Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

Russia = gog? Please explain...

We've just shifted so, no doubt to everyone's relief, I've been unable to pass comment. Now, bgmark, supposing prophecy is possible don't your quotes from Ezekiel fit the Mongol invasion quite well? Perhaps the prophecy has already been fullfilled.

That's a key point. I claim (with sound reason) that foreknowledge is possible, so I want to avoid saying something hypocritical here; but does one believe that the Bible makes this kind of prophesy? If so, then maybe it's a free-for-all regarding the interpretations.

Where's the science in it?

If it's devoid of science, what spiritual value does it have?

If it's devoid of spiritual value, what other value does it have?

So it has come to this. We are discussing prophesy!!!!! (Foreknowledge is often, even unconsciously based on known data, prophesy is the result of divination etc, often aided by hallucenogenic substances.)

Prophesy cannot be proved until after the event prophesied has happened, so we cannot prove the worth or truth of a prophesy and we should probably not base a country's foreign policy on it, even if it does come from the Bible.

Perhaps we should have a Nostradamus thread (and please, before anyone takes that up, I am being deeply cynical!!)

PS I have only ever heard of Gog and Magog (mythical giants), never a "gog". What is it? Can't find it in a dictionary?

Ellis: "So it has come to this. We are discussing prophesy!!!!!"

Yes. That resembles my initial reaction, too; but it's a legitimate aspect of the philosophy of religion, since a large number of religious people believe that there have been prophets and that the Bible contains prophesies, and this belief appears to influence their world view. bgmark is entitled to express his view and I hope he will respond to our queries.

One of my old teachers told my class a quote that went something like this

"Why not follow a religion, if you follow one and there is not a God, when you die you wont know. But if you don't follow a religion and their is a God your screwed" Author Unknown

(the actual quote used a word more sophisticated that screwed but i think it gets the point across)

I think this philosphy is logic at its finest. ( i personally follow my religion for other reasons but to me this logic seems undeniable )

Ellis: "PS I have only ever heard of Gog and Magog (mythical giants), never a "gog". What is it? Can't find it in a dictionary?"

In the quoted book of Ezekiel, Gog was from the land of Magog, which was ruled by Satan. In later times, Gog and Magog became the symbols for any force opposed to religion or its adherents.

J294: "I think this philosophy is logic at its finest."

It appears logical until you introduce truth, sincerity and honesty into the equation - it then becomes fraudulent and hypocritical.

To go back to all religions, try this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_re_us/atheist_authors

It is entitled "Angry Atheists are Hot Authors" on the Yahoo news link. Some of you may have already seen it.

Good link, Terry.

From the link: The Rev. Douglas Wilson says,

"It sort of dawned on the secular establishment that they might lose here," said Wilson, who is debating [Essayist Christopher] Hitchens on christianity today.com and has written the book "Letter from a Christian Citizen" in response to Harris. "All of this is happening precisely because there's a significant force that they have to deal with."

It certainly is; but in terms of the negative effects of faith and belief, I don't see God as the problem (quite the reverse). The problem lies in the excess baggage. Science, education, technology, social evolution are all threatened by many believers' dogmatic, irrational, false descriptions of the physical universe. More broadly, mankind is threatened by - and surely we have it all in these threads by now - the pretext for extreme aggression inspired by one religion against another. The atheist has also been the victim. Can spirituality never be recognised unless it's encumbered by the paraphernalia of religion?

If I might make a slightly tounge-in-cheek comment.
This applies across the board; not just with religions, but with any situation where there are two "camps."
For instance, global warming.


Great summation rede:
"Can spirituality never be recognised unless it's encumbered by the paraphernalia of religion?" -R.

~SA

Redewenur wrote:

"I don't see God as the problem (quite the reverse)."

I wouldn't have agreed with that when I first joined SAGG but I certainly do now. Thanks to Blacknad especially but Sam, Rede and others have opened my eyes in that regard. Like you, Rede, I now accept that the "the excess baggage" associated with the Judeo-Christ-Islam genus of religions is the problem. Interestingly there are few books actually criticising this baggage. I guess most here accept Adam and Eve, the flood, tower of Babel etc. as myths. But try to find books dealing with the problems of evidencce for Abraham, Moses, Solomon, a mighty ancient Judean kingdom, etc. I've done my own research on the subject but can any of you name any books on the subject? Are authors afraid to tackle the beliefs? The stories were all myths developed mainly to justify taking over tracts of land. Maori myths in NZ served much the same purpose. Regarding these myths as a true and accurate history and using them to justify actions today is the problem with religion. That's probably the element we should be attacking.

Samwik wrote:

"This applies across the board; not just with religions"

I made a comment on another thread ages ago that atheists may fall into the same trap. Let's hope not.

