Miracles, THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE

I do believe I possess a soul and I also find myself agreeing with a great deal of what you have said kkawohl. Religion has caused a great deal of problems over the centuries, one religion fighting with another. Although the wars have been blamed upon religion much has been politics and greed dressed up as religion. It was an easy way to gather an army to say that they were fighting for God rather than fighting for the land that they coveted.
In Israel though it is basically one sector fighting against another, each sector formed by religious beliefs, if that is political or religious is anyone's guess. I doubt the people concerned could give you a conclusive answer. Same goes for Northern Ireland, although that really is politics totally embroiled with religion.
If you speak of the troubles in the Middle East with regard to Iraq etc, that IMO is political greed dressed up as religion.
IMO most religions will claim to have better god than the other, more spectacular miracles than another..well, that would be proof that one god's name is better than the other. And I'm not just talking the main core religions of the world, I'm talking all from the dawn of mankind. Its kinda like my father's bigger than yours and he can knock yours down on the ground with one punch.
At the same time religion has had its up points, admittedly they haven't been many but there have been a few. Got some spectacular architecture through religious beliefs. You've just got to look at the Great Pyramids of Egypt, the spectacular churches and cathedrals built in the Middle Age etc etc. Spectacular feats of engineering especially in the eras they were built
I think man would have found these basic laws of behaviour without the indoctrination of religion. Most people are social, well behaved and consider others with or without religious beliefs and find atrocities against others atrocious. The hangman's noose or the chopping axe was usually deterent enough to prevent most wrong doing. Man would have also decided a life for a life was punishment without religion as he is vengeful. However, I'm not sure how long it would have took for man to find these basic laws without religion. We look at life now not as it was. Life is so civilised now, but we have such an easy life in comparison to our forefathers. I have a fantastic imagination but cannot even begin to imagine what it must have been like to live in a time when we didn't have the conveniences that we take for granted now, when we were lucky to survive to the age of 40. Many children died before the age of 5, that's if their mother's survived pregnancy and birth. Lets not forget the common cold claimed many a life and that illnesses that we have more or less consigned to history were common place.
In consideration of this would a death penalty have been sufficient to keep the population in toe? I'm not so sure. If you knew you had such a short life expectancy you would live life to its fullest. How long would it have been to find the basic laws? Not sure.
We do have one sure thing to thank organised religion for in the civilisation of the species (mankind is an animal afterall, and I wish child psychologists would realise this. We are not born angelic; we are born animal and learn to socialise ) and that was in education. We were educated to read the holy books but in being able to read and write we learned so much more. And it is in that learning that we have become so civilised. Without this education we would all still be living as we were in the Middle Ages.
 
suanni said:
Although the wars have been blamed upon religion much has been politics and greed dressed up as religion. It was an easy way to gather an army to say that they were fighting for God rather than fighting for the land that they coveted.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and that's a big part of the problem - when people think that it's religion as the cause, when it's merely being used as an excuse.

It's symptomatic of a wider political method. After all, if a nation is not regarded as religious then it'll be happy to use empty secular terms as a moral justification, such as "freedom" and "liberty". Should we thereforerail against "freedom" and "liberty" because politicans use those as well?
 
Isn't that what the US uses to go to war, freedom & liberty? The politicans can't use any particular religion cos the US has many religions upon its shores.
The only time religion causes problems is when intolerance creeps in. And intolerance breeds from ignorance of another's ways.
Yes, there have been some bad points within religions but the bad points have been simply man himself not the religion.
 
kkawohl said:
Do you believe that you have a spirit or soul?
Click to expand...
Namaste kkawohl,

thank you for the post.

i'm not really sure what those terms mean... however... in general i would say "no" to your query.

the teaching of an unchanging spirit or soul is called Atman and the buddhist teaching is called Anatman, without an unchanging soul or spirit.

technically, we do have a spirit in the Buddhist tradition, however, this is constantly changing and cannot be indentified as the self and only exists due to certain causes and conditions.. when those causes and conditions are no longer manifest, the spirit is no longer manifest.
 
suanni said:
Yes, there have been some bad points within religions but the bad points have been simply man himself not the religion.
Click to expand...
Man created religion, and religion is a relational object. It relies on the adherent and that which is to be adhered to. Neither side is perfect and the other flawed. If the relationship is not working, then both are to blame or none are to blame, not one alone.
It's like saying that a certain tool is flawed because an imbecile can't work with it. It is not the imbecile's fault; he should have been given a tool fit for his talents; it is not the tool's fault; it should have been handed to someone who can work it. Everything is relative.
 
