Answered Prayer

[Storyrider]

Fair points, but not very satisfying. Your first set of reasoning implies that God is limited by the laws of physics and/or chooses not to do miracles anymore.

My example has more to do with biology (and supply and demand) than physics. But I believe God created nature for a reason and prefers to work within it most of the time. Otherwise, why create the laws of nature in the first place?

 

I think He does miracles all the time. But you're angry at him for not doing miracles on request, like some kind of hack magician. (I don't mean to be rude with my strong language, just trying to drive home a point.)

 

The second reason is the classic one I've heard all my life. God's in control, not us; He works in mysterious ways, not our ways, etc.

 

That isn't what I said. I said if He did things within our logical framework all the time, we would, by rights, lose any reason to consider Him superior. You seem to want Him to be subject to our rules. Fair enough, but then he isn't God anymore; he's more like a servant than a master--like a genie who grants wishes.

 

These days that feels like a cop-out answer to me - it makes me want to re-examine God's characteristics a bit: maybe he's not actually omniscient and/or omnipotent. After all, if God's will is that every person know him and be saved, and we are praying for God's will, the Bible PROMISES that He will answer.

 

As another poster said, He does answer. Just not always with a yes.

 

Which then makes me re-examine the whole notion of the elect, of predestination, of what salvation means in the first place, whether there might be universal salvation, etc.

 

Basically the questions of prayer and praying in God's will open up a whole other set of theological questions that I used to be okay with, but am no longer okay with.

 

Given your posts in the past and what you say above, I think the problems you have are with your branch of Protestantism, not with God.

[Storyrider]

Here's another analogy that might help. Imagine the principal of a school. He is good and he is powerful. And he has set up rules. There is a system of homework, tests, and how to graduate. If these things weren't in place, you couldn't accurately describe his institution as a school.

 

Now, does he have the power to grant exceptions to the rules? For example, if you take a test when you're sick and you flunk, does he have the power to let you retake the test? Yes. Is he required to grant you that request? No. And he must use his discretion about when to do so.

 

In the case of any God worth worshipping, we have to grant Him full discretion on this matter but not presume that we know best how He should implement that discretion.

[sunshinegirl]

I am not sure I am saying that I think God has to conform to my wishes or human beings' wishes in general.

 

I think I'm just in a different place spiritually, where answers that used to satisfy me no longer do. Thanks for responding and offering your views, though.

[Moai]

re

 

Moai -should we then conspire to stone the Fundamentalists?

 

Or wipe out evidence of religious culture that has existed since ancient times right up until this day because someone thinks the beliefs are not proven by science?

 

(re: your statement, " But look at beliefs--beliefs for which there is no evidence...")

 

(Smile)

 

-Rio

 

Of course we shouldn't stone Fundamentalists. Anybody can believe whatever they want. The point is that religious beliefs seem to get a pass, while all others are exposed to criticism and require evidence to support them. It is my hope that Fundamentalism of any stripe is a fringe activity, like astrology or alchemy.

 

And it isn't like there isn't evidence that people have believed these things for a long time. And no, that should not be wiped out, either. The evidence that shows Fundamentalism specifically (and religion in general) to be harmful should be well-studied and everywhere. And taught. Everywhere.

 

Thor isn't worshiped anymore, but we still study Norse religions. Same with Zeus, Hera, or Mithras. That is part of it, too. There have been many gods and ideas of gods that are no longer worshiped, and nobody seems to mind when they are discussed objectively. But discuss a god currently worshiped and a lot of people get upset. Why is that?

[Moai]

Moai--you don't seem to see a need for God in the universe. If that's the way you feel, that's up to you. However, you seem unwilling to allow other people to think differently. From your posts that I've read you seem to think that the best thing to do in regards to religion is to eliminate it and then the world will be ruled by logic and everything will turn out okay. I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you but that's what came across to me.

 

There is no need for god in the Universe. God has zero explanatory power. Once the explanation "god did it" is used, inquiry stops. Not only that, but now one must explain god. Who created god? Why? And who created the creator of god (ad infinitum). If god can exist outside of space/time, why can't the Universe? God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

 

Secondly, I do think that belief in things for which there is no evidence should be eliminated. Not by force, not by rule of law, but simply by discussing what those beliefs mean, and what they lead to. I am sure that there are lost of people ho believe in god, and when you ask them what god's plan is or what god wants they would answer, "he wants you to be a good person" or something like that. Such would be fine, as far as that goes. But it doesn't stop there, sadly. Billions of people are certain that they know what god wants, what god's plan is, and how to go about implementing it--even when it can be shown that to do so would be regressive and harmful.

 

For all the logic that you've used, you imply a number of fallacies as well. The way you put it, the missionaries in Africa are responsible for the enormous number of AIDS related deaths because they don't hand out condoms.

 

That is not fallacious. It is a fact that these people have no other access to information about condom, and these missionaries specifically preach AGAINST their use. Condom use is certainly not a cure-all, but if it could prevent one person from contracting the disease shouldn't they be available, and their use encouraged? Of course. It is irresponsible to not provide this information, and to not do so is to make them partially responsible for the spread of the disease. Beyond that, they are preaching against condoms because they think contraception is against god's will, or to put it another way, god would rather millions die than to prevent one pregnancy. I am shocked that I seem to be the only one that finds that morally repugnant.

 

First off, you give no credit for the faith that these missionaries have that inspired them to go to Africa and try to do what they can for these people.

 

Why should I credit their faith? Their faith may make them want to hand out food or treat other infections, but it is doing nothing to prevent a horrible, fatal plague. And what of the non-faith based workers doing the same thing? Doctors Without Borders is a secular organization that does at least as much as the missionaries do, they do not preach against condom use, nor do they require a patient to listen to a sermon before treatment.

 

The faith that leads the missionaries to go to Africa (or anywhere else) also leads them to spread the Gospel, and that is the primary goal. If life saving was primary, they would treat the people first and preach second. But I don't see that happening.

 

Second of all, you seem to think that handing out condoms is the only answer. I know it's a shocking idea but have you never heard of abstinence? That would be as effective as condoms, cheaper, and is always available. Besides, there are other ways that AIDS is transmitted. Sure, maybe it would help, but if you give someone a box of condoms they're still going to run out and if it's at an inconvenient time . . . I just can't see that really being any sort of solution.

 

It won't stop all transmission, but it would help. Did you know that Catholic Church officials are meeting right now to determine if condom use would be ok if used to prevent transmission from one married partner to another? Isn't that nutty? Puhleeeze. What an insane waste of time. The way the rule is now, a man could contract AIDS through IV-drug use, and because he cannot wear a condom (it's a sin) now his innocent wife has AIDS. Super.

 

In Africa, it is my understanding that most transmissions of HIV or AIDS is through sexual activity. Do you really think abstinence works? Look at US teens. In the US, where abstinence is primarily taught (and in some instances the only thing taught) teen pregnancy is rampant. In countries where birth control is taught and readily available, teen pregnancy is so rare it isn't even seen as an issue anymore.

 

Maybe this was already addressed, but going back to prayer, yes, all things are possible through prayer, and yes, God has promised to answer every prayer. HOWEVER, he does not promise that the answer will always be 'yes'.

 

Yes, he does. Read the book. Matthew 7:7 - "[FONT=arial, Helvetica][sIZE=2]Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"[/sIZE][/FONT]

 

Sometimes it's no. Now, I think you said something earlier about how He said that "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." That's not quite how my translation words it but I'm willing to work with it. Key word in there is 'believe'. If you truly believe--not just believe that God exists, but believe in what He has taught and believe that he is there and has a greater plan for the world as he has said--then you won't pray asking for trivial things, or even necessarily things that are highly important without acknowledging that what you truly wish for is that His will be done.

 

Why pray for that? By definition god's will must always be done.

 

I know that sometimes the answer to prayer is yes and I've seen miracles (I saw a friend of mine shaking with pain that stopped not five minutes after he was prayed over); I also know that sometimes the answer to prayer is no, usually because I've been praying for the wrong thing. I believe in God but I don't think that if I prayed for a mountain to move that it would because it would be purposeless. There's no reason for the mountain to be moved. However, if a time came where there was good cause and I felt like it was the right thing to do, I would pray for that mountain to move and I believe that it happen.

 

How can we determine that prayer stopped your friends pain? Can we repeat the experience? How can we tell if it wasn't the placebo effect? The book says that ANYTHING will be possible, not whether or not it will be possible for god, or if it is in his will, or anything remotely like that. Please find the verses that describe prayer differently. I'd like to see them.

 

I firmly believe that the majority of religions are good in and of themselves, however, the people who lay claim to those religions are not always as good as what their religion would ask of them. There will always be people that will blow things out of proportion and twist things to their own ends--even using religion as an excuse for their actions--but more often than not, those commiting such attrocities are going directly against what their religion teaches.

 

That's because secular wisdom has caused moderate religions to slack off their books, to an extent. The Bible says, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." The Koran is all about killing--virtually every page. And maybe men have used the book for their own ends? Doesn't that show that the books cannot be from god? How can god's word be so easily misconstrued?

 

You're right that there have been and still are terrible things happening in the name of Chritianity (as well as other religions) but those things have never been inline with what Christianities author, Christ, taught. He taught compassion, mercy, and humility, principles that have been ignored by those commiting such crimes. Blame the people if you have to, but don't blame the religion for what it's members do.

 

Why not? So, you're saying that I shouldn't blame Nazism for the Holocaust, I should blame the individuals involved? Why must I accept something on no evidence in order to be a nice person. I don't need to, nor do millions upon millions of others.

[ruby_gloom]

moai, i wonder if you realize that you are just as close-minded, icriminating, and intolerant as the fervently religious zealots you come here to preach against.

 

i also wonder why you don't seem to realize that it's not that your grammar that is bad or that there is anything inherently wrong with your writing style, but rather that the coldness and distance you portray while delivering your message is what keeps many at bay.

 

one of the reasons many religious speakers engage people so greatly is because of the warmth, closeness, and hope that is being felt while listening to their message. perhaps they are wrong, yes, but at least they give a little glimmer of hope that, if nothing else, tomorrow will be a new day and, hopefully, not as bad, to those who need it.

 

i'm inclined to think that comfort and reassurance is a basic human need, especially in times of grief. sometimes we are able to supply ourselves with it, but many times we need the help of others--and that "others" comes in many, many forms.

 

however, and i don't mean it as an offence, when you type out your posts, there really seems to be nothing there. it's as though they were void of human feeling. your message is cold, and as such, even if you are right, i'd rather be in the wrong where at least i can feel human, than in the right where i feel like an inhuman.

[lonelybird]

View and opinions from human eyes which is contrary to the spirit's

* If God answers all my prayer, then there is a God; if God doesn't answer all my prayers, then there isn't a God

* Suffering and pain are bad

* concentrate on flesh, carnal, and several days, weeks, years

 

Views from Spirit:

* If God didn't answer some of my prayer, God meant for good. I don't know or even understand right now, but I trust in God did it for my ultimate good.

* none of us human like suffering and pain and change, but if we don't experience them, we don't grow; if we don't experience them, we could be spiritual dead and end up in hell.

* concentrate on spirit, eternal soul, and thousands years, direction of humanity

 

How can a pot exame a potter's charactors? How can an ant fully understand what human being is? Can a child understand why his parents take aways the candy? can the child understand his parents did it for his healthy teeth in the future? I don't think so, this child don't have that kind of mentality yet.

[Chamari]

There is no need for god in the Universe. God has zero explanatory power. Once the explanation "god did it" is used, inquiry stops. Not only that, but now one must explain god. Who created god? Why? And who created the creator of god (ad infinitum). If god can exist outside of space/time, why can't the Universe? God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

 

Secondly, I do think that belief in things for which there is no evidence should be eliminated. Not by force, not by rule of law, but simply by discussing what those beliefs mean, and what they lead to. I am sure that there are lost of people ho believe in god, and when you ask them what god's plan is or what god wants they would answer, "he wants you to be a good person" or something like that. Such would be fine, as far as that goes. But it doesn't stop there, sadly. Billions of people are certain that they know what god wants, what god's plan is, and how to go about implementing it--even when it can be shown that to do so would be regressive and harmful.

 

And this is what you think. I happen to think differently. I happen to think that efforts to eliminate God are one of the main causes of all that is wrong in the world today. So, we disagree. I can accept that you have different views from me and recognise that that's your choice to make--can you do the same for me? I'm not trying to convince you that God exists, because it's impossible for me to prove that to you. On the other hand, there's no way for you to prove to me that he doesn't exist.

 

I didn't post on here to argue the existence of God because that would be a pointless arguement as we've both made up our minds. I came on here to share another perspective and to attempt to address a few topics that were discussed.

 

That is not fallacious. It is a fact that these people have no other access to information about condom, and these missionaries specifically preach AGAINST their use. Condom use is certainly not a cure-all, but if it could prevent one person from contracting the disease shouldn't they be available, and their use encouraged? Of course. It is irresponsible to not provide this information, and to not do so is to make them partially responsible for the spread of the disease. Beyond that, they are preaching against condoms because they think contraception is against god's will, or to put it another way, god would rather millions die than to prevent one pregnancy. I am shocked that I seem to be the only one that finds that morally repugnant.

