 |
|
|
|
 |
Moral Hazard
Oppressing the 99%
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: with the 1%
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by PartEgurl
What people eat, and the way people live is derived from their geographical area, and for the most part we are open minded about different ways of living, and different foods that people eat around the world. Yes it gives us "much needed nutruition", but I don't need my weekly "religion dose" to live, lol.
As far as religion goes, people from the different types are all very avid that there way is the right way, and with so many variations of what happens when you die for example, I don't agree that what everyone religion claims can be possible. |
Question: in as much as you note geographical variations influance how people eat or live in general, does it not make sense that those differnces may also influance how they worship?
The major religions (including the now defunct ones) all developed in very different societies at different points in their societal and technological development. Judeism developed in an iron age civilization that had a strong paternalistic family structure and monarchial political system, as such it makes sense that they have only one god (who is male) and rules over a structured heirachy of lesser god-like beings. Hinduism developed in a slightly more advanced culture with a less formal political system comprised of local rulers, regional rulers, and kings, as such it makes great sense that they have many gods a various levels of authority/importance. The ancient Egyptions were bronze age people who were entirely reliant on agriculture and lived in a political climate with one authoritative monarch who's authority was administered by a large body of bureacrates when their religion developed, as such they worshiped a god who appeared as the sun and lesser gods who appeared as creatures in nature. It seems that either these religions were mirrored on their society or they built the society to reflect the religion, however, as all these societies developed their social structures either before or while they developed their religion it would seem that the former rather then the latter is true.
What needs to be asked now is: did the religion reflect the society because this is what they understood so they created a god(s) that would fit their earthly experience OR did god(s) reveal themselves in a manner that would be familure to the people whom they were revealing themselves to? Both are viable options.... if people wanted to get other people to buy into their religion it had to be presented in such a way that people would understand it and recognize god's/gods' authority over them, conversely, if god(s) were to explain the universe to people they would certainly be smart enough to know that non-technologically advanced people could not understand the truth so they would employ familure allagories (what would make more sence to an iron aged sheppard; Big Bang Theory or Genesis?).
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down 
|
|
|
 Apr-05-2007 19:44 
|
|
|
|
|
Moral Hazard
Oppressing the 99%
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: with the 1%
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by thesauce23
well if u believe in God , then the belief is God is responsible for all beings, creating everything- then naturally he created you so essentially he created your life. if God is responsible for EVERYTHING, then um ya he is responsible for everything inclduing you, your actions, and EVERYTHING. am i not right in translating everything as in everything created? so God would know if you were to not believe in him or love him or anything. |
Creating can mean a great many things... the Abrahamic religions take the position that God created man, meaning the species... not each individual. Your theory that God is responsible for everything one thinks or does would be plausable if God created each individual with the total sum of their knowledge and personality from the moment they were born... we know that this is simply not true as knowledge and experience are aquired and our actions are largely based on our interpretation of facts or motivations as influenced by our knowledge and experiences.
The real problem with your position that believe in God negates the existance of free will is that your concept of God is not a commonly held one (I presume that you actually don't know a great deal about theology and are basing your theory on what you think those who believe in God believe about him), therefore, what you are really saying is "if you believe in a devine entity that is what I think you think God is then their is no free will." Unfortunately for your theory, all the major religious families believe that man has free will... thus it would seem that if you believe in god you do in fact believe in free will. Your logic is flawed by a lack of understanding. Please try again when you understand the subject.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down
|
|
|
|
Apr-05-2007 20:13
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
