Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Ok, here is the next post. Thanks all for your critical objections, i really appreciate you being able to step forward and post something coherent.
dvd: religion would not exist if people did not believe.. there is no god, except the one we have made up, exulted and exalted.. simply because we need to know a greater being than all of us exists.
>> I think the question here is not about whether or not religion exists. We know for a fact that it does, therefore the existence of all the major religions as stated in previous post. Perhaps you could expound on why we "need to know (that) a greater being than all of us exists" as being the foundation of religion - it sounds plausible enough. Perhaps man, having the faculty of reason, is attempting to use religion as a channel through which things otherwise unexplainable can be explained, (such as how did life occur?) and made rational to his senses. If modern science were to one day advance to the point that such questions could be solved in a systematic and rational manner, religion may lose its appeal. However, I (personally) highly doubt that since there will always be new questions for new phenomena as new discoveries open new avenues.
angie: Christ died for us, and if we can't even give Him our monetary possessions, it is definitely much much harder to part with other things, like time. how then to serve the Lord?
angie: hello. well 1 john 4:19 says "we love him, because he first loved us." so, we tithe cos its required of us to (can't find the reference now) and give offering as a show of gratitude to God.
>> Well angie, to me all that quote shows is what man is supposed to do: to love for love's sake, hence "we love him because he first loved us". What I was attempting to question in the last post is whether or not people truly believe in that and conduct themselves by that code, or do they in fact adopt it as a standard facade to mask an inherent, invisible desire for long-term self gain. Also, in response to the question of "how then to serve the Lord", I believe that there are many other ways to do so besides "(giving) Him our monetary possessions". For example, we could serve by determining to observe the 10 commandments, or by spreading the word to our friends - none of which require substantial monetary 'sacrifices' normally.
sien: He doesn't need it but in giving it pleases Him. yep. in my humble opinion that is...
sien: the sacrifices are not mainly to garner rewards but simply as an offering of thanksgiving and gratitude to the One who already has everything.
sien: i think, it doesn't entirely defeat the spirit of religion. speaking as a christian, our purpose is to simply do His will and to be a testimony to His Name. whether there is reward is secondary
sien: eh jx, your tagboard ate up my previous comment! it was saying, that i also thought about it before.that it's self-defeating. but i think you need to put it into context?
sien: other's souls aren't accountable to us after all. so just strive to reach the standard depending always on the Spirit and give pple the benefit of the doubt as to their true intent
>> I think I can agree with you that "it doesn't entirely defeat the spirit of religion", because I never directly said so. What I implied was that some people may harbor selfish motivations for participating in religion, and that could be seen through the example of monetary donation. It is only when "sacrifice (is) conducted in such a spirit" (ref, the last post 2nd last paragraph) that the religion becomes farcical in that sense. And I think you're right about the "do His will and to be a testimony to His Name" part, at least, that's what I personally believe as well.
daniel: this post makes you think =)
>> Which daniel is this? I know about 4. =)
Thow: Actually the act of kindness for buddhism is that eventually you will be rewarded with sufficient intelligence in order to comprehend the true nature of the Teaching
>> So the inherent implication here is that of short term sacrifice with the intention of future self-gain, with the reward being "sufficient intelligence", rather than out of any innate, delinked desire to help one's fellow man? If I'm getting this wrong do correct me please.
**Post Script: Again, many thanks for all your responses. I've done my best to address the various contentions expressed above, if you still disagree please do tag! This is all done in the spirit of philosophy and reasoning.
dvd: religion would not exist if people did not believe.. there is no god, except the one we have made up, exulted and exalted.. simply because we need to know a greater being than all of us exists.
