Is God a projection of our thoughts only?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Yeah - of course we should consider all religions.

I'm simply saying that you have decided against Christianity because you don't like the scapegoat premise, rather than because you have any evidence that leads you believe that the central beliefs of Christianity aren't true.

You say, it just doesn't satisfy me that Jesus could be made an 'scapegoat' for our sins and put on the cross for us. why?? To he honest, I wouldn't like Jesus or anyone else to be responsible for my acts....

I absolutely see your poiint. You have tendency to invest in the specific responsibility of the individual. This tendency makes it difficult for you to believe that God would set up the Universe in such a way that everyone has the get-out that Jesus will take the blame. I think that's perfectly valid.

However, it means that you're picking a belief systen that suits your personality - you're not doing it on the basis of any evidence that it's true. It might be that, actually, Jesus was the Son of God and that he did die for our sins and that that's just the way the Almighty decided to resolve the sin/mortality/redemption issue. And he did it without taking into account the fact that you (and I) would find that a tough one to understand.

Because, you've got to admit, it is possible that God could set up the universe in a way that doesn't naturally appeal to mazHur. After all, you currently believe he's set it up in a way that doesn't appeal much to the Pope.

---

I have studied some major religions of the world, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budhism and Zoroastrianism, all of these preach goodness but the main 'controversy' seems to be ''personalities'. However, in some religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, the former denies the existence of God while the latter is animistic in nature and sees God in everything, everywhere! Christianity is based on assuming Jesus as son of God...whereas Islam believes in the Unity of God. If I am given the choice to select among these religions on the basis of their fundamental concept about God ie whether He is or He is Not I would either prefer Buddhism or Islam. Christianity is out of question as I am not convinced that God could have a son...and no grandsons.....daughters and grand daughters seem to be 'out of divine deal!! ' And, personally I believe everyone IS answerable for his own actions ,,,,and I would be too mean to shift my blame of the Great jesus! If I do wrong I must face the music....
Well, these are just my thoughts and maybe I am wrong!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

I If I am given the choice to select among these religions on the basis of their fundamental concept about God ie whether He is or He is Not I would either prefer Buddhism or Islam.

---

I know. That's what I said. You pick the religion that suits you best. We agree.

...next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I know. That's what I said. You pick the religion that suits you best. We agree.

.

---

yes, but for some reason!!

Out of curiousity, MazHur, did you convert to Islam or were you born into it before you decided to study other religions available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

yes, but for some reason!!

---

Yes, of course. The reason is intrinsic to your personality. You look at the premise of Christianity and you say, "Well, I don't think that's any way to run a universe. It completely undermines the notion of personal responsibility. I therefore reject the Christian explanation of what the hell's going on between man and God." And then you look at Islam and you say, "Aha! That's what I call a basis for Cosmic Justice, baby. I'm gonna sign up to that!"

I do exactly the same thing, except that I can't find a fit for my personality in any religion at all.

But it's reassuring to know I've got the process right, even if I'm not arriving at the conclusion that God would like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Out of curiousity, MazHur, did you convert to Islam or were you born into it before you decided to study other religions available?

---

I am a born Muslim...
I did my 'A' levels from an elite missionary school in Karachi, where I had to learn scripture in primary classes until later it became optional for Muslim students, then graduated from Karachi University in Science.
By profession I belong to fisheries ,....and since last decade am doing Industrial process machine design and Industrial refrigeration..
People of many religions and ethnic races live here...and I had the chance to spend time with Christians, Parsi's (Zoroastrians) and Hindus, who still happen to be my classmates and friends.

Among Muslims, I have friends from several sects...

Frankly, I was never a practicing Muslim, ie one who could never observed Islamic 'obligations' regularly; I hardly go to mosque or congregations....or meet clerics..

