|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:38 pm
blueberry, I've heard of Brothers Grimm's fairy tales wasn't actually "fairy tales". Those Fairy weren't the good Character. Not suitable for children. The stories by Brothers Grimm are mostly have lots "dark" elements inside. Too bad I've forgotten which movie I've seen which talks about how Brothers Grimm's fairytales are actually indeed talks about evil and have bad instead of good endings. I did searched and look up on articles about those about 1 year ago. smile
Yeah, now I understand what you mean by Problem of Evil. Wondering if God let Evil exist, that means he produce evil (since he create everything)? Talks about free will while He allows us to choose but judge us in the ends... That is no free will (if that's the case), that's for sure. (I've read few discussion of free will). I think it's non sense. We are human after all, who has to blame if we try very hard and still don't understand something we think doesn't make sense? Let alone we could believe something that we do not think it make sense.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:28 pm
They weren't really "evil" per se, but they did have unfortunate endings for characters and such for the sake of getting their message across better. It's like how if you've ever read 1984 that book had a harsh ending for the sake of getting the message of the book across, to serve as a warning to people not to let themselves fall into a totalitarian society and such. But again, those stories actually were intended specifically for children from the start, the thought being to teach them lessons through them. So it was far from not "suitable" for the children they were made to be told to. Goldilocks for example -- a story where the girl was eaten by the bears originally I think. I'd say they were right to think it was better to tell their kids a scary story about a little girl getting eaten by a bear when she intruded on their living quarters and fell asleep then ACTUALLY have their own kid get eaten by a bear because they didn't know to avoid bears.
But yes, you see what I was saying about the Problem of Evil now I take it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:49 am
Well, I believe in God, or Allah, as he is named in my religion. I mean, we can't be sure in any scientific way that God exists. We have no proof of his existence or his true appearance. And whether he is real or not, isn't it better to live your life having some sort of faith in yourself and those around you? God is like my inspiration to separate wrong from right. Even if he doesn't exist, though I believe he does, at least I can say that I lived my life the right way. After all, the ideal belief that God will send us to either heaven or hell is a nice way to keep ourselves in check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:10 pm
You're kind of using the logical fallacy "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief." Not completely though since you haven't said for having what you consider to be good consequences that means it IS true, but it's kind of close. And also having trust in yourself and those around you when it has been earned is all well and good (baseless paranoia is not cool), but you don't need religion for that. In fact, why do you think religion necessary to make people separate right from wrong? I think the fact that you would follow a religion based on wanting to have a moral code shows even without the religion you still would care about right and wrong anyway. You've just used religion's already made set of what they say is right and wrong rather then figuring out what you think is right and wrong for reasons other then some supposed "higher being" coming to dole out punishment or reward upon your death based on if you did certain things and not others. Are you familiar with some theories on the stages of moral development? The punishment/reward analysis based on set rules given by an absolute authority is generally the very first stage in development. Here's an example of it explained, the levels of development, though I personally think stage 6, the final stage, could use a couple minor tweaks. stages of moral developement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:13 am
Calimouse, for many people including me. We don't need a religion to do right and good things for others/ourselves. I think since there has different religions, it differentiates and create gaps of "different" people. Which created more conflicts. Maybe some needs the idea of heaven or hell to check their behavior but those that have strong enough self-control won't need those especially if they don't have those religions (which have heaven/hell) background.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:56 am
that is why...you cannot put God in a topic, because of what He means to people, it differs from each of us.
I believe in God, im Catholic, ^^ i do believe prayers help us, but praying alone is not gonna makes all our wishes come true, we have to work hard for what we want.
But i most say there are some cases that...in mi belief, praying is the only way, like...when someone you care about its suffering from a really grave illness, aside from the Technology and the Medicine of our times, its always god to pray for that person as well.