>> I think the question here is not about whether or not religion exists. We know for a fact that it does, therefore the existence of all the major religions as stated in previous post. Perhaps you could expound on why we "need to know (that) a greater being than all of us exists" as being the foundation of religion - it sounds plausible enough. Perhaps man, having the faculty of reason, is attempting to use religion as a channel through which things otherwise unexplainable can be explained, (such as how did life occur?) and made rational to his senses. If modern science were to one day advance to the point that such questions could be solved in a systematic and rational manner, religion may lose its appeal. However, I (personally) highly doubt that since there will always be new questions for new phenomena as new discoveries open new avenues.
angie: Christ died for us, and if we can't even give Him our monetary possessions, it is definitely much much harder to part with other things, like time. how then to serve the Lord?
angie: hello. well 1 john 4:19 says "we love him, because he first loved us." so, we tithe cos its required of us to (can't find the reference now) and give offering as a show of gratitude to God.
>> Well angie, to me all that quote shows is what man is supposed to do: to love for love's sake, hence "we love him because he first loved us". What I was attempting to question in the last post is whether or not people truly believe in that and conduct themselves by that code, or do they in fact adopt it as a standard facade to mask an inherent, invisible desire for long-term self gain. Also, in response to the question of "how then to serve the Lord", I believe that there are many other ways to do so besides "(giving) Him our monetary possessions". For example, we could serve by determining to observe the 10 commandments, or by spreading the word to our friends - none of which require substantial monetary 'sacrifices' normally.
sien: He doesn't need it but in giving it pleases Him. yep. in my humble opinion that is...
sien: the sacrifices are not mainly to garner rewards but simply as an offering of thanksgiving and gratitude to the One who already has everything.
sien: i think, it doesn't entirely defeat the spirit of religion. speaking as a christian, our purpose is to simply do His will and to be a testimony to His Name. whether there is reward is secondary
sien: eh jx, your tagboard ate up my previous comment! it was saying, that i also thought about it before.that it's self-defeating. but i think you need to put it into context?
sien: other's souls aren't accountable to us after all. so just strive to reach the standard depending always on the Spirit and give pple the benefit of the doubt as to their true intent
>> I think I can agree with you that "it doesn't entirely defeat the spirit of religion", because I never directly said so. What I implied was that some people may harbor selfish motivations for participating in religion, and that could be seen through the example of monetary donation. It is only when "sacrifice (is) conducted in such a spirit" (ref, the last post 2nd last paragraph) that the religion becomes farcical in that sense. And I think you're right about the "do His will and to be a testimony to His Name" part, at least, that's what I personally believe as well.
daniel: this post makes you think =)
>> Which daniel is this? I know about 4. =)
Thow: Actually the act of kindness for buddhism is that eventually you will be rewarded with sufficient intelligence in order to comprehend the true nature of the Teaching
>> So the inherent implication here is that of short term sacrifice with the intention of future self-gain, with the reward being "sufficient intelligence", rather than out of any innate, delinked desire to help one's fellow man? If I'm getting this wrong do correct me please.
**Post Script: Again, many thanks for all your responses. I've done my best to address the various contentions expressed above, if you still disagree please do tag! This is all done in the spirit of philosophy and reasoning.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Friday, December 09, 2005
YES!! Ok i've finally resolved the problematic activation key thingie. Funny tho, some proggies refuse to install when they can't detect my C: because my harddisk designation is E:. Again, any techies out there who can be of assistance, please kindly do tag =) ................................................................................ On a totally different note, i've got some things to blog about, that i've been wanting to for some time but couldn't due to technical difficulties (namely, me initiating a static shock on the motherboard causing it to cease to function). Here's the first issue: Sacrifice. Sacrifice is the act of forgoing something that one holds dear or important, be it material entities, such as monetary and physical assets, or metaphysical exponents of emotion and thought. Such an act is enacted in the purpose of an alleged greater cause that is of a higher significance than the individual, as perceived by the individual. To sacrifice requires a certain maturity of mind, as it requires discipline and heightened perception to achieve a state of realisation that some things in life are more important than others. In the context of religion, sacrifice takes various forms. Some beliefs hold that by giving up physical possessions - a common example being livestock and animals, and in the most extreme cases, human beings - one can achieve the fulfilment of a greater purpose, be it the pleasing of a deity, or promised future reward from an omnipotent, omniscient God. Others preach self-abstinence and the forgoing of metaphysical comforts, such as sexual gratification or emotional attachment to another. The common trend underlying these nuances would be that in both cases, the individual conducts that act of sacrifice, of self-deprivation, in the express hope or belief that something greater and better would result. Christians, for example, believe that it is through personal sacrifice of 'worldy things and desires' that love for the Creator can be expressed and evidenced, thus earning a 'mansion' (ie, a place) in heaven. Most, if not all churches collect monetary "tithes and tidings" from congregation members. Mosques often have collection tins placed outside, and many religious establishments receive princely donations as well. Such a projection of future achievement by forgoing something in the present is pervasive in most, if not all, of the major religions in the world - Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism - be it through the system of Karma and rebirth or the concept of an afterlife in Heaven.