I studied major religions of the world out of interest...to delve down deep into their doctrines. Most religions were mainly philosophical eg Buddhism. I compared at least five major religions with islam and frankly I found not much difference in them except that all taught good things...the main difference was over 'personalities' ....such as Jusus, Muhammad, Moses, Rama etc etc....Hinduism was overly ritualistic, Budhism preached 'suffering' was the way to 'emanicpation', Christianity was controversial in that some believed in Old testament whereas others rejected it or rejected all of it! I observed that nothing was lacking in Islam which was not told by those religions...except Islam emphasized on the Ultimate Unity of God; No compulsion in religion; all humans are responsible for their own deed; belief in angels, Scriptures, Day of Judgment, Jesus as Messiah, giving alms and charity, moral and ethics, Jihad for Self-defense and earning rightful bread and butter; that God was not begotten nor anyone begot him, that you don't need any intercessor to 'call His Grace' anytime anywhere , etc etc

I found that Islam preaches a complete code of Life....ethics and morals universally accepted but not so seriously applied by Muslims themselves...but I noticed Muslims scantily follow them in their daily lives. They fight over little things, 'personalities and rituals'; they go to mosque, fast during Ramadan but don't pay due regard to 'values' which Islam actually teaches to live a good life. Then I compared it with other religions and found the situation was the same if not worse there....so I thought I would better stay what I am..
Islam strongly disapproves harming oneself and above all condemns committing suicide or killing innocent people....according to the Quran :: the killing of one innocent human being is the killing of entire humanity''.....
there are many good things about Islam provided these are not read out of context!
cheers!

Interesting Mazhur.

Can I just point out that Buddhism does not teach emancipation through suffering. The path seeks emancipation from suffering. The 4 Noble Truths describe suffering and its causes, and then the path to liberation from suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Interesting Mazhur.

Can I just point out that Buddhism does not teach emancipation through suffering. The path seeks emancipation from suffering. The 4 Noble Truths describe suffering and its causes, and then the path to liberation from suffering.

---

Yes, you are correct. Buddha saw this world as human suffering and went out to seek Nirvana. He found it but the path to Nirvana doesn't seem to be for everyone. Asoka the Great was a great Indian warrior King who shed so much blood that it turned a river red. After studying Buddhism he converted and became a peaceful king and stopped warring so much so that his opponents easily overthrew him soon and he lost his empire for ever!

War is also a necessary evil if it is forced upon you but Buddhism forbids it ( I think Christianity also says the same (at least in theory) ---'turn your other cheek'!- And that I think is Unnatural!

Budhism preached 'suffering' was the way to 'emanicpation'

After studying Buddhism he converted and became a peaceful king and stopped warring so much so that his opponents easily overthrew him soon and he lost his empire for ever!

That's two reasons you didn't become a Buddhist, but both are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Death_and_legacy

The link is about Asoka and his legacy. he ruled for 40 years, after inheriting the largest empire on the Indian subcontinent. He wasn't overthrown but converted to Buddhism, kept an army for the defence of the kingdom and was very sucessful in his promotion of Buddhism, but also his tolerance and support for other religions.

Either your sources are competely wrong or you didn't study Buddhism that much.

I'm happy that you're Muslim. It's your choice. I don't think much of propagating false ideas about another religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

Yes, you are correct. Buddha saw this world as human suffering and went out to seek Nirvana. He found it but the path to Nirvana doesn't seem to be for everyone. Asoka the Great was a great Indian warrior King who shed so much blood that it turned a river red. After studying Buddhism he converted and became a peaceful king and stopped warring so much so that his opponents easily overthrew him soon and he lost his empire for ever!

War is also a necessary evil if it is forced upon you but Buddhism forbids it ( I think Christianity also says the same (at least in theory) ---'turn your other cheek'!- And that I think is Unnatural!

---

There are about another 30 scriptures that say that war is a no-no. Just out of interest, in a war, who is right? Who is wrong? Who has the right to take another life? Who has the right to say that their concept of God is correct? Can war be justified? (Interestingly, a lot of the world's pacifists are atheists. Hmmm!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Budhism preached 'suffering' was the way to 'emanicpation'

After studying Buddhism he converted and became a peaceful king and stopped warring so much so that his opponents easily overthrew him soon and he lost his empire for ever!

