God... Truth or fiction? — Philosophy

Registered: 8/5/2006

Posts: 1,473

#304 4/20/2007 6:22 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Ganymed;84388

One can be a "machine" in any religion. It only depends on the person whether they want to be a "machine" or not. But if a person doesn't fit into the religious "Procrustean bed," then, in any case, it's a "path of an outcast" for that person. The fate of someone who has "separated from the pack."

So as not to accidentally lie, I won't talk about how it is in other religions, but in Orthodoxy, NO ONE forces you. Everything you say or do is a matter of your conscience. Of course, this does not mean that any negative review you openly express about Orthodoxy will be forgiven or ignored – everywhere there are zealous followers, and someone might even punch you in the face. But this is not so much related to religion as to norms of behavior. On the contrary, in Christianity, you are supposed to PRAY for your enemies, although few people follow this, because it is REALLY difficult. Yes, it's easy to "mutter" a prayer and say "Lord, bless my enemy," while thinking "May he perish!" But to sincerely pray for a person you hate is something few can do. I've only managed to do it once in my entire life.

Бог есть любовь

Registered: 12/4/2006

Posts: 306

#305 4/20/2007 6:31 PM UTC

Auto-translated

No one forces anyone to believe in anything, unless that belief is dominant in the state. And even then, one can have their own opinion to a certain extent. A person becomes a "machine" when they blindly follow the crowd, placing faith above common sense and norms of behavior.

Настоящие герои - не те, пред кем мы преклоняемся, а те, кого мы оплевываем...[/COLOR]
-----------------------------
"So much has gone
and little is new"

David Bowie

In reply to Ganymed

Registered: 8/5/2006

Posts: 1,473

#306 4/20/2007 6:45 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Ganymed;84440

In principle, no one is dragged by the tail into faith, unless it is the dominant one in the state. And even then, to a certain extent, one can have their own opinion. A person becomes a "machine" when they mindlessly follow the crowd, placing faith above common sense and norms of behavior.This is more of a herd instinct than a "majority." Everyone started running, so I ran too (c). It's a different matter when you have your own opinion, but if you dare to say it in public, they won't even give you a job. Orthodoxy was underground until the very 80s. Yes, you could freely believe whatever you wanted, go to the Temple, but simply put, you would have no employment, no standing in society, and no normal life. And communism is as much a religion as I am a ballerina. Maybe you'll call capitalism a religion next?:) Communism is just one of the totalitarian forms of power (as for it being totalitarian — IMHO) — nothing more, nothing less.

Бог есть любовь

In reply to Ganymed

Registered: 4/11/2007

Posts: 9

#307 4/20/2007 9:35 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Ganymed;84167

...atheism was the starting point for a NEW RELIGION. The religion of communism - that is, paradise on earth, not in heaven. And then... what is atheism - in translation, it means godlessness. That is, a person BELIEVES that there is no God, just as another person BELIEVES that He exists. And both are faith in principle, because no one can say for sure whether God exists or not (because no one has seen Him). Therefore, just as faith in God is a DENIAL of disbelief in God, so is the opposite. These are self-evident phenomena that accompany any faith, and, in essence, one can say that people believe in "denial," dear Apple:)

I don't care what they wanted to do with atheism in the Soviet Union; I didn't live there much and I don't regret it. But "starting point" is not a religion. If atheism can be called a religion, it is only in a figurative sense, not in a direct one. And communism is not a religion either (unless it's a quasi-religion). And finally, I'll quote myself again: "Faith, like a vector, is directed at its object (and not at nothingness), that is, it carries a positive charge in its essence, because it affirms, not denies. If, for a moment, we agree with you that one can indirectly deny something while affirming it, then this is a secondary phenomenon, like a shadow from an object, and to put them on the same plane is a logical error." To this, unfortunately, I have nothing to add, except that "believing in 'denial'," as you put it, is a conceptual absurdity. I specifically asked my friend: "Do you believe that there is no God?" He was surprised and said: "I don't 'believe that there is no God,' but 'I don't believe that He exists,'" and we dropped it. This, of course, cannot be proof, but it is very telling. How many times did I hear from my relatives (who were also atheists) in my childhood that they did not believe in God, and not once did I hear anyone say that they believed that there was no God. If you, Ganymed, insist on your position, could you please explain your thought with an example? (But please don't talk about faith in a person, because it does not directly follow from atheism.)

Registered: 9/2/2006

Posts: 1,700

#308 4/21/2007 7:18 AM UTC

Auto-translated

NoWizard, I understand your patriotic feelings and your strong dislike for Western countries (FRG, USA). "Atheism, the decline of morals, and tales of a beautiful life 'overseas' – this is the weapon that Freemasons use to fight against us." Is that really how they fight? Interesting. And who told you these tales of a beautiful life overseas, which Freemason? Enemies are everywhere. They want to destroy Russia. What scoundrels. But what kind of fanaticism is this? How long can you keep looking for the root of evil outside? The rot is inside, and faith has nothing to do with it. Everyone believes in something. Even egoists and atheists. And where did you get those beautiful stories about Lenin and others? Although, of course, it's well written, bravo!!! True.