Yes man created religion and in a sense religion has created man as he is today.

Man is not perfect. Therefore the religions that he created are not perfect. The books man bases his religion on are written by man who believed he was writing the word of God (in most cases.). But again man is not perfect, man cannot help but include his prejudices and hang-ups in both religion and text.

A catch 22 situation I believe.
 
Vajradhara said:
i'm not really sure what those terms mean (spirit/soul)... however... in general i would say "no" to your query.

the teaching of an unchanging spirit or soul is called Atman and the buddhist teaching is called Anatman, without an unchanging soul or spirit.
Click to expand...
IMHO the spirit/soul is the Atman, the ego, the life force, the essence of a person. It animates with vigor; it excites; it encourages; the vital force within living beings. It does not manifest itself (unless one accepts miracles), yet it is the subconscious self that often controls our actions.

I am curious, in your signature space you credit Buddha with the quote, “All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements...are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of the mind”.

How are atoms and primary elements figments of the imagination and manifestations of the mind? Atoms are factual, the smallest part of an element & primary elements are part of a complex whole.

Namaste,

Kurt
 
kkawohl said:
How are atoms and primary elements figments of the imagination and manifestations of the mind? Atoms are factual, the smallest part of an element & primary elements are part of a complex whole.

Namaste,

Kurt
Click to expand...
Namaste kkawohl,

or do you perfer Kurt?

atoms are not the smallest part of an element.. the atom, itself, is composed of discrete bits.. protons, nutrons and electrons.... and these bits are also composed of more bits.... and so on.

the lable of "atom" to a collection of bits is arbitrary... imposed by the mind. at heart... i'm a Cophenhagen Interpetation of QM person.. which i think completely supports the statements of both Einstein and Buddha in my signature :)

generally speaking, when we are talking like this what we are trying to do is bring the realization that our minds impute to objects, properties which are not theirs. one of the things we impute to them is a characteristic.. say.. hard or comfortable.

if you'd like, i can show a few examples of how we mean this... though i think that it may be more appropos on other section of the site... either the science forum or the eastern thought forum.
 
suanni said:
Man is not perfect. Therefore the religions that he created are not perfect. The books man bases his religion on are written by man who believed he was writing the word of God (in most cases.). But again man is not perfect, man cannot help but include his prejudices and hang-ups in both religion and text.

A catch 22 situation I believe.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but some Christians I have met therefore extend the argument to saying that our imperfections therefore make us incapable of ruling ourselves. Hence we should embrace Christianity in some fundamental form - whether Southern Baptist or Jehovah's Witness - and withdraw until God comes with chariots of light and fire to start a global Theocracy.
 
I said:
Indeed, but some Christians I have met therefore extend the argument to saying that our imperfections therefore make us incapable of ruling ourselves. Hence we should embrace Christianity in some fundamental form - whether Southern Baptist or Jehovah's Witness - and withdraw until God comes with chariots of light and fire to start a global Theocracy.
Click to expand...
Which really bring us back to the catch 22 situation, a vicious circle and on it goes. The arguments continues.
Isn't it just man's way?
 
suanni said:
Which really bring us back to the catch 22 situation, a vicious circle and on it goes. The arguments continues.
Isn't it just man's way?
Click to expand...
But...if man eliminates all religious preconditioning and superstitions prior to having his spirit interact with the spiritual existence...then the mind's interpretation of this spiritual interaction will be closer to the truth.

Truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong. Spiritual interaction is only possible between spirits. Claims of supernatural acts performed by physical or spiritual beings in the physical universe are not truths.

Namaste,
Kurt
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste kkawohl,

or do you perfer Kurt?

the lable of "atom" to a collection of bits is arbitrary... imposed by the mind. generally speaking, when we are talking like this what we are trying to do is bring the realization that our minds impute to objects, properties which are not theirs. one of the things we impute to them is a characteristic.. say.. hard or comfortable.

if you'd like, i can show a few examples of how we mean this .
Click to expand...
Kurt is fine & a few examples will do.
In some philosophies, as that of Leibniz, the atoms (which he calls monads) are psychological rather than physical units -- unitary beings of diverse kinds and grades, composing the universe. Of course this is occult alchemy, not modern chemistry.

