TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Different Religions Try to Explain the Tsunami
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Different Religions Try to Explain the Tsunami

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4138095.stm

Never seen so many words used to say so little. Atheist is the only one that made any sense.

let the flaming commence

If god could make sense of this i wish he would explain it to me..

quote:

Originally posted by zig If god could make sense of this i wish he would explain it to me..

But if he'd explain it, who says you'd beleive Him?

It is quite simple, it is nature. No different than fires, earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, volcanos, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. They happen because we live on this place called earth which is ever changing and goes through cycles. Humans are just along for the ride like every other creature. If there is a better place to live then I challenge anyone to find it.

Damn religions. Confusing the hell and heaven out of people. Jesus!

I read the article, none of the explanations made sense to me. Maybe it's my poor English.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus But if he'd explain it, who says you'd beleive Him?

if he appeared before me like an apperition and explained it to me id probably believe him..thats if i didnt get a heart attack in the process..

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium Damn religions. Confusing the hell and heaven out of people. Jesus! I read the article, none of the explanations made sense to me. Maybe it's my poor English.

i think most of them kinda made sense, at least as much sense as religion can do... the only one that didnt make sense at all was the chrisitan one...

People rely too much on religion. No, that's not it. They expect too much out of religion. That may be it. Most don't know their religions that well, so maybe that's why they expect a lot from them. Let's face it, few people care to be really into a certain religion, myself included.

If I wanted an explanation from a certain religion for what happened on Asia, I wouldn't go to a simple person that may or may not know enough about his/her religion. Chances are s/he is as confused as the rest of the world. What is needed is the explanation or explanations of experts in their given religion. There are very few of them left. You need their take on all this. Their doubts are clearer.

In conclusion, I don't like pie. I tasted different flavors and didn't like them. I don't need to go to my religion to seek an explanation for this. There are things in life, like my dislike of pie in this case, that don't need religion.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i think most of them kinda made sense, at least as much sense as religion can do... the only one that didnt make sense at all was the chrisitan one...

they all definatly made sense in the confines of their own particular religious beliefs..but in a broader context..ie reality..they didnt..but thats whats its all about i guess where you find comfort in tragic circumstances

quote:

Originally posted by zig If god could make sense of this i wish he would explain it to me..

You live on earth. The dominant religion on YOUR planet is Christianity.

In that religion God spent some time on earth. During his stay he was tortured and murdered. Obviously life has an element of suffering in it

The most quoted saying of a non "revealed" religion is from Buddha
who expouses the 4 NOBLE truths. The first noble truth is Dukkha: All existence is unsatisfactory and filled with suffering.

The divine is obviously AWARE of these things. Obviously they must be integral to reality.

***

What's the point of all this suffering then? I'll merely point you to a contemporary manifestation of the answer...

The most important scene in Fight Club: Tyler Durden pours a rather corossive substance on the narrator's arm. The narrator is obviously in a great deal of distress, can not see past the pain. Tyler rolls up his sleeve, and shows the scar on his arm.

The point then of Jesus, is that regardless of how corrosive reality might be to you at any one time, you can always look over to him, he won't roll up his sleeve, he doesn't have to, the scars are kinda visible all the time. He made it through it, so can you.

Damn I must see this Fight Club you speak of.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey You live on earth. The dominant religion on YOUR planet is Christianity. In that religion God spent some time on earth. During his stay he was tortured and murdered. Obviously life has an element of suffering in it The most quoted saying of a non "revealed" religion is from Buddha who expouses the 4 NOBLE truths. The first noble truth is Dukkha: All existence is unsatisfactory and filled with suffering. The divine is obviously AWARE of these things. Obviously they must be integral to reality. *** What's the point of all this suffering then? I'll merely point you to a contemporary manifestation of the answer... The most important scene in Fight Club: Tyler Durden pours a rather corossive substance on the narrator's arm. The narrator is obviously in a great deal of distress, can not see past the pain. Tyler rolls up his sleeve, and shows the scar on his arm. The point then of Jesus, is that regardless of how corrosive reality might be to you at any one time, you can always look over to him, he won't roll up his sleeve, he doesn't have to, the scars are kinda visible all the time. He made it through it, so can you.

Truly an amazing and logical post (as in the way you said it). I am thoroughly impressed.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey You live on earth. The dominant religion on YOUR planet is Christianity. In that religion God spent some time on earth. During his stay he was tortured and murdered. Obviously life has an element of suffering in it The most quoted saying of a non "revealed" religion is from Buddha who expouses the 4 NOBLE truths. The first noble truth is Dukkha: All existence is unsatisfactory and filled with suffering. The divine is obviously AWARE of these things. Obviously they must be integral to reality. *** What's the point of all this suffering then? I'll merely point you to a contemporary manifestation of the answer... The most important scene in Fight Club: Tyler Durden pours a rather corossive substance on the narrator's arm. The narrator is obviously in a great deal of distress, can not see past the pain. Tyler rolls up his sleeve, and shows the scar on his arm. The point then of Jesus, is that regardless of how corrosive reality might be to you at any one time, you can always look over to him, he won't roll up his sleeve, he doesn't have to, the scars are kinda visible all the time. He made it through it, so can you.