In reply to Аделаида

Registered: 8/1/2006

Posts: 626

#309 4/21/2007 11:40 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Adelaide;83336

Lelya, I completely disagree.
Firstly, you nitpicked about the money; I think it's clear that I didn't mean numismatists, but people who know how to earn and spend money, and generally live well.
Secondly, concepts like honor, responsibility, nobility, and duty existed long before the emergence of world religions. And man would still have become man (I won't explain, Darwin has already done that a long time ago), and man invented the first tool without Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. But there are many examples in history where religion hindered progress, especially in the Middle Ages; let's remember, for example, the astronomer Giordano Bruno, who, by the way, believed in God and was essentially a theologian. At our university, we had an entire course on "Science and Religion," and possible spaceflights were very vehemently opposed by all religions because man could see God, but in reality, no one saw him after flying into space.

OH... I'm going to die laughing (hysterical laughter, sliding under the chair)! Morality existed before religions? Do you believe that? You adhere to Darwin's theory, so do today's monkeys shine with morality and ethics?:D Are you attracted to the theories of Paracelsus and Van Helmont? Do you believe that a person can spontaneously generate from a jar of urine and blood? :smile26: And, by the way, I don't think everyone understood that you meant work, not money as such.;) Everyone is taught according to the same system... And looking for God in space, or rather, they probably wanted to find his body, is very stupid, in my opinion. God does not have a body like ours, made of flesh and blood. I believe that God is the matter that surrounds us and exists as some kind of particle within us, i.e., permeates the world through and through.:)

Added 9 minutes ago

AlexeyPank;83436

Enough of insulting Muslims! First, read the Quran and point out specifically where it says that you have to be intolerant of everyone and kill everyone! There are many more such phrases in the Old Testament.
It's stupid to claim that something is written in a book or another if you haven't read the book. It's better to study the history of religion based on texts, not on myths circulating among semi-intellectuals.

That's true!:) By the way, what did the Muslims do to you? They are just people like us, only with a slightly different religion.:) And here they are organizing a real anti-Islam party. Then let's kick Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Orthodox, atheists, Buddhists, Krishnaites, Taoists, Kabbalists, and pagans! If you hate people of another religion so much, why do you communicate with them? And stop organizing "crusades" here!:mad:

Registered: 12/4/2006

Posts: 306

#310 4/21/2007 5:37 PM UTC

Auto-translated

2Apple
You didn't read my post, which you quoted, very carefully. If it's impossible to definitively say whether God exists or not, then regardless of whether a person has a positive or negative opinion about His existence, it's still faith, because NO ONE CAN ACTUALLY PROVE EITHER WAY.
If you don't understand this with the example of God, then you can consider the same thing with the example of a painting that may be hanging in one room, while two people are arguing in another room. One believes that it is hanging there because he read about it in a source he trusts; the other believes that it is not hanging there because he has not seen anyone hang it there. And you can argue endlessly about concepts and definitions, but they are both SURE of their own rightness, although no one can say for sure whether it is actually hanging there or not. From their own point of view, their faith is positive (naturally, who would believe in something negative?), but from your point of view, looking at them from the outside, their faith is negative, because one's faith denies the other's faith, and a conflict of opposing beliefs arises. Now you, dear Apple, come in and tell them: "You are both idiots because you are arguing about nothing, about something you don't really know, and you are just waving your hands in the air and shaking the air. It's better to make peace and have some tea."

2Nowizard
Yes, in Soviet times, Orthodoxy was underground, and the Communist Party was dominant. But a little earlier, it was exactly the opposite, and for a much longer time. The Church got what it deserved because its guilt in the collapse of Tsarist Russia is by no means insignificant. If you know the history of Russia, including its church history, then you understand what I mean.

Настоящие герои - не те, пред кем мы преклоняемся, а те, кого мы оплевываем...[/COLOR]
-----------------------------
"So much has gone
and little is new"

David Bowie

In reply to Kamikaze

Registered: 8/5/2006

Posts: 1,473

#311 4/21/2007 10:33 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Kamikaze;84491

NoWizard, I understand your patriotic feelings and your strong hatred towards the West (Germany, USA). "Atheism, the decline of morals, and tales of a beautiful life 'overseas' – this is the weapon they use against us, the Freemasons" – is that really how they fight? Very interesting. And who told you these tales of a beautiful life overseas, which Freemason? Enemies are everywhere. They want to destroy Russia. What scoundrels. But what kind of fanaticism is this? How long will you keep looking for the root of evil outside? The rot is inside, and faith has nothing to do with it. Everyone believes in something. Even egoists and atheists. And where did you get these beautiful stories about Lenin and others? Although, of course, it's well written, bravo!!! Truly.

