Alright get ready for a long post... but here it goes anyways (try not to get lost)...

Alright here is what I've always wondered about religion. You grow up believing in (let's say) "God," ok? In your religion (Christian religion) you are promised an eternal after-life if you life a good life and follow the religion. You'll get to go to the "Christian Heaven."

Now if you take another person who has been growing up under a different faith (let's say Muslim) you get the same gig. If you live an honorable life, with respect and follow the religion you are promised eternal-life (plus a few bonuses). You'll get to go to the "Muslim Heaven."

And so on... you can go on to each religion in the world. So who's heaven really exists? And how many heavens really exist? Does the Muslim heaven exist if you are a Christian and does the Christian Heaven exist if you are a Muslim, Jewish, etc?

What you believe is where you will end up in the end. What your neighbor believes is where he will end up in the end as well. So does everyone go there own way? Or maybe it's all the mind game? If so who's right?

Let's say Person A believes in God 1.
Let's say Person B believes in God 2.

Both Person A and B dies. A goes to Heaven 1, and B goes to Heaven 2. Proves more than one religion is right?

Mostly what I am trying to make a point is. If one believes strongly enough where they will end up after they are dead is where they will go.

What do you think? Do you think your religion isn't the only right one? Just because your God exists, does that mean any other Gods cannot exist? If so then why are there other religions? Was religion really a mind game? We will never know.

Doesn't the religions (at least Christianity does) come with a "If you believe in the wrong god your screwed" clause?

This subject is complicated by additional considerations, Yano.
Not all religions promise an after-life.
Various religions have different conceptions of what God is.
And there are other viewpoints and perspectives that "bracket" God's existence, or deny that either any sort of deity can be known, or that any sort of deity even exists.
Regards,
John

*Putting on my Moderator hat.*
I would hope this topic remains a discussion of religion in general, and does not turn into an argument about which religion is true or which religion is best, or which religion I believe.

I agree jgweed. I have had many a "conversations" with my friends who strongly agree in Christianity about "what if I was Jewish, Catholic, or something else? Would I go to my heaven I believe in, or would I be forced into yours? Or is there a heaven for one?"

The biggest point I'm trying to drive home is, (which is difficult) I think religion is all in one head, because if I can wake up tomorrow and become a different religion and instantly have promise of a different after life, then doesn't that mean it's all in my head?

I am not sure, Yano, what you mean by "all in my head." I think that if you carefully explain what you mean by that phrase, you will have gone a long way towards solving your own question.

John

Well everyone in the world who belongs to a religion strongly believes in their religion.

Everyone who belongs to their religion strongly backs it up and believes in their religion, some will fight til death for it.

But the reason I kept saying "it's all in one's head," is that since you can never prove one religion correct and everyone believes their religon is right (and nor other religion can be right) does this mean that they call might exist? Or that none of them exist?

Another irony (or paradox) if all religions say you if you don't believe in their religion or your doomed to hell, doesn't that mean everyone is doomed to hell? Whose hell?

Or how could one switch from another religion over night and think the new religion is absolutely right? without questioning anything with his previous knowledge of his first religion.


I must apologize, I didn't start the topic off the way I wanted to. I originally had an excellent one but I submitted it the night of the "back-up" so it was lost into the World Wide Web somewhere.

I suggest that if it's all somewhere, it would be in your "heart", not your "head". Faith is the key behind religion
I think it's always interesting to try to analyze different faiths, but in the end, IMHO, the realm of the supernatural is beyond the reach of reason. Sorry if that seems like a non-answer.

The link below is just for entertainment purposes, but you might get a kick out of it (put on your popup blocker )
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

Not all religions condemn others to damnation, so these must be considered as well.
The religion, for example, of the ancient Egyptians seems to have absorbed into itself many different and localised religions, not without some inconsistencies which they seemed to take in their stride. The state religion of the Romans, too, was more or less able to co-exist with many others in the Empire, as long as its citizens made some sort of outward conformity. From what I know of the teachings of the Buddha, much the same can be said.

What makes a religion a religion, and what distinguishes religion from other human beliefs and activities? Or is it impossible to arrive at a single concept (definition) that includes every sort of religion? What sort of picture of the world do religions provide?

Regards,
John

jhsmurray I took that a while ago. I was shocked when I got the results. lol



Takes a while to take the test.

