Songs Of Praise

[Taunton Blue Genie]

The biggest religious question for me is which is THE God.
As it seems to me its the one you are told to follow as a child by your parents and teachers as all other gods are false gods.
Handy that ain't it.

Why do you assume that just one deity applies? Many religions have multiple gods.

[RonnieBird]

Why do you assume that just one deity applies? Many religions have multiple gods.

As evinced by your own avatar, which represents a Jinn ,( plural jinni in Arabic) , which as I imagine you know are held by Moslems to be ,(broadly),the equivalent of demons, and sub deities, confuse and deceive humans.

Considering that the thread is about Songs of Praise, which purports at least to be based in the Christian religion,( though it wouldn't surprise me if it now seeks to be inclusive of other philosophies ), how does that relate to the multifarious often primative 'religions' with multiple idols ?

The bottom line is that free will exists and we must all make choices by which we shall stand or fall. It is not , according to Thomas Aquinas, a matter which is capable of proof to humans since most humans lack the ability to understand the proofs when offered and indeed he goes on to say that this is the reason why the majority of humans need Faith.

In any case, I'd go further and suggest that the subject matter is so very very far beyond the understanding of any human that it is perfectly preposterous for any human man to attempt to form logical conclusions. What is left then is the alternative between a degree of Faith and total ,hopeless ignorance.

[goats]

As evinced by your own avatar, which represents a Jinn ,( plural jinni in Arabic) , which as I imagine you know are held by Moslems to be ,(broadly),the equivalent of demons, and sub deities, confuse and deceive humans.

Considering that the thread is about Songs of Praise, which purports at least to be based in the Christian religion,( though it wouldn't surprise me if it now seeks to be inclusive of other philosophies ), how does that relate to the multifarious often primative 'religions' with multiple idols ?

The bottom line is that free will exists and we must all make choices by which we shall stand or fall. It is not , according to Thomas Aquinas, a matter which is capable of proof to humans since most humans lack the ability to understand the proofs when offered and indeed he goes on to say that this is the reason why the majority of humans need Faith.

In any case, I'd go further and suggest that the subject matter is so very very far beyond the understanding of any human that it is perfectly preposterous for any human man to attempt to form logical conclusions. What is left then is the alternative between a degree of Faith and total ,hopeless ignorance.

I haven’t got a clue what any of this means

[jon1959]

I haven’t got a clue what any of this means

I think he's saying we have a choice between blind superstition and 'total hopeless ignorance'. Yes folks, that's the choice!

Although it looks like there is a third choice of 'pompous, patronising bullshittery'.

[cyril evans awaydays]

I think he's saying we have a choice between blind superstition and 'total hopeless ignorance'. Yes folks, that's the choice!

Although it looks like there is a third choice of 'pompous, patronising bullshittery'.

But Thomas Aquinas said in the 13th century that we need faith because mere mortals couldn't hope to rationalise our creation.

There'll be all hell (?) let loose in the darker recesses of East Anglia when they find out what this Darwin bloke has been spouting after his exotic holidays to the New World. They'll probably round up a few suspected witches and burn them just to make sense of it all and to keep the faith.

[Jordi Culé]

I haven’t got a clue what any of this means

Obviously, neither does he.

[Tuerto]

I haven’t got a clue what any of this means

I read it, i have no idea what it all means, although i have developed a twitch since reading it. Is that a sign?

[goats]

I read it, i have no idea what it all means, although i have developed a twitch since reading it. Is that a sign?

It’s a calling from above.....

[Taunton Blue Genie]

As evinced by your own avatar, which represents a Jinn ,( plural jinni in Arabic) , which as I imagine you know are held by Moslems to be ,(broadly),the equivalent of demons, and sub deities, confuse and deceive humans.

Considering that the thread is about Songs of Praise, which purports at least to be based in the Christian religion,( though it wouldn't surprise me if it now seeks to be inclusive of other philosophies ), how does that relate to the multifarious often primative 'religions' with multiple idols ?

The bottom line is that free will exists and we must all make choices by which we shall stand or fall. It is not , according to Thomas Aquinas, a matter which is capable of proof to humans since most humans lack the ability to understand the proofs when offered and indeed he goes on to say that this is the reason why the majority of humans need Faith.

In any case, I'd go further and suggest that the subject matter is so very very far beyond the understanding of any human that it is perfectly preposterous for any human man to attempt to form logical conclusions. What is left then is the alternative between a degree of Faith and total ,hopeless ignorance.

Yes, I know about the concept of jinni and this time last year I spent some time being educated about the subject in Morocco.

