Overig
alle pijlers
Q&A Religie
maandag 2 januari 2017 om 11:33
Naar aanleiding van een mooi gesprek op de Actueel-Pijler, wil ik graag dit topic openen.
Mijn idee is dat dit een plaats is waar forummers elkaar vragen kunnen stellen over religie en hoe dat ervaren wordt door anderen (of juist niet).
Het is misschien overbodig om te zeggen, maar het is een zeer persoonlijk en gevoelig onderwerp. Daarom wil ik heel graag vragen of er respectvol gereageerd kan worden, en we bereid kunnen zijn naar elkaar te luisteren. Verschillende meningen en visies zijn van harte welkom, maar val elkaar er alsjeblieft niet op aan.
TO trapt af met de eerste vraag:
Een algemene, hoe zijn de gelovige forummers met religie in aanraking gekomen?
Mijn idee is dat dit een plaats is waar forummers elkaar vragen kunnen stellen over religie en hoe dat ervaren wordt door anderen (of juist niet).
Het is misschien overbodig om te zeggen, maar het is een zeer persoonlijk en gevoelig onderwerp. Daarom wil ik heel graag vragen of er respectvol gereageerd kan worden, en we bereid kunnen zijn naar elkaar te luisteren. Verschillende meningen en visies zijn van harte welkom, maar val elkaar er alsjeblieft niet op aan.
TO trapt af met de eerste vraag:
Een algemene, hoe zijn de gelovige forummers met religie in aanraking gekomen?
maandag 27 februari 2017 om 21:47
maandag 27 februari 2017 om 22:57
dinsdag 28 februari 2017 om 10:21
quote:Pinarcik schreef op 27 februari 2017 @ 15:45:
https://youtu.be/FkKO_NEfBXY
Is dit niet prachtig? Ayetel kurs i>> een van de belangrijkste verzen uit Koran. En de betekenis is vele malen mooier. Waarom zou iemand zoiets moois willen afschaffen ???
Vertel, wie wil dit afschaffen?
Wees gerust, religie is niet te verbieden of af te schaffen. Velen hebben het geprobeerd, allen hebben gefaald.
https://youtu.be/FkKO_NEfBXY
Is dit niet prachtig? Ayetel kurs i>> een van de belangrijkste verzen uit Koran. En de betekenis is vele malen mooier. Waarom zou iemand zoiets moois willen afschaffen ???
Vertel, wie wil dit afschaffen?
Wees gerust, religie is niet te verbieden of af te schaffen. Velen hebben het geprobeerd, allen hebben gefaald.
dinsdag 28 februari 2017 om 14:11
Ik vind de insteek van Thomas Paine eigenlijk wel een mooie:quote:
A Letter to a Friend Regarding The Age of Reason
Thomas Paine
Paris, May 12, 1797
In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.
But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.
The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.
You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.
It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.
Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?
For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -
You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.
The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.
The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.
It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.
In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.
As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.
You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.
When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.
A Letter to a Friend Regarding The Age of Reason
Thomas Paine
Paris, May 12, 1797
In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.
But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.
The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.
You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.
It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.
Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?
For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -
You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.
The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.
The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.
It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.
In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.
As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.
You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.
When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.
Disclaimer: All presented text are opinionated and present only a written account of my mental state at that time.
dinsdag 28 februari 2017 om 14:17
quote:amarna schreef op 28 februari 2017 @ 14:05:
[...]
Dat gaat echt niet gebeuren. Er zal altijd vrijheid van godsdienst blijven bestaan in Nederland.
Ik weet niet over welke 'velen' het gaat. Volgens mij wil niemand godsdienst afschaffen.
Maar vrijheid van godsdienst houdt net zo goed in dat je de vrijheid hebt om godsdienst(en) belachelijk of nutteloos of neutraal/niet-interessant te vinden. Dus net zo goed als dat je iets mooi of inspirerend mag vinden mag je het ook een kutdeuntje vinden. Het één is niet beter en heeft niet meer rechten dan het ander.
[...]
Dat gaat echt niet gebeuren. Er zal altijd vrijheid van godsdienst blijven bestaan in Nederland.
Ik weet niet over welke 'velen' het gaat. Volgens mij wil niemand godsdienst afschaffen.
Maar vrijheid van godsdienst houdt net zo goed in dat je de vrijheid hebt om godsdienst(en) belachelijk of nutteloos of neutraal/niet-interessant te vinden. Dus net zo goed als dat je iets mooi of inspirerend mag vinden mag je het ook een kutdeuntje vinden. Het één is niet beter en heeft niet meer rechten dan het ander.
dinsdag 28 februari 2017 om 14:36
quote:MaryCrawley schreef op 28 februari 2017 @ 14:17:
[...]