Perhaps this is a possible explanation if you are part of an organised religion and have faith in your particular god and are looking for guidance during this recent crisis.
I am sure there are many possible theological explanations,you could even go so far as to suggest that there are as many possible theological explanations as there are theologians of whatever creed and colour they are they will have different interpretations and explanations for recent events.

As this was the origional question on this thread "Different religions try to explain the tsunami" your answer could be interpreted as being correct if you accept as an individual that you are part of the christian faith.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium Damn I must see this Fight Club you speak of.

Nah, read the book, its much better. Written by Chuck Palahniuk.
Sorry about the off topicness, I had some stuff to say in response to Subey's answer but I doubt it would be constructive at all

quote:

Originally posted by zig As this was the origional question on this thread "Different religions try to explain the tsunami" your answer could be interpreted as being correct if you accept as an individual that you are part of the christian faith.

Is that an accurate assesment of my post?

I quoted buddha... he isn't Christian. He isn't a member of a "revealed" religion. Why is the first lesson of buddism about the inevitability of suffering? why does buddism call it a "NOBLE" truth. Noble is a word that confers very specific (and positive) conotations.

In your original post you asked what response God might give. So I framed my response with an emphasis on the dominant religion of the planet. Do you not think that the divine has an AGENDA in having christianity as the dominant religion? Certainly the divine must have some reason for it. And I gave you that reason in my final paragraph.

Likewise I gave examples that illustrate both the East and West have consensus on the issue ... doesn't that allow my explanation to escape the confines of a purely christian ethos?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Is that an accurate assesment of my post? I quoted buddha... he isn't Christian. He isn't a member of a "revealed" religion. Why is the first lesson of buddism about the inevitability of suffering? why does buddism call it a "NOBLE" truth. Noble is a word that confers very specific (and positive) conotations. In your original post you asked what response God might give. So I framed my response with an emphasis on the dominant religion of the planet. Do you not think that the divine has an AGENDA in having christianity as the dominant religion? Certainly the divine must have some reason for it. And I gave you that reason in my final paragraph. Likewise I gave examples that illustrate both the East and West have consensus on the issue ... doesn't that allow my explanation to escape the confines of a purely christian ethos?

I would suggest that you are nit picking

I have allready agreed with you that the interpretation you have given in your previous post is a possibility..if you bothered to read my reply you will have also read there are as many interpretations as there are people giving those interpretations..in other words its endless..the possibilitys and interpretations are endless..

I will rephrase the the last line in my post..the last 14 words.
(auctually only the last three words will change..but ill use 14 for clarity)

"if you accept as an individual that you are part of an organised religion"

This is why i suggest you are nit picking..as you in your previous post you are the one that emphasised christianity in your opening line.

Btw you still havent acknowledged the thrust of my reply in my previous post.

Here is an analogy of your logic...

There is an accident. There are 4 witnesses. You interview each, each person saw something different because they were at a different ANGEL(mispelled on purpose) to the scene.

You are saying "well everyone saw something different so the truth can not be known"

and I say...

The point isn't to limit reality based on an individuals perception.. the point, is to listen to all 4, and only then will you get a full picture of reality. I listen to the Christian, I listen to the Muslim, I listen to the Wiccan, I listen to the Atheist. Each perspective sheds a different light on the truth.

But only when they are COMBINED (what's the name of the bad guys in Half Life 2 again?) or rather MERGED (what seperates the first half of that tv show Survivor from the second half again?) can we move forward.

Monotheism was about merging pantheons... and that merger gave birth to Christ.
Guess what happens when all religion gets merged...

I liked the islamic fundamentalists' explanation:

the tsunami was caused by underwater nuclear testing by US, UK or Israel.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Guess what happens when all religion gets merged...

But religion normally gets more diverse. I.e. most have common roots but have diverged from each other.

Folks can use faith in religion to explain the events of the tsunami all they like but when one can observe a universe filled with unimaginal violence that dwarfs the most catastrophic events on our planet, I tend to feel that nature is neither hostile nor benign, but merely indifferent to the concerns of humanity.