I have nothing against America, quite the opposite. I'm not talking about Americans, but about Freemasons. Their goal is not to destroy Russia (and why would they?), but to conquer it. The rot is inside – of course, that's what I'm saying; read the post more carefully. The plan is to corrupt from within. Because a united Russia (meaning the country, not the party) cannot be physically defeated – history has proven that. That's why they act cunningly. All my statements are based on the stories of those who lived during that time. My family on my mother's side suffered a lot during the Soviet era (of course, they suffered very positively) and I am saying what my grandmother told me (who, by the way, miraculously avoided being shot; she was arrested only because she was German. Positive? Very positive!) while she was still alive, and even what her grandfather told her. I get my information from primary sources, not from the "edited" textbook of the 90s.

Ganymed;84566

2Nowizard
Yes, during the Soviet era, Orthodoxy was underground, and the Communist Party was dominant. But a little earlier, it was exactly the opposite, and for a much longer time. The Church got what it deserved because its guilt in the collapse of Tsarist Russia is by no means insignificant. If you know the history of Russia, including church history, you will understand what I mean.

And in what, exactly, does the Church's guilt manifest itself?

Бог есть любовь

Registered: 9/2/2006

Posts: 1,700

#312 4/22/2007 6:42 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I mean that the problem lies within, that is, the Russians themselves are to blame for their misfortunes, and not others. And not that someone is trying to corrupt Russia from within.

In reply to Ganymed

Registered: 4/11/2007

Posts: 9

#313 4/22/2007 7:15 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Ganymed;84566

2Apple
Whether God exists or not, regardless of whether a person has a positive or negative opinion about His existence, it is still faith, because NO ONE CAN ACTUALLY PROVE EITHER WAY.

And here, I disagree with you. Faith and opinion are different things, at least when it comes to worldview. Faith is something that motivates, gives rise to imperatives, determines the way of human life, and serves as a call to action. And not just external action. Believers, for example, pray, sometimes silently, so it's not visible externally. I also believe that God exists, but I can't be called a believer. It's just my opinion, based on my worldview. No matter how much you try to convince me, the concept of "believer" simply doesn't apply to me, because opinion is a matter of reason, of cold calculation, which, according to some of my internal observations, tells me about the existence of God. Faith, however, is a matter of the heart. "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be," as they say in the Gospel, if you've read it. That's not a bad saying, is it? P.S. And I'll add one more thing, I can't resist. If you had ever seen a truly believing person, you would never say that faith is like an opinion. You wouldn't even have to see them; just read about them! I recommend "Quo Vadis" by Sienkiewicz. He describes believers in a very contagious way.

Registered: 12/4/2006

Posts: 306

#314 4/22/2007 8:03 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Faith, to a large extent, stems from opinion; if a person acts with reason, it forms as the emotional content of that person. "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be." This is exactly what is said in the Gospel. It's a wise statement, very insightful and observant.
I have seen many different believers in my life, both those who act with reason and those who act with their hearts... it's all very multifaceted. I have also seen militant atheists in my life during the Soviet era. They also acted based on their faith in the communist future of humanity (either through reason or through their hearts), and they considered religion to be a delusion, just as believers consider atheism to be a delusion. Everything is essentially the same in this world. The only difference is the objects of worship.

Настоящие герои - не те, пред кем мы преклоняемся, а те, кого мы оплевываем...[/COLOR]
-----------------------------
"So much has gone
and little is new"

David Bowie

Registered: 4/11/2007

Posts: 9

#315 4/22/2007 9:37 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dear Ganymede, to be honest, I didn't find an answer to my post in your reply. Moreover, you mixed up faith in communism and atheism, which are not necessarily related. I'll attribute it to my misunderstanding, although I suspect you simply avoided answering by using a tautology. But I am surprised by your confidence in your reasoning. After all, you haven't been in the shoes of the people you're talking about, the ones you say are believers! I have to repeat that you are speaking from your intellect, while faith comes from the heart, and no matter what role the mind plays in faith, the source of faith is the heart. How can you talk about faith if you know nothing about it! That is, I assume that you are well-read in history and even know a lot about religion (this is evident), but faith is not knowledge, but a spiritual practice. It is not dissected like a corpse, but experienced from within. And you are trying to explain things from the height of your intellect, things that are fundamentally inaccessible to the intellect. It seems to me that you are simply denying true faith for some reason, confusing the concepts of "Faith" and "faith." And what is your argument? Only that "I have seen those and others and thirds," and that proves something to you! As if many others haven't seen them, including devout scientists who, I think, knew no less than you.

