Religious discussion continued

Remove all ads!

Shralp, I'd just like to point out that Immanuel Kant (a christian) systematically showed the flaws of each major proof of the existence of a god and each major proof that god did not exist that was known at the time. No other proof since his time has ever been given much credence in the philosophical community. Kant deals with the 4 proofs given by Aquinas. Kant's conclusion is that there is no proof that god exists nor is there proof that god does not exist and therefore it is equally reasonable to believe there is a god as there is to believe there is not one. Kant was devoted to logic, basing his entire ethical position upon it and his work on the issue has settled the debate on whether there is a "proof" regarding the existence/non-existence of a god for most of the philosophical community. That's why most analytic philosophers today don't bother with attempting to find a "proof" one way or the other.

Earlier someone admitted that you can't disprove the existence of a god but that you could disprove the existence of the traditional Judeo-Christian God which is normally defined as omnipotent, omniscent, and omnibenevolent. I believe the two arguments asserted as disproving the existence of the Juedeo-Christian God are (1) the argument that free will and the traditional Judeo-Christian God are mutually exclusive and (2) The problem of Evil.
(1)
I believe that the argument that man can not have free will if the traditional Judeo-Christian God exists has been addressed fairly well above. I'd also like to point out that it might be possible for a being to be omniscent (all knowing) and not know the future. How so? If the future in not knowable an all knowing being might still know everything that is possible to be known and it is no more fair to criticize something for not knowing something which it is impossible to know then it is fair to criticize something for not being able to do something impossible (such as create a spherical cube.) Just as the inability of the traditional Judeo-Christian God to create a spherical cube does not mean that it is not omnipotent the inability to know something which can't possibly be known does not mean the God is not omniscent. In order for there to be knowledge at the very least you have to have a true justified belief (plus something to get around the Gettier problem.) In order for a proposition to be true it must have happened. If a future proposition has not yet happened it does not have truth value and therefore it is not knowable. So, I take it that a Christian might choose to argue that God knows everything that is knowable (is omniscent) but doesn't know the future. That's another way around the argument against God's existence though I don't think many Christians will take it. The arguments above seem to overcome the atheist objections anyways.

(2)
The problem of Evil is more vexing in my opinion. The difficulty with it is that not all of the evil in the world can be lain at the feet of man. So, the claim that all evil originated with man and not God is thoroughly uncompelling. We can see that there is a lot of pointless, needless suffering in the world. It seems peculiar to me to blame the birth of a child with Tay-Sachs on man and free will. Wouldn't the traditional Judeo-Christian God have made a world where there was no Tay-Sachs? Isn't Tay-Sachs simply the embodiment of needless suffering? Or, if you want to step outside of the human realm, what about natural disasters which slowly and painfully destroy wildlife populations? If the destruction is necessary as you might argue then why couldn't it be done in a more humane manner? Couldn't an omnipotent, omniscent, and omnibenevolent God found a way to make this world, if just by the smallest fraction, a tiny bit more kind and humane? It seems difficult to me to say that the world coldn't be just a fraction better, and if it could be, why isn't it? I don't think everything can be blamed on man.

One might argue that the world is as perfect as possible. That's not to say that everything in it is perfect of course, but the world as a whole is as perfect as it could be given the goals of God -- man with free will. This is a rather courageous way to bite the bullet in my opinion but I find it to be thoroughly uncompelling. Another possibility I suppose is to try to blame everything on man and free will, I find this unplausible.

There's a few things that have also occurred to me over the last few days whil reading this entertaining thread. One, why do Christians want a proof that there is a God? Faith is the central tenet of Christianity. I can proove plenty of mathematical equations but I have no faith in them -- I have knowledge. If you could prove God existed you would no longer have faith in it, you would know it. Just like I don't have faith that 2+2=4, I know it, I believe that proof of the existence of God would destroy faith.

And for the agnostics and atheists (I'm an agnostic myself) I don't understand why some of you seem so obsessed with being atagonistic. This isn't meant for most of the posts here but some of them and it's also something I've noticed at other times in my life. It's almost like with some there is a need to proselytize akin to the need of the most devout Mormon. I can understan the Mormon wanting to proselytize if she thinks she is actually helping others by doing so, but why do many atheists and agnostics feel the need to destroy faith in others? What I speak of is different than engaging in a well meaning debate on the subject just for the joy of doing so, but I find that often many atheists and agnostics are out to destroy faith more than enjoy an intellectual debate and I don't understand that desire.

