Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
The eye cannot say to the hand that it’s not needed. — Jesus (supposedly). Symbiotic diversity is required for as much peace as we’re going to get.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Without God there can be no Lasting Peace
- Thread starter TransmutingSoul
- Start date
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
And then things explode.
Thank you for the reply. That is what I also see in all the chaos and conflicts, it demonstrates the power of all that is good.
I also see that no matter how much virtue and morality we can muster, it has already been demonstrated to us in history and our ancestors.
This is how modern man, can also learn from the native indigenous peoples of the world. They understand the power to be had in the foundation of Good and Justice as demonstrated by their ancestors in a strong family and tribal unit.
This is why a Message of God is also given from age to age. When the example of good declines, the Message is renewed, an example of this can be seen in what Krishna offered.
The Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita, "Whenever there is a decline in righteousness and an increase in unrighteousness, at that time I manifest myself on earth".
We must learn from the past and make a better future for all humanity.
I see any effort to make a better future for all humanity is following what God has asked us to do, even if we do not believe in God and Messengers past.
Regards Tony
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
But life is more complicated than that. I prefer to think ecologically.
I personally see that scientifically, that is far from logical.
The combination of elements working in a complete unified harmony give the human being life. That combination is always changing and growing and discarding what is sick and dead. Thus unity has an inherent requirement for change
The disassembly of that combination is death.
Thus Unity = Life, Disunity = Death.
Is that not a fundamental law of creation?
It is also the history of faith, that it is always progressive, always in need of renewing, always discards the dead aspects of faith, albeit on larger timeliness.
Regards Tony
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Slapping a Jesus sticker on a missile doesn’t make it better.
It is indeed more complex, even if we can use simple explanations to describe the process.
Regards Tony
Please provide examples, otherwise it is a vision that no one else has seen.
I have provided a logic example to show that there is sound reason to consider otherwise.
Regards Tony
There are constant fluxuations in the amount of chemicals and salts being transfered around your body, it is constantly in moving, changing and growing. Food in, **** out, nutrients around. If anything become stagnant.
You die.
Homeostasis is the death of the system. Name me any functioning (living) system that is in perfect balance. There isn't one.
Edit: "Homeostasis, from the Greek words for "same" and "steady," refers to any process that living things use to actively maintain fairly stable conditions necessary for survival."
The key is "fairly stable" not perfectly stable. There must be flux.
Is not the Body of man an example of a functioning (living) system that is in perfect balance. When the balance is upset, we require a Dr to find the balance again.
When the balance, unity of the system is lost, then that leads to death.
I can not see how unity in the diversity of a human body is death, I see a disunity in that body can lead to death, but maybe someone else can balance what we are both offering.
Regards Tony
xz
First of all, let us be clear on one thing: all religions, without a single exception, make claims for which zero evidence can be provided. Since that is the case, it ought to be exceedingly clear that there will never be one religion for all of humanity. What you cannot prove, you cannot expect everyone to believe.
The second thing to make clear: all religions claim to speak truths that are, in one way or another, essential to "salvation" of some kind -- whether that's heaven, or repeated reincarnation leading to some "nirvana" state, or what have you. And all religions insist that the claims must be accepted, that adherents must "bind themselves" (Latin "religare") to them.
Third: human survival actually depends upon our ability (or, often, penchant) to believe what we cannot prove. Therefore, there will always be religions.
Fourth: humanity itself can never be at peace until all humans recognize all other humans as part of their "tribe."
Fifth: remember that humans are eusocial, but that we can also "default" from what eusociality generally means in other species. This is not a bar to peace, in itself, because such "defaults" can be treated as either breaches of etiquette or breaches of law, depending on the nature of the default, and dealt with accordingly.
Conclusion: because we will always have religion, and because religion can never prove itself, and because those who accept religion must "bind themselves" to it -- we can never see ourselves of members of the same "tribe." Therefore, humanity can never be at peace.
Thank you, you've provided me a good lead-in to my continuation of my long post #29.
First of all, let us be clear on one thing: all religions, without a single exception, make claims for which zero evidence can be provided. Since that is the case, it ought to be exceedingly clear that there will never be one religion for all of humanity. What you cannot prove, you cannot expect everyone to believe.
The second thing to make clear: all religions claim to speak truths that are, in one way or another, essential to "salvation" of some kind -- whether that's heaven, or repeated reincarnation leading to some "nirvana" state, or what have you. And all religions insist that the claims must be accepted, that adherents must "bind themselves" (Latin "religare") to them.
Third: human survival actually depends upon our ability (or, often, penchant) to believe what we cannot prove. Therefore, there will always be religions.
Fourth: humanity itself can never be at peace until all humans recognize all other humans as part of their "tribe."
Fifth: remember that humans are eusocial, but that we can also "default" from what eusociality generally means in other species. This is not a bar to peace, in itself, because such "defaults" can be treated as either breaches of etiquette or breaches of law, depending on the nature of the default, and dealt with accordingly.
Conclusion: because we will always have religion, and because religion can never prove itself, and because those who accept religion must "bind themselves" to it -- we can never see ourselves of members of the same "tribe." Therefore, humanity can never be at peace.
Colt
Well-Known Member
WoW! Thats fascinating! The Urantia Papers began to come through the "sleeping subject" in 1911 in Chicago. Urantia Foundation has a booth at Parliament of the World's Religions. I visited the The Baha’i Temple and Gardens in Haifa. Cool place!
I disagree as to what Russia tried. I think it was more like cults of personality than atheism.
If we want to be fair, I would say that most atheists tend to favor the morals and ethics of the enlightenment, not of cults of personality like what Russia and China did.
Can you say how you arrived at this claim? I would say that secular humanists (like me), would tend to disagree.
The "Golden Rule" is indeed a handy one. It taps the evolved human moral tendency to dislike the one who harms, and to like fairness and reciprocity, which would account for why we find versions of it here and there in earliest history. It also fits with our evolved capacity for empathy.
And that's because both our evolved and our learnt morals and our conscience compete with our other needs, appetites, obligations, ambitions and so on.
The trouble is, it doesn't work large-scale. The love of Jesus may have stopped various dirty deals here and there, but Christians have been as good at waging war, invading and colonizing, embracing slavery and laissez-faire capitalism and monopolies, as any other group on the planet, indeed arguably better.
From earliest childhood, we are pre-programmed to believe what our parents (first), our elders, teachers and communities hold to be true. In childhood, this is obviously a survival issue.
We secular humanists (I'm one) suppose, I think wrongly, that we can rationally resolve every possible question by beginning from first principles -- from a few axioms. But we do not. There's no time for that. Therefore, we all -- each and every one of us -- has an entire catalogue of propositions (rather than axioms) that we accept as true, but never actually go back and check.
Because you've never studied anatomy and physiology I assume.
I took 2 years of it.
Sometimes one has to see beyond what we have learned, into what is possible.
I remember watching a video by a very renowned gynaecologist some years back, it was a very good presentation.
He used to think the body of women was such a flawed design with the birth and waste outlets being so close together, but after many years of research he found it is actually a perfect design for providing all a baby needs when being nurtured in the womb and then when being born into this world. I wish I could find that video again, it is well worth watching.
In fact he found that babies born by caesarian section are born without the required bacterial protections that a natural birth does provided.
Regards Tony
And earlier you said:
Okay, so are you defining religion as being ANYTHING and EVERYTHING we believe that we cannot prove? I suppose that could be a definition of sorts, but it seems unusual...