That's two reasons you didn't become a Buddhist, but both are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Death_and_legacy

The link is about Asoka and his legacy. he ruled for 40 years, after inheriting the largest empire on the Indian subcontinent. He wasn't overthrown but converted to Buddhism, kept an army for the defence of the kingdom and was very sucessful in his promotion of Buddhism, but also his tolerance and support for other religions.

Either your sources are competely wrong or you didn't study Buddhism that much.

I'm happy that you're Muslim. It's your choice. I don't think much of propagating false ideas about another religion.

---

Please don't misunderstand, I am NOT propagating any idea against any religion. I just stated what I know to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I may be wrong somewhere but my error would only be inadvertent.

I studied Buddhism in my history class at the Grammar School...I still recall the Golden Age of Chandra Gupta Mauria and Asoka the Great. He was a Hindu before he converted to Buddhism. And because Buddhism preaches tolerance Ashoka's opponents got stronger and finally ousted him.
What I meant to say was that too much 'leniency or tolerance and inaction'
towards 'excesses' and 'mutineers' wasn't good for Asoka which finally paved his downfall.

I also note that later writers have 'tampered' with history and the history books that I read in school days have been rewritten in a style which contains altered facts with more of writer's own opinions and prejudices....

Buddhism seems to me totally 'subjective' and over-philosophical' , same with Bhagwat Gita, which is strong philosophy beyond the understanding of a common man. Bible is simple ..
Quran is explicit in several matters relating to code of life...and seems to be an extension of Bible, Torah and Talmud.
As you know the Bible was revealed to reform the Jews....
The Quran is believed by Muslims to have been revealed to reform all the previous revealed scriptures which every Muslim is commanded to believe in! Consequently, you will not find any Muslim talking ill of any revealed Prophets, including Jesus and Moses or Queen Mary. They cannot even talk ill of any other religion, including Hinduism or Buddhism because it is forbidden to do so by the Quran. If some Muslim is found to talk ill of any prophet or divine personality attributed to some other religion he's transgressing the commands of his faith. this is the reason Muslims are very sensitive about 'gossip' or 'ridicule' of their Prophet Muhammad etc moreso because they regard him as dearer than their fathers!

I think the West still has to learn more about Islam for a better understanding of the 2nd largest religion in the world!!

Please don't misunderstand, I am NOT propagating any idea against any religion. I just stated what I know to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I may be wrong somewhere but my error would only be inadvertent.

I studied Buddhism in my history class at the Grammar School...I still recall the Golden Age of Chandra Gupta Mauria and Asoka the Great. He was a Hindu before he converted to Buddhism. And because Buddhism preaches tolerance Ashoka's opponents got stronger and finally ousted him.
What I meant to say was that too much 'leniency or tolerance and inaction'
towards 'excesses' and 'mutineers' wasn't good for Asoka which finally paved his downfall.

No worries.

The version you recall seems at odds with the one I have. There's no mention of him being overthrown.

Ashoka ruled for an estimated forty years. After his death, the Mauryan dynasty lasted just fifty more years

This is a quote from Wikipedia.

A source from a book I own - An Introduction to Buddhism to Buddhism: Teaching, history and practices by Peter Harvey also does not mention it. I've never heard of any detraction from this version before either.

I also note that later writers have 'tampered' with history and the history books that I read in school days have been rewritten in a style which contains altered facts with more of writer's own opinions and prejudices....

I see - I know that Hindus originally portrayed The Buddha as someone sent by Siva to mislead his followers and test them. This later changed to The Buddha being an incarnation of Siva - both attempts to include the Buddha within Hinduism. In fact it was the discovery of King Asoka's Edicts on pillars by British Archaeologists that confirmed Buddhism as a distinct religion from Hinduism.

It's a shame that such tampering takes place. Perhaps the root is fear of a fair choice. Anyway - HH The Dalai Lama says that an individual should practice the religion they are brought up in and are comfortable with.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Please don't misunderstand, I am NOT propagating any idea against any religion. I just stated what I know to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I may be wrong somewhere but my error would only be inadvertent.