Jgweed are you right, when do when draw the line of a religion? What about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot <== interesting viewpoint

Where you draw the line for religion is a categorizing problem and doesn't have any effect upon the object in itself.

Question is why is a religion less than any other belief you have? Proof? Any empirical proof requires a pre-existing belief. Logical proofs? "I think therefor I am" is a pretty good one, but beyond that? How far can you get?

Perhaps, if I may take a different view, the object IS the definition. I don't think that there is a religion-in-itself somewhere "out there" that is either objectively knowable, or that can exist apart from human interpretation through language.

On the other hand I don't understand the statement that any proof, whether it be about an empirical matter of fact or a logical relation between ideas, requires a pre-existing belief . I do think it does require a pre-existing language. Perhaps Mr. Alpha could clarify what he means by belief, because I think we might be in agreement in a general way.

Cogito ergo sum, doesn't prove what poor Descartes thought it did or provide a certainty against his project of radical doubt, since all it really proves is that because I think, there is a thought. What is still at issue is the existence of the I doing the thinking.

Cheers,
John

I've often had similar questions. You see, I was raised as a Christian (non-denominational), yet who's to say this religion is correct? The only thing that supports this religion is a book that may/may not have been divinely written. Almost all other religions have similar proof. Shoot, I could write a book and claim it was divinely written by some deity I chose at random. Who's to say I'm wrong? Who's to say those other religions are right? All religions are based on opinion and unproven fact. So how do we know which religion is the right one? You don't, you just have to pick the one, or none at all, that fits your personality.

Solaris have you ever studied the Bible? I mean like read it and study the verses or have you ever read the whole Bible?

Just something for you to read.

http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/grap...hecy/index.html

Prophecies predicted in the Bible thousands of years ago coming true today.

CGM some of the prophecies on that site are stretching it a little

Example:

However if you read the scripture listed (and those surrounding it) it stats that:

This has not happened and is a prerequisite to the plague mentioned in verse 12. there fore with the prerequisites not met the prophecy has not happened yet or has happened "wrong" making the Bible wrong.

Thank you Spyder. It's all how you interpret it. One person reads it one way, and another person reads it another way. One good example is how homosexuality is being deemed ok in some Christian sects, yet the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. It's a difference in interpretation. Not to mention the Bible itself has been translated, so who knows what was lost in translation?

You make a dozen predictions, and many years later one of them comes true, suddenly everything you say is considered true. There are many other books that have made predictions and some have come true. Does that mean those books are equally correct with the Bible?

The only thing is with the predictions is can you predict the next 9/11? Could you tell me how it will happen, when will it happen? It's not a prediction if you connect the dots after the face has happen.

I don't quite understand what you're saying, sorry.

I agree with you Yano....and to put what you said as a cliche'

"Hindsight is always 20/20." In other words, you can generally wrap things written a long time ago around whats happening today. However, as was posted previously, you need to make sure the full context applies as BlackSpyder pointed out well in his example.

I have heard it said many a time...the best predictor of the future, is the past.


To the original question of Yano's...Yano, I think you ask some great questions....and I urge you to dig and dig deep into everything until you find the answers you are looking for. I am a Christian, but I hate religion as it is currently defined.

You know,

I think about Philosophy often.

What I was trying to get at was that a person can believe in God without anybody defining religion.
I wasn't that ambitious. I merely meant that empirical proofs require pre-existing belief in the empirical.
The problem with logical proofs comes when we try to discern what they mean. Descartes' wasn't perfect, but he managed to prove something.

I will honor John's wishes and not get into discussing whether the Bible is right or wrong. Rather I'll catch on to something jhsmurray said. Faith. If faith (and some startup capital) is enough to move mountains, does proof really matter? What does it matter if you can, or can't, prove that angels or God exists if faith is enough to make miracles happen?


PS: Why is God parting the Red Sea a miracle, but a single mother with a minimum wage job managing to raise three good kids not?

PPS:What, trying to figure out how many H you need to spell it?

I certainly appreciate the clarification, MrAlpha. I agree there is a difference between being religious, and having a Religion, which I think was your point.
"Empirical proofs require pre-existing belief in the empirical." Well if there were no empiricial world, there would be no empirical proofs.
I didn't mean to be too hard on Descartes, even though I think he did subsequent philosophy a great deal of mischief---or more precise, his writing was so convincing that it led his successors to make many mistakes that caused a lot of confusion. Much the same can be said about Plato, as well, despite his great importance to the advancement of thinking.