As for me, I don't think that it is possible to prove the existence or non-existence of a god or of God. I simply find that I don't have faith that there is one, but I wish that I did.

 

To address the above, I (an atheist) am holding the same zeal as any devoutly religious person. I do not wish to antagonize without cause, only to spurn debate- the only problem I have with religion is its static nature. It is such a reductionist point of view, of which there is no logical proof, that it often hinders true attempts to find answers.

If we were to say, hey, these are dinosaur bones, look at the structure, I wonder how and during what period these creatures lived, let us study their plausible habits and see why they went extinct- a christian would say, "That's a useless study, those bones were placed there to deceive you and test your faith. There are/were no such things as dinosaurs. Have faith in God."

In almost every attempt to find answers about life, to better understand the world in which we live, the christian world retraces the answer to "God works in mysterious ways, let us not question, but only praise him for his glory."

I might not have the answers, but what unnerves me is that neither do you. For you to say that you "know", when you don't, is a lie. You might have faith in a God, you might truly believe that something is true, but that does NOT make it so. I could very well believe in martians, but that does not make them real.

So fine, believe as you may, to each his own. But I am sickened by the attempts of organized religions to simply dismiss any possibilities of a different answer than their own as heresy. As an old philosopher said, "An unexamined life is not worth living." To go throughout life simply acting and reacting, without probing deeper than the surface, is to live the life of an automaton. To be blunt, a person in this position could almost be replaced by a well-built android. Our capacity to reason, to attempt to understand, in and of itself encourages us to ask questions. As another wise man once said, to paraphrase, "A conclusion is simply where someone decided to stop thinking."

Once the assumption that God exists is held as true, all possible occurances, or truths about the world can be traced back to his doing(i.e. Dinosaur bones = him testing your faith.). The only problem with this is the opening line- once the ASSUMPTION that God exists is held to be true. Without that as-of-yet unfounded assumption, there can be no answers by this method.

As I said, I might not have all the answers, but at least I'm not so readily willing to stop looking. I have drawn no conclusions, because there is nothing to draw them upon. I'm not afraid of what I don't know. It is my driving force, my courage. "Faith", in my book, is the lack (out of fear, irrationality, whatever) to desire to look for answers. If I'm damned for this to go to hell into the clutches of Satan, so be it.

I'm not about to not live my life. I'd rather burn in hell.

Amon-Ra

 

Thanks Laches. Kant is wonderful.
I have a free will. And maybe god is watching me from above, shakin' his head, thinking: No Oblate, don't post again.
I belief, that people are responsible for their own deeds.

 

John 9

And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.

And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?"

Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me, as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

When He said this he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, and said to him, "Go wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated "Sent"). And so he went away and washed, and came back seeing.

Ok so here we have the disciples asking if it is the blind man's fault that he is or blind, or his parents? Both due to sin. Jesus answers saying it was so the works of God could be shown. At first glance this seems like the man was made blind by God because God is all powerful and can just do what He wants. (Well He is, but He does not do anything that is not fair.) That's not exactly what I think is going on here. Man was seperated from God when he sinned back at Eden. The reason was because the devil had successfully tempted man. All throughout the bible there is talk that about the "world" and "worldly" things that are bad. God did create a perfect world. It was Satan who lead man aside and corrupted God's creation. God is working on a new kingdom, one in which His once loyal, now fallen angel won't be able to corrupt.

But the question is, why does God allow Satan to have a limited authority on earth? Consider the first two chapters of Job (actually consider the whole book, I think I will reread this one soon). God allows Satan to cause harm to Job and his family, saying it is in Satan's power to do so. However, God does put limits on what Satan can do. (i.e. Satan isn't allowed to flat out kill Job.) When all these bad things befall Job he questions why God would allow this to happen to him (Job was a devout follower of God.) In the end, and after a long debate, Job realizes that he must trust God and His sovreignity. Job can't understand all of God's ways. Job admits that if he cannot even understand God's ways in the physical realm, how can he even begin to understand God's ways in the spiritual realm! Job's sincere repentance and newfound wisdom pleased God and proved Satan was wrong (Satan was trying to prove to God that if he smote Job, Job would turn his back on God for good.) Job was rewarded with double of what he lost to begin with and was greatly blessed.