I studied Buddhism in my history class at the Grammar School...I still recall the Golden Age of Chandra Gupta Mauria and Asoka the Great. He was a Hindu before he converted to Buddhism. And because Buddhism preaches tolerance Ashoka's opponents got stronger and finally ousted him.
What I meant to say was that too much 'leniency or tolerance and inaction'
towards 'excesses' and 'mutineers' wasn't good for Asoka which finally paved his downfall.

No worries.

The version you recall seems at odds with the one I have. There's no mention of him being overthrown.

Ashoka ruled for an estimated forty years. After his death, the Mauryan dynasty lasted just fifty more years

This is a quote from Wikipedia.

A source from a book I own - An Introduction to Buddhism to Buddhism: Teaching, history and practices by Peter Harvey also does not mention it. I've never heard of any detraction from this version before either.

I also note that later writers have 'tampered' with history and the history books that I read in school days have been rewritten in a style which contains altered facts with more of writer's own opinions and prejudices....

I see - I know that Hindus originally portrayed The Buddha as someone sent by Siva to mislead his followers and test them. This later changed to The Buddha being an incarnation of Siva - both attempts to include the Buddha within Hinduism. In fact it was the discovery of King Asoka's Edicts on pillars by British Archaeologists that confirmed Buddhism as a distinct religion from Hinduism.

It's a shame that such tampering takes place. Perhaps the root is fear of a fair choice. Anyway - HH The Dalai Lama says that an individual should practice the religion they are brought up in and are comfortable with.

:)

---

''Some Indian historians think that his policy of peace led to the downfall of the Mauryan empire, which fell apart after his death. He was soon largely forgotten by Indian tradition and only remembered in Buddhist circles as a great patron of the faith. With the deciphering of his inscriptions during the 19th century, he took his rightful place in world history as one of the most benevolent rulers of antiquity.

After eight years of rule, he waged a fierce war against the kingdom of Kalinga (Orissa of today) and was so horrified at the carnage he had caused that he gave up violence and turned to Buddhism.''


http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/budhist/asoka.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

''Some Indian historians think that his policy of peace led to the downfall of the Mauryan empire, which fell apart after his death. He was soon largely forgotten by Indian tradition and only remembered in Buddhist circles as a great patron of the faith. With the deciphering of his inscriptions during the 19th century, he took his rightful place in world history as one of the most benevolent rulers of antiquity.

After eight years of rule, he waged a fierce war against the kingdom of Kalinga (Orissa of today) and was so horrified at the carnage he had caused that he gave up violence and turned to Buddhism.''


http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/budhist/asoka.htm

---

That was my understanding of the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

That was my understanding of the story.

---

good!

you might be interested in knowing about the edicts of Ashoka, here's the link

http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

good!

you might be interested in knowing about the edicts of Ashoka, here's the link

http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

---

Thanks - I'll take a look.:)

I have read different opinions centering on God, religions, religious tolerance, and intolerance. But what astounded me immensely is the religious bigotries people most loved to arm themselves with. Different posters here have their own god or gods. All are OK, good people, tolerant, not bigots at all. But when the issue of religions touches them they become shaken to the very root. I infer from this – humans without religious prejudices in their real states are good people irrespective of where doe she belong religiously, culturally, geographically. It is their conditioned mind, thus the religious mind that creates the problem. That created wars, holocausts. That fragmented humanity. That is divisive. That leads us off course.

Quote:

---

That created wars, holocausts. That fragmented humanity. That is divisive. That leads us off course.

---

I don't think that religion has created too many wars, resource competition and a fair amount of greed/ambition are your real culprits. Religion can be used to justify it to those not in the know. With holocausts, I can definitely see where your coming from. Was humanity ever not fragmented? It is certainly divisive, but not inherently so. Out of curiosity, what is the course?