Yet, a certain fallacy exposes itself: if sacrifice were conducted in such a spirit, inherently implying that its sole purpose is for eventual self gain in the future, would it not be contradictory to the spirit of religion in the first place? For the love of God, to Glorify His Name - These are common monikers strewn about by parishes as they preach 'The Word'. Yet how many truly conduct their religion, believe in it, and abide by it solely because they desire to experience love for a God? If Christianity, for example, did not have the promise of the afterlife and eternal salvation at hand, but was conducted as a service to Glorify the Creator, and to express love for Him, how many would maintain their faith?
Would the desire to perpetuate self-gain thus be an inherent motivation for participating in religion, and would it thus make religion itself farcical? Perhaps one should carefully examine one's core impetus for participating in religion before actually making a commitment. Is it truly for the love of God, or is that proclamation simply a mask behind which lurks the less-than-noble intention of self-gain and self-preservation? If it were, would it then not be a contradiction of the spirit of the religion itself?
**Post Script: please do tag your opinions on the board, or drop comments. I'd appreciate constructive thoughts in the construction of this argument, and not shallow half-baked comments tagged for the sake of purposelesness.
Yet, a certain fallacy exposes itself: if sacrifice were conducted in such a spirit, inherently implying that its sole purpose is for eventual self gain in the future, would it not be contradictory to the spirit of religion in the first place? For the love of God, to Glorify His Name - These are common monikers strewn about by parishes as they preach 'The Word'. Yet how many truly conduct their religion, believe in it, and abide by it solely because they desire to experience love for a God? If Christianity, for example, did not have the promise of the afterlife and eternal salvation at hand, but was conducted as a service to Glorify the Creator, and to express love for Him, how many would maintain their faith?
Would the desire to perpetuate self-gain thus be an inherent motivation for participating in religion, and would it thus make religion itself farcical? Perhaps one should carefully examine one's core impetus for participating in religion before actually making a commitment. Is it truly for the love of God, or is that proclamation simply a mask behind which lurks the less-than-noble intention of self-gain and self-preservation? If it were, would it then not be a contradiction of the spirit of the religion itself?
**Post Script: please do tag your opinions on the board, or drop comments. I'd appreciate constructive thoughts in the construction of this argument, and not shallow half-baked comments tagged for the sake of purposelesness.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
ITS ALIVE!
After a revamp, where the old motherboard was supplanted, and a new hard disk and ram installed, my computer lives again. Although now its pretty damn noisy since there are 2 fans operating simultaneously. Rather short-sightedly, i threw away the old DELL casing with my WinXP ACTIVATION KEY on it, and now im stuck with a 30-day timer that irritatingly pops up every few minutes or so to remind me to activate my copy of XP. GAH! Anyone can help me out? Or do i have to get a new copy of XP.
After a revamp, where the old motherboard was supplanted, and a new hard disk and ram installed, my computer lives again. Although now its pretty damn noisy since there are 2 fans operating simultaneously. Rather short-sightedly, i threw away the old DELL casing with my WinXP ACTIVATION KEY on it, and now im stuck with a 30-day timer that irritatingly pops up every few minutes or so to remind me to activate my copy of XP. GAH! Anyone can help me out? Or do i have to get a new copy of XP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