**********
"One person reads it one way, and another person reads it another way." This applies not only to different people at any one time, but also to any text over time. Nietzsche wrote: "There was only one Christian---and he died on the cross." It is, I think, a mistake to say that there is the REAL Christianity and there are interpretations OF Christianity, when all there really is at any time are various interpretations. I think this perspectival view is applicable to other religions as well.
**********
Predictions?
I think the same thing can be said for Biblical predictions as can be said for Nostradamus'; both a proved "right" after the event. We should not be lead into confusion by the casual use of "prediction" in this regard. Science can predict, for example, the next appearance of Halley's comet, and you and I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is not the case with the Bible or Nostradamus, and I suggest that to apply the word "prediction" to the different examples is to blur this distinction. I wonder, finally, WHY it seems that only certain Christian sects even consider using a dubious text as a basis for prediction? Eastern religions, as far as I know do not, preferring the I Ching and pickup sticks.

Regards to all.
John

John, always an entertaining read for sure.

Dubious text?

I think the Bible is quite clear on the outcome of life. I hold that it is not predictions made, but prophecies. All I can truly say is...the most empirical evidence will come at the point of which one passes away, or if Jesus does indeed return. So the best way to arrive at the conclusion of which religion is right, which is wrong, what happens, etc. etc. is to wait. ;)

If the Bible holds the outcome of life then can we determine when life will end here on this planet? It may be in the Bible but it's useless to you and I if it's not happening for another 2000 years.

How is it "useless" if it doesn't happen for another 2000 years? It mentions death and what happens afterward. If you die in this life (which you inevitably will), the outcome does apply.

I apologize, I misinterpreted your version of "life." I was thinking that your definition of life was the entire human race. So what good is my death to me after I'm dead. I know I am going to die eventually. So if I don't know when or how from the Bible, then why would I find useful. If you are talking about the after-life then that's fine and dandy. That's a whole other point.

And currently on the philosophy I have bene pointing out, it doesn't matter what I believe. As long as I believe and have faith any in any religion and have followed a good life and meet the criteria for said religion I could enter said heaven.

I have written elsewhere in the Speakeasy about the problems incurred in establishing a critical edition of the text of the Bible, the historical provenance of the Canon itself, and the problems inherent with any translation. These problems, I think, justifies the use of "dubious." I do not want to turn this thread in the direction of a discussion about Christianity, since there are several other threads where that is happening ,or whether one religion is right and all others may be wrong (a logician would add that it is quite possible that ALL of them are "wrong").

I think the question is really about the criterion for believing in one religion as opposed to another, or whether holding a specific set of religious beliefs is important. Another question is about the origin of religiosity in general.
Regards,
John

Hmmm. If my memory is correct, it's a fairly common belief that 'since the beginning of time', nearly all people (whether considered furry humans living in caves or via Adam and Eve), have been practising some form of worship to a God or diety.

I'm going to leave Adam and Eve out of things here just for a moment ...

Perhaps furry humans were scared. And superstitious. And curious. And something huge and scary - such as lightening or thunder - seemed not only uncomprehensible, but so powerful they were scared scared of it.

It would make sense to be extra nice to something we neither understood or trusted. So ... if nice to 'it' (worship, sacrifice) 'it' will be nice to me (make it rain so I don't starve to death from no food, etc).

Things start looking up, rain falls, crops and hunting are good = must be doing something right = continued worship and thanks.

Things start going downhill = must be doing something wrong = let's up the sacrifice and fear and hopefully 'it' will be appeased.


(Please, no 'casting of stones' here),

I don't just believe - I know - that after I die I'll go into the ground and that's that. Everything is born; everything dies. And dead is just that - dead. The end. Finis. Kaput. No more tomorrows.

I believe that one of the reasons religion and the promise of an "after-life" has such a strong grip on so many people is that humans simply can't accept their own mortality. It's not something as simple as fearing death, it's a denial of death. And it seems to be so deeply rooted in the racial psyche that it may have been (may still be) a survival trait. I can't imagine how, though.

This is one of my favorite arguments. All of the different religions can't be "right". They can, however, all be wrong.

Jules Verne must have been a "prophet", then.