 

Condoms as a contraceptive wasn't what I thought the topic was--I thought you were talking about using condoms as a way to avoid spreading disease? When did the topic change?

 

Why should I credit their faith? Their faith may make them want to hand out food or treat other infections, but it is doing nothing to prevent a horrible, fatal plague. And what of the non-faith based workers doing the same thing? Doctors Without Borders is a secular organization that does at least as much as the missionaries do, they do not preach against condom use, nor do they require a patient to listen to a sermon before treatment.

 

The faith that leads the missionaries to go to Africa (or anywhere else) also leads them to spread the Gospel, and that is the primary goal. If life saving was primary, they would treat the people first and preach second. But I don't see that happening.

 

I think they deserve credit for their faith as without it I doubt that most of them would be doing anything like what they are which, while they may not be doing what you think is the right thing to do, is still helping millions of people.

 

Non-faith based organizations are also helping people. I never said they weren't. I think that what they do is great, but that wasn't what the topic was about--you were talking about the missionaries in Africa so I responded in reference to the missionaries in Africa. I think that all of the people over there deserve credit for their efforts so long as what they are doing is helpful to people even if not in the precise way that you want them to be.

 

It won't stop all transmission, but it would help. Did you know that Catholic Church officials are meeting right now to determine if condom use would be ok if used to prevent transmission from one married partner to another? Isn't that nutty? Puhleeeze. What an insane waste of time. The way the rule is now, a man could contract AIDS through IV-drug use, and because he cannot wear a condom (it's a sin) now his innocent wife has AIDS. Super.

 

I'm not affiliated with the Catholic Church and haven't heard that before. I'll agree with you that that does seem to be taking things to extremes. Finally we have found at least one thing where we do agree.

 

In Africa, it is my understanding that most transmissions of HIV or AIDS is through sexual activity. Do you really think abstinence works? Look at US teens. In the US, where abstinence is primarily taught (and in some instances the only thing taught) teen pregnancy is rampant. In countries where birth control is taught and readily available, teen pregnancy is so rare it isn't even seen as an issue anymore.

 

My point was simply that when it comes down to it, it depends on the choices that people make. Abstinence can work but most people aren't willing to put the effort in to disipline themselves. I just think that saying that condom use is the only solution is untrue and I was simply trying to illustrate that. Even if condom use was being preached, it would still take a ton of work and money to ensure that condoms were available in a large enough number to make any difference, plus there's still the issues of what about when a condom breaks? I'm not saying that it wouldn't necessarily help, but that there would still be issues involved that would need to be addressed and that it's not solely because the religous people don't support the use of condoms.

 

 

 

Yes, he does. Read the book.(believe it or not, I have. ) Matthew 7:7 - "[FONT=arial, Helvetica][sIZE=2]Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"[/sIZE][/FONT]

 

I'm tempted to explain the meaning that I get from this scripture but I've got the feeling that that would all be discounted as it would be my own speculations so I won't. And I'm okay with that. However, it does leave me trying to think of a way to present my thoughts that you won't immediatly discount so I think I'll wait on answering this one for now. Although I will say, yes, it says that you will recieve, but it doesn't specify what. I still say that sometimes the answer is no, or not yet.

 

Why pray for that? By definition god's will must always be done.

 

Guess I didn't express myself quite right. Yes, his will will be done, and yet you pray for it in order to help you to accept it. Because sometimes it's not what you want it to be, but by praying that His will be done you express your faith and it provides comfort that what happens will be for the best in the end. And that is the key to understanding religion that you don't understand. A large part of religion is obedience--not blind obedience, although some people fall into that--but the willingness to trust that he does know best which provides a comfort that is impossible to gain from anything else.

 

How can we determine that prayer stopped your friends pain? Can we repeat the experience? How can we tell if it wasn't the placebo effect? The book says that ANYTHING will be possible, not whether or not it will be possible for god, or if it is in his will, or anything remotely like that. Please find the verses that describe prayer differently. I'd like to see them.

 

I can't prove it. But how can you prove that that it's not? All I know is what I saw and the things I felt at that time.

 

I didn't say that ANYTHING wasn't possible--I believe that anything IS possible for God, however, I also believe that God isn't man's pet to be called to perform a trick for anyone who wants. God will perform the miracles that He chooses when he chooses. And just because anything is possible doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to happen. Somewhat ordinary example would be that it's possible that I'll eat breakfast in the morning but it's also possible that I won't.

 

That's because secular wisdom has caused moderate religions to slack off their books, to an extent. The Bible says, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." The Koran is all about killing--virtually every page. And maybe men have used the book for their own ends? Doesn't that show that the books cannot be from god? How can god's word be so easily misconstrued?[/Quote]

 

I've got the feeling that you've heard the answer to this before and you just don't want to listen. God is perfect--man is not. Although the books contain the words of God, God didn't write the books, man did. Now, even assuming that when the words were originally written that they were all perfectly true, obviously we don't have the originals today and even if we did a very small number of people would be able to read them. So, you have to aknowledge the role that scribes and later translators have had on the words. In my church, this is something that is often mentioned and I've had a number of religious instructors that have demonstrated this, one of whom is fluent in ancient greek and demonstrated how he could take one verse of scripture from the greek and translate it in three very different ways just off the top of his head. Now, the translations that are available today are the translations that made the most sense to the translators, but there is no way that those are the exact words that were spoken at first simply because the nuances change between languages, not to mention over time. I could go on for a while about this but I'll try to restrain myself and stop now. My point is, there are a number of reasons that God's words can be miscontrued. Now, all of that doesn't mean that I don't believe the bible, merely that I don't think that every single word should be taken as being the original. I think that the essence of what God has told man is contained in those books and that the majority of what's given is correct, but because man is imperfect there are errors and areas that can be misconstrued by man today that may have been perfectly clear at the time they were given.

 

Why not? So, you're saying that I shouldn't blame Nazism for the Holocaust, I should blame the individuals involved? Why must I accept something on no evidence in order to be a nice person. I don't need to, nor do millions upon millions of others.

 

You know, up 'til here I was okay with things but now I'm rather insulted. First, Nazism was political, not religous and I'm afronted that you would compare the two. Relgion and politics may get mixed up at times but there is still a big difference between them. Although, yes, I do think that the individuals are still the ones responsible for their actions. What is so utterly unreasonable about holding people accountable for what they do? We have choices to make every day and we're responsible for what the results of our choices are. I thought that that was something understood by most people.

Second of all, I never said anything about you needing to 'accept something on no evidence in order to be a nice person'. You're changing the subject again and pulling things out of nowhere. I know lots of 'nice' people who don't believe what I do, and that aren't even particularly religious. That's entirely up to them. I would be willing to wager that the majority of religious folk on here would agree with me when I say that whether you're religous or not has nothing to do with whether you're a nice person.

Thirdly, you may not feel a need for religion, however, there are millions of people out there who do. You can't make that choice for them just as I can't make it for you. I can respect you've made your decision and I would hope that you can respect mine. Other people may not have made a decision regarding religion yet and I would hope that you would be willing to let them make up their own minds as well.

 

Nothing that I've said has been with the intent to insult or even really to argue, just to state a different point of view. Just in case I have said anything to offend, I'm sorry.

[Moai]

moai, i wonder if you realize that you are just as close-minded, icriminating, and intolerant as the fervently religious zealots you come here to preach against.

 

Actually, I am not close-minded at all. I am open to evidence for god, and if presented with some I would change my mind right then and there. So far I haven't seen any, for centuries nobody has ever been able to present any, so I am not holding my breath but I am still open to it.

 

Beyond that, what is wrong with being close-minded? Most people are, and that is a good thing. Are you open-minded when it comes to slavery? How about racism? Spousal abuse? Why not? There is not one thing in the Bible that says those things are wrong, by the way. Or the Koran either (as far as I know).

 

i also wonder why you don't seem to realize that it's not that your grammar that is bad or that there is anything inherently wrong with your writing style, but rather that the coldness and distance you portray while delivering your message is what keeps many at bay.

 

I know my grammar isn't bad, but it is precisely my writing style that you criticize above. How else am I able to portray "coldness and distance" as you say?

 

one of the reasons many religious speakers engage people so greatly is because of the warmth, closeness, and hope that is being felt while listening to their message. perhaps they are wrong, yes, but at least they give a little glimmer of hope that, if nothing else, tomorrow will be a new day and, hopefully, not as bad, to those who need it.

 

I have heard atheists speak that are funny, passionate, and hopeful. Of course, they are speaking, not writing as I am here. Moreover, emotion has nothing to do with it. We need to look at everything without emotion, bnut rather determine if their is evidence or there is not. Belief in Allah, for example, could provide people with a great deal of comfort (and for billions it does) but that is does not prove that Allah is real one iota.

 

I am hopeful myself, just not in the way the faithful are. And what is so great about the hope you describe, and why do people need to get that from someone else in the first place?

 

Why favor one speaker over another? If you heard a Muslim speaker, would that give you hope as well? Would his assessment of a particular situation be as comforting to you as a Christian ministers' would?

 

i'm inclined to think that comfort and reassurance is a basic human need, especially in times of grief. sometimes we are able to supply ourselves with it, but many times we need the help of others--and that "others" comes in many, many forms.

 

I would prefer real comfort over a placebo, personally.

 

however, and i don't mean it as an offence, when you type out your posts, there really seems to be nothing there. it's as though they were void of human feeling. your message is cold, and as such, even if you are right, i'd rather be in the wrong where at least i can feel human, than in the right where i feel like an inhuman.

 

My "message" isn't cold at all. The idea that it is up to me to determine meaning for myself (and everyone else does the same) fills me with hope and joy. The fact that the Universe is so vast and inhospitable to life, yet I am here to experience for however brief a time is so absolutely wonderful I almost can't describe it.

 

Then I look out into the world and see a young woman stoned to death by her brothers and uncles because she was friends with a man of a different faith, or I see people killing each other because they interpret an ancient book differently, or I see people arguing against life-saving medical research because of their interpretation of an ancient book or because they think that they know what god wants (and the have no evidence for this belief) it sickens me to my bones. Life is so precious, that it should be cherished and savored, and all people everywhere should be able to experience it in as little pain as possible. In constructing an argument I may seem dispassionate, but I am certainly not dispassionate about my fellow man, or the state the world is in. Quite the reverse.

 

While belief in an afterlife might make some feel better while here on Earth while they suffer, why is that better than addressing why the suffering exists and eliminating it? Who is doing more for human suffering, the man preaching and telling everyone that things will be all right, or the man working to sure childhood leukemia?

[Moai]

View and opinions from human eyes which is contrary to the spirit's

* If God answers all my prayer, then there is a God; if God doesn't answer all my prayers, then there isn't a God

* Suffering and pain are bad

* concentrate on flesh, carnal, and several days, weeks, years

 

SO god saves you but allows an infant to die and that's ok because he was operating for your ultimate good? How can that be? Are you saying that god thinks the end justifies the means?

 

Views from Spirit:

* If God didn't answer some of my prayer, God meant for good. I don't know or even understand right now, but I trust in God did it for my ultimate good.

* none of us human like suffering and pain and change, but if we don't experience them, we don't grow; if we don't experience them, we could be spiritual dead and end up in hell.

* concentrate on spirit, eternal soul, and thousands years, direction of humanity

 

Ignoring the fact that your book doesn't say that. Your book says that god answers all prayer in the affirmative.

 

How can a pot exame a potter's charactors? How can an ant fully understand what human being is? Can a child understand why his parents take aways the candy? can the child understand his parents did it for his healthy teeth in the future? I don't think so, this child don't have that kind of mentality yet.

 

It is precisely your human understanding that leads you to believe that god is good, yet in the same breath you assert that we cannot know the mind of god. If you suggest that we cannot understand god because he is so much more powerful than we, and infinitely more intelligent, for all we could tell god could be totally evil for all we know. To suggest that god is infinitely good and yet allows evil to occur--even once in a million years--cannot be.

[Moai]

And this is what you think. I happen to think differently. I happen to think that efforts to eliminate God are one of the main causes of all that is wrong in the world today. So, we disagree. I can accept that you have different views from me and recognise that that's your choice to make--can you do the same for me? I'm not trying to convince you that God exists, because it's impossible for me to prove that to you. On the other hand, there's no way for you to prove to me that he doesn't exist.

 

It is not up to me to prove god doesn't exist. It is up to the person making the assertion to provide evidence for that assertion.

 

And while you may think that lack of religious belief is the cause of the problems in the world today, the evidence shows the opposite. Countries with the least amount of religious belief are the safest, least violent, and least war-like. Within the US, the states with the highest number of believers per capita have the highest instances of rape, spousal abuse, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, STDs--basically all the social ills you can think of. How can this be? If believing in god makes one more moral, how is it that places with the most believers are the least peaceful?

 

Look at the Middle East. Do you really think that those people lack belief in god? Or maybe they believe in the wrong one? Sunnis are killing Shi'ites not because they don't believe, but because they believe incorrectly.

 

I didn't post on here to argue the existence of God because that would be a pointless arguement as we've both made up our minds. I came on here to share another perspective and to attempt to address a few topics that were discussed.

 

I am still open to evidence, if any exists. I just haven't seen any.

