de ce sunteti atei?
Raspunsuri - Pagina 5
adi2003 spune:
quote:
Originally posted by marius
Compasiunea, durerea sau bucuria de unde vin si cum se explica? De ce spunem: ma doare sufletul? De ce radem sau plangem? Din credinta in Dumnezeu? Nu. Din lipsa credintei in Dumnezeu? Nu. Si totusi ce anume ne doare, ce anume ne bucura, ne intristeaza sau ne inveseleste? Unde este acel ceva? Cineva de mai sus a scris ceva ce pe mine m-a marcat. Dumnezeu nu este langa noi ci in noi in fiecare.
Din pacate, nu in fiecare persoana domneste compasiunea, altruismul.
In unii exista sentimentul de a face bine, in altii sentimentul de a face rau. De unde vin aceste forte, de ce sunt oamenii atat de diferiti? Aici pot spune ca Dumnezeu exista sau nu in noi, de la caz la caz. Dar daca azi nu exista...poate va fi maine...sau poimaine...nu se stie cand, dar exista aceasta probabilitate.
De ce ne doare sufletul? Pentru ca suntem sensibili, pentru ca ceva din interiorul nostru vibreaza la suferinta (a noastra sau a celorlalti).
Ce este suferinta? De unde provine ea? De ce unii duc o viata linistita, altii mai agitata? De ce unii au noroc iar altii ghinion, de ce unii se nasc sanatosi, altii nu?
Nu sunt intrebari la care avem deocamdata un raspuns, dar prin comportamentul nostru putem incerca sa facem putin cate putin viata mai usoara, noua si celor din jurul nostru.
De ce sa fim mai buni? Pentru noi si pentru ceilalti...
Dumnezeu exista daca vrem sa il descoperim. Daca ne inchidem in universul nostru,al vietii de zi-cu-zi, atunci nu vom gasi deloc latura spirituala, a fiecaruia. Ne trebuie doar o unda de sclipire..un moment de revelatie, ca sa zic asa.
Simina
album foto1 si album foto2
aschiutza spune:
quote:
Originally posted by michelle-usa
Nu vreau sa-i inteleg pe cei care sunt ateisi, ar fi pierdere de timp pentru mine.
Mda. Acum e clar.
Impotriva prostiei, zeii insisi lupta in zadar
Ajutati un OM sa traiasca!
http://www.desprecopii.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=43117
michelle-usa spune:
quote:
Originally posted by marius
Michelle eu nu as fi niciodata atat de sigur pe mine ca detin adevarul. Asa cum spunea cineva este uneori suficient un gest minor care sa darame toate principiile avute pana atunci.
Folosesti expresia "Dumnezeu a pus in noi constiinta stim ce e bine si ce e rau fara sa fi citit nimic si chiar fara sa ne spuna nimeni, cand ajungem la o varsta adulta.asa si ei, stiu si cred intr-un creator si au constiinta."
Constiinta ce e bine si ce e rau fara sa ne spuna nimeni este extrem de relativa dupa mine nicidecum certa cum exprimi tu. Notiunea de bine sau de rau nu exista in sine, ele sunt defapt statuate comparativ. Noi facem clasificare de bine sau de rau in functie de reperele noastre personale, de informatiile pe care le detinem si fata de care sau prin intemediul carora clasificam. Este la fel ca si mare sau mic, gras sau slab. Toate sunt doar si numai doar clasificari functie de informatiile pe care le detinem. Experienta umana, statusul social, inzestrarea culturala specifica "ne condamna" spre aceste clasificari. Nu fi dupa mine atat de sigura ca notiunea de "bine" pentru mine ar fi la fel ca si pentru tine. Dupa mine este o forma de ignoranta o astfel de adoptare unilaterala.