And the neutron bomb doesn't melt people.

Which he claimed would happen before the passing of that generation. So he either had a very funny idea of what constitutes a generation, or he's come and gone already, making the whole question moot.

You might care to explain what you are talking about....lol.

Are you talking about these:

Matt 24:34-36, Mark 13:30-32, and Luke 21:32-35?


Because the second coming isn't included in the statement of "these things."

You're funny Matt.

I think you are funny jwin! Reading those verses implies nothing less than that the Second Coming...



I mean, I have no idea how one could logically infer that all the rhetoric before this phrase has nothing to do with this statement. I am not a Biblical Scholar, but I am educated. Claiming that "these things" are not including the Second Coming it is directly discussed above seems like a rationalization.

I remember being in a very philosophically contemplative point in my life, during college. I had a friend who had a friend who wanted to survey me about Christianity. We got onto the subject of the numerous transalations of the 'divinely inspired Book'. Mind you, this person did not like to have their views questioned in the slightest, just blind acceptance. So I asked, "If this is truly inspired by God, why are there so many translations?" "Well, Man has different interpretations of certain parts of the Bible. But you have to be careful, because some of the Versions are not exactly true." I thought about this, then asked, "If the Bible was directed by the Hand of God, then how can we distort it; as it is protected by God's Hand? And if this is the case, why should I fear any translation; because this is the work of God?" He had no answer but to get all pissy and storm off. But I wonder...

If our Creator is in fact working within our lives as so many believe, then wherefrom comes the suffering? But, if in fact our Creator is only watching events unfold, then how can we be punished for what we do without the guidance of said Creator? Seems a conflict of philosophical ideas, in my mind.

It is unfortunate, MaraM, that our written records do not go back far enough in time to clarify the origins of what one might call a "religious feeling." Certainly there is much evidence that a part of this feeling lies in the desire to manipulate nature (raindances or magic, for example,--- or those paintings of animals on the walls of French caves). One could also surmise that since human beings appear to be the only animal that is conscious of its own mortality (and of mortality in general), that religion was also an attempt to account for death as well as to suggest that there was some sort of life afterwards. Yet a third reason for its origin may lie in its ability to promote social organisation.
Regards,
John

Let me help you then....

I did not say it well in my response. The second coming did not apply to the generation Jesus was talking to....at that moment. Jesus was referring to the generation that sees all "these things." Please read it again.....

For good clarification on what the verse is saying...here's another way its put (very close to the Hebraic verse)...(say what you want about the translations, but this should make sense)

Matthew 24:34

34Truly I tell you, this generation ([a]the whole multitude of people living at the same time, [b]in a definite, [c]given period) will not pass away till all these things [d]taken together take place.

If

I try.

Yet in your not knowing....you just cannot even acknowledge that there is a 'possibility' of it being true. I find that perplexing, yet very common.

mmm...does this mean that you believe that once you are dead you are nothing?

Only nothing comes from nothing therefore nothing does not exist.

How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown.

Nor was [it] once, nor will [it] be, since [it] is, now, all together, / One, continuous; for what coming-to-be of it will you seek? / In what way, whence, did [it] grow? Neither from what-is-not shall I allow / You to say or think; for it is not to be said or thought / That [it] is not. And what need could have impelled it to grow / Later or sooner, if it began from nothing? Thus [it] must either be completely or not at all.

[What exists] is now, all at once, one and continuous... Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike; nor is there any more or less of it in one place which might prevent it from holding together, but all is full of what is.

And it is all one to me / Where I am to begin; for I shall return there again. ~ Parmenides

Yeah, and here is something that encompasses a little, my oppinions and philosophy of religion...

God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him. ~ Tillich

I might also add, all the religious blah about where we go and what not has been refered to by philosophers/scholars such as Nietzsche, Korzybski and Stirner as meaningless, which is just a harsh way of saying that it is forever untestable. I think this says more about the limitations of the methods we use to test rather than the context to which the methods apply.

mm...yeah...NICE ONE
nn23

Intriguing thoughts nn23. Be prepared for the "intellectual authorities" and the "court of logic" to destroy what you said.


Bringing up nietzsche....uh oh.

Thanks jwinathome


mmm...why?



nn23

edit: had the wrong thumbup man...that blue ones thumb is just offensive!!!

No. I know it.

To all of this, one word - huh?

