance. Why do Jews believe that animal sacrifices will atone for sins? Because Torah, given to Moses by God, says so (not exactly, but pretty close). Why do Muslims beileve they must participate in their perscribed rituals? Not just to please God, but to show that they believe what their Holy book, given to their prophet by God, says. If it is so simple with Christians, why must they believe? Because they have chosen to believe what the Bible says about faith.

As far as th rules go, they really do not have the application that I think you are implying when it comes to monotheism.

John Page

...and the have chosen to believe what the bible says about faith because......?

Patroclus

Everybody is different. Perhaps for the same reason that you choose to believe that you can actually be happy, or sad; or that you can love or hate without calling it just a chemical reaction. Perhaps for the same reason that you can believe science you have never seen, though you trust expert advice, and with good reason too. Perhaps because people need substance behind what they do, because people do not want to feel like a cosmic accident or a shooting star. Maybe people like the idea of a religion that does not require animal sacrifice or a trip across the globe. Maybe it is more convenient. Who knows?

I am not asking the why. I am explaining the what. Don't you think this thread has deviated off topic enough? First, we were talking about the logistical problem of varied definitions. Then we switched to "how do we define God:" the topic that was specifically avoided in the early part of this thread.