 

Condoms as a contraceptive wasn't what I thought the topic was--I thought you were talking about using condoms as a way to avoid spreading disease? When did the topic change?

 

Wow. Condoms are a contraceptive device. They prevent pregnancy. It also happens that they help prevent the spread of STDs. The reason the Catholic Church spreads disinformation about them and prohibits their use is BECAUSE it is a contraceptive device. That is more important to them than the fact that it can prevent HIV transmission. See?

 

I think they deserve credit for their faith as without it I doubt that most of them would be doing anything like what they are which, while they may not be doing what you think is the right thing to do, is still helping millions of people.

 

Maybe. Its pretty empty when they also do nothing to prevent a plague that kills millions every year because of their backward ideas--ideas they get from that very same faith. Also, societies that are more secular are also more altruistic. Look at the chart on this website:

 

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

 

Sweden is the most atheistic country on Earth, yet they give more of their money to world charity than any other. Far and away more. The US, the most religious of the Western countries is next to last.

 

Non-faith based organizations are also helping people. I never said they weren't. I think that what they do is great, but that wasn't what the topic was about--you were talking about the missionaries in Africa so I responded in reference to the missionaries in Africa. I think that all of the people over there deserve credit for their efforts so long as what they are doing is helpful to people even if not in the precise way that you want them to be.

 

You wrote that I should give their faith credit because that is what is leading them to help people. I posted about secular organizations because 1) they do the same thing, and 2) the secular organizations don't require those being helped to convert or listen to sermons in order to treat them. The secular organizations are more altruistic.

 

I'm not affiliated with the Catholic Church and haven't heard that before. I'll agree with you that that does seem to be taking things to extremes. Finally we have found at least one thing where we do agree.

 

Yay!

 

It is their faith that leads them to these extremes, by the way.

 

My point was simply that when it comes down to it, it depends on the choices that people make. Abstinence can work but most people aren't willing to put the effort in to disipline themselves. I just think that saying that condom use is the only solution is untrue and I was simply trying to illustrate that. Even if condom use was being preached, it would still take a ton of work and money to ensure that condoms were available in a large enough number to make any difference, plus there's still the issues of what about when a condom breaks? I'm not saying that it wouldn't necessarily help, but that there would still be issues involved that would need to be addressed and that it's not solely because the religous people don't support the use of condoms.

 

So what if it takes a ton of work and money? Human lives are at stake. It seems as if you are saying that because condom use wouldn't be 100% effective, we shouldn't even try. Yes, condoms can break. Yes, people may still choose not to use them. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be made available in HUGE numbers, or that their use should not be encouraged. Let's say that for every million condoms given to Sub-Saharan Africa results in one life saved. Wouldn't that be worth it? I think it would. And the number is far less than that.

 

Condoms aren't the only answer, certainly. but they are a big part of it. And to have one group specifically work against what would save lives because of the belief that condom use is against god's will is evil.

 

Let's say these missionaries provide comfort to those dying of AIDS. They provide food, shelter, pain-killers, and all the rest. But they did nothing to prevent the spread of the disease itself (actually their behavior encourages it), yet they deserve credit?

 

I'm tempted to explain the meaning that I get from this scripture but I've got the feeling that that would all be discounted as it would be my own speculations so I won't. And I'm okay with that. However, it does leave me trying to think of a way to present my thoughts that you won't immediatly discount so I think I'll wait on answering this one for now. Although I will say, yes, it says that you will recieve, but it doesn't specify what. I still say that sometimes the answer is no, or not yet.

 

Why would you have to interpret it in the first place? I think it is pretty straight-forward, myself. And I wouldn't discount it just because it is yours personally, but I would examine it and see if you interpretation makes sense. And while it may to you, I would bet that even in a cursory examination it doesn't. I am not trying to be insulting, but I have read dozens of different interpretations about prayer and what prayer means and they do not stand up to even casual scrutiny. I do not doubt that these beliefs make people fell better, though.

 

Guess I didn't express myself quite right. Yes, his will will be done, and yet you pray for it in order to help you to accept it.

 

If god was infinitely good his will would be self-evident and the easiest thing to accept there is.

 

Because sometimes it's not what you want it to be, but by praying that His will be done you express your faith and it provides comfort that what happens will be for the best in the end. And that is the key to understanding religion that you don't understand. A large part of religion is obedience--not blind obedience, although some people fall into that--but the willingness to trust that he does know best which provides a comfort that is impossible to gain from anything else.

 

If you are a believer, how can you want something that is against god's will? Isn't it faith that leads you to understand god's will in the first place? You see, this is what makes faith dangerous. You have your idea of god's will. The sect down the street does, too, and it is different than yours. The people living over the hill have a different idea than the two of you. And so on. And these different ideas lead people to kill, persecute, and abuse each other. What makes it so sad and terrifying is that nobody has any more evidence for their position than the others.

 

I can't prove it. But how can you prove that that it's not? All I know is what I saw and the things I felt at that time.

 

I don't have to prove that it's not. Most people use such instances to provide evidence to others that their belief is the right one, that others should believe it too, and that such is what god wants you to believe.

 

For all the talk that believers have about faith, they sure do talk about evidence a lot. Their standards of evidence are just ridiculously low (I am not saying that believers are ridiculous here, by the way). An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

 

Let's say you assert that you are such a good driver that you have never had a ticket. Since I have known people who have never had a ticket, and such an event has a fairly high probability, I can accept that to be true easily, with little more evidence than your word.

 

Now, if you claim that you have seen an alien spacecraft, and that you were given a tour of said spacecraft and spoke with the occupants, I would need a lot more evidence than just your word. Lots, lots more.

 

There are websites all over featuring reason why Christianity is true, that Islam is true, and that Judaism is true (among literally thousands of others). You see, even though people talk about faith so much and how important it is, they also realize that most people need evidence. Faith doesn't seem to be enough.

 

I didn't say that ANYTHING wasn't possible--I believe that anything IS possible for God, however, I also believe that God isn't man's pet to be called to perform a trick for anyone who wants. God will perform the miracles that He chooses when he chooses. And just because anything is possible doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to happen. Somewhat ordinary example would be that it's possible that I'll eat breakfast in the morning but it's also possible that I won't.

 

To borrow from a great website, then why hasn't god healed an amputee, not even once? Salamanders do this readily, so it is obviously physically possible. Yet it has never happened. Why? If god can do anything why hasn't this happened? In the history of man on this Earth it has never served his purpose to regrow a limb even one time? How can this be? Are salamanders more important in god's eyes than humans?

 

I've got the feeling that you've heard the answer to this before and you just don't want to listen. God is perfect--man is not.

 

A perfect being cannot create something imperfect, by definition.

 

Although the books contain the words of God, God didn't write the books, man did. Now, even assuming that when the words were originally written that they were all perfectly true, obviously we don't have the originals today and even if we did a very small number of people would be able to read them.

 

We do have the originals, actually. The Torah has been passed down without change for millennia, for example. Supposedly god himself wrote the Ten Commandments on stone tablets, so he did write something himself. Didn't god inspire the Bible? Does god's inspiration only go so far? A billion people believe that the Koran is inspired. Since you aren't a Muslim, how did you determine that claim to be false?

 

So, you have to aknowledge the role that scribes and later translators have had on the words. In my church, this is something that is often mentioned and I've had a number of religious instructors that have demonstrated this, one of whom is fluent in ancient greek and demonstrated how he could take one verse of scripture from the greek and translate it in three very different ways just off the top of his head. Now, the translations that are available today are the translations that made the most sense to the translators, but there is no way that those are the exact words that were spoken at first simply because the nuances change between languages, not to mention over time. I could go on for a while about this but I'll try to restrain myself and stop now. My point is, there are a number of reasons that God's words can be miscontrued.

 

Which begs the question as to why god would allow this. The NIV, for example, was not translated by one man, but rather a committee of scholars who translated different sections in groups, then provided their translations to the others, and it was not published until all the versions satisfied the entire committee. It is certainly possible that all these men could have been wrong, but they probably weren't. And, if the book is not completely trustworthy, why pay attention to it at all? Why did god dictate the book to one person in every language, thereby eliminating the need for translators at all? That would be painfully easy for a perfect super-being, wouldn't it? Not only that, but all such books would agree perfectly, would they not?

 

And doesn't the Holy Spirit guide the translators? I have read many believers assert that the Holy Spirit helps believers to interpret scripture correctly. I have asked before and have yet to have anyone even attempt an answer: How can the Holy Spirit lead so many believers to so many conclusions?

 

Lastly, why should I pay attention to the Bible at all? The people who wrote it had no problem with slavery, polygamy, or genocide. Is it even remotely possible that any wisdom they may have had could in any way be applicable to modern humans today?

 

Now, all of that doesn't mean that I don't believe the bible, merely that I don't think that every single word should be taken as being the original. I think that the essence of what God has told man is contained in those books and that the majority of what's given is correct, but because man is imperfect there are errors and areas that can be misconstrued by man today that may have been perfectly clear at the time they were given.

 

How do you know where the errors are and where they aren't, then? Once you admit that there is error at all, the entire thing is called into question. And if you look at what god took the time to communicate to us, what is the point? It is of no real help at all. How can I build myself a sturdy house? Bible is no help. What is the answer to Fermet's last theorum? The Bible is no help.

 

Sure, the Bible may tell me how to attain eternal life--a big deal if true. But how do I determine what to do exactly? Should I kill witches? Should I persecute unbelievers? Is it important that I believe, or is it more important that I be a good person? Notice that every sect of Christianity has different answers to those questions, and those answers have changed over time. If god is timeless, as is his message, why all the change?

 

You know, up 'til here I was okay with things but now I'm rather insulted. First, Nazism was political, not religous and I'm afronted that you would compare the two.

 

I was comparing the two because they are both dogmatic. That's all. And there are people alive right now who insist that the Holocaust was not what Hitler wanted, and the you can't blame the movement for it.

 

You do know that the Crusades happened, right? You do know that the Taliban punished criminals by cutting off their hands and feet at halftime during soccer games, right? Religion is just as brutal as Nazism in most cases. Just because we now enjoy a time where in the West religion is relatively benign it doesn't follow that at one time it wasn't an excuse to brutalize and murder others. And that is the point I am making.

 

It wasn't my intention to insult you, but I don't see a difference. Both belief systems make claims about reality on little or no evidence--and both make claims to know what god wants and act accordingly.

 

Relgion and politics may get mixed up at times but there is still a big difference between them. Although, yes, I do think that the individuals are still the ones responsible for their actions. What is so utterly unreasonable about holding people accountable for what they do? We have choices to make every day and we're responsible for what the results of our choices are. I thought that that was something understood by most people.

 

Yep. But why did these people make the choices they did? Was Augustine a criminal psychopath? Aquinas? One wanted heretics tortured, the other killed outright. These men are considered two of the greatest thinkers in the history of Christian thought. I am sure that you don't agree with either one, but why not? How come with all of their study of scripture and ardent belief they could be so wrong, and yet you can be so right with such little effort?

 

Nazis thought that Aryans were the Master Race, ordained by god to dominate the world, and as such had every right to protect the purity of their blood, and take the land from sub-humans as they saw fit.

 

Such movements, the Crusades or the SS moving into a Polish village go beyond just individual action. What motivated so many to be so brutal? It is much different than one man shooting his neighbor, or stealing some food.

 

Are the Nazis responsible for their crimes? Absolutely. Were the Crusades reprehensible? Totally. But to just blame to the people involved without looking at the beliefs that caused the behavior would be folly of the highest order.

 

To put it another way, when a minister is adamant that a vaccine for HPV should not be given to all young women because it would encourage premarital sex, how do we interpret this? That he is just a whack job, and that is his problem, or that it is his belief system that is wrong (AND he is a whack job)?

 

Second of all, I never said anything about you needing to 'accept something on no evidence in order to be a nice person'. You're changing the subject again and pulling things out of nowhere.

 

I thought you said that belief in god makes people nice. That is demonstrably not so, and belief in god is believing things on no evidence. That's it.

 

I know lots of 'nice' people who don't believe what I do, and that aren't even particularly religious.

 

Me, too.

 

That's entirely up to them. I would be willing to wager that the majority of religious folk on here would agree with me when I say that whether you're religous or not has nothing to do with whether you're a nice person.

 

Something else we agree on.

 

Thirdly, you may not feel a need for religion, however, there are millions of people out there who do. You can't make that choice for them just as I can't make it for you. I can respect you've made your decision and I would hope that you can respect mine. Other people may not have made a decision regarding religion yet and I would hope that you would be willing to let them make up their own minds as well.

 

UGH!!!!!! I am letting them make up their own minds!!!! When have I suggested re-education for believers? Never. Have I advocated camps for them? No. EVERYONE EVERYWHERE CAN BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WANT. And while I respect the right of every human to believe what they wish, I do not respect their beliefs just because they have them. Why should I respect your religious views--just because they are important to you? What about those who believe in alchemy or a flat-earth? Should I respect those beliefs too?

 

It seems that believers think any criticism of religion at all means prison, metal hospitals, or whatever. Not even close. Not only that, but it seems that everyone can make up their own mind but they need to do so without reading or learning of the side that is critical of religious belief. Why is it that I am one of the very few who sees the nuttiness of this? Most people don't make up their own mind about such things. They are the religion their parents are, or at least the religion dominant in their culture.