"So that the works of God might be displayed in him." - something to think about.

Luke 4

And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days; and when they had ended, He became hungry.

And the devil said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."

And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'" (Jesus qoutes from Deuteronomy 8:3)

And he lead Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, "I will give You all this domain and its glory, for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You worship me, it shall all be Yours."

And Jesus answered and said to him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.'" (Jesus qoutes the second commandment.)

And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; for it is written, 'He will give His angels charge concerning You to guard You,' and 'On their hands they will bear You up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'" (Satan qoutes scripture too - when it fits his needs - Psalms 91:11, 12.)

And Jesus said to him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Jesus qoutes Deuteronomy 6:16.)

And when the devil finished every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time.

I love this passage (there's a similiar account in Matthew.) The one man Satan can't successfully tempt - Jesus. I especially like temptation #2, "Tell you what 'Jesus'. If you worship me and prove that I am more powerful than You. I give this world back to you. I'll pack up my bags and leave humans alone. No more tempting. What do you say?" - the devil. Notice the devil assumes that God can't at any moment take his "authortity" away.

Jesus of course lays the smack down on him. The devil thinks he Has an advantage over God by leading His creation astray. God thinks otherwise. He has a plan, a new kingdom. And you are invited. God has seen that man can be tempted. Those who want to follow Him can. And those who don't - don't, but they must accept the consequences. Why would you say no? Why would you let yourselves be deceived by someone who doesn't give a crap about you? Why wouldn't you stay under the protection of someone who does?

Have faith. Job's faith paid off. The blind man's faith paid off. The thief on the cross next to Jesus - his faith paid off. So can yours.

 

Yeah God did create a perfect world but we messed things up by choosing for the devil.
Then he send Jesus to help us and the ones who believe will be saved. But that's all thanks to God he gives us the believe. Now you will say so who doesn't believe cant help it. But that ain't thrue you still have your own resposibillity you still have a choiceif you don't believe you choose against God. no choice is also a choice
and if you do believe your saved because God wanted to you to be saved and you might not be rewarded in this live and you might get a lot of trouble in this live but a eternal treasure awaits you

 

a) Because, Big B, I don't believe I'm being deceived by any 'Satan', nor do I believe I am under the protection of any 'God'. I don't believe in either. I have no 'faith'.

b) All of your examples of the benefits of faith are from the Bible, which is circulatory and can't be substantiated. It is essentially the "because I say so" argument. I give you two doors, A and B. Choose A. Why? [Proceeds to tell a story about all the people who've gone through A and prospered.] That's why. True, you've never met any of these people, and because they're dead (that being an unfortunate consequence of their revelation) never will. We're not allowed to see, to experience, to understand. In fact, it's even put forth that we CAN'T. We must simply believe. Imagine if anything else in life were that way.
If that is the case, don't get an education, it's not worthwhile. Why learn? Why question? Have faith in God, live a simple life, die, and get off this forsaken rock. Be a monk. Live in the mountains and worship God. We are not meant to understand him, or his ways. Science is a worthless field, for it attempts to answer questions to which we already have the answers: God is miraculous.

People often ask me that without faith in God, without faith in the afterlife, doesn't my life feel worthless? Like there is no point, no meaning. I feel it is quite the contrary.

Doesn't the thought of: Live a pious life, die, go to heaven make this life seem a wee bit worthless? Critical, but so infinitely fleeting that in comparison to the afterlife it's inconsequential? Other than proving yourself to God? This is just a temporary proving grounds. A test.

To me, life is all I have, so I make the most of it. It is infinitely important. I have no afterlife. I have no eternity to fall back on. I am only myself, here, now. What could make me value life any more?

Amon-Ra

 

Shralp:

I assumed you meant "the correctness of Christianity". Since Christianity involves the belief in a god, what you've said implies that it argues well for his existence. If you simply meant that it argues well for the positive influence it has on the world, then I agree... you didn't say it was any proof. Sorry about that.

Everyone:

I'm actually NOT after proof anymore. You can't actually have it. Well, you can't have it and actual FAITH at the same time. I said it in at least one of my previous posts, but I didn't say it as well as Laches did.

As for "why atheists run around and preach"... you're right... some do. Some are out to do nothing more than shatter your faith so they can wear a smug grin. But it's not all like that. I participate in these arguments as much for myself as anything else. They are entertaining and stimulating. Without them, I might continue with an error in logic sitting in the middle of what I thought I knew or believed.