One simple way to test whether or not there is an "after-life" is suicide. Seems a little extreme, though. And how would you report the results of the test?

I'll have to remember that. To use the blue one, I mean.

It's just a personal thing but if one is absolutely sure there is an afterlife (heaven/hell) awaiting - why is it mostly people with the strongest Faith that feel so firmly that those living in physical agony should be forced to live on, rather be allowed to head on up (or down, as the case my be).

Re: "Yet in your not knowing....you just cannot even acknowledge that there is a 'possibility' of it being true. I find that perplexing, yet very common".

I mean no offense but that sentence can be be turned around, as well ... "Yet in your not knowing (for there is no 'proof' an after-life exists) ... you just cannot even acknowledge that there is a 'possiblity' (no life after death) of it being true".


In honestly, I find it very odd indeed that some find it difficult to simply say there is no proof that the Bible is the word of God. There is no proof that there is an afterlife. Simply, believing is Faith. Period.

So in turn, to expect one who does not believe in the afterlife to show 'proof' to back up his or her beliefs - well, geesh.

- - - -

I agree, John, having written records going back that far would be indeed wonderful, especially since I've always had a vast curiousity about the 'why'. One of the biggest woes, for myself at least, is even finding cave paintings and having them date-tested by several unrelated labs, etc , many still firmly refuse to believe the earth itself and mankind is ancient.

Your thoughts on 'social organisation' do fascinate me as not all that long ago many people (e.g. settlers living in isolated areas) would find support ('barn raisings, etc) and social contact simply by gathering together in a Church or someone's home.

Question: If they had proof, would they still be able to have faith? Or would believing in something which you could prove require no faith?

You only need Faith with theories,and for example, aren't all Religions theories.?
Anything void of Facts requires Faith. IMHO.

Yes - that's true!

For instance ... if I walk into someone's home and their bedroom door is white ...

It's a fact that the side I'm facing is painted white. But it would require faith on my part if I should believe the other side of that same door is also painted white. (And yup, I'd have to see the other side before saying they had a 'white bedroom door').

Now this is an interesting thought. I suppose that it could be argued that everything we know is a matter of faith. How many of us can prove, mathematically, that several hundred tons of metal and plastic can fly through the air? Now how many of us have boarded commercial aircraft, having faith that the plane will, indeed, fly through the air. Isn't it a matter of faith that the plane's crew won't splatter us all over the countryside?

Even things we've learned on our own experience can be seen as matters of faith. I can't be absolutely sure that sticking my hand in a fire will result in my being burned. Yet experience tells me that I don't want to test my belief that it will. I have faith that that will be the result. I have faith that when I tell my dog to sit, he won't leap up and tear my throat out. But I have no way of proving that that is impossible - or possible.

There are a lot of things that I know will cause my demise. Yet, since I've had no direct experience of these things, it is a matter of faith that they will kill me. Which discourages experimentation. (I know people that have survived things that should have killed them, but through some chance didn't. Random chance - the most powerful force in the known universe.)

The existence of everything can be said to be a matter of faith. We can see, hear touch, smell the things around us - and ourselves (though if you can smell yourself, it's long past time for a shower) - so this is proof of their existence. But what if one were to become absolutely convinced, with no bit of doubt whatsoever, that nothing existed? What might be the result? Would the entire universe simply vanish in a puff of faith?

Thoughts like these can lead to conversations that last 'til dawn. Fun.

Facts require Logic and Common Sense, Theories require Faith,even be it blind.

mmm...but would you know it if you were dead?

HAHAHAHA!!! Its beautiful isnt it?

Basically it is stating how nothing can not exist and therefore there cannot be nothing after death. If there was nothing then there could not be something which is life, but there is something so there can not be nothing.

Yes haha! that is the $10, 000, 000, 000 question

There are other religious schools of thought/philosophies that view death to be an illusion within the duality of thought.

For a seer, the truth is that all living beings are struggling to die. What stops death is awareness ~ Don Juan

Death is finate, but the source from which we percieve the thoughts of death is consciousness, which by its nature as we experience it is formless and therfore unbindable. Inifinity could be defined as without bounderies and by this point you could argue that consciousness is infinite.


HAHAHAHAHAH...LOVE IT!!!

There are probably some questions that will never be answered.

One, perhaps, is - "Why is there anything?"