Chelvendra Sathieaanandha
A Coherent Worldview « Minds 2 Mentes
The author of this blog, Krista posted the above link to her blog in a comment here regarding my reference to Zacharias and the four basic questions of life. On her post, this explains the gist of the four basic questions of life:
“Ravi Zacharias spoke about the requirements of a coherent worldview. He said there are 4 questions a worldview must answer: the questions of origins, meanings, morality and destiny. The question of origins deals with how life came about. The question of meanings deals with the question of why life came about. The question of morality deals with questions of what is right and wrong and how we know the difference. The question of destiny deals with the question of the ultimate destinations of life.” (more…)
Factory farming and the RSPCA « food for thought got me thinking. Really nice blog by the way.
Really interesting thoughts, that post linked above, and this one really opened my eyes about the money in circulation with regards to “good egg” endorsements and how that works. What really got me interested was the response from RSPCA that I thought was quite honest and reflects questions and dilemmas that I often think about. I’m not going to write about food I’m afraid, although I love food, however this topic, and the comment left by Jane Speechley got me thinking about another topic I read about after Pheona mentioned it in one of our classes earlier this week.
This article from the theage.com.au refers to a new stance taken up by Amnesty International as part of their “stop violence against women campaign”:
AMNESTY International is facing upheaval and mass resignations after it decided last month to advocate that abortion be decriminalised worldwide. (more…)
Even Intrepid Eighth Graders Can Outargue Darwin « Blogs 4 Brownback
What’s with this guy? I am glad though that he has a blog, because if I’m feeling a tad down, or stupid, I just click on Blogs 4 Brownback and laugh it up. More often that not the ridiculousness of many of his posts leads to an all out personal battle between him (and the few people that support him) and the rest of the blog community that manage to find the post. (more…)
In response to the comment left on my post, here, and the post on Minds 2Mentes titled, “The Exclusiveness of Christ - Part 1.” I’ll be sure to read Krista’s next few blog posts, because the discussion does interest me even though I don’t find it useful to me personally. Religion, why and how people have such strong absolute beliefs (or faith), and the impact of religion does fascinate me; however I (and I’m sure many others) find the argument regarding absolute and relative truth to be irrelevant and impossible to support. For some people the discussion might appear to be necessary, however in no way do I accept any of the religions to be perfect (I think Gandhi said it much better than I ever could, so please read that quote from here) which therefore means that, to me, none of the religions portray an absolute truth, but instead, perhaps just an essence of truth. I’m not sure of what this absolute truth is or what happens after life, but I do not have a faith in any religion to portray it accurately where I can say it is inerrant – so the argument of absolutes is useless to me. This is the line of thinking which lead me to the idea of “spherical truth.” (more…)
Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard: Pentecost, Cicadas, Atheists, and Logical Death Traps…..SUSPENSE!!!
Intense (and rather lengthy) read. People are entitled to their views, yet, so many people seem so certain about everything. How and why is this the case? People are so certain that there is a God. Others are so certain there isn’t a God. I guess, this division isn’t all that unbelievable, but it’s when people have beliefs that are oh so specific that my mind starts to shut down. Alright, so there’s a God? Let’s assume that. Now there are rules and a single path? How are people so absolutely sure of “God’s Will” and the means of reaching salvation? After reading so many blog posts, and books about this, so many people have their opinions, and so many people are so certain that they are in fact correct, and the other poor fellow reading another dusty old book is incorrect - this observation leaves me amazed and terrified.
The writer of the linked blog-post attacks atheists, but my question is, what’s so bad about only believing in this life, “carpe diem” and so on? Who’s to say that’s wrong. I wouldn’t live my life that way, but that’s me and the meaning I have found for myself at present. Furthermore, the relationship between atheism and Epicureanism is a massive generalisation. I’ve read blogs of atheists who seem to care overtly for themselves, the people they hold close; they have an urge to awakenthe “foolish,” and they care a whole lot for pleasure and materialism. Traditionally that may be thought of as bad, selfish, arrogant and inconsiderate. However, at the same time I have atheist friends who don’t have to believe in a God to do good things - they don’t really care about material items and pleasure (and a balance to maintain pleasure) as suggested by Epicurus. I’m not convinced, but Christians say, being a good person isn’t what it’s all about; and doing good things isn’t what it’s all about – It’s about dead people becoming alive? How is anyone so sure of such things? What about other religions? People try their best to understand and follow the will of “God” yet they are still condemned to Hell because they chose wrong? Clearly if someone chose wrong, it was on purpose. Understanding of these “certain” things are derived from a text that is perfect and inerrant? How in the world can anyone be certain about matters that talk about things we can’t see and close their mind to everything else? The writer can say that one only can see the effects of the wind but not the wind itself, and similarly one can see the effects of the Holy Spirit but not the holy spirit itself; am I stating the obvious when I say that the effects of wind can be recorded and studied accurately; whilst the effects of the Holy Spirit you speak of are far more personal? What suddenly gave the Holy Spirit such definite characteristics and the basic questions regarding life such certainty? What makes you right and me or some other person wrong? Is it just the fact that if you’re right it has to mean that I’m wrong? It has to be that black and white, does it?