Now to return to a point from my previous post, which I think I need to expand on (as, re-reading it, I don't think I made myself clear enough). Please, if I've made a mistake in definition or logic, point it out to me. I'm using the definition of faith as put forward by Mother T earlier in this thread.

The bible tells of the existence of god. It doesn't hint, it flat out tells you he's around. So, if I have faith in the bible, that is, if I acknowledge what's in the bible as true, without any proof, I can't actually have faith in god. Having faith in the bible would provide evidence that god exists, and as such, would make faith in god an impossibility.

On the other hand, if you have faith in god, you can't have any proof. As such, someone who has faith in god must not have faith in what's in the bible, as it provides evidence, the shatterer of faith. Would this mean that only those who have not read the bible, or do not believe it, can truly have faith in god?

[ September 25, 2002, 22:09: Message edited by: Judas ]

 

Amon-Ra, I believe you may have misinterpreted my post. I tried to purposely go out of my way to not be accusatory of anyone in particular, only noting that some of the previous posts had become a tad bit antagonistic. It is that antagonism that I don't understand. Nowhere did I say that you shouldn't question or wonder. Nowhere did I say that you shouldn't care. Nowhere did I say that you shouldn't debate. If you reread my post I simply said that I don't understand the motive of some to destroy the faith of others; that is different than those who engage in these type of debates out of a joy of understanding, wondering, and a desire to learn and appreciate. As Judas said, there are a fair number of atheists and agnostics who wish to destroy the faith of others simply so they may smirk, that is what I was referencing. Nothing was directed at you.

Also, there was a broad overgeneralization above. The Christians who would maintain that dinosaure bones were planted by Satan (or more peculiarly by God as a test), or that evolution is a hoax, etc. are a minority. Evolution and Christianity are not inherently incompatable -- the Pope acknowledges evolution for goodness sake. Most Christians do not interpret the Bible literally.

Judas, this agnostic is reaching back to his days in Catholic school (where I gave a few religion teachers heartburn I'm sure) and would say that one answer to your question is that the Bible isn't something seperable from God that you have faith in. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God. It is merely a vehicle for God to convey his wants and desires to man. It isn't something that you have independent faith in. You have faith that what is said by the Bible is actually the word of God, but this is wrapped up in your belief that there is a Judeo-Christian God. They are in essence, inseperable. Faith in one is faith in the other.

Also, even if a Christian takes the Bible to be actual proof of the existence of God it strikes me that there is still a qualitative difference between the type of proof it would be and the type of proof one does for her symbolic logic class. It is the latter sort of proof which in my opinion would destroy faith, not the former.

As an aside, I believe that there are at least some sect of the Jewish faith that do not believe in hell (I probably got this from reading about Spinoza somewhere.) Also, the Roman Catholic Church maintains the position that hell is not fire and brimstone but the absence of God. The Roman Catholic belief is that you live your life and by sinning and refusing to seek forgiveness you are essentially saying to God that you do not wish to spend the rest of eternity with him/her/it so that when you die you simply go somewhere where God has withdrawn its presence. This idea of hell that is held by Roman Catholicism and the idea that there is no hell that at least some Jews believe alters the argument that God is unjust to condemn someone to infinite suffering for finite sins.

Here is something too for the atheists. Some agnostics (not myself) hold that we have an epistemic responsibility to not believe in something unless you are justified in doing so. Since there is not proof of the existence of a god, they do not feel that one can responsibly believe in a god. Likewise, since there is no proof that a god does not exist, they hold you can not responsibly believe that a god does not exist, ie. you can't responsibly be an atheist. So, if you are an atheist and acknowledge there is no proof that there is no god (and I haven't seen anyone claim such a proof exists) then how do you justify being an atheist? Shouldn't you acknowledge that you don't know either? Where do you obtain the certainty that there is no god if there is no proof that one doesn't exist? Isn't that abandoning logic in the same way that some atheists accuse those who believe in a god of doing? I'll hold my thoughts for later I think since I've rambled on long enough. peace -- laches

 

Judas, having faith in God himself is the same as having faith in the validity of the bible itself. There is also no proof that everyone in the bible existed, or that the events happened. There may be confirmations of certain events and places, but not everything can be proved. The bible is a guideline. If you have faith in it's writings, you can have faith in God. Some people choose to take it word for word. Others know that that's impossible unless you understand the original languages that it is written in.