But, this is only the way a certain person thinks about, does not need to change the way anyone else thinks about the world or what he/she believes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:24 pm
Question! surprised
Catholicism includes the idea of "god" having a set "plan" correct? And also that he's omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipotent? (Problem of evil aside, we'll ignore that for now) If that is the case how and why would praying do you any good at all? First, he's/she's/it's supposed to be omniscient, so he should already know what you want. Heck, he/she/it should know what you want before even you do and even if you would be intending to actually ask for what you want of him/her/it even. Second, if he/she/it really does have a "plan" and this "plan" and everything in it is actually important, why would they change anything at all just because you asked for it? They are supposed to have darn good reasons for why things happen like somebody dieing of cancer, and they should also have already known it would make some people very unhappy and accounted for that before seeing to it happening, so why would they later change it simply because you asked them not to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:31 am
Sacred Wind But, this is only the way a certain person thinks about, does not need to change the way anyone else thinks about the world or what he/she believes I agree with what you said about god means different "thing" to each of us. And maybe that's why it's such a interesting subject that we always try to know more about the "God" issue... smile I would believe in any religion's God/gods too but so far I could see, none of them make sense to me... Maybe I am under average compare with you guys. But from what I've been educated/learn/seen/witness, none of those God/gods seems real to me... Yes, it's not easy to change what one's believes without prove... And this subject of either "god" exists or not are one of those case... We may need some time travel machines if we want prove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:00 am
I don't believe there's God, but that's just me personally. I don't judge it based on events in the word, we create our own problems by sending out negative energy. (Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can't be created nor distroyed, so it's recycled. What comes around goes around ;P). And if there is a God and you pray to die, then obviously it's not meant to be. You're obviously here for a reason. :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:23 am
no , there is no god, no satan, but there is an after life...cuz ur conisniss has to go somwhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:03 am
"Conisniss"? Do you mean "consciousness"? If so, consciousness isn't like something that is a concrete solid thing itself, it's more like the result of reactions in the brain. When the brain ceases to function, no more consciousness results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:20 am
bluecherry
"Conisniss"? Do you mean "consciousness"? If so, consciousness isn't like something that is a concrete solid thing itself, it's more like the result of reactions in the brain. When the brain ceases to function, no more consciousness results. Ah, no more steak = no more sizzle. But so many of us cannot fathom that concept. Perhaps it is a well-founded conceit that the our whole being seems to exceed the sum of our parts... Otherwise, many would demand, what's the point of life? Merely to roll the genetic dice and hope the next generation will be better adapted to this world, and perpetuate the species? Once our furry ancestors reached sentience, one hopes there's a greater purpose. It is the purpose of Myth, broadly speaking, to bridge the gap between the concrete world which hasn't enough answers and the subconscious dreamer in us all. There are fairly universal archetypes found through the ages, across cultures, which bind us across time and geography. Does this point to a divine source, the cut diamond which is presented to each culture as but one facet? Or does this point to a universal yearning in Man, to be more than he is? I fear, when we each know the answer, it will be too late to share! cool I rest comfortably with my own cosmology, and prefer not to be preachy. What works for you is not my business, and I'm not fond of pushy groups. An aunt of mine distributes little pamphlets for her own beliefs, harmless enough but annoying as all hell...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:22 am
...and Yes, I have been reading (and listening to old lectures of) Joseph Campbell. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:56 pm
bluecherry is obviously a a fellow philosphy student as I am. 4laugh
but there are philosophical arguments on both side of the isle for and against the Christian form of God...
There are several phiolsophical arguments beyond "Problem of Evil"
There is the Ontological argument, the comsological argument, Teleological argument
the Problem of Free will and last but not least the arguments about Intelligent design....
there are multiple arguments for both sides - Suggest reading up on them
If you are truely interested in this subject I would suggest going to Barnes and Noble
or Google:
any one of the arguments listed above
or the following philosophers:
St. Thomas Aquinas
Saint Anslem
Blaise Pascal
David Hume
J.L. Mackie
Soren Kirkegaard
Rene Descartes
These will give you a good start
Boks of general philosophy that are a good start are :
Introduction to Philospohy:classical and contemporary readings
Edited by:John Perry and Michael Bratman
or
Philosophy of Religion: an Anthology (Blackwell Philosophy Anothologies)
Edited by: Charles Taliaferro and Paul J. Griffiths
This subject has kept philosophers (not scientists) busy for centuries
going all the way back to Socrates and Plato
REad - enjoy - and form your own opinions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:30 am
Wait a minute, I distinctly remember already discussing this topic in this guild....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