Wars not caused by religion? Small mattre of WW2, and the Nazi agression against Judaism? The continuing battles in England between Catholic and Protestant? The wars between England and Wales, or Scotland? The Troubles in Ireland? The continuing punch -up between Islam and The Rest? Priests preaching young men in to the trenches of WW1? Holy Wars all over the place? Crusades? The Israelite Wars? I'm not convinced, I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dafydd manton

Wars not caused by religion? Small mattre of WW2, and the Nazi agression against Judaism? The continuing battles in England between Catholic and Protestant? The wars between England and Wales, or Scotland? The Troubles in Ireland? The continuing punch -up between Islam and The Rest? Priests preaching young men in to the trenches of WW1? Holy Wars all over the place? Crusades? The Israelite Wars? I'm not convinced, I'm afraid.

---

Beat me to it, although I disagree on WWII - I don't believe religion played a big part in the cause of the war.

I think the best current example is the Shi'ite/Sunni conflict which has only been going on for 800 years or so. Same god, same religion even, same murderous resentment on both sides. The ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq is a stunning display of how internecine hatred is greater than hatred of the alleged "enemy/invader".

Seems to be brewing up in Ireland again, at least in the NAME of their respective religions. The WW2 thing, probably the main reason why it all kept going, although I take your point about the cause. Well Done The Churches, Well Done the Religious Leaders who bleat on about "Peace".

Wars have their own 'political' and other reasons; religions get involved when wars touch the followers or the interests of the followers of those religions. During Wars, religions are exploited to give moral and spiritual boost to its followers against their enemies....and to establish a 'good cause' for fighting in some cases.

Look at the policy of Nasir of Turkey who retracted from 'expansionism' and 'settled' the Cyprus problem so that Turkey could manage it own territories without interfering in other people's business. WWI began when murder of a dignitary was committed by Bosnian's; WWII was not against Jews but a War for dominance...Christians had their own reasons for acting against Jews..Roosevelt had its own reasons when he disallowed Jews from entering America...there was NO terrorist act committed by a Muslim in the 19 the century,Why?? and all know that it all began after 9/11 ....Why?? It's an open book!

So, it cannot be said that religion only is the cause of all bloodshed...there are many other underlying reasons for wars.

Oh, I don't think any of us are sufficiently short-sighted to say that it is the only cause, but merely that it is a major one. Even if it isn't it's perceived by the vast majority to be, which is every bit as relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yes, and full marks for the RCC in not trying to preach the impossible, but it's not the only church around and many of the other ones are biblical literalists, so it can't be said that Catholics are necessarily right. (Except when it's said by Catholics, of course.)

---

Christ promised two things to the Church: that he would be with it always and that the gates of hell would not prevail upon it. He gave Peter and the other Apostles the "keys to the kingdom" and "what is bound on earth would be bound in heaven" by the the Apostles and their successors. Every other church that does not have valid Apostolic succession are capable of making Biblical errors when they translate scripture. The Catholic Church is the only one that is able to safely translate scripture because it was set up by Christ. The fact that Christ set up one Church and there are others out there with multiple opinions on scripture and theology testifies to the error of "sola scriptura" and the Protestant beliefs.

Quote:

---

Let me make it plain then.

If my best friend just happens to rule the universe, which it also created, why would I let one unbeliever bother me?

If you genuinely believe in the omnipotent sky-daddy, how does one man's opinion hurt? If I were deluded enough to believe the Jesus myth, I'd be laughing at atheists, not debating them. What on earth could an atheist say to upset a true believer?

The conundrum is to do with heaven. I suspect that the vast majority of believers actually haven't a clue what heaven is supposed to be - since none of them have ever been there - and have never bothered to think about all the logical contradictions.

---

A bit of arrogance there my friend? My soul is not bothered by you, only concerned. I like to laugh and debate. Sometimes at the same time. :)

Anyone that tells you what heaven is like is purely speculative. I fully expect to be enrolled in the School of Athens and taking notes from Plato up there.