An atom is the smallest particle of an element that retains the chemical properties of the element. Atoms are electrically neutral, with a positively charged nucleus that binds one or more electrons in motion around it. In modern physics the atom is a small particle once thought indivisible, but now resolved into component units. It is the smallest unit of a chemical element that can take part in a chemical reaction. An atom :is composed of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, and :is surrounded by electrons.

Namaste,
Kurt


 
kkawohl said:
But...if man eliminates all religious preconditioning and superstitions prior to having his spirit interact with the spiritual existence...then the mind's interpretation of this spiritual interaction will be closer to the truth.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree there but and it is a big but how will mankind ever rid himself of religious preconditioning and superstitions? Both have been around since mankind was formed. Man senses a greater presence than himself in the world. Man needs to personify this greater being in order to connect with it, hence why the Creator is known by so many names. Superstitions arise when mankind misunderstands or sees patterns in things or fears something. Both religion and superstitions change as man's world evolves, be that evolution man made in the form of technology or God made/earth made in the form of natural disasters/new lethal illnesses. Nothing stands still, be it the world we live in or man's perception of his world or his religions or beliefs. One thing that has stood the test of time is the belief in a greater being,and the belief in the power of love. Because of this belief in a greater being religion continued and will likely always continue. Because of the belief in the power of love whomever writes the laws of a particular religion will look at ways to express and utilise the power of love. The other nastier bits depend upon the prejudices of the person who writes the religious laws. (Yes, we could really do without them but I don't think its going to happen, certainly not in my lifetime)
Truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that can not be proven to be wrong. Spiritual interaction is only possible between spirits. Claims of supernatural acts performed by physical or spiritual beings in the physical universe are not truths.
Click to expand...
Those that cannot be proven as yet. Science does not know everything as yet. Theories and supposed facts are being proven and disproven every day.
One thing that science has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that everything in nature is recycled, from the smallest atom. That nothing is created or destroyed, be that matter or energy in whatever form it takes; it merely changes. The circles of life overlap and intertwine.
As for miracles. A miracle is something that occurs that mankind cannot explain as yet. We do not know the full extent of the power of the mind. We do not know (for those who believe) in the power of the soul. We cannot measure or quantify these things, so who is to say that we will ever know?
 
suanni said:
how will mankind ever rid himself of religious preconditioning and superstitions? Both have been around since mankind was formed. (Yes, we could really do without them but I don't think its going to happen, certainly not in my lifetime)?
Click to expand...
Is this due to conviction or fear?

A miracle is something that occurs that mankind cannot explain as yet. We do not know the full extent of the power of the mind. We do not know (for those who believe) in the power of the soul. We cannot measure or quantify these things, so who is to say that we will ever know?
Click to expand...
IMHO, the power of the mind with spiritual inspiration is able to accomplish the seemingly impossible yet to expect supernatural physical intervention is illogical.
 
suanni said:
One thing that science has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that everything in nature is recycled, from the smallest atom. That nothing is created or destroyed, be that matter or energy in whatever form it takes; it merely changes.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to understand how anything, scientific theory or otherwise, has been "proved beyond a shadow of a doubt." I actually agree that nature is recycled and that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but I would not say it is "proven." We can question anything, even scientific theory.

Yes, there is the observed phenomena of the nutrient cycle and energy conservation, and then there are the interpretations of those observations. The problem is that the interpretations may or may not adequately represent the actual phenomena, and, worse yet, there is no guarantee that sensory perception provides reliable data. Science generally accepts that empirical data is reliable; however, this is still an assumption that cannot be proven.

This, of course, is merely my opinion, but I understand that the prinicples above are implicit in the scientific method. I may not have enough information and, regardless, my opinion is probably less reliable than empirical data! :D

I also realize that took this out of context, and I apologize for that. Just something to think about.
 
Again, I think I may be telling people here something they already know. So far I have learned more from this forum than from any other medium I've used in the past (maybe because I didn't know where to look). :)
 
StrangeQuark said:
Yes, there is the observed phenomena of the nutrient cycle and energy conservation, and then there are the interpretations of those observations. The problem is that the interpretations may or may not adequately represent the actual phenomena, and, worse yet, there is no guarantee that sensory perception provides reliable data. Science generally accepts that empirical data is reliable; however, this is still an assumption that cannot be proven.
Click to expand...
Until there is another way of measuring and observing the world as we do now, empirical data will have to do.
The ancients also observed some of the cycles of life and realised that everything was interdependent.
Science over the centuries has proved this to be true through the cycles of the elements
(and this is taking the thread down a different path really)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top