 

Did you honestly consider Islam or Jainism in your search for god? Did you REALLY have an open mind toward Hinduism? Of course not. Why am I so horrible, unfeeling, or cold or whatever simply for discussing my ideas (which is what this forum is for) and engaging believers in honest debate about their beliefs? Shouldn't we challenge all beliefs, whether about god or favorite color? Isn't the best way to determine truth to look for evidence, and argue vigorously about the meaning of that evidence?

 

Nothing that I've said has been with the intent to insult or even really to argue, just to state a different point of view. Just in case I have said anything to offend, I'm sorry.

 

You have no need to be sorry, I am not that easily insulted. I did not mean to equate you with Nazis in the least bit, as I said I was just comparing dogmatic belief systems and that is one about which I am well-versed so it was easier for me. I may not respect religion, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect the religious. I too am sorry if I gave offense.

[riobikini]

re:

Moai: " There have been many gods and ideas of gods that are no longer worshiped, and nobody seems to mind when they are discussed objectively. But discuss a god currently worshiped and a lot of people get upset. Why is that?"

 

Why is that?

 

Some of those gods of our past -our intelligence is instinctive enough and wise enough, now, to recognize- are simply relics of our evolution in understanding.

 

I think the answer might begin with the idea in mind that both the *physical* human being and his spritual understanding about himself, his origin, and where he might be headed- is growing and changing.

 

Maybe "evolving" might be a better descriptive word.

 

And particularly evolving is the concept of God, along with new information about the very possibilities of the existence of the supernatural, and the pursuit to understand things in both a natural and a spiritual sense.

 

"Things" like a body, a soul, a spirit, as well as how they are to supposed to, ultimately, all fit together in this great puzzle -and evolving understanding in regards to more complicated, "out there" ideas like transformation of those named parts- and of special interest, the reincarnation of the body that seems to be, at first glance, destined only to decay, and become nothing more than clay.

 

Lotsa folks want answers to as much of that, as possible, Moai.

 

It's a significant pursuit in the lives of most humans.

 

Why *wouldn't* the subject carry enough weight and gather enough interest to be the spark for intense discussion from time to time?

 

-Rio

[Chamari]

It is not up to me to prove god doesn't exist. It is up to the person making the assertion to provide evidence for that assertion.

 

You've stated that you don't believe that God exists--isn't that an assertation? I think that what it comes down to for evidence in either direction depends mainly on the person--I would speculate that most of what provides my personal evidence that God exists are things that you would either attribute to science or that are based on feelings that I've had a such that there's no way to prove. But, if you're interested, I'm willing to share. I'd be interested to know what your personal evidence is that He doesn't exist as well if you're willing.

 

There is always a leap of faith when God is involved, however if you're willing to take just a little bit of it on faith, there's so much more to be seen. For me, the inherent order in the universe is a type of evidence. The way that everything just happens to fit together and work and allow us to live on this planet. Science has discovered many things about this world and continue to, but even science can't explain why gravity exists. That it does is obvious and it can be studied and measured and predicted but the why of it still can't be explained by science in this day and age.

 

The year that I lost my grandmother and the riding instructor that I'd seen every week for 13 years was hard, but just before they both passed away I just happened to have attended a camp where there had been some really helpful discussions about death and the afterlife. Call it coincidence if you will, but for me, it was important.

 

When I start getting depressed, the only thing that I've found that can consistently snap me out of it is prayer--because through prayer I've found love and acceptance that gives me the courage to go on, reminding me that no matter what, there's always someone who loves me and will listen to me.

 

In terms of my religious organization, I find order and logic as well as inspiration in my church. Doctine is meant to be tested, not blindly believed (although there will always be those who do), but when it is tested, it is meant to be tested with sincerity and a willingness to listen to your heart and the Spirit, unlike what is required for scientific studies because sometimes the proof of the test isn't always visable to others.

 

Although I'll admit that I do believe that I've found the true religion, I still believe that there is a lot of truth to be found in other religions and that there is good in them, even if I also think that they're misguided in some areas. I'm sure they'd think the same about me. Even so, while I believe that I have access to the most religious truth availble at this time, I'm not saying that I have all the answers. There are some things that I think God want us to think about and figure out for ourselves, and other things that we're just not ready to learn about yet. But then again, I'm not someone who needs to know all the answers, so long as there's enough to assure me that it will work out in the end. If I flip a switch to turn on a light, I don't need to know exactly how electricity works and all about the wiring, I'm just happy to know that the light will come on if I do it. And if the light doesn't come on, then there's a reason for it, even if I don't know what it is. Kind of a lame example but it was the first thing that came to mind.

 

Typed a little more than I meant to there. Oh well.

 

And while you may think that lack of religious belief is the cause of the problems in the world today, the evidence shows the opposite. Countries with the least amount of religious belief are the safest, least violent, and least war-like. Within the US, the states with the highest number of believers per capita have the highest instances of rape, spousal abuse, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, STDs--basically all the social ills you can think of. How can this be? If believing in god makes one more moral, how is it that places with the most believers are the least peaceful?

 

Look at the Middle East. Do you really think that those people lack belief in god? Or maybe they believe in the wrong one? Sunnis are killing Shi'ites not because they don't believe, but because they believe incorrectly.

 

I can see your point (although I disagree with the assumption) and I'm trying to find a way to express mine although it's a bit muddled. To start with, just you know what page I'm on, I think that the numbers aren't entirely accurate because a lot of the people in the US in particular will say they're religous when they aren't living by what their religion teaches. That's for organized religion at least. What comes to mind is those people who are insistant that they are Catholic and yet attend church one or twice a year if that and don't really live by the doctrine of the church. For those who are religious but not associated with an organized religion, I'd be willing to give them more credit because it has seemed to me in the past that while they may not agree with any church in particular, they seem to take religion a bit more serious in how they apply it to their lives.

 

The example of the religious conflicts within the Middle East (from my perspective) exist now mainly because of past conflicts but even so, I think it's because those who are involved in those conflicts aren't really paying attention to the religion that they claim. Even when the Islamic Empire was taking over a large portion of the known world, Islam was really extremely tolerant of other religions. From what I've seen and read, tolerance of others beliefs is present in most religions, however, there are always some individuals that think that the unbelievers should convert or die and when these people come into power they take advantage of their power and create situations like the Crusades and the conflicts in the Middle East, the effects of their actions leaving echoes that still haunt people today.

 

 

 

 

Wow. Condoms are a contraceptive device. They prevent pregnancy. It also happens that they help prevent the spread of STDs. The reason the Catholic Church spreads disinformation about them and prohibits their use is BECAUSE it is a contraceptive device. That is more important to them than the fact that it can prevent HIV transmission. See?

 

I never had to attend a sex-ed class and most of what I've learned about condoms has been on sites such as these so please forgive me for not instantly making the connection. And I wasn't saying that condoms wouldn't help, just that there are other considerations--they're already scrambling to come up with money for so many things, where are they supposed to find more funds? I would agree that education about AIDS would be a very good thing to do, I just don't see condoms as being the answer.

 

 

Maybe. Its pretty empty when they also do nothing to prevent a plague that kills millions every year because of their backward ideas--ideas they get from that very same faith.

 

And yet they are out there doing something when there are millions of people that aren't doing anything. Give them credit for at least trying.

 

Also, societies that are more secular are also more altruistic. Look at the chart on this website:

 

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

 

Sweden is the most atheistic country on Earth, yet they give more of their money to world charity than any other. Far and away more. The US, the most religious of the Western countries is next to last.

 

I wanted to see the chart--thought it would be interesting--but the link doesn't seem to be working properly for me. Is there a similiar page elsewhere or could you maybe tell me where to look for it on that site?

 

 

You wrote that I should give their faith credit because that is what is leading them to help people. I posted about secular organizations because 1) they do the same thing, and 2) the secular organizations don't require those being helped to convert or listen to sermons in order to treat them. The secular organizations are more altruistic.

 

Hmm. I'm curious as to the number of people involved in secular organizations in Africa compared to those in religious organizations now. Have to go see what I can find.

 

Yay!

 

Amazing isn't it?

 

 

Why would you have to interpret it in the first place? I think it is pretty straight-forward, myself. And I wouldn't discount it just because it is yours personally, but I would examine it and see if you interpretation makes sense. And while it may to you, I would bet that even in a cursory examination it doesn't. I am not trying to be insulting, but I have read dozens of different interpretations about prayer and what prayer means and they do not stand up to even casual scrutiny. I do not doubt that these beliefs make people fell better, though.

 

Sometimes a scripture can be taken at it's face value, other times it requires a bit more work. The reason for this is that the bible (wish I could use other examples as well but I'll admit I don't feel confident enough about my knowledge of other religious books such as the Koran to feel comfortable talking about them yet) was written over a period of time. Duh. I know. Still, that plays a very important part. God spoke to different people at different times and it was written down at different times when different customs and idioms were used than what we may use today. Say such as in the New Testament just before when Jesus turns the water into wine he speaks to his mother and calls her "woman". Now, I've heard some people say that that was Christ asserting his authority over her and reminding her that he followed a different path. I've also heard people use it as an example of how the bible puts down women. However, if you look back at the customs of the times, to call her "woman" was actually a sign of great respect, so Christ could have just been expressing his love for his mother.

 

Everyone interprets everything around them everyday. Haven't you ever had someone say something or do something that left you thinking, what the heck do they mean be that? Leaving you to interpret their actions/words as best you can. Religious works are just a bit more complicated because of all the importance that is placed on how this person interprets it compared to that one.

 

If god was infinitely good his will would be self-evident and the easiest thing to accept there is.

 

That doesn't follow in my mind. Because something is good doesn't always make it easy to recognise and definitely doesn't make it easy to follow. I know that it's good for me to excersize but that doesn't mean that it's easy to convince myself to do it.

 

If you are a believer, how can you want something that is against god's will? Isn't it faith that leads you to understand god's will in the first place? You see, this is what makes faith dangerous. You have your idea of god's will. The sect down the street does, too, and it is different than yours. The people living over the hill have a different idea than the two of you. And so on. And these different ideas lead people to kill, persecute, and abuse each other. What makes it so sad and terrifying is that nobody has any more evidence for their position than the others.

 

It's easy to want something that's against God's will, just like it was easy as a child to want something that was against your parent's will.

 

I wouldn't say that it's faith that leads you to understand it, just to be willing to obey. And there have been and will most likely always be some people who 'kill, persecute, and abuse each other' over religion, just as they do over race, or wealth or any of a number of things. It doesn't make it right, but those people are always there and they're not always reacting over religion. Although I think that a number of extremists try to use religion as their reason because that way they can justify their crimes to themselves.

 

I don't have to prove that it's not. Most people use such instances to provide evidence to others that their belief is the right one, that others should believe it too, and that such is what god wants you to believe.

 

For all the talk that believers have about faith, they sure do talk about evidence a lot. Their standards of evidence are just ridiculously low (I am not saying that believers are ridiculous here, by the way). An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

 

Let's say you assert that you are such a good driver that you have never had a ticket. Since I have known people who have never had a ticket, and such an event has a fairly high probability, I can accept that to be true easily, with little more evidence than your word.

 

Now, if you claim that you have seen an alien spacecraft, and that you were given a tour of said spacecraft and spoke with the occupants, I would need a lot more evidence than just your word. Lots, lots more.

 

There are websites all over featuring reason why Christianity is true, that Islam is true, and that Judaism is true (among literally thousands of others). You see, even though people talk about faith so much and how important it is, they also realize that most people need evidence. Faith doesn't seem to be enough.

 

Ah, but that's what faith is for. "If you have faith, you hope for things which are not seen which are true." That's something that I really believe. And God is true, unlike say, firebreathing dragons. I like fantasy and I like to read about dragons but they aren't real and I know that. God on the other hand . . . I haven't seen him, but I have felt things when speaking to him that nothing else has been able to make me feel. And that's a lot of what religion is about.

 

No one can give you hard evidence because any kind of hard evidence that they can give you you can explain away with logic. And the only really true pure evidence for God is what you feel and know in your own heart after turning to Him and that's not something that you can share with someone else. I can talk about it, sure, but I can't give you the same experience that I had. Religion is deeply personal at the core of it.

 

For the people that join a religion based on the 'evidence' that it offers, I would bet that the majority of them either fade out of the religion or even turn against it later on. Religion is about faith, not evidence, and without that faith, what is the point?

 

To borrow from a great website, then why hasn't god healed an amputee, not even once? Salamanders do this readily, so it is obviously physically possible. Yet it has never happened. Why? If god can do anything why hasn't this happened? In the history of man on this Earth it has never served his purpose to regrow a limb even one time? How can this be? Are salamanders more important in god's eyes than humans?

 

I don't know. Just what I said before, just because anything IS possible doesn't mean that it has to happen. Although, if you go back to bible there is the story of Jesus healing a withered hand so that would give you one time. Not quite regrowing a limb but something like it.

 

A perfect being cannot create something imperfect, by definition.

 

God did create a perfect version of man--however, man fell, resulting in the imperfect version.