As for your lack of appreciation as to why the subject of 'God' and gods are mentioned in the same thread don't worry about it. I'm sure some people see the obvious connection.

As for the subject about religion being beyond the understanding of any 'human man' I beg to differ and very strongly indeed.
Most religions are folklore built on preceding religions and there are so many strands that provide us with a very good audit trail. Most people in this world who are believers just take the religious flavour that they were indoctrinated in and religions travel along the same pathways as language e.g. speakers of Latin languages around the world tend not only to be believers in the Abrahamist god but also to the Papal flavour. It's just a cultural influence determined where one was raised in time and place and very few believers have an understanding how their so-called holy books were compiled, by whom, how they were edited, re-edited and the de-selections through time (as well as the fact that many of the stories were filched from elsewhere).
Most religions were established when the average person had very little understanding of the world in the way of science (a.k.a. knowledge) and the stories filled that gap and served as encouragement, a supposed moral code to adhere to, a comfort blanket and a threat of being denied a place in paradise if not adhered to.
Religions are absolutely fascinating as a subject and as part of studying humanity but to imagine that any particular deity is more than a figment of people's imagination and a product of indoctrination is twaddle.
The Abrahamist god is a relative newcomer to the scene but if you live in a country that was once occupied by the Romans or in a country that was once occupied by an Empire that itself had been occupied by the Romans it is likely that you will consider the Abrahamist god as 'God'. Considering that Homo Sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years the Abrahamist god is rather late to the party and the majority of mankind who have ever lived never had any exposure to it and they believed in other belief systems.
Tis just down to conditioning and cultural influence. Find out what someone's mother tongue is/was in any time in history and, you have a damn good chance of guessing what flavour of religion they either belong to or were raised in.
Free will, it ain't.

[RonnieBird]

Yes, I know about the concept of jinni and this time last year I spent some time being educated about the subject in Morocco.

As for your lack of appreciation as to why the subject of 'God' and gods are mentioned in the same thread don't worry about it. I'm sure some people see the obvious connection.

As for the subject about religion being beyond the understanding of any 'human man' I beg to differ and very strongly indeed.
Most religions are folklore built on preceding religions and there are so many strands that provide us with a very good audit trail. Most people in this world who are believers just take the religious flavour that they were indoctrinated in and religions travel along the same pathways as language e.g. speakers of Latin languages around the world tend not only to be believers in the Abrahamist god but also to the Papal flavour. It's just a cultural influence determined where one was raised in time and place and very few believers have an understanding how their so-called holy books were compiled, by whom, how they were edited, re-edited and the de-selections through time (as well as the fact that many of the stories were filched from elsewhere).
Most religions were established when the average person had very little understanding of the world in the way of science (a.k.a. knowledge) and the stories filled that gap and served as encouragement, a supposed moral code to adhere to, a comfort blanket and a threat of being denied a place in paradise if not adhered to.
Religions are absolutely fascinating as a subject and as part of studying humanity but to imagine that any particular deity is more than a figment of people's imagination and a product of indoctrination is twaddle.
The Abrahamist god is a relative newcomer to the scene but if you live in a country that was once occupied by the Romans or in a country that was once occupied by an Empire that itself had been occupied by the Romans it is likely that you will consider the Abrahamist god as 'God'. Considering that Homo Sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years the Abrahamist god is rather late to the party and the majority of mankind who have ever lived never had any exposure to it and they believed in other belief systems.
Tis just down to conditioning and cultural influence. Find out what someone's mother tongue is/was in any time in history and, you have a damn good chance of guessing what flavour of religion they either belong to or were raised in.
Free will, it ain't.

You clearly feel very strongly about all this, which proves that without God there could be no atheists, and that atheism is a kind of religion itself.
The reality is that you are no more capable of scientifically proving that God doesn't exist than I am of proving scientifically that He does. Therefore both beliefs require faith, albeit opposite versions of faith.

It seems to me that given this choice between a philosophy of hope and one of hopelessness , that anyone would choose the latter. In fact I somewhat doubt that such a choice is quite as independant or objective as its followers might imagine.
Thing is that if you were ever to be proven correct , all you would have proven is that desolation is our only fate or destiny , which I would imagine must be a dissapointing "victory".
If victory it is ,then it's not a victory for you or for humanity is it ? Victory for something I expect !

Yet, free will it certainly is, and you demonstrate it by excersising it in the views you have expressed. Up to you in short, and although I'd be pleased for you if you reconsidered the subject , I'm not angry with you or annoyed that you disagree with me. I can only offer you a suggestion to rethink these matters .