"Stim ce e bine sau ce e rau fara sa fi citit nimic". Fals. Un copil nu are notiunea de bine sau de rau. De aici si notiunea de infantilitate. Din acest motiv apare sau mai exact exista notiunea de inocenta. Toti copiii sunt inocenti. Pe masura ce trece timpul experienta isi pune incet incet amprenta. Insa in mod particular. Si apare astfel si constiinta de sine, identificarea proprie. Constiinta de sine se face intotdeauna comparativ. Noi toti absolut toti in forma finala comparam. Chiar si tu insati faci comparatii atunci cand faci afirmatii.
Insa in final eu nu as fi absolut deloc sigur ca detin adevarul. Si probabil nici tu nu il detii. Tu ai doar o viziune din punctul meu de vedere. Un punct de vedere. Pentru tine insa probabil este identificat cu adevarul. Este insa adevarul vazut doar de tine insati. Hai sa-ti pun o intrebare:
A fost odata ca niciodata o femeie frumoasa. Un pictor a rugat-o sa stera pe un scaun ca sa o picteze. Femeia s-a asezat stand cu partea stanga catre pictor. Eu stateam in fata femeii iar altcineva in dreapta ei. La sfarsit pictorul ne-a chemat pe toti sa vedem pictura. Persoana care statea in dreapta ei a spus:
Nu este bine pentru ca ai uitat sa pictezi cercelul din ureche. Imaginea pictata nu corespunde adevarului.
Femeia isi pierduse cercelul din urechea dreapta. Tu ce zici cine a avut dreptate? Care era adevarul? Nu te grabi in afirmatii.
Marius Pernes
home page - www.marius.rdsor.ro
Marius
eu incerc sa nu spun cuvinte mari sau vorbe din auzite. Ma rog la Bunul Dumnezeu sa-ma daruiasca cu rabdare, umilinta si intelepciune.
Nu eu detin adevarul, dar incerc sa ma apropi de el.
Dar nu ma supar ca sunt caracterizata, ca atare si ca multi din cei de aici nu m-au inteles ori nu au vrut sa ma inteleaga.
Adevarul si mai ales adevarul verde in fata doare. Asa cum te dor ochii cand vi la lumina dupa ce ai stat mult timp la intuneric.
Daca imi citesti cu atentie mesajul vei afla ca am specificat "varsta ADULTA" nu ma refer la copii.
Stiam deschizand acest subiect peste ce voi da, dar eu cred ca a meritat. am aflat raspuns la intrebarea mea, dar m-as bucura daca si alte persoane s-au ales cu ceva.
Cand spui ca adevarul este relativ si generalizezi.... adica ce e adevar pentru mine nu e si pentru tine....eu ma refer la adevarul spus de Dumnezeu, care nu este relativ.
Comenzile date de Dumnezeu prin Moise, s-au aplicat si au fost valabile si atunci, si acum si mereu vor fi.
Iar incalcarea lor ne duce la pierderea sufletelor noastre.E simplu. Nu ne-a spus nimic prea complicat pentru mintile noastre.
Ideea a pornit din faptul cu unele persoane nu cred in existenta lui Dumnezeu. Si la asta au argumentele lor.
Eu doar le spus ca trebuie sa sape mai adanc si sa fie siguri ca argumentele lor sunt bine fondate.
in cazul in care ei se insala si Dumnezezu exista,deci tot ce scrie in Biblie este adevarat. Vor recunoaste asta dar prea tirziu,va trebui sa plateasca pentru pacatele lor.
Problema este ca cei care pacatuiesc deja platesc din timpul vietii pentru pacatele lor, si nu Dumnezeu ii pedepseste, se pedepsesc ei singuri.
In cazul in care ei au dreptate si Dumnezeu nu exista, credinciosii tot nimic nu au de pierdut.
Marius inchei prin a-ti spune ca nu ma intereseaza sa rezolv enigme si probleme fara rost.... mai bine iau Biblia in mina si mai citesc un proverb sau 2, scrise de Solomon, care a spus bine ce a spus, mai bine decit noi toti.
michelle
Jazz spune:
Michelle,
Uneori am impresia ca oamenii cauta cu disperare dovezi in absolut orice...