 

We do have the originals, actually. The Torah has been passed down without change for millennia, for example. Supposedly god himself wrote the Ten Commandments on stone tablets, so he did write something himself. Didn't god inspire the Bible? Does god's inspiration only go so far? A billion people believe that the Koran is inspired. Since you aren't a Muslim, how did you determine that claim to be false?

 

Who said that I did? Some people on here may get annoyed with me, however, I don't think that the bible is the only inspired work.

 

We don't have the originals, we have copies of what is said to be the originals. Maybe, just maybe, the scribes never made a mistake in copying them and they're perfect--I doubt that but I'm willing to go with it--but you're still going to have issues with translation. And as for inspiration, aside from the 10 commandments, it was still written by a man and so limited by the writers understanding.

 

Which begs the question as to why god would allow this. The NIV, for example, was not translated by one man, but rather a committee of scholars who translated different sections in groups, then provided their translations to the others, and it was not published until all the versions satisfied the entire committee. It is certainly possible that all these men could have been wrong, but they probably weren't. And, if the book is not completely trustworthy, why pay attention to it at all? Why did god dictate the book to one person in every language, thereby eliminating the need for translators at all? That would be painfully easy for a perfect super-being, wouldn't it? Not only that, but all such books would agree perfectly, would they not?

 

Sure, that group of scholars may have agreed, but I'd be willing to bet that there are at least as many outside of that group that could have come up with something different. However, I believe that God's basic messages are still there, just that the wording at times may have been shifted over time. That said, it seems to me that it would be kind of ridiculous for God to look it over and say, hey, you forgot an and here. I think that the essence of the book is intact just that you shouldn't take one verse and call it an absolute, particularly if there are other verses addressing the same subject that show it in a slightly different light. All things should be considered.

 

And doesn't the Holy Spirit guide the translators? I have read many believers assert that the Holy Spirit helps believers to interpret scripture correctly. I have asked before and have yet to have anyone even attempt an answer: How can the Holy Spirit lead so many believers to so many conclusions?

 

Because religion is a personal thing. When I read these days, I'm looking first at the literal meaning that I see, then try to put it in perspective for the time and people that it was given to and what it would have meant to them, and also for whatever grabs me and says, hey! listen up 'cause this applys to you. The Spirit helps believers to interpret scriptures for themselves--not for everyone. The only one with the authority to interpret them for everyone is God or one of his chosen leaders.

 

Lastly, why should I pay attention to the Bible at all? The people who wrote it had no problem with slavery, polygamy, or genocide. Is it even remotely possible that any wisdom they may have had could in any way be applicable to modern humans today?

 

There's still a lot in there that can be used, and the issues that you refer to are quite different than they are seen today. Slavery for example was an extremely different thing than it became after the fall of the Roman Empire. Polygamy was common during that time because of low population numbers in some areas, and to cement alliances and such in others. Genocide is rather reprehensible, however given that feuds between countries could start over rather small things, in the case of something larger genocide may have been the only way to prevent long years of battles that would have a good chance of actually killing off more people in the long run. I'm not saying that I think that those things are right, but I do think that it's important to remember that it was a different age and customs were different back then.

 

How do you know where the errors are and where they aren't, then? Once you admit that there is error at all, the entire thing is called into question. And if you look at what god took the time to communicate to us, what is the point? It is of no real help at all. How can I build myself a sturdy house? Bible is no help. What is the answer to Fermet's last theorum? The Bible is no help.

 

Sure, the Bible may tell me how to attain eternal life--a big deal if true. But how do I determine what to do exactly? Should I kill witches? Should I persecute unbelievers? Is it important that I believe, or is it more important that I be a good person? Notice that every sect of Christianity has different answers to those questions, and those answers have changed over time. If god is timeless, as is his message, why all the change?

 

Because people change. When the israelites were given the ten commandments, those were actually the second set of stones. If you look, the first set was smashed because of the wickedness of the people. Now, theoretically they could have been identical, but I don't think so. I think that the first set was destroyed because the people weren't ready for them yet, had proved themselves disobediant and undeserving of what he was offering, so he broke it down into the commandments. My guess is that the first set contained something closer to what Christ taught when he came. I don't know that for sure but it's something that makes sense to me.

 

After all, you don't hand a kid a book and expect him to read, first he's got to learn the sounds that the letters make and what the rules are for various sounds. Then they've got to learn the excpetions and oddities, and then they are able to read.

 

God is unchanging but as humanity grows and changes, God is able to provide us with more.

 

 

I was comparing the two because they are both dogmatic. That's all. And there are people alive right now who insist that the Holocaust was not what Hitler wanted, and the you can't blame the movement for it.

 

You do know that the Crusades happened, right? You do know that the Taliban punished criminals by cutting off their hands and feet at halftime during soccer games, right? Religion is just as brutal as Nazism in most cases. Just because we now enjoy a time where in the West religion is relatively benign it doesn't follow that at one time it wasn't an excuse to brutalize and murder others. And that is the point I am making.

 

It wasn't my intention to insult you, but I don't see a difference. Both belief systems make claims about reality on little or no evidence--and both make claims to know what god wants and act accordingly.

 

Guess that makes just one more thing that we don't agree on 'cause I see huge differences between the two. I know that atrocities have been committed in the name of religion but I still think that the individuals are responsible for their own actions. This is where prayer comes in, as even if it's your religious leader showing up telling you that you have to go kill some people in order to save your soul, that's definitely a time to pray for guidance. Maybe in some situations it could happen and be true, but blind obedience isn't good.

 

Yep. But why did these people make the choices they did? Was Augustine a criminal psychopath? Aquinas? One wanted heretics tortured, the other killed outright. These men are considered two of the greatest thinkers in the history of Christian thought. I am sure that you don't agree with either one, but why not? How come with all of their study of scripture and ardent belief they could be so wrong, and yet you can be so right with such little effort?

 

Nazis thought that Aryans were the Master Race, ordained by god to dominate the world, and as such had every right to protect the purity of their blood, and take the land from sub-humans as they saw fit.

 

Such movements, the Crusades or the SS moving into a Polish village go beyond just individual action. What motivated so many to be so brutal? It is much different than one man shooting his neighbor, or stealing some food.

 

Are the Nazis responsible for their crimes? Absolutely. Were the Crusades reprehensible? Totally. But to just blame to the people involved without looking at the beliefs that caused the behavior would be folly of the highest order.

 

To put it another way, when a minister is adamant that a vaccine for HPV should not be given to all young women because it would encourage premarital sex, how do we interpret this? That he is just a whack job, and that is his problem, or that it is his belief system that is wrong (AND he is a whack job)?

 

I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. I'll grant that it can be impossible to figure out exactly what pushed someone into something and what they're guilty of and not guilty of, luckily, God's the one who gets to eventually sort out all that and not me.

 

 

I thought you said that belief in god makes people nice. That is demonstrably not so, and belief in god is believing things on no evidence. That's it.

 

I don't believe I ever said anything about that which is why I was a bit defensive about your comment. Sorry about that although it's nice to know that we've now found a grand total of two things that we can agree on. Who knows, if we keep going we might even find three!

 

UGH!!!!!! I am letting them make up their own minds!!!! When have I suggested re-education for believers? Never. Have I advocated camps for them? No. EVERYONE EVERYWHERE CAN BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WANT. And while I respect the right of every human to believe what they wish, I do not respect their beliefs just because they have them. Why should I respect your religious views--just because they are important to you? What about those who believe in alchemy or a flat-earth? Should I respect those beliefs too?

 

First thing that came to mind was those arguements that end with one person walking off and saying "whatever." That's just kind of the impression that I get when you say that you respect their right but not the belief. You don't have to believe what someone else does to respect it, but be able to recongnise whatever worth is there. I mean, it would appear that we disagree about most of these topics so far, but I still respect your beliefs. Most of my friends growing up had different beliefs than I did so maybe I'm just more used to looking at things from various perspectives than most people but I didn't think it was that hard a thing to do. That said, I'm talking beliefs that at least provide some kind of benifit to someone. You seem to be satisfied with what you think so I suppose that it's a benefit to you. Someone believing in a flat-earth isn't really doing anything so I'll admit I'd probably laugh a little but if it made them happy, power to them. Now if they believed in sacrificing kidnapped children I would definitely have issues with them.

 

It seems that believers think any criticism of religion at all means prison, metal hospitals, or whatever. Not even close. Not only that, but it seems that everyone can make up their own mind but they need to do so without reading or learning of the side that is critical of religious belief. Why is it that I am one of the very few who sees the nuttiness of this? Most people don't make up their own mind about such things. They are the religion their parents are, or at least the religion dominant in their culture.

 

Did you honestly consider Islam or Jainism in your search for god? Did you REALLY have an open mind toward Hinduism? Of course not. Why am I so horrible, unfeeling, or cold or whatever simply for discussing my ideas (which is what this forum is for) and engaging believers in honest debate about their beliefs? Shouldn't we challenge all beliefs, whether about god or favorite color? Isn't the best way to determine truth to look for evidence, and argue vigorously about the meaning of that evidence?

 

I think you get such a negative reaction because (at least from a religous viewpoint) religion offers something to people, whereas what you describe doesn't seem to offer much, and sounds maybe even a little depressing. I'd actually be really interested in hearing what you feel your beliefs does for you.

 

I do follow the same religion as my parents, however, my grandparents were Catholic, and I have an aunt who decided that she like Hinduism actually so it's not like I blindly followed them. I know that there are other things out there.

 

I've learned a fair amount about various religions and I'd actually like to learn a lot more about most of them because I think that most religions have at least some truth and it's interesting to see where they are similiar and where they differ in opinion.

 

You have no need to be sorry, I am not that easily insulted. I did not mean to equate you with Nazis in the least bit, as I said I was just comparing dogmatic belief systems and that is one about which I am well-versed so it was easier for me. I may not respect religion, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect the religious. I too am sorry if I gave offense.

 

I'm really not too touchy--and even when I am I get over it pretty quick so no worries.

[Chamari]

Wow. I hadn't realized I'd typed all that much. Think that's quite possibly my longest post ever on here.

[Moai]

re:

Why is that?

 

Some of those gods of our past -our intelligence is instinctive enough and wise enough, now, to recognize- are simply relics of our evolution in understanding.

 

Not really. The gods of the past were eliminated at the point of a sword. In Christianity, for example, the version held by the Romans (Constantine specifically) won out because they killed those who thought differently.

 

As far as our evolution in our understanding about god, there are several problems with this. If you re-animated a man from 1400 today, he would hold beliefs that even an elementary school child would find embarrassing. Yet, when you would talk to him about god, he would say the exact same things people today believe. Our understanding of god has not changed one iota.

 

It is true that most Christians today would never advocate burning heretics. But in the past they did? Why the change? The book is the same. The simple fact is that secular beliefs and ideas about morality change what is important about the book, and what parts of the book we should follow and ignore. Morality and ethics effect the meaning of the book, not the other way around. Which again makes me wonder why we need the book at all.

 

I think the answer might begin with the idea in mind that both the *physical* human being and his spritual understanding about himself, his origin, and where he might be headed- is growing and changing.

 

Maybe "evolving" might be a better descriptive word.

 

God of the Gaps, basically. It was once thought demons made people sick. Now we know what germs are. It was once thought that god resided above the Earth, in Heaven. Now we know there is nothing up there, so god because an omnipresent invisible super-being. That has not been the case for most of human history. When we read Genesis, for example, god has a body, walks rom place to place, and directly interacts with people. That is no longer a mainstream view of god.

 

Our ethics and morality change not because god changes, but because we get better at it on our own. Why is that we see slavery is wrong so readily, yet we had to fight a war to stop it and force people to stop enslaving others (some of the most religious people our country has ever known, by the way)? It has nothing to do with god, or what the Bible says, although now virtually every Western believer would say god hates slavery--even though the book says otherwise.

 

And particularly evolving is the concept of God, along with new information about the very possibilities of the existence of the supernatural, and the pursuit to understand things in both a natural and a spiritual sense.

 

Spiritual understanding doesn't require belief in the supernatural, in my view. How would we be able to determine the supernatural in the first place?

 

"Things" like a body, a soul, a spirit, as well as how they are to supposed to, ultimately, all fit together in this great puzzle -and evolving understanding in regards to more complicated, "out there" ideas like transformation of those named parts- and of special interest, the reincarnation of the body that seems to be, at first glance, destined only to decay, and become nothing more than clay.

 

Lotsa folks want answers to as much of that, as possible, Moai.

 

And such things are unknowable. Suck, but its true. No human beings can possibly know the answer to those things, yet so many claim to have the answers and hold those beliefs so firmly it is astonishing--and terrifying. Some men believe in Heaven so ardently that they will happily blow themselves and thousands of unbelievers up in order to get there. Others will flog themselves, deny themselves simple human pleasure and even horribly disfigure themselves because they believe that is what god wants, and doing so satisfies this need for answers.

 

How is that the answers to such things can be so vastly different--and in many cases contradictory--and yet be held so firmly?

 

It's a significant pursuit in the lives of most humans.

 

Why *wouldn't* the subject carry enough weight and gather enough interest to be the spark for intense discussion from time to time?

 

-Rio

 

I am not sure how significant it is, really. I think (in the West, anyway) most people just take it for granted and rarely if ever really examine what their beliefs mean. There are definitely those who "seek" more ardently and such, but they don't seem to be too prevalent. That is why religious ideas are so slow to change, I think.