I’m glad that so many people are so sure what life is about. And more perplexing: I’m amazed that people are so sure what eternity is about.
What’s with all my questions?
Absolutely Relative: The Paradox of the Declaration of Relative Truth « Minds 2 Mentes
Thank you for giving me the link to your blog, and the post above which was in response to this post which talked about religion for the sake of meaning, as opposed to escapedmentalpatient’s thought where religion is belief for belief’s sake.
I’ve only briefly glanced over some of the posts on your blog but I did read the post that I have linked above, about relative truth, but I’ll be sure to have a more closer read of other posts when time allows it.
Regarding relative truth, I’ve previously had some conversations about the very same idea, with a Christian friend of mine. She couldn’t understand how I could believe that more than one path can lead to God (or a higher power) and still think Christianity can be one of these paths, because, in the Bible, Jesus said that the only way to God is through him. I also read the Case For Faith, and the chapter with the Ravi Zacharias interview, where he talked about relative truth and how Christianity is the only true way, and thus there could be no other. The section of that chapter regarding Mahatma Gandhi and whether or not he’d go to Heaven was also quite interesting, but unfortunately I am not really that impressed by any arguments made by Zacharias, although I’m sure he must be an expert on these matters. Furthermore, his representation of a kind of pop-culture-Buddhism was offensive even if it was just discussing the popularity of the “Buddhist” way of life in the United States today. His views are very absolute, and that’s where my issues start. (more…)
Filed under: stupid crap
I find this a tad amusing. I wanted a new blog layout because I had some issues with my old one, and I wanted another one that was fresh (bright), had a better side-bar, and one that I could customise the header. After choosing the current layout I didn’t know what to actually use as my custom image, so I thought that I’d photoshop something to use in the interim until I find something that I actually like. The first problem occurred when Photoshop refused to install itself on my computer – probably because I have Vista. So, instead of Photoshop, I decided to do my own layering of images, er, manually! So I loaded a photo I had taken last week for my online documentary, and made it full screen on my laptop; then I found a post-it note and stuck it to my screen and took a photo – which looked like this:
Then I loaded it into paint because that’s all I had, and added the text and cropped it. Stuff Photoshop.
How to Change the World: Ten (or so) Questions with Richard Stearns, President of World Vision
This was a really interesting read for me. The head of World Vision speaks of why he left his high-paying, comfortable job, to run World Vision. It seems that his major reason was religion, and since the opportunity to serve was presented, he had to take it up. I never realised that World Vision was a Christian organisation. It’s apparently a Christian organisation that doesn’tforce their views onto the people they help; as Richard Stearns says, he lets those he helps know WHY he’s there if they actually want to know. He quotes the bible in saying that he’s meant to pass on the word. To state the obvious, but some people overlook it, this is an example of some fantastic things that religion – Christianity in this case – has facilitated. Lots of people point out the number of people in Africa dead from sexually transmitted diseases because of ridiculous conservative views that are not practical – they blame religion (or scripture) for it, which is fair enough to a degree, but in the end, it’s down to the people in power and their intelligence, or in the case of those particular conservatives, stupidity. While it can’t be forgotten that such stupidity exists and that the consequences are huge, perhaps it should be a bit more widely noted that Christianity (and thus it’s scripture) and religion has also formed, facilitated and reinforced the motivation of an organisation like World Vision which has been helping people in need, without discrimination (I can only go by what I read) around the world, and not just facilitated terrible leadership with dire consequences.
I also find that it’s sad that only half a percent of the US budget goes to help other countries (and please don’t tell me that the 400 billion plus that went into the “war” in Iraq was actually helping another country), where there is clear knowledge on how to stop major forms of poverty. I wonder how much of the Australian federal budget is allocated to such causes and the infrastructure of struggling nations.
Filed under: stupid crap
It’s such a cool looking blog and it’s such a good idea! People write a secret onto a photo, postcard or some other sort of relevant image and post it in. The results on the blog are really insightful, often funny, and somewhat emotional. I wish it was my idea 
Science vs. God: A layman’s opinion « Ideas from free minds
The second quote from this blog-post is really disturbing. Strange experiments that support scripture but are scientifically flawed seriously shouldn’t be encouraged. If anything, if science and religion disagree on a matter, children should be taught to question it – but not tricked into thinking that science and religion agree. They’ll be made into fools and ridiculed when they become older, and they’ll not have a leg to stand on when challenged by similar ideas by people who have different beliefs. They will not be taken seriously. Perhaps it will cause confusion in a child to be taught one thing in religion, and another by science, however it will allow them to come to conclusions that aren’t merely fabricated.