With the understanding that those who wrote the bible are not perfect, having faith in it is what gives you the ability to decipher true meanings from it.

[ September 26, 2002, 00:33: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

 

Having faith in the bible requires the assumption that changes that have been made to it by the church throughout the years have been inline with what God wanted.

One could argue that the church is guided by God and as such the changes it makes / has made are in line with God’s will. With that line of thinking however, everything should be in line with God’s will and there is no free will.

I do not have the evidence at hand right now but I was reading somewhere that it has been shown that forms of government have used the church to control people. If that is the case, could they have not also used the bible?

An interesting question is: “Should someone who is suitably inspired by God be able to change the bible nowadays OR is the current form of the bible final?”

 

http://www.nccg.org/FAQ036-Hell.html
The first sentence of the answer makes a good argument by itself against Big B's reasoning of us going to hell hif we regect god. Though I don't believe in even half of the things this guy says it makes a good rebbutal against the 'You will go to hell if you don't believe' theme thats coming up.

 

Laches: Following is an answer to the question you directed at atheists.

First, let’s get some definitions straight.

Theism: The belief that there is a god.
Atheism: The absence of the belief that there is a god. Atheism is often divided into two subcategories: strong and weak. Strong Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Weak atheism is the absence of the belief of a god. There is a subtle but important difference.

I’ll butt in briefly to say that I agree with the stance that strong atheism is as equally “irresponsible” as theism. The descriptions of god put forward by some are crafty, and impossible to disprove. You can see my earlier posts regarding proving Yahweh doesn’t exist (at least with the attributes he’s said to have) – that is a relatively easy one. But it’s easy enough to add an excuse here and a change there, and make it impossible to disprove his existence. This leaves strong atheists with as much ammunition as theists have - that is to say none.

Now, back to definitions:

Agnosticism: This is a slippery one. I’ll start out by saying that agnosticism does NOT lie somewhere between theism and atheism. Theism and atheism are based upon belief. Agnosticism is based on knowledge. It can be argued that many (some may say most, if not all) theists (and atheists, for that matter) are also agnostic. Determining whether one is agnostic or not is based upon knowledge, not belief.

For further information on agnosticism, I suggest looking up Atheism vs Agnosticism using Google. Following is a link to a site that explains what agnosticism is.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_agnosticism.htm

It can be seen from the previous definitions that being an atheist does not [necessarily] involve irresponsible beliefs. However, I must agree that strong atheism has a similar footing to theism, and as such, displays a funny form of hypocrisy.

[ September 26, 2002, 08:28: Message edited by: Judas ]

 

To Mother T,

Your explanation about “Faith” is really an eye opener. It made me realize that I’m fighting with a wrong strategy. And I am glad that Judas (our Judas) had also accepted that reasoning.

To Big B,

You are doing the right thing, keep on sowing the seeds. In His time, the seeds will grow.

To Judas,

Man, I really have so much to say to you. But for some reasons I would have to hold back some of them. I will, however, let you know some of the reasons. You have quite a number of queries regarding my earlier post that I have yet to reply. I was actually trying to collect info for my claims, but Mother T’s “Faith” and your acceptance of that reason have made stop. So this is some clarifications/or explanation not necessarily to prove my points or disprove your arguments.

Regarding my estimated time, you are correct, I made a very bad mistake. What I wanted to present was the time between Moses and Paul.

With regards to the authors not being able to read their predecessors’ works, I will not continue this, as I can prove this as much as anyone can disprove it. Let’s leave this behind.

Single thought and one author. The Bible, to me holds only one message, and that is the Love of God for human kind. For me to explain this might cause more debates. Should anyone wants to talk about it, that up to them.

My referencing of scientific topics where not totally intended for you, as I have stated, it was “Judas and those who believed that the Bible is not a valid source…”. What I have posted seemed to be centered on you that is probably because you were the most active opposition at that point in time.