Si mai am impresia ca unii crestini sfarsesc pana la urma a se purta total anti-crestin. Pana si subiectul asta e o dovada, ai avut ocazia de a le arata ateilor cat de ignoranti sunt. Cum de nu pricep ei semnele? Si stii ce, nici nu o sa le vedem in felul asta. 
Toate cele bune, dragele mele!
michelle-usa spune:
quote:
Originally posted by adi2003quote:
Originally posted by marius
Compasiunea, durerea sau bucuria de unde vin si cum se explica? De ce spunem: ma doare sufletul? De ce radem sau plangem? Din credinta in Dumnezeu? Nu. Din lipsa credintei in Dumnezeu? Nu. Si totusi ce anume ne doare, ce anume ne bucura, ne intristeaza sau ne inveseleste? Unde este acel ceva? Cineva de mai sus a scris ceva ce pe mine m-a marcat. Dumnezeu nu este langa noi ci in noi in fiecare.
Din pacate, nu in fiecare persoana domneste compasiunea, altruismul.
In unii exista sentimentul de a face bine, in altii sentimentul de a face rau. De unde vin aceste forte, de ce sunt oamenii atat de diferiti? Aici pot spune ca Dumnezeu exista sau nu in noi, de la caz la caz. Dar daca azi nu exista...poate va fi maine...sau poimaine...nu se stie cand, dar exista aceasta probabilitate.
De ce ne doare sufletul? Pentru ca suntem sensibili, pentru ca ceva din interiorul nostru vibreaza la suferinta (a noastra sau a celorlalti).
Ce este suferinta? De unde provine ea? De ce unii duc o viata linistita, altii mai agitata? De ce unii au noroc iar altii ghinion, de ce unii se nasc sanatosi, altii nu?
Nu sunt intrebari la care avem deocamdata un raspuns, dar prin comportamentul nostru putem incerca sa facem putin cate putin viata mai usoara, noua si celor din jurul nostru.
De ce sa fim mai buni? Pentru noi si pentru ceilalti...
Dumnezeu exista daca vrem sa il descoperim. Daca ne inchidem in universul nostru,al vietii de zi-cu-zi, atunci nu vom gasi deloc latura spirituala, a fiecaruia. Ne trebuie doar o unda de sclipire..un moment de revelatie, ca sa zic asa.
De acord cu tine, Simina.
Simina
album foto1 si album foto2
Ai spus frumos Simina. Sunt atitea intrebari la care nu avem raspuns. Dar asta nu ne impiedica sa le cautam daca vrem.
IN acelasi timp sa avem compasiune unii pentru ceilalti sa nu ne bizuim pe fortele noastre, cand suntem asa de mici si neinsemnati in acest Univers. Doar pentru Dumnzeu suntem importanti.
Eu cred ca Dumnezeu vrea sa fie in fiecare din noi. Acum, depinde de noi daca vrem sa-l primim ori nu.
michelle
adrienne12 spune:
Marius, Doruletz, Siminaf, Darel, mi-au placut f. mult raspunsurile voastre. Ma regasesc in ele. As indrazni sa te intreb michelle_usa daca poti sa-mi dai exemplu concret de o minune pt. ca spui ca sint asa de multe. Vorbesc f. serios. As vrea sa cred cu tot sufletul dar nu pot. Eu sint din cei cu dileme, ce sa fac? Relatia mea cu D-zeu e complicata. Insa sint receptiva si dornica sa aflu parerea altora credinciosi dar nu acel "crede si nu cerceta" pe care mi l-au virit altii pe post de argument suprem.pozele mele :http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/adrienne12us/my_photos
michelle-usa spune:
quote:
Originally posted by adrienne12
Marius, Doruletz, Siminaf, Darel, mi-au placut f. mult raspunsurile voastre. Ma regasesc in ele.