It can be quite a blow to the human ego when natural catastrophes quickly and ruthlessly remind us just how vulnerable we truly are; small wonder a large segment of the population prays there is a supreme being overlooking our lives. I imagine it stems from that same mammalian instinct that needs to have our parents take care of us in childhood.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Here is an analogy of your logic... There is an accident. There are 4 witnesses. You interview each, each person saw something different because they were at a different ANGEL(mispelled on purpose) to the scene. You are saying "well everyone saw something different so the truth can not be known" and I say... The point isn't to limit reality based on an individuals perception.. the point, is to listen to all 4, and only then will you get a full picture of reality. I listen to the Christian, I listen to the Muslim, I listen to the Wiccan, I listen to the Atheist. Each perspective sheds a different light on the truth. But only when they are COMBINED (what's the name of the bad guys in Half Life 2 again?) or rather MERGED (what seperates the first half of that tv show Survivor from the second half again?) can we move forward. Monotheism was about merging pantheons... and that merger gave birth to Christ. Guess what happens when all religion gets merged...

Ok ill just go back to the origional thread question.

"Different religions try to explain the tsunami"

And imo i think i have answered this question allready,different religious leaders of different faiths will have different interpretations of the tsunami in its aftermath to try and explain why this event happened based on their understanding of their religious beliefs.

There will not be a merger of these ideas as you suggest,rather different interpretations based on their individual faiths.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish But religion normally gets more diverse. I.e. most have common roots but have diverged from each other.

This pattern is true only within an evolutionary cycle.

But each cycle starts the process over again. At the end of the Pagan era there was incredible diversity in the number of Gods. They were then swallowed up in Monotheism.

At the end of the Monotheistic era there is incredible diversity in the number of sects. Will they too not be swallowed up in whatever comes next?

***

Look at it this way.
Paganism is to preteen
as
Monotheism is to teen.
as
X is to adult.

I'm getting restless. It's time to move out.

quote:

Originally posted by Sykonee

Yes, the Atheist.. another problem entirely. Let's see.

You live in Canada.
The dominant symbol in Canada is... a RED LEAF
This has been Canada's symbol for 80+ years (please check 1920s Olympic Hockey Jerseys)

Now the first European to set foot in Canada was...

LEIF son of Eric the RED

Now a rational mind like yours must find that to be a bit of coincidence no? Think of all the people who could have stepped on Canada's soil first? And it just happens to be a guy whose name matches up EXACTLY with your national symbol...

You can certainly remain in your tower, behind your locked door and whisper through the key hole "my world view demands that I interpret that as a coincidence and nothing more..."

quote:

Originally posted by Subey The dominant symbol in Canada is... a RED LEAF This has been Canada's symbol for 80+ years (please check 1920s Olympic Hockey Jerseys) Now the first European to set foot in Canada was... LEIF son of Eric the RED

The maple leaf

Well before the coming of the first European settlers, Canada's aboriginal peoples had discovered the food properties of maple sap, which they gathered every spring. According to many historians, the maple leaf began to serve as a Canadian symbol as early as 1700.

Following are some examples of how the maple leaf grew in public consciousness as a symbol of our country until it finally became official on February 15, 1965, as an integral component of the national flag of Canada.

In 1834, Ludger Duvernay is reported to have proposed the maple leaf as an emblem of Canada when the Soci�t� Saint-Jean-Baptiste was founded on June 24 of that year.

In 1836, Le Canadien, a newspaper published in Lower Canada, referred to it as a suitable emblem for Canada.

In August 1860, at a public meeting held in Toronto, the maple leaf was adopted as the national emblem of Canada for use in the decorations for the Prince of Wales' visit.

In 1867, Alexander Muir, a Toronto schoolmaster and poet, composed the song The Maple Leaf Forever.

In 1914, many Canadian soldiers wore the maple leaf on their military badges, and it was the dominant symbol used by many Canadian regiments serving in the Great War (World War I).

In 1939, at the beginning of World War II, numerous Canadian troops once again used the maple leaf as a distinctive emblem, displaying it on regimental badges and Canadian army and naval equipment.

Red and white: Canada's national colours

History records that in the first crusade, Bohemund I, a Norman lord, had red crosses cut from his mantles and distributed to the 12,000 crusaders, who then wore them as a distinctive badge on their garments.

In subsequent crusades, each nation was distinguished by a cross of a different colour. France long had a red cross on its banners while England used a white cross. Time and again in history, red and white are found as the colours of France or of England.

Red and white were approved as Canada's official colours in the proclamation of the royal arms of Canada in 1921 by King George V.

In 1957, the colour of the maple leaves on the shield of the Royal Arms of Canada was changed from green on a white ground to red on a white ground in recognition of Canada's official colours.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Now a rational mind like yours must find that to be a bit of coincidence no?

A rational mind would find that a coincidence, but would also find an explanation, while a religious mind would say something half assed like, god wanted it that way

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.