 

When we look at the Universe, it is exactly as it would be if there were no invisible super-being controlling it. So why postulate that there is such a thing?

[Moai]

You've stated that you don't believe that God exists--isn't that an assertation?

 

No, it is a conclusion based on the evidence. The assertion that god exists was made long before I was born.

 

I think that what it comes down to for evidence in either direction depends mainly on the person--I would speculate that most of what provides my personal evidence that God exists are things that you would either attribute to science or that are based on feelings that I've had a such that there's no way to prove. But, if you're interested, I'm willing to share. I'd be interested to know what your personal evidence is that He doesn't exist as well if you're willing.

 

Awesome! I am totally willing. It isn't so much that I see evidence that there isn't a god, it is that there is no evidence FOR a god. I'll think about some questions (please do the same for me) and we can get going. I think it will be great!:rolleyes:

 

There is always a leap of faith when God is involved, however if you're willing to take just a little bit of it on faith, there's so much more to be seen. For me, the inherent order in the universe is a type of evidence. The way that everything just happens to fit together and work and allow us to live on this planet. Science has discovered many things about this world and continue to, but even science can't explain why gravity exists. That it does is obvious and it can be studied and measured and predicted but the why of it still can't be explained by science in this day and age.

 

That's true. But gravity is a natural process, and it follows that we will be able to explain it someday. I have every confidence that one day we will have a cure for cancer, too.

 

However, just because a particular explanation fits it does not follow that such explanation is correct, or even necessary. I can explain everything I see using an invisible pink unicorn, but that doesn't mean that there really is an invisible pink unicorn.

 

The year that I lost my grandmother and the riding instructor that I'd seen every week for 13 years was hard, but just before they both passed away I just happened to have attended a camp where there had been some really helpful discussions about death and the afterlife. Call it coincidence if you will, but for me, it was important.

 

I have had similar experiences. I do see it a coincidence. I have done an experiment on this as well, which is easily repeatable. For two weeks, look for quarters on the ground. Count how many quarters you find. Then for the next two weeks do not look for quarters. Count how many you find.

 

When one makes the assumption that god exists, then suddenly evidence for such is everywhere. Unrelated things are skewed to fit the preconceived view. It is human nature, in a way, to see patterns where there aren't any. This is important because while a Christian sees all this evidence everywhere that Jesus really is the Son of God, but a Muslim sees the same things as evidence that Allah is the One True God. How can this be? All religions cannot all be correct. But they can all be incorrect.

 

When I start getting depressed, the only thing that I've found that can consistently snap me out of it is prayer--because through prayer I've found love and acceptance that gives me the courage to go on, reminding me that no matter what, there's always someone who loves me and will listen to me.

 

And that's cool, as far as that goes. But I don't see these prayers effecting anything in the natural world, and sadly there are those who think that they get answers back and act accordingly. And people die.

 

In terms of my religious organization, I find order and logic as well as inspiration in my church. Doctine is meant to be tested, not blindly believed (although there will always be those who do), but when it is tested, it is meant to be tested with sincerity and a willingness to listen to your heart and the Spirit, unlike what is required for scientific studies because sometimes the proof of the test isn't always visable to others.

 

Correct. That is why these claims should be examined from the framework of secular morality, no?

 

Although I'll admit that I do believe that I've found the true religion, I still believe that there is a lot of truth to be found in other religions and that there is good in them, even if I also think that they're misguided in some areas. I'm sure they'd think the same about me. Even so, while I believe that I have access to the most religious truth availble at this time, I'm not saying that I have all the answers. There are some things that I think God want us to think about and figure out for ourselves, and other things that we're just not ready to learn about yet. But then again, I'm not someone who needs to know all the answers, so long as there's enough to assure me that it will work out in the end. If I flip a switch to turn on a light, I don't need to know exactly how electricity works and all about the wiring, I'm just happy to know that the light will come on if I do it. And if the light doesn't come on, then there's a reason for it, even if I don't know what it is. Kind of a lame example but it was the first thing that came to mind.

 

Typed a little more than I meant to there. Oh well.

 

I have the same typing affliction, sadly. I think your above example is a good one, but notice one key thing about it. You have demonstrable evidence that electricity exists, and that there is such a thing as wires, and that if everything is working as it should when you flip the switch the light MUST come on. I see nothing is religion that is axiomatic in this way. The second such is postulated, there are examples that such is not so, and then the ad hoc explanations begin. I would imagine you do this to a lesser extent than many others, but its still there. And it is to your credit that you are comfortable not knowing. I have no idea why there is matter instead of not, but I also don't really care. There is matter, so I act accordingly.

 

I can see your point (although I disagree with the assumption) and I'm trying to find a way to express mine although it's a bit muddled. To start with, just you know what page I'm on, I think that the numbers aren't entirely accurate because a lot of the people in the US in particular will say they're religous when they aren't living by what their religion teaches.

 

In actuality, they are. The places where the social ills I mentioned are most prevalent are also the most Fundamentalist. There are people out there who believe that god hates fags, for example. And they act according to that doctrine. Certainly there are believers who profess to believe one way and act another, but why is it we see less of that in more secular cultures? I would say that morality arrived at through evidence and consideration is much easier to follow than the alternative.

 

That's for organized religion at least. What comes to mind is those people who are insistant that they are Catholic and yet attend church one or twice a year if that and don't really live by the doctrine of the church. For those who are religious but not associated with an organized religion, I'd be willing to give them more credit because it has seemed to me in the past that while they may not agree with any church in particular, they seem to take religion a bit more serious in how they apply it to their lives.

 

And yet those who don't apply it at all seem to be more moral.

 

The example of the religious conflicts within the Middle East (from my perspective) exist now mainly because of past conflicts but even so, I think it's because those who are involved in those conflicts aren't really paying attention to the religion that they claim. Even when the Islamic Empire was taking over a large portion of the known world, Islam was really extremely tolerant of other religions.

 

Not according to their book. Open it to any page at random and read about how to kill unbelievers. Christianity hasn't been as tolerant for most of its history as it is now. Believers now ignore the more violent parts of their book, while Muslims are paying closer attention to theirs.

 

From what I've seen and read, tolerance of others beliefs is present in most religions, however, there are always some individuals that think that the unbelievers should convert or die and when these people come into power they take advantage of their power and create situations like the Crusades and the conflicts in the Middle East, the effects of their actions leaving echoes that still haunt people today.

 

In secular cultures religious tolerance is held in high regard, but in point of fact that is not central to any organized religion that I am aware of, save the Jains. The First Commandment states that we are not to worship any other gods, period. Further on, it explicitly states that someone who advocates another god must be killed immediately. This is really the main thrust of the Koran as well, contrary to what apologists would have us believe. I've read it, and it is horrifying that people would consider this book to be inspired by god. I shudder at the horror of it.

 

 

I never had to attend a sex-ed class and most of what I've learned about condoms has been on sites such as these so please forgive me for not instantly making the connection. And I wasn't saying that condoms wouldn't help, just that there are other considerations--they're already scrambling to come up with money for so many things, where are they supposed to find more funds? I would agree that education about AIDS would be a very good thing to do, I just don't see condoms as being the answer.

 

It's cool. The money spent for treatment of the disease is exponentially more than prevention would cost. There are other issues going on as well (racism, for example), but available funds are readily available. I mentioned this in another post, but imagine how many could be helped if instead of building an expensive mega-church that money was used to buy food and medicine! It's almost obscene.

 

And yet they are out there doing something when there are millions of people that aren't doing anything. Give them credit for at least trying.

 

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

I wanted to see the chart--thought it would be interesting--but the link doesn't seem to be working properly for me. Is there a similiar page elsewhere or could you maybe tell me where to look for it on that site?

 

I just had the same problem. You can get the graph if you click on sustainable development on the "you are here" link, then go to US and foreign aid assistance (about halfway down the page), then click "foreign aid charts and graphs" and it pops up. Not sure why you can't link directly to it.

 

Hmm. I'm curious as to the number of people involved in secular organizations in Africa compared to those in religious organizations now. Have to go see what I can find.

 

There are quite a few, from what I have read. I am interested to see what you find.

 

Amazing isn't it?

 

 

 

Sometimes a scripture can be taken at it's face value, other times it requires a bit more work. The reason for this is that the bible (wish I could use other examples as well but I'll admit I don't feel confident enough about my knowledge of other religious books such as the Koran to feel comfortable talking about them yet) was written over a period of time. Duh. I know. Still, that plays a very important part. God spoke to different people at different times and it was written down at different times when different customs and idioms were used than what we may use today. Say such as in the New Testament just before when Jesus turns the water into wine he speaks to his mother and calls her "woman". Now, I've heard some people say that that was Christ asserting his authority over her and reminding her that he followed a different path. I've also heard people use it as an example of how the bible puts down women. However, if you look back at the customs of the times, to call her "woman" was actually a sign of great respect, so Christ could have just been expressing his love for his mother.

 

Which again leads me to wonder why I should care about the book at all, save as a window into the past.

 

Everyone interprets everything around them everyday. Haven't you ever had someone say something or do something that left you thinking, what the heck do they mean be that? Leaving you to interpret their actions/words as best you can. Religious works are just a bit more complicated because of all the importance that is placed on how this person interprets it compared to that one.

 

That is exactly the point. I would expect a book inspired by god to be the most easily interpreted book ever written, but every one is the most confusing and contradictory. Nobody claims that the works of Shakespeare are inspired, yet they are internally consistent, readily interpreted, and infinitely better written than any holy book I am aware of. How can that be?

 

That doesn't follow in my mind. Because something is good doesn't always make it easy to recognise and definitely doesn't make it easy to follow. I know that it's good for me to excersize but that doesn't mean that it's easy to convince myself to do it.

 

That's a good analogy, actually. I would only add that excerecise being good is a conclusion easily arrived at, while determining god to be good is not.

 

It's easy to want something that's against God's will, just like it was easy as a child to want something that was against your parent's will.

 

Except that ou parent's will is easily determined.

 

I wouldn't say that it's faith that leads you to understand it, just to be willing to obey. And there have been and will most likely always be some people who 'kill, persecute, and abuse each other' over religion, just as they do over race, or wealth or any of a number of things. It doesn't make it right, but those people are always there and they're not always reacting over religion. Although I think that a number of extremists try to use religion as their reason because that way they can justify their crimes to themselves.

 

The fact that religion leads basically good people to commit these deplorable acts is why it is so dangerous.

 

Ah, but that's what faith is for. "If you have faith, you hope for things which are not seen which are true." That's something that I really believe. And God is true, unlike say, firebreathing dragons. I like fantasy and I like to read about dragons but they aren't real and I know that. God on the other hand . . . I haven't seen him, but I have felt things when speaking to him that nothing else has been able to make me feel. And that's a lot of what religion is about.

 

How do you know that dragons aren't real? Its because if they were to exist it would go against everything you know to be true about reality, no? Why not apply that same thinking to religion in general and the various ideas about god specifically?

 

No one can give you hard evidence because any kind of hard evidence that they can give you you can explain away with logic. And the only really true pure evidence for God is what you feel and know in your own heart after turning to Him and that's not something that you can share with someone else. I can talk about it, sure, but I can't give you the same experience that I had. Religion is deeply personal at the core of it.

 

Which is why it should be scrutinized even more than something as casual as politics. That initial assumption (that god exists) is the one from which all others follow. And then you arrive at what god wants, how we should behave, and all the rest. In order to experience what you have, I must accept your assumption that your god is the correct one, even though there is no evidence for it. Why must accepting something on no evidence be necessary to explain transcendent or seemingly supernatural occurrences?

 

For the people that join a religion based on the 'evidence' that it offers, I would bet that the majority of them either fade out of the religion or even turn against it later on. Religion is about faith, not evidence, and without that faith, what is the point?

 

I agree. But I think all belief is that way. All believers seem to need to get together once a week (or more) to re-enforce their faith, the faith that is so unshakable to hear them talk about it. I don't have to meet once a week with anyone to go on accepting the fact of evolution, or the speed of light, or that slavery is wrong.

 

I don't know. Just what I said before, just because anything IS possible doesn't mean that it has to happen. Although, if you go back to bible there is the story of Jesus healing a withered hand so that would give you one time. Not quite regrowing a limb but something like it.

 

Ha! Good point. But we have no way of knowing if that story is metaphorical or real, right? And beyond that, why hasn't it happened since, in that case?

 

God did create a perfect version of man--however, man fell, resulting in the imperfect version.

 

Surely you can see that is not possible. If man was once perfect, he could not have disobeyed. Such would be impossible.

 

Who said that I did? Some people on here may get annoyed with me, however, I don't think that the bible is the only inspired work.

 

Well, I don't think any of them are (obviously) but you do favor one over the others, right?

 

We don't have the originals, we have copies of what is said to be the originals. Maybe, just maybe, the scribes never made a mistake in copying them and they're perfect--I doubt that but I'm willing to go with it--but you're still going to have issues with translation. And as for inspiration, aside from the 10 commandments, it was still written by a man and so limited by the writers understanding.