As indrazni sa te intreb michelle_usa daca poti sa-mi dai exemplu concret de o minune pt. ca spui ca sint asa de multe. Vorbesc f. serios. As vrea sa cred cu tot sufletul dar nu pot. Eu sint din cei cu dileme, ce sa fac? Relatia mea cu D-zeu e complicata. Insa sint receptiva si dornica sa aflu parerea altora credinciosi dar nu acel "crede si nu cerceta" pe care mi l-au virit altii pe post de argument suprem.
pozele mele :http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/adrienne12us/my_photos
Adrienne
Eu asta spun in toate mesajele mele: CERCETEAZA! Biblia iti spune Cerceteaza....crede si nu creceta este inventia omului nu a lui Dumnezeu.
Nimic nu e complicat pentru Dumnezeu, nici macar problemele tale.
Eu asa am inceput sa cred; si asa sfatuiesc si pe alti sa o faca.
Biblia este o carte a miracolelor dovedite si dpdv istoric si arheologic, dar este si o carte a profetiilor.
Aceste miracole nu au fost facute in prezenta numai a unui singur om, dar in prezenta a mii de oameni si deasta sunt mai mult credibile.
ex.:trecerea Marii Rosii, arka lui Noe, Potopul, venirea lui Isus etc. etc
Cu placere iti voi da mai multe info. daca esti interesanta de subiect, pe privat.
Domnul sa fie cu voi!
michelle
michelle-usa spune:
Atasez mai jos un articol care l-am gasit interesant. din pacate pentru cei care nu stiu engleza, nu este tradus si in romaneste.
The Bible and Miracles: Fact or Fantasy?
Doug Focht, Jr.
Throughout the years, but especially of late, Bible critics have tried hard to discredit the Bible on historical grounds. Time and again criticisms are raised as to its historical worth; time and again those criticisms are found to be wanting and the Bible is vindicated. Even though the Bible continues to be historically verified again and again, it is never wanting for critics.
No other religious book has been subjected to as much examination, criticisms and defamation as the Bible. Yet the critics pass away and the Bible remains. Were the words uttered by Jesus mere coincidence, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35)? Liberal theologians would like us to think so. They say that the words of Jesus were not written down until many years—decades—after His death. By then, memories had become clouded, and what was written was largely a combination of aging and forgetful minds and overactive imaginations. Those gospel writers made Jesus into something much bigger than He really was. So they say.
Why are the Bible's critics so fervent in their pronouncements, so persistent in their attacks? According to the Bible, Jesus requires of His followers things that most people are simply not willing to submit to. Any method or system that can dilute His message to something less than what is written also relieves the mind and the conscience of its responsibility to follow what is taught. From a historical approach, this seems quite easy to do. The argument goes like this:
1. The Bible has accounts of fantastic miracles: Moses parts the Red Sea, Joshua asks the sun to stand still, Hezekiah requests the sun to retrogress. Jesus feeds thousands from practically nothing, walks on water, raises the dead, calms the sea and so on. The pages of the Bible are filled with such events.
2. The kind of miracles that are recorded in the Bible do not happen today, can not be observed.
3. Because these things do not happen today, then they never did, and those who recorded those events are not credible historical witnesses; and since the entire book is written in a historical context, it should be understood in the same light as myth and philosophy. It is a “good book,” but nothing more.
In fairness to those who may be searching for truth and who themselves have questioned the authenticity of the Bible because of its miracles, let me add that many who are now believers once shared that same skepticism. “If the Bible didn't have all those crazy stories in it, it might be half-way believable,” is the way many think. But I submit to you that it is precisely those stories, as told, which make it improbable that the events were contrived.
Have you ever wondered why no other religious writings deal with miracles the way the Bible does? True, there are some books which have a few such tales, but not with the same scope or in the same surroundings as the Bible. There are at least four things that set the biblical miracles apart from myth and legend:
1. Unlike myths, biblical miracles are presented in a historical context, that is, in conjunction with actual historical events, many of which can be verified by archeology.
2. Miracles are presented in a simple, matter-of-fact style. No fanfare, sometimes not even a comment.
3. Miracles occur in a framework of reason and logic. There are no miracles just for the sake of miracles. They are not performed for show; they are not “magic tricks” designed to entertain the reader.