[Taunton Blue Genie]

You clearly feel very strongly about all this, which proves that without God there could be no atheists, and that atheism is a kind of religion itself.
The reality is that you are no more capable of scientifically proving that God doesn't exist than I am of proving scientifically that He does. Therefore both beliefs require faith, albeit opposite versions of faith.

It seems to me that given this choice between a philosophy of hope and one of hopelessness , that anyone would choose the latter. In fact I somewhat doubt that such a choice is quite as independant or objective as its followers might imagine.
Thing is that if you were ever to be proven correct , all you would have proven is that desolation is our only fate or destiny , which I would imagine must be a dissapointing "victory".
If victory it is ,then it's not a victory for you or for humanity is it ? Victory for something I expect !

Yet, free will it certainly is, and you demonstrate it by excersising it in the views you have expressed. Up to you in short, and although I'd be pleased for you if you reconsidered the subject , I'm not angry with you or annoyed that you disagree with me. I can only offer you a suggestion to rethink these matters .

I can't disprove the existence of fairies, Shiva and goblins and the boogie man don't exist but that doesn't mean that every deity ever worshipped existed until they are disproven - and the argument that atheism has some sort of equivalence with a religious belief system is errant nonsense. The fact that you refer to a singular god and 'He' suggests that you seem to have, unsurprisingly considering your cultural background (English speaker and European) bought into the Abrahamist god and without disproving all the alternative deities - and many of the stories that involve your Abrahamist god existed in previous religions.

I regularly travel the world (and a lot of that time off the beaten track) and have spent time visiting religious locations of all description and finding out about more about various belief systems. I've spent time visiting Indian temples, Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples, the Wailing Wall, native American kivas, Taoist temples, the Temple Mount, Icelandic spiritual locations, mosques, cathedrals, The Golden Temple of Amritsar, Greek Orthodox churches, Native American kivas, Aztec Culture, Bethlehem and Jerusalem and a myriad of pagan sites around the world.

I have made some effort to learn about about animism, Native American religious fetishes, Roman gods, Sun gods, voodoo, Brahma, Hinduism, Greek gods, jinni, religious petroglyphs, animism and a lot else. I also couchsurf in order to get to know local people - and I have stayed with people of various religions.

All the above doesn't make me the world's expert in the field of religion across this globe of ours but I may have a made a bit more effort in studying the phenomenon of religion than those who, very predictably and extremely parochially, believe in the first belief system that is passed onto them by their immediate environment and who usually consider all other belief systems and deities to be false and for non-believers to be deluded/self-deluded/ill-informed/stupid/illogical/adhering to an alternative type of religion or merely unfortunate.

As a kid I used to imagine sitting on the moon and looking down on this planet and its people in order to develop an overview of Mankind - and I still have that attitude and perspective. For me, the opposite of that overview is to have the very blinkered approach of shoe-horning your understanding of the world into the one belief system that is foisted upon you.

Equivalence it ain't and if you were born in a different time and/or place most believers would, no doubt, be equally dogmatic in buying into a totally different deity/set of deities altogether.

Thanks but I'll keep my blinkers off.

[RonnieBird]

I can't disprove the existence of fairies, Shiva and goblins and the boogie man don't exist but that doesn't mean that every deity ever worshipped existed until they are disproven - and the argument that atheism has some sort of equivalence with a religious belief system is errant nonsense. The fact that you refer to a singular god and 'He' suggests that you seem to have, unsurprisingly considering your cultural background (English speaker and European) bought into the Abrahamist god and without disproving all the alternative deities - and many of the stories that involve your Abrahamist god existed in previous religions.

I regularly travel the world (and a lot of that time off the beaten track) and have spent time visiting religious locations of all description and finding out about more about various belief systems. I've spent time visiting Indian temples, Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples, the Wailing Wall, native American kivas, Taoist temples, the Temple Mount, Icelandic spiritual locations, mosques, cathedrals, The Golden Temple of Amritsar, Greek Orthodox churches, Native American kivas, Aztec Culture, Bethlehem and Jerusalem and a myriad of pagan sites around the world.

I have made some effort to learn about about animism, Native American religious fetishes, Roman gods, Sun gods, voodoo, Brahma, Hinduism, Greek gods, jinni, religious petroglyphs, animism and a lot else. I also couchsurf in order to get to know local people - and I have stayed with people of various religions.

All the above doesn't make me the world's expert in the field of religion across this globe of ours but I may have a made a bit more effort in studying the phenomenon of religion than those who, very predictably and extremely parochially, believe in the first belief system that is passed onto them by their immediate environment and who usually consider all other belief systems and deities to be false and for non-believers to be deluded/self-deluded/ill-informed/stupid/illogical/adhering to an alternative type of religion or merely unfortunate.