 

When the Torah is copied even one mistake requires that the scribe go back to the beginning. A man could be writing the last letter and mess up, and then he has to go back and start all over. Tedious, but it is a pretty good system to eliminate errors. If it is possible that scribes did make errors, why follow the book at all--just because it is possible that such a thing happened. WOuld it not be better to look at the evidence I can see, perform experiments that are repeatable, and make my decisions based on that than to trust scribes and translators?

 

Sure, that group of scholars may have agreed, but I'd be willing to bet that there are at least as many outside of that group that could have come up with something different. However, I believe that God's basic messages are still there, just that the wording at times may have been shifted over time. That said, it seems to me that it would be kind of ridiculous for God to look it over and say, hey, you forgot an and here. I think that the essence of the book is intact just that you shouldn't take one verse and call it an absolute, particularly if there are other verses addressing the same subject that show it in a slightly different light. All things should be considered.

 

I agree. And that's why I reject it outright. It is not internally consistent, it is obviously wrong about a great many things, and it is no longer relevant to the times in which we live.

 

 

Because religion is a personal thing. When I read these days, I'm looking first at the literal meaning that I see, then try to put it in perspective for the time and people that it was given to and what it would have meant to them, and also for whatever grabs me and says, hey! listen up 'cause this applys to you. The Spirit helps believers to interpret scriptures for themselves--not for everyone. The only one with the authority to interpret them for everyone is God or one of his chosen leaders.

 

How can we determine who is a chosen leader and who isn't? There are so many, and they disagree. The Spirit leads believers to accept so many different things it seems obvious to me that there is no Spirit doing anything.

 

There's still a lot in there that can be used, and the issues that you refer to are quite different than they are seen today. Slavery for example was an extremely different thing than it became after the fall of the Roman Empire. Polygamy was common during that time because of low population numbers in some areas, and to cement alliances and such in others. Genocide is rather reprehensible, however given that feuds between countries could start over rather small things, in the case of something larger genocide may have been the only way to prevent long years of battles that would have a good chance of actually killing off more people in the long run. I'm not saying that I think that those things are right, but I do think that it's important to remember that it was a different age and customs were different back then.

 

But such things were commanded by god. God told the Hebrews to go out and kill all the Midianites and take all the virgin girls as sex slaves. How can a god who would suggest such a thing be considered good--regardless of the times in which he did it? If slavery is evil, (which we know it to be) why didn't god say so way back then? He must have known slavery was wrong s that not so? Why is that the things god hates and wants us to do coincide so perfectly with our current climate and morality? It isn't like a god would have to wait for us to figure these things out on our own, as all he has to do is say, "slavery is wrong" and that would be that.

 

As far as polygamy goes, I am not buying the population argument here. Women are property throughout the Abrahamic tradition, even to this day. Interestingly, and I have posted about this before, there is a tribe in South America where one woman has many husbands. I don't think such behavior is a reaction to population density issues.

 

Because people change. When the israelites were given the ten commandments, those were actually the second set of stones. If you look, the first set was smashed because of the wickedness of the people. Now, theoretically they could have been identical, but I don't think so. I think that the first set was destroyed because the people weren't ready for them yet, had proved themselves disobediant and undeserving of what he was offering, so he broke it down into the commandments. My guess is that the first set contained something closer to what Christ taught when he came. I don't know that for sure but it's something that makes sense to me.

 

And not scriptural at all. Beyond that, Moses smashed them, not god, and then he went back and got another copy. What you have said is a neat idea, I suppose, but it doesn't really wash with the facts. Beyond that, the Golden Rule was around hundreds of years before Christ, and the people were ready for it then. I think that most people were ready for it, but the Hebrews were rather brutal shepherds who were extraordinarily violent.

 

After all, you don't hand a kid a book and expect him to read, first he's got to learn the sounds that the letters make and what the rules are for various sounds. Then they've got to learn the excpetions and oddities, and then they are able to read.

 

Reading is more difficult than understanding that slavery is wrong, or that wholesale murder is reprehensible.

 

God is unchanging but as humanity grows and changes, God is able to provide us with more.

 

Actually, god changes all the time. I just wrote another post touching on that.

 

Guess that makes just one more thing that we don't agree on 'cause I see huge differences between the two. I know that atrocities have been committed in the name of religion but I still think that the individuals are responsible for their own actions. This is where prayer comes in, as even if it's your religious leader showing up telling you that you have to go kill some people in order to save your soul, that's definitely a time to pray for guidance. Maybe in some situations it could happen and be true, but blind obedience isn't good.

 

Then how come nobody involved prayed and got the answer you get? They prayed and found that yes, in fact, they should burn witches. And heretics. They were going to kill Galileo because he had the audacity to suggest that the Earth revolves around the Sun--a fact for which there is a mountain of evidence. Lest you think that such was an aberration of only a few Christians, Galileo was not pardoned by the Church until 1992. 1992! The Inquisition and the Crusades were not perpetrated by an elite few while the rest of Christianity sat back and prayed and cried "foul." Both were embraced and thought to be exactly what god wanted. In point of fact, those men thought that they were doing a good thing for the world, and the people they were burning. Catholic priests in Peru baptized infants and then smashed their heads against rocks in the belief that the child would instantly go to Heaven. Such are not acts that can be left at the feet of individuals only; we must place the blame on religion itself as well. And things like this are happening right now, today. The last Catholic witch burning happened in Mexico City in 1850--around the same time Darwin set sail on the Beagle.

 

I believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. I'll grant that it can be impossible to figure out exactly what pushed someone into something and what they're guilty of and not guilty of, luckily, God's the one who gets to eventually sort out all that and not me.

 

Sure you can, and do. Was Dahmer wrong? Of course. Were the 9/11 terrorists wrong? Yep. It is easy to judge who is wrong and why.

 

 

I don't believe I ever said anything about that which is why I was a bit defensive about your comment. Sorry about that although it's nice to know that we've now found a grand total of two things that we can agree on. Who knows, if we keep going we might even find three!

 

Perhaps I over-reached in this case, I apologize.

 

First thing that came to mind was those arguements that end with one person walking off and saying "whatever." That's just kind of the impression that I get when you say that you respect their right but not the belief. You don't have to believe what someone else does to respect it, but be able to recongnise whatever worth is there. I mean, it would appear that we disagree about most of these topics so far, but I still respect your beliefs. Most of my friends growing up had different beliefs than I did so maybe I'm just more used to looking at things from various perspectives than most people but I didn't think it was that hard a thing to do. That said, I'm talking beliefs that at least provide some kind of benifit to someone. You seem to be satisfied with what you think so I suppose that it's a benefit to you. Someone believing in a flat-earth isn't really doing anything so I'll admit I'd probably laugh a little but if it made them happy, power to them. Now if they believed in sacrificing kidnapped children I would definitely have issues with them.

 

But it is never that easy. People who believe in a flat-earth want their belief taught in schools. What a waste of time and money! Creationists want their garbage taught in schools, and because of the fear of offending such people we tip-toe around the issue. And the US ranks just above Turkey in math and science because of it.

 

Notice that if I don't take the assertion of Mohammad being taken bodily up to Heaven seriously whatsoever there is no outcry, but if I write that I think that the resurrection is silly and a superstition people wig out. That's fine that they do that, but it is interesting that people can easily see that other religions are false, but do not apply the same prism to their own. And therein is danger.

 

I think you get such a negative reaction because (at least from a religous viewpoint) religion offers something to people, whereas what you describe doesn't seem to offer much, and sounds maybe even a little depressing. I'd actually be really interested in hearing what you feel your beliefs does for you.

 

I do know why I get a negative reaction. It's like telling a child there is no Santa.

 

The only "belief" i have is that everything that happens has a natural explanation. We can determine this explanation through experimentation and examination of evidence. I accept what the evidence suggests.

 

This does a great deal for me. For one, it means that I have the best chance of determining reality, and my place in it. It means that through hard work we can improve life on Earth for everyone. It means that we can learn to grow enough food to have it cheaply, safely available everywhere, all the time. It makes me believe that people will throw off the shackles of bizarre sexual prohibitions and enjoy that which is integral to human nature. It means that my life and my decisions are my own, and it is up to me to determine what is meaningful for me, and that others have the right to do the same, and that all such meaning is equal. It means that life is so precious it needs to be valued right here right now, and not seen as some test for an ethereal, unprovable afterlife. It means that we will no longer allow ancient prejudices about gender and sexuality to persecute and oppress others. I could go on and on. I don't think any of that is depressing, personally.

 

I do follow the same religion as my parents, however, my grandparents were Catholic, and I have an aunt who decided that she like Hinduism actually so it's not like I blindly followed them. I know that there are other things out there.

 

Sure, but did you really study Hinduism or Islam before making your selection?

 

I've learned a fair amount about various religions and I'd actually like to learn a lot more about most of them because I think that most religions have at least some truth and it's interesting to see where they are similiar and where they differ in opinion.

 

Sadly those differences make people blow each other up.

 

I'm really not too touchy--and even when I am I get over it pretty quick so no worries.

 

Ditto!

[riobikini]

re:

 

Moai: " such things are unknowable.....No human beings can possibly know the answer to those things........How is that the answers to such things can be so vastly different--and in many cases contradictory--and yet be held so firmly?"

 

How can it happen?

 

Evolving vision, understanding -all of it happening on a personal level- then shared.

 

Except not everyone is on the same page at the same time with their experiences and understanding.

 

You seem to accept we are evolving as human beings in a physical sense (at least, I think you do) -and if we *are* -then is it such a stretch in probability or possibility that we are *also* evolving spiritually, as well?

 

Expanding understanding -and putting some of it to use?

 

A major focus of the top religions being practiced in the world today is the idea of *physical transformation* of the body -reincarnated- into a dynamic "super body" via spiritual, supernatural means.

 

If "becoming" or "growing towards" this awesome transformation is being perpetually pushed forward through adaptation (evolution) then aren't we always -in the meantime- lacking in some way spiritually (having not reached our destination, yet) -and aren't we at some specific disadvantage -until we get there- in terms of what we know and understand?

 

I've always been asking questions, too, Moai -but the difference between you and I, is that I've let go of the sarcasm, the hate research, the amassing just the right amount and array of ridicule to smash down those small, small, outdated gods, the beliefs, and the hopes of sometimes, very foolish people.

 

(Smile.)

 

Instead -I'm looking at what they're looking at (at least, trying to) through different eyes -and reaching for more info, carefully scanning through it all, taking what I can use, shelving what I'm not ready for, yet -and content with leaving the missing puzzle pieces open until the one that really fits comes along.

 

And this is, perhaps, where hope appears into the picture most, for me.

 

Given that most folks believe in some degree of evolution in regards to how we humans have adapted to our present environment in a natural, tangible sense -and most of us are willing to accept overwhelming evidence that elements, and organisms of all kind have worked, adapted, and evolved in concert with each other for a longer time than we, probably, truly know-shouldn't we hope then, that our evolutionary progress include the parts of us -the spiritual parts- that are instinctively there, but unseen?

 

At least -unseen at this present time in the process.

 

-Rio

[Moai]

re:

How can it happen?

 

Evolving vision, understanding -all of it happening on a personal level- then shared.

 

Except not everyone is on the same page at the same time with their experiences and understanding.

 

Ok....

 

You seem to accept we are evolving as human beings in a physical sense (at least, I think you do) -and if we *are* -then is it such a stretch in probability or possibility that we are *also* evolving spiritually, as well?

 

Nope. First, evolution doesn't work that way. Modern humans have been the same physically for 130,000 years. We are not evolving, really, because we do not have any pressures from the environment that favors a particular physical change. We are the only animal that adapts the environment to us, not the other way around.

 

As far as evolving spiritually, we are stagnant. We have been for at least 2,000 years, maybe more. I am all for a new spiritual understanding (one that wouldn't involve magic, of course) but that isn't happening. The books that are held as inspired as the Word of God we have at are disposal are backward, immoral, and dangerous. You are aware that people still get their hands cut off for stealing in the Middle East, right? Women are still stoned to death for honor violations.

 

Look at circumcision. Jews believe that it expresses a covenant with god, somehow. Female circumcision is widely practiced in the Middle East and Africa. From a purely biological standpoint, the foreskin in the make exists to protect the penis. It is there fo a reason. The clitoris (the only organ in nature that exists purely for pleasure, by the way) exists for sexual pleasure in women, and priveds other important ancillary benefits. Yet somehow people got the idea that these things are wrong (it is in their holy books) and so cut them off or out. Isn't that hideous? This is the 21st century!!!!

 

At it isn't just Muslims. Christians in this country are upset when their children are taught, even in a cursory fashion about masturbating. Science shows that masturbation is immensely beneficial to us--in men, those who have regular orgasms experience less prostate trouble. In women, they are more responsive and more orgasmic when with a partner. Why not encourage that which is so beneficial? Because the book says it is wrong. All of these people's spiritual understanding tells them god hates these things--so much so, in fact, that there should be laws preventing people from doing it.

 

I don't see humans evolving spiritually even a little bit.

 

Expanding understanding -and putting some of it to use?

 

Understanding of what, exactly? When I see believers putting their beliefs into practice I see death and oppression--virtually everywhere.

 

A major focus of the top religions being practiced in the world today is the idea of *physical transformation* of the body -reincarnated- into a dynamic "super body" via spiritual, supernatural means.