Heart and mind, your jest regarding that is well taken. Your suggestion of conscience and emotion is close, but I was thinking more specifically about “faith” and “love”. I will not continue to explain this, for the reasons that I find it difficult to explain. It involves to many aspects of believing without material proof. Probably someone would try to attempt. And besides, I believe that Mother T’s “Faith” had also touch about logic and the absence of material proof can not provide a good battle ground for such debate. Also, you have to be aware that Christians have the term “being touched by the Holy Spirit” or “filled by the Holy Spirit”, many have the misconception that this is conscience. Don’t get me wrong with this one Judas, I’m not referring to you (I don’t know your stand with this one.) Not everything that the conscience make you feel is the way of the Lord. So I leave this topic be.

Experiencing the Bible, this I love to share. Unlike science, where we experience it mostly by our five senses, namely: touch, smell, sight, hearing and taste. Experiencing the Bible, on the other hand, is felt emotionally (I’m not comfortable using this term, but I can’t think of a better one, so bear with me) or involves manifestation of changes in our attitudes, character, lifestyles, way of thinking, how we treat others, and etc. Some examples:

Let’s say our drinking buddy, John, he suddenly stops coming to our favorite bar. After a few weeks, we knock on his door, he opens it, and we say “John, let’s grab some beer and boogie the night away.” And he said, “John is dead, this is a new creation of God. I’m going to a Bible study tonight, would you guys want to come with me?”

Or maybe this old lady who had lost everything she owns, seen her husband and children died. And yet she inspires everyone around her. When asked why she does that, she only answers, “Because the Bible told me that God loves me and I can see that love all around me.”

Or maybe a couple who witnessed their son being senselessly murdered right in front of them during the war time. Ten years later, they adopted the very person who killed their son. The military officer (the newly adopted son), asked why he was forgiven and loved. The couple can only say because the love of God compels them to.

Or maybe this Chinese minister who was imprisoned simply because he was preaching about Jesus Christ in China. He was tasked to clean a pool of manure that is waist-deep, and he is singing “Amazing Grace” and “How Faithful Thou Art” while performing his task.

Or maybe this grumpy and stingy boss of yours suddenly approved the deserved salary raise and became a good friend to everyone in the office. A total turn about of what he used to be. Because he had accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Those are some of examples of experiencing the Bible, not the Bible literally but the Word of God. They are true, and I’m sure you have in several occasions read or witnessed something like those. These experiences are too many to ignore. In fact, these are actually why some unbelievers call us “stupid”, “morons”, "boring", “fanatics”, and as one SP poster termed us, “brainwashed”. There’s nothing I can do about those labels. For all I know, some of us do deserved to be branded as such, but that’s for you to decide. Those changes were for the better. As for me, I know what I have experienced, it is the word of God working in us.

To Amon-Ra,

I am a Protestant. And I agree with what you have said about dinosaurs and hasty conclusions based simply on the “have faith in God” reason. I used to be that kind of a person. And I still have several Christian friends, some of them more mature than me (age-wise or knowledge-wise or even both) that looks at things with that kind of attitude. It is a shame that Christians have these kind of thinking but then again not all, and hopefully not the majority, but unfortunately it seems like the more vocal ones. I’ll be using “dinosaur” to mean any scientific discoveries that have conflicting evidences against the Christian teachings. However, this does not mean all them, there might be exceptions.

Living in the Philippines have given me several experiences, being a Christian nation, predominantly Roman Catholic. I have witnessed (not exactly seen but rather exposed to because of what’s going on around) several “supernatural” events, such as images of the Virgin Mary crying tears of blood, a dancing sun with the image of Jesus Christ, touching the robes of certain saint's image have healed them and so fort. I’m not saying that it only happens here, I’m sure most of you have heard of such events elsewhere. Although most Christians concluded these as miracles from God (let’s use “miracles” for this kind of events). These “miracles” have infused a sudden flow of zealousness or fanaticism, should you prefer. Should I say they are not real or should I go along the flow?