As a kid I used to imagine sitting on the moon and looking down on this planet and its people in order to develop an overview of Mankind - and I still have that attitude and perspective. For me, the opposite of that overview is to have the very blinkered approach of shoe-horning your understanding of the world into the one belief system that is foisted upon you.

Equivalence it ain't and if you were born in a different time and/or place most believers would, no doubt, be equally dogmatic in buying into a totally different deity/set of deities altogether.

Thanks but I'll keep my blinkers off.

Perhaps you are coming to this from the wrong end, looking for a spiritual conclusion from physical data.
If there are many mistaken attempts at something ,does that mean that the thing itself is impossible or not worth further effort ?

I could give the example of manned flight for example. There were innumerable different attempts and complicated ideas about it over millennia which were all wrong , yet in the end a simple principle which had somehow been missed by all of them proved effective and enabled you to visit all these exotic locations.

It's quite possible to approach this subject from an intellectual starting point, but it's not for everyone and it's very complicated, so this is probably not the place to do it. Be that as it may, it does fly in the face of your suggestion that people simply accept the first thing they are told and believe it. Very very many highly intelligent people have unexpectedly and often reluctantly come to the incontravertable certainty of God by considering alternative possibilities.

I hope that you become one of them.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Perhaps you are coming to this from the wrong end, looking for a spiritual conclusion from physical data.
If there are many mistaken attempts at something ,does that mean that the thing itself is impossible or not worth further effort ?

I could give the example of manned flight for example. There were innumerable different attempts and complicated ideas about it over millennia which were all wrong , yet in the end a simple principle which had somehow been missed by all of them proved effective and enabled you to visit all these exotic locations.

It's quite possible to approach this subject from an intellectual starting point, but it's not for everyone and it's very complicated, so this is probably not the place to do it. Be that as it may, it does fly in the face of your suggestion that people simply accept the first thing they are told and believe it. Very very many highly intelligent people have unexpectedly and often reluctantly come to the incontravertable certainty of God by considering alternative possibilities.

I hope that you become one of them.

The fact that most people, if they become believers at all (even if it's for a short time), tend to take on the first religion they are exposed to is patently obvious. That's why there are few Sikhs in Greenland and few (if any) Toaists in Venezuela etc.

Many people have, to use your words, an 'incontravertable certainty' of their particular deity but so what? Populism means nothing and anyone with such a certainty about their own particular deity/deities or idol/idols is outnumbered by those who have the same certainty about other deities and idols.

There could possibly be a creator of come description (probably chemical rather that an entity that mimics the qualities, sensitivities and appearance of a human being) but it's hardly likely that it will be a particular icon that was invented by man in a specific point in time, in a specific location and when the average Joe was exposed to most minimalist science. And as I have said before, many of the stories in so-called holy books came from earlier forms of religion (and why believers don't seem to take that on board is quite amusing).

Do me a favour and accept that I will not believe in any currently (or historically) worshipped deity or idol. In turn, I will continue not suggesting that you, personally, may be looking at the things the wrong way.

[Baloo]

It seems to me that given this choice between a philosophy of hope and one of hopelessness , that anyone would choose the latter. In fact I somewhat doubt that such a choice is quite as independant or objective as its followers might imagine.
Thing is that if you were ever to be proven correct , all you would have proven is that desolation is our only fate or destiny , which I would imagine must be a dissapointing "victory".
If victory it is ,then it's not a victory for you or for humanity is it ? Victory for something I expect !

It’s entirely possible to believe we’re mortal and live a hopeful, meaningful life. Humanism, for example, centres around making the most of the one life we have. That’s not a philosophy of hopelessness - it’s positive, optimistic and brave.

[RonnieBird]

It’s entirely possible to believe we’re mortal and live a hopeful, meaningful life. Humanism, for example, centres around making the most of the one life we have. That’s not a philosophy of hopelessness - it’s positive, optimistic and brave.

That takes us to the conclusion that we might as well be the most sucessful predator we can during our brief period of consciousness.
If you start with this well meaning intent though, that's probably not a bad thing

[Croesy Blue]

That takes us to the conclusion that we might as well be the most sucessful predator we can during our brief period of consciousness.
If you start with this well meaning intent though, that's probably not a bad thing

Why? You don't think there is value in having morals unless there is a higher being who can punish you?

[Baloo]

That takes us to the conclusion that we might as well be the most sucessful predator we can during our brief period of consciousness.
If you start with this well meaning intent though, that's probably not a bad thing

There's actually nothing wrong with trying to live a good life without doing so to ensure successful passage to an afterlife.