 

Demonstrably false. The top religions in the world are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Not one of these focuses on any physical transformation in the least, nor do they postulate reincarnation whatsoever. Some Christians believe that when Jesus returns the dead will reanimate, but that is very different from reincarnation. The "top" religions on Earth focus on spiritual reward after death, usually an idyllic place with rivers of milk and honey, virigns everywhere for the taking, gold streets, yadda yadda yadda. It's funny that for all the sexual repression god requires on Earth he offers sexual abandon in Heaven.

 

There are certainly religions that postulate reincarnation. Hinduism, for example They do not suggest a "super-body" at all; rather you either progress or regress based on previous performance. This idea has lead to centuries of oppression towards the lesser castes--oppression that continues to this day. This religion has remained unchanged for thousands of years.

 

If "becoming" or "growing towards" this awesome transformation is being perpetually pushed forward through adaptation (evolution) then aren't we always -in the meantime- lacking in some way spiritually (having not reached our destination, yet) -and aren't we at some specific disadvantage -until we get there- in terms of what we know and understand?

 

We are lacking. WE are in the most dangerous time in human history. Right now a man who thinks that he will get 72 virgins upon death if he is a martyr could get his hands on a nuclear weapon. Dominionists in this country can get their hands on library records and round up everyone who has read "Moby Dick" and persecute them (and they will, believe me).

 

In point of fact, we are NOT adapting to the world we ourselves have created. The backward, dangerous spiritual ideas that are so prevalent very probably will end in our eventual destruction. I have hope that we can overcome this situation, but we are past the time of hand-holding and looking at these beliefs as harmless. They are demonstrably wrong, and we should say so.

 

I've always been asking questions, too, Moai -but the difference between you and I, is that I've let go of the sarcasm, the hate research, the amassing just the right amount and array of ridicule to smash down those small, small, outdated gods, the beliefs, and the hopes of sometimes, very foolish people.

 

(Smile.)

 

What is "hate research"? And these foolish people kill and abuse other people. Why am I so bad or sarcastic for saying so? I don't have to research this to see it, it is all around me every day.

 

Instead -I'm looking at what they're looking at (at least, trying to) through different eyes -and reaching for more info, carefully scanning through it all, taking what I can use, shelving what I'm not ready for, yet -and content with leaving the missing puzzle pieces open until the one that really fits comes along.

 

Fits with what? Your preconceived, evidence free assumptions? I find it interesting that most of what religion explains involves so much ego. Why did I get cancer? Why did my dog die? How come I was born so short? Ad infinitum.

 

The truth is that nothing (save specific human action) has any meaning at all. Someone is going to get cancer. Why shouldn't it be you? Your dog is going to die eventually, as is everyone you know. So what? It isn't as if all this is happening just to make things tough on YOU (I mean that universally, not you specifically), so why worry so much about it? If I walk outside and get struck by lightning, oh well. It is a certainty that someone somewhere will get hit by lightning, and I am not so arrogant to think that I am so special such won't happen to me. It very well could. That's the way the ball bounces. Nothing personal.

 

And this is, perhaps, where hope appears into the picture most, for me.

 

Given that most folks believe in some degree of evolution in regards to how we humans have adapted to our present environment in a natural, tangible sense -and most of us are willing to accept overwhelming evidence that elements, and organisms of all kind have worked, adapted, and evolved in concert with each other for a longer time than we, probably, truly know-shouldn't we hope then, that our evolutionary progress include the parts of us -the spiritual parts- that are instinctively there, but unseen?

 

IN point of fact, most folks in the US don't accept evolution. And while our cultures evolve, we have not physically for 130,000 years. Our religions are not keeping up with our culture or technology. What most people refer to as "spirituality" is really just superstition and ignorance. This is so obvious and yet ignored by so many it's sad. What is so ironic is that believers see such in the beliefs of others so readily, but do not see it in their own.

 

Most people in the US know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with regards to Islam. They see it the same way I do, analyze it the way I do, etc. Yet when I look at Christianity the same way, I am being closed-minded, I just don't know god, blah blah blah. A New Age believers might see my point more, but when I suggest that channelers are liars they react the same way. It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

 

At least -unseen at this present time in the process.

 

-Rio

 

Where do you see this process occurring?

[burning 4 revenge]

moai, i wonder if you realize that you are just as close-minded, icriminating, and intolerant as the fervently religious zealots you come here to preach against.

 

i also wonder why you don't seem to realize that it's not that your grammar that is bad or that there is anything inherently wrong with your writing style, but rather that the coldness and distance you portray while delivering your message is what keeps many at bay.

 

one of the reasons many religious speakers engage people so greatly is because of the warmth, closeness, and hope that is being felt while listening to their message. perhaps they are wrong, yes, but at least they give a little glimmer of hope that, if nothing else, tomorrow will be a new day and, hopefully, not as bad, to those who need it.

 

i'm inclined to think that comfort and reassurance is a basic human need, especially in times of grief. sometimes we are able to supply ourselves with it, but many times we need the help of others--and that "others" comes in many, many forms.

 

however, and i don't mean it as an offence, when you type out your posts, there really seems to be nothing there. it's as though they were void of human feeling. your message is cold, and as such, even if you are right, i'd rather be in the wrong where at least i can feel human, than in the right where i feel like an inhuman.

ha ha. no wonder you fascinate me.

[riobikini]

Moai, at some point (and I think many have already reached it, and are quite tired, by now) the tune of your posts really do begin to sound like those of your polar opposite, the fanatical (as you snidely refer to them) "fundamentalists".

 

And just as narrow-minded.

 

I am happy that *you* are happy with your perspective, all your facts, and must (sigh!) concede to the "overwhelmingness" (Smile) of them -and just slink off into the vast nothing portrayed by you, so well, so often.

 

Why fight it? -there is no God, no Creator, no nothing to aspire to beyond this life we live -so why shouldn't we all just lie down in a big pile and die right now?

 

There's really no reason to get up in the morning and go to our jobs (it's all useless effort!-especially, if we're in some kind of help service job, or social work, since people are always going to be awful to each other and humans seem not to ever learn from their mistakes and refuse any idea of getting along with each other!)

 

Why even try?

 

Why, all the facts you keep bringing up make any effort, at all, seem so unworthwhile.

 

And you must be right -all the facts you present are so correct, so proven.

 

Science says so.

 

But here's a thought: I believe any fact can be *abused* by anyone bright enough to manipulate it.

 

Hopeless and fearful -this is the same way fanatical Christians made me feel when I was a child -so, Moai, I'm judging your posts, your ideas, with the same measuring stick -and you both have measured up to about the same in terms of producing reason for anyone to want to keep breathing, yet, another day.

 

Lucky for me, I'm not a child, anymore- and cannot be easily awed, impressed, or won over by misused truths, facts, and "evidence" all (at the core) meant to disparage rather than enlighten -and I've no real burning desire to change the way you or your opposing "brethren" -(or anyone) thinks or believes.

 

And am quite happy to exit your thread, unswayed -as usual- by any of your ideas, or the context in which you choose to present them (not to mention specific experiences in my life which cause me to *know* there is most certainly a spiritual realm you have not yet discovered.)

 

And I am content with my own beliefs, which are full of hope, btw.

 

-Rio

[Moai]

Moai, at some point (and I think many have already reached it, and are quite tired, by now) the tune of your posts really do begin to sound like those of your polar opposite, the fanatical (as you snidely refer to them) "fundamentalists".

 

And just as narrow-minded.

 

Narrow-minded? Because I reject superstition? I do not reject it out of hand, which is how you accept it. If someone says, "Belief in god makes people more moral" why am I narrow-minded if I look out my window and see if that is true?

 

If I told you that you would lose weight by eating dirt, would you just run out and start eating dirt without question? Of course not. I don't think that you would consider yourself narrow-minded in such a case, either. I am not any more critical of religion as I am any other claim, really. But somehow because I apply the standards of evidence equally I am narrow-minded.

 

I am happy that *you* are happy with your perspective, all your facts, and must (sigh!) concede to the "overwhelmingness" (Smile) of them -and just slink off into the vast nothing portrayed by you, so well, so often.

 

Nothingness? I don't live in nothingness. Typically, instead of accepting reality the way it is--even if uncomfortable--you would rather ignore the "facts" and continue blindly down whatever path you see yourself on. Which facts do you accept then? The Earth revolving around the Sun? The freezing temperature of water?

 

Why fight it? -there is no God, no Creator, no nothing to aspire to beyond this life we live -so why shouldn't we all just lie down in a big pile and die right now?

 

Because I only have one life--same as everyone else--and I want it to be the best that it can be. I would like everyone else's to be that way, too. It sickens me that young girls are tortured in the world in the name of religion. I notice you have had no comments on such things, but rather focus on my being narrow-minded. No offense, but I find this to be typical of "spiritual" believers.

 

Why fight them? There is life after death, and god will take care of them, so I don't have to do anything about it now. I'll just drink my wheat-grass shake and drink my latte and worry about the transmission in my Volvo. I can't see people starving where I am, or see young girls mutilated--oout of sight out of mind! Whee! Everyone I know is so spiritually in-tune its awesome. We are going whale watching this Sunday blah blah blah.

 

In your haste to find meaning you abandon those who do not have the luxury to make the decisions you do. You get to take what you like and abandon the rest, or wait until it makes sense to you. The young woman being set on fire right now because she talked to a Sunni boy envies you greatly, I am sure.

 

You are able to do what you do "spiritually" exactly because of the way I think. The protections you enjoy are protected by secular government. The documents that regulate the rights of the government versus the individual are secular, and were derived through examination of evidence, not spiritual understanding. It's funny how the way I examine the world and determine truth benefits you so and you yet deride it, call it narrow-minded, and claim it offers nothing.

 

There's really no reason to get up in the morning and go to our jobs (it's all useless effort!-especially, if we're in some kind of help service job, or social work, since people are always going to be awful to each other and humans seem not to ever learn from their mistakes and refuse any idea of getting along with each other!)

 

Why even try?

 

People do learn from their mistakes. If you need your superstition to make you go to work and treat people with respect please keep believing it. Humans by and large aren't awful to each other, individually. Almost everyone I meet during my day are super-cool. But you get them in a group and get them agreeing on what god wants and it gets scary. Very scary.

 

Why, all the facts you keep bringing up make any effort, at all, seem so unworthwhile.

 

And you must be right -all the facts you present are so correct.

 

Science says so.

 

Yep. The countries with the least god-belief also rate themselves happiest as well. Too bad. But that isn't the point. The point is that it doesn't have to be this way. It is rather shocking that you missed the point here. Why is it so narrow-minded to examine the beliefs that lead to so much death and suffering?

 

Hopeless and fearful -this is the same way fanatical Christians made me feel when I was a child -so, Moai, I'm judging your posts, your ideas, with the same measuring stick -and you both have measured up to about the same in terms of reason to keep breathing, yet, another day.

 

And you are free to do so. I can't fathom how you reach that conclusion, but to each his own. By the way, your computer works because people look at facts and interpret them, your iPod, car, dishwasher, television, sanitation system, nail polish, ATMs--virtually everything you need to live in a modern world comes from science, and non-dogmatic thinking. Yet when applied to this one area of human thought, it is narrow-minded and offers nothing. It has improved life immensely in every sphere of life, and even has in relation to spirituality, and yet that's bad somehow. I don't get it.

 

Since you believe in something beyond this world, why don't you kill yourself now? Why wait? What's it all for? The afterlife is better than this, so to heck with it.

 

Lucky for me, I'm not a child, anymore- and I've no real burning desire to change the way either of you think or believe.

 

It is possible to change the way I think. You have demonstrated that it is not possible for you to do so. Who is narrow-minded?

 

And am quite happy to exit your thread, unswayed -as usual- by any of your ideas, or the context in which you choose to present them.

 

-Rio

 

I weep myself to sleep at the thought.

[burning 4 revenge]

Hey man, you have to admit people are happier believing in God. I'm an atheist too, but it definitely takes the glitz off things

[Moai]

Hey man, you have to admit people are happier believing in God. I'm an atheist too, but it definitely takes the glitz off things

 

I am sure some people are. That is not indicative of there really being a god, of course. Personally, I am much happier now that I do not believe in gode, nor is it necessary to believe in god to be happy.

 

I still find it funny that people need to meet once a week to get together to reinforce the faith that gives them so much happiness and is so unshakable. They listen to a man give them what amount to nursery rhymes compared to an ancient book, they sing "praises", kick down a few sheckels, and they are good for another week.

 

If religion really does make people so happy, why do they keep asking the same questions over and over, even though they already believe? Seems to me that it's a cure that doesn't last.

[Moose]

Actually, I am not close-minded at all. I am open to evidence for god, and if presented with some I would change my mind right then and there.

Total BULL right there.

 

You want TANGIBLE evidence. Which you know full well we can't produce.

 

I finished argueing with you because of your close mindedness.......your views and beliefs are impossible for me to follow.

 

You seem to think that if a tornado went through a junk yard, it can produce a functioning 747 Jet just out of chance.

 

Sorry.....but like I've said before.....I don't have enough faith to be an athiest.....

[primed7]

Same here Moose, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist....

 

well said.