Quote:

---

I see you quote Vatican II, so I'm guessing you must be somewhat aware of the history of the RCC. I listed a few of its points that need work, and taking other nice bits of its history into account - the Borgias and Inquisition, for instance - you must realise that it has changed its ways lots of times over the centuries.

---

Don't forget the Crusades!

The Church has been around for a long time. When I signed up I never thought it was perfect throughout it's history. Christ founded his Church upon sinners.

You're looking through modern lenses when you look back at history. The right to kill an unborn in an abortion is considered a "choice" these days. That is a modern view. To Medieval peoples killing infidels and heretics was their duty to protect their children. A lot of what you hear about the Inquisition is from Protestant or anti-Catholic propaganda. I largely believe that the trails were fairer than they are made out to be these days.

It has changed. But not it's moral or theological beliefs.

Quote:

---

Nice of you to avoid the main part of that point - the informed cover-ups perpetrated by senior members of the RCC.

---

Your main point was that the Catholic Church was responsible for repulsive evil throughout its history. I responded to that. But if you wish for a specific response to that: I acknowledge it. It's shameful and it should not have happened.

Quote:

---

WWJD? Or more pertinently, what would Jesus have done?

Do you honestly think the son of the god-chappie would have joined the Hitler Youth?

According to every christian theologian on the planet, Jesus would have died before he put on the brown uniform. This is the bloke who took whips to the blokes in the temple, right? I just cannot see Jesus giving a Sieg Heil salute and worshipping Uncle Adolf.

What's good for the god's good for a pope, in my view. The pope is apparently able to talk one on one with the god on rare occasions.

Oh yeah, of course, he's probably very sorry and asked forgiveness.

---

What mountain did you descend off and what dirt did Benedict rise from?

The Pope was forced into conscription; it's not like he was the first guy around to sign up. This is the stuff I like to laugh at. Your attempting to oversimplify this for the sake of your argument and it doesn't work. Your making accusations to get a response out of me, I hope. Otherwise you fit into that category of loonies that believe every conspiracy out there.

Quote:

---

So, you agree with me that churches are evil organisations run by madmen?

:D

---

"Following that logic and your belief" is what I said. It's not my belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Beat me to it, although I disagree on WWII - I don't believe religion played a big part in the cause of the war.

I think the best current example is the Shi'ite/Sunni conflict which has only been going on for 800 years or so. Same god, same religion even, same murderous resentment on both sides. The ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq is a stunning display of how internecine hatred is greater than hatred of the alleged "enemy/invader".

---

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that the Sunnis and Shias constitute two largest sects of Muslims, with most of the Muslim countries belonging to the former sect while Iran being the principle 'capital' of Shiite Muslims.
Shiites have many relics and holy places in Iraq and ofcourse they also constitute almost half of Iraq's population. Iraq had been an all-time Sunni state and the Shiites backed by Iran now cash this opportunity given by the war to set up a Shiite rule in Iraq , hence all the killing you find there. It's more a game of power and dominance of one over the other obviously at the behest of some 'unseen hands' ...

Likewise Pakistan is also a Sunni state with less than 6 per cent Shiites yet there is strong hatred against them by certain sub-sects of Sunnis..(shiites are also sub divided into many sub sects!!) So, you can see what goes between Sunnis and Shiites is religious differences between the same people same as between Catholics and Protestants. They are not warring, they are killing each other!! Reason: because followers of one sect don't believe the doctrines of the other sect...and vice versa. I don't think the previous 10 year War between Iran and Iraq rested on religious reasons,,,it was for 'political' ambitions!

In Afghanistan ( and Pakistan) Muslims are killing Muslims...regardless of their sects....because the 'terrorists' believe those killed are not co-operating with them or are not with their cause and instead are supporting or co-operating with the invaders and their allies! This is what they think.... we as traitors who aren't supporting them!! This leaves us between the devil and the deep sea! And now the scourge of God.....floods causing huge devastation in Pakistan!!

~

Since this thread does not serve its original purpose anymore, it will now be closed.

~