J294-Thanks for the gog explation. Still doesn't seem to make much sense even in context.

Your quote:

"Why not follow a religion, if you follow one and there is not a God, when you die you wont know. But if you don't follow a religion and their is a God your screwed" Author Unknown

....is one of the most cynical reasons I have ever heard for accepting the teachings of Jesus as the Risen Lord and Saviour and spending the rest of one's life giving lip service to God. Do you not believe that He may prefer the honest atheist?... After all, being omnipotent He would be able to judge the falsity of the persons' belief and possibly be a bit cross. Do not forget Jesus did not like hypocrites!

Re Prophesy!!!
I really think that it comes into the realm of problematic things terry refers to, that ahere to ancient religions, like slapping children, killing and pillaging, waging war, executing people who are of different faiths, all the myths (yes they are just that, myths), the attitude to women, gays, foreigners, and heaps more that we ignore or deny everyday. Really it's not even Not-Quite-Science!! And nowadays it's probably illegal too given the means used to achieve the trances and visions in Ancient Times.

Author Unknown.

It is obvious that Author is not good at spelling

BTW, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Pascal made a similar argument.

In my personal opinion, I believe in doing good for its own sake. Tomorrow, if we all agreed to simply keep the Golden Rule--My version is: Love others as they need to be loved--the world would become heavenly, and GØD--goodness, order and design would be the order of the day.

Would I like for all people to practice this simple kind of religion? You betcha. Why? Because each and all of us would be better off. No organized religion would be needed for this to happen. Fellowship groups like the kind to which I belong, maybe, could help. But they are not absolutely necessary.
Check out http://www.pathwayschurch.ca Join th forum.

Goodness, order and design should be part of anyone's aspirations regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof.

It is good manners- not religion.

Yes, but manners have to be taught.

...and apparently, if you don't have an institution to pass these on, they seem to fade away within a couple of generations.

I don't think the "institutional" answer (religion) is the best way to go; but without it, what else is left?

~SA

Samwik. I firmly believe that ethics and behaviour should be school subjects. Separate them from religion. They're simply survival mechanisms.

samwik: "Yes, but manners have to be taught."

To a degree, yes, but I think that they are 'learned' as much as 'taught', in the same way that a child learns its mother tongue.

samwik: "if you don't have an institution to pass these on, they seem to fade away within a couple of generations...I don't think the "institutional" answer (religion) is the best way to go; but without it, what else is left?"

We do have other institutions (and in my opinion far more important ones), the most important being the home and family, followed closely by school. Society as a whole, however, determines what is "mannerly". Conformity is promoted and enforced, as mentioned, within the home and educational institutions; but society, in general, encourages the maintenance and perpetuation of good manners by social-pressure. People are rewarded and punished for their behaviour from day to day. For example, successful interpersonal relationships, and often one's livelihood, depend upon one's ability to comply with a socially acceptable code of mannerly conduct. This is part of the matrix of social structure, in which religion may or may not play a significant role. If religious institutions were to vanish altogether from English culture, I wouldn't be concerned about the future of good manners.
______

Terry, I just saw your post.

I agree, except that I think it's important to differentiate between manners and ethics, which overlap but are not the same.

To recap on what we already know: "manners" includes rituals that have no intrinsic ethical value, and the rituals can differ between cultures. They often signal recognition of status, rather in the way that a dog will lower its head to acknowledge the dominance of another dog. Among humans the system can be quite complex and good knowledge of the local social “pecking order” is sometimes a distinct social advantage.

Manners are much underrated. In fact they "oil the wheels" of everyday behaviour and make it possible for people to exchange ideas etc. in a cooperative environment, and allow for dissent.

Personally I would be happy to see the end of institutionalised religions of all sorts. Many religious customs have grown to include condoning extremely bad manners, and sometimes have encouraged dodgy ethics too.

The Golden Rule, as I have said before, covers most situations. That is--do as you would be done by.

Ellis: "That is--do as you would be done by."

That's what my ol' dad (he was an agnostic) used to repeat to me when I was knee high to a grasshopper. It was reflected in the sentence often heard in the school playground: "How would you like it?" - which is fine unless you're talking to a masochist!

I agree about the Golden Rule (also as Revl. says); it seems to be the basis of social sustainability.

I didn't mean to "conflate" manners with religion quite as much as it came out.

But it seems to me that without something stronger (and more standardized) than an individual's family and school, there is not enough self-sustaining momentum for respect, civility, manners, whatever we call it (that which allows us to connect progressively).

...speaking about "What are the schools teaching...?"

I guess I should think more about this at home too; I shouldn't be relying on the schools!

~SA