4. Miracles are performed in the presence of hundreds, sometimes thousands of witnesses; and many of the witnesses are still alive at the time the events are written down.
I would like to comment more specifically on this last point. Consider if you were writing a story of a great event, and you expected people to take you seriously, to believe what you were writing, would you fill your text with such stories if they really didn't happen? Let's put this in our own context. Even now, over 200 years after the fact, would anyone believe someone today who wrote that George Washington calmed the Delaware river and walked across it while his soldiers rowed? You see, the events of a nation are known and understood by that nation, even if they are not written down right away. Yet all the events of the Old Testament revolve around the nation of Israel. It was their history. They wrote it down. They believed it. Why? True, legends are handed down also, but not with the same precision and with the same consistency as biblical miracles. Legends are full of wonder and mystery; biblical miracles on the other hand are straight-forward and logical: The Red Sea parted to show God's power and care in delivering Israel from an oppressor against which they themselves were powerless; Jesus healed the paralytic in order to prove that He had authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:9–11); He fed the multitudes in order to prove He had the means to feed their souls as well (in John 6, compare verses 1–14 with 26–35).
With Jesus, the picture becomes even more intriguing. Liberal scholars assert that the first stories about Jesus were not written until about 40–50 years after His death. Though there is abundant evidence to show that the gospels were written much earlier, rather than argue that point here, let's assume that they are correct, and use a 20th century example to test their theory.
There was a great Hindu teacher in India named Mohandes (or Mahatma) Ghandi, who though a political activist for his country's independence, was a man of peace, a great teacher, a legend in his own time. He died in 1948, almost 50 years ago. Today, not many of the younger generation even know who he was, but there was movie made about his life. Now, since the “scholars” argue that the stories about Jesus were “made up” 50 years or so after His death, and since it's been about 50 years since Ghandi died, let's put ourselves in the same place as people of the 1st century and suppose that the movie had made up stories about Ghandi. Suppose the movie portrayed Ghandi teaching and doing the same things the gospels say Jesus taught and did? Suppose for example, in the movie Ghandi said, as Jesus said, “I am the way the truth, the life. No one comes to God except through me” (cf. John 14:6)? Or, “unless you believe I am the Messiah, you will all die in your sins” (John 8:24). Then, in order to prove his claims, the movie would show how Ghandi healed thousands from incurable diseases; how he fed thousands using just a few small fishes and some bread. And so on. Would you believe these things on the mere say-so of the movie-makers or a small handful of his followers?
Taking this one step further, try reading through the gospels, imagining that they are a new publication, 50 years after the fact. Only instead of reading Jesus, substitute Ghandi. Then ask yourself: WHO WOULD BELIEVE IT? I suppose there will always be a few who would believe anything, but would you? Would you be willing to give up all your passion and pleasures to follow Ghandi? Would you give your life for him, even though he died 50 years ago? Would you believe he died for you? That he was resurrected? Would you believe anything about those accounts? Even after 50 years, or 100 years or 1,000 years, no one could have fabricated a story as that told in the gospels with the expectation that people would believe it. Yet believe it they did. Why? Because it happened, that's why! And the apostles that preached the gospel must have demonstrated its truth by performing the same miracles. It's the only answer that makes sense. No one in their right mind would have concocted those stories, because no one in their right mind would believe them without reason. Rather than a cause for disbelief, the miracles of the Bible therefore are a powerful testimony to the One whose power not only performed them, but preserved the accounts that record them. Truly, Jesus' saying regarding the permanence of His word was no fluke, no coincidence. The word of God will never pass away!
michelle
adrienne12 spune:
Pe cuvint daca nu ma intreb oare Mirecea Eliade dupa ce a studiat atitea religii si a scris "Istoria religiilor" era ateu sau nu? De asemeni ma intreb de ce a spus Malraux "sec. 21 va fi religios sau nu va fi deloc"pozele mele :http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/adrienne12us/my_photos