Ik weet niet over welke 'velen' het gaat. Volgens mij wil niemand godsdienst afschaffen.
Maar vrijheid van godsdienst houdt net zo goed in dat je de vrijheid hebt om godsdienst(en) belachelijk of nutteloos of neutraal/niet-interessant te vinden. Dus net zo goed als dat je iets mooi of inspirerend mag vinden mag je het ook een kutdeuntje vinden. Het één is niet beter en heeft niet meer rechten dan het ander.
Inderdaad, vrijheid van godsdienst gaat hand in hand met vrijheid van meningsuiting.
Jammer alleen dat sommigen dat als een vrijbrief zien om hun zwartste gedachtes zonder respect de wereld in te slingeren.
Maar goed, daar ging dit topic al eerder over
[...]
Ik weet niet over welke 'velen' het gaat. Volgens mij wil niemand godsdienst afschaffen.
Maar vrijheid van godsdienst houdt net zo goed in dat je de vrijheid hebt om godsdienst(en) belachelijk of nutteloos of neutraal/niet-interessant te vinden. Dus net zo goed als dat je iets mooi of inspirerend mag vinden mag je het ook een kutdeuntje vinden. Het één is niet beter en heeft niet meer rechten dan het ander.
Inderdaad, vrijheid van godsdienst gaat hand in hand met vrijheid van meningsuiting.
Jammer alleen dat sommigen dat als een vrijbrief zien om hun zwartste gedachtes zonder respect de wereld in te slingeren.
Maar goed, daar ging dit topic al eerder over
dinsdag 28 februari 2017 om 16:13
quote:Pinarcik schreef op 28 februari 2017 @ 16:06:
Vrijheid van meningsuiting mag van mij wel grondwettelijk beperkt worden. Dit topic zou er rooskleuriger hebben uitgezien wanneer sommige personen niet vrijuit hun (valse) mening hadden geuit.En wie bepaalt dan welke mening wel en welke mening niet uitgesproken mag worden?
Vrijheid van meningsuiting mag van mij wel grondwettelijk beperkt worden. Dit topic zou er rooskleuriger hebben uitgezien wanneer sommige personen niet vrijuit hun (valse) mening hadden geuit.En wie bepaalt dan welke mening wel en welke mening niet uitgesproken mag worden?
Disclaimer: All presented text are opinionated and present only a written account of my mental state at that time.
dinsdag 28 februari 2017 om 16:21
quote:Pinarcik schreef op 28 februari 2017 @ 16:06:
Vrijheid van meningsuiting mag van mij wel grondwettelijk beperkt worden. Dit topic zou er rooskleuriger hebben uitgezien wanneer sommige personen niet vrijuit hun (valse) mening hadden geuit.
Ik vind dit een nare en gevaarlijke uitspraak. Je hebt vaker gestoken als door een bij gereageerd als iemand het niet eens was met jouw ideeen en geloof, maar ik kan me niet herinneren dat er vals of wat dan ook is gereageerd.
Respecteer dat niet iedereen gelovig is of wil zijn. Net zoals anderen gelovigen hebben te respecteren.
Vrijheid van meningsuiting mag van mij wel grondwettelijk beperkt worden. Dit topic zou er rooskleuriger hebben uitgezien wanneer sommige personen niet vrijuit hun (valse) mening hadden geuit.
Ik vind dit een nare en gevaarlijke uitspraak. Je hebt vaker gestoken als door een bij gereageerd als iemand het niet eens was met jouw ideeen en geloof, maar ik kan me niet herinneren dat er vals of wat dan ook is gereageerd.
Respecteer dat niet iedereen gelovig is of wil zijn. Net zoals anderen gelovigen hebben te respecteren.
dinsdag 28 februari 2017 om 16:49
quote:Pinarcik schreef op 28 februari 2017 @ 16:06:
Vrijheid van meningsuiting mag van mij wel grondwettelijk beperkt worden. Dit topic zou er rooskleuriger hebben uitgezien wanneer sommige personen niet vrijuit hun (valse) mening hadden geuit.
Daar gaan we weer...
Gaat niet gebeuren, godslastering is net een paar jaar uit het wetboek!
Ramen.
Vrijheid van meningsuiting mag van mij wel grondwettelijk beperkt worden. Dit topic zou er rooskleuriger hebben uitgezien wanneer sommige personen niet vrijuit hun (valse) mening hadden geuit.
Daar gaan we weer...
Gaat niet gebeuren, godslastering is net een paar jaar uit het wetboek!
Ramen.