Registered: 12/4/2006

Posts: 306

#316 4/22/2007 11:47 PM UTC

Auto-translated

What are you trying to prove? That faith cannot be reasoned with? Then why are we all here, arguing? And why does anyone preach anything? If faith cannot be reasoned with, and is only a heartfelt, internal experience, then let everyone believe in what they want and not bother anyone. But no, there are entire theological schools trying to explain with logic what is, in principle, unexplainable.
I'm afraid you still stubbornly don't understand me; I've explained my point of view from both sides. It seems it's all in vain. Well, then there's nothing to talk about. If you're interested, try to understand the essence of what I wrote in the previous posts. Everything is perfectly clear there.
Do you not like the word "atheism" applied to faith? Maybe that's simply the problem? Then it's understandable. And I explained this doctrine philosophically, very clearly, especially for you. :)
And what I personally know about faith and what path I have taken – it's not for you to judge or assert. We are not talking about spiritual experience now, but about defining concepts in principle. Don't mix everything together.

Настоящие герои - не те, пред кем мы преклоняемся, а те, кого мы оплевываем...[/COLOR]
-----------------------------
"So much has gone
and little is new"

David Bowie

In reply to Ganymed

Registered: 4/11/2007

Posts: 9

#317 4/23/2007 3:03 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Is this your way of arguing? By not answering directly, are you trying to cover your tracks? The suspicion of your tautology is growing stronger. Let's break it down:

Ganymed;84764

What are you trying to prove?

I'll answer: Nothing. It's an unfounded question because I'm simply refuting some of your statements that I consider to be incorrect.

Ganymed;84764

If faith cannot be reasoned with, but is only an internal, heartfelt act, then let everyone believe what they want and not bother anyone else. But no, there are entire schools of theology that try to explain with reason what is, in principle, unexplainable.

Excuse me, but what is the point of this? Is this more of the same tautology? An attempt to evade the dialogue?

Ganymed;84764

...I have already explained my point of view from both sides. Apparently, it was in vain. Well, then there is nothing to talk about. If you are interested, try to understand the essence of what I wrote above in the posts. Everything is perfectly clear there.

You shouldn't have sent me to read your earlier posts. It turns out that you were quite convincingly refuted from different sides by others, and your answers are far from adequate in terms of argumentation. And again – mostly just tautology, as in your answers to my posts. It seems that sticking to your opinion, even if it has been refuted, is more important to you than agreeing with reasonable arguments. That's a shame because it speaks to your weakness. One should be able to admit defeat easily and naturally.

Ganymed;84764

Do you not like the word "atheism" applied to faith? Maybe that's all there is to it? Then it's clear.

Clear what? Didn't our dialogue, so to speak, start with this, and isn't this what I was refuting? I might not have even started writing if it weren't for the gross mistake you made, a person with a strong intellect and clearly a higher education, on which you based your reasoning. And yet, you acted as if we weren't even talking about that. I'm not sure if this was done intentionally.

Ganymed;84764

What do I personally know about faith, and what path have I taken – it is not for you to judge, nor is it for you to assert.

Yes. A lot of empty rhetoric. But here, too, you are trying to cover your tracks, and I'm afraid, intentionally. After all, I substantiated my words and am ready to do so again: a person who equates the concepts of "opinion" and "faith" knows nothing about faith, not only on a personal level but also in history. Perhaps this is due to a careless attitude towards terminology? I agree that most of us are far from being walking encyclopedias. But to this extent!!! And what am I judging? Your spiritual path? Maybe you just want to think that about me? But I am not judging the person I don't know, but the specific mistake that was made publicly. Unfortunately, this mistake, in my opinion, belongs to you.

Ganymed;84764

We are not talking about spiritual experience now, but about the definition of concepts in principle. Don't mix everything together.

Exactly. See above.

Added 39 minutes ago

Ganymed;84764

What do I personally know about faith, and what path have I taken – it is not for you to judge, nor is it for you to assert. We are not talking about spiritual experience now, but about the definition of concepts in principle. Don't mix everything together.

This is precisely what is interesting: your experience, if you have any. What do concepts matter to me! We studied this in universities, but not everyone can boast about their experience. What is our topic here, God? So, share your experience of communicating with Him. Maybe I will learn something, and I think others will be interested too. And, by the way, it would be good if everyone wrote something about their own experience. That would be a positive thing! :smile36:

In reply to Ganymed

Registered: 8/5/2006

Posts: 1,473

#318 4/23/2007 5:27 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I understand that Mr. Ganymed decided to ignore my question about the Orthodox Church. Well, that's your choice, although I am genuinely interested.

Ganymed;84764

There are entire theological schools trying to explain what is, in principle, unexplainable.

Not trying, but explaining – that's the first point. :)
If you believe that miracles and other religious phenomena are unexplainable, then visit one of these schools – that's the second point.

Бог есть любовь

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from God... Truth or fiction?

seven