Things like these “miracles” and “dinosaur” have made me wonder. They are both beyond the normal circumstances, they are what I would like to call “faith shakers” or “science disrupters” (there may also be others, such as for logic, philosophies or whatever, but let’s keep it simple). Science could not convince me that most “dinosaurs” are real, and religion could not make me accept most of these “miracles” are from God. Caught in between, to some it is the best thing, to me it is a troubling state to be in. This is then that I realized that all those things have nothing important to do with what I truly believe in, and that is simply that God loves me, and that I have chosen to walk His path. Why should I let these “dinosaurs and miracles” cause me to fall from His grace. What is important to me is my relationship with my creator (I’m not forgetting that I should be evangelizing and living a life acceptable to God, but then again for simplicity sake let’s keep it this way). Some Christians call what I did as part of the process of discerning. And discerning requires divine intervention in order to pinpoint what I should believe in or not. What divine intervention am I talking about, to me, it is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (the Holy Trinity) guiding me. And this is something very personal and may work differently in each Christian or person. Yes, person, not only Christians can be “touched by the Holy Spirit. That is why I never believe that a religion can save you (it can help you but it is not the solution), Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. In short a Christian’s relationship with God has many levels, we often call this “maturity in Christ”. Should you meet Christians with an extreme “have faith in God” attitude, try to know his “maturity in Christ”. A true Christian does not believe blindly, they don’t simply dismiss logic, however, if logic seems to be getting in the way of their faith, they know which to choose. They are not easily shaken, they know that nothing can take them away from the love of God (Big B can probably give you the Bible verse for this promise).

That is not completely true. Just because we have submitted ourselves to God does not mean that we have stop searching for answers. We still do, and like Job, we still question God. We still want to know if those “dinosaurs” are real or those “miracles” are from Him. Why do you think there are Christians who suddenly stop believing? We still strive to know things, things like why are there sufferings, why did God allowed evil on earth, and why won’t God just come down from heaven and reveal Himself once and for all, and all sorts of questions. To have a much deeper understanding of God is a very difficult task, that is why the Bible is so important to us. It is one of our greatest link to Him. And like most of you, many of us do not receive the answers right away, some never got the answers in their lifetime. And the absence or delays of those answers have caused some of us to walk away from Him just as others would remain hoping that IN HIS TIME, those answers will be made known. The difference between a believer and a non-believer is that we have the assurance that those answers will be revealed.

To someone,

One of you have asked something about God being a jealous God but I could not find that post, sorry. But here is an answer, this can also answer some of the questions regarding why God is punishing people.

Exodus 20:1-6
1. And God spoke all these words:
2. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”
3. “You shall have no other gods before me.”
4. “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”
5. “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for, I, the Lord you God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
6. but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

That is the first of the Ten Commandments that God gave Moses in Mount Sinai. Yes, God is indeed a jealous God.

[ September 26, 2002, 10:24: Message edited by: nior ]

 

Thank you for clearing that up, Judas. Saved me a little time.

Laches: I wasn't entirely responding to you, simply clarifying that I wasn't trying to be antagonistic, and if I was, it was merely in the form of a devil's advocate(pardon the phrase).

I am an atheist in the sense that I lack distinguishable beliefs. That is not to say that I am unable to hold steady a belief, simply that I am unwilling. I'm not ready to stand and say I have the answers, and anyone who might has a lot of justification to do before they are lent credibility- at least by way of me. I approach all contentions with equal scrutiny, and as of yet, none has been able to make it to the final round. None has survived that devastating kick to the balls when, if you're still standing, you've won.

Religion, however, I see as having done the most damage of any other aspect of culture in history. Beliefs form schisms that, to this day, are the subject of wars and bombings. It leads to constraints on beneficial technology. It becomes a powerful weapon of justification in the hands of the ignorant: i.e. Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, Inquisition. Hold- I've noticed something. It is not religion that I have qualms with, its any form of a church body. They wield their followers like soldiers of fortune that are paid in sanctity and cleansing. If one is to believe in God, why must he channel that belief through an old man in a hat? Can one not believe in God without going to church? Can one not be one's own church/congregation?

I do not believe there is a God, or any other fundamentally held objects of religions. At the same point I acknowledge that this standpoint is unprovable, as of yet. If there sounds to be any resentment, or any seemingly irrational distaste for religion on my part, it is probably meant to be geared toward organized religion instead of simple spiritual beliefs. Organized religion, in my perception, works against progress in many instances, acting as an extremely conservative body. As a species, we often need- or are subject to- radical change. Any group that would hinder the perpetuation of our species in order to maintain moral/societal norms I see to be irrational and intolerable.

Believe what you may,
But get out of my way,
If I do not agree.

Amon-Ra

 

Finally, just the reply I was hoping for. The old charge that it is organized religion which is to blame for many of the sorrows in the world. I was hoping for this reply because I hear it quite often and I think it is disingenuous.

Now, never in my life have I been a participating member in any organized religion. Born into a family with a Methodist mother and a non-denominational father, I did attend Catholic school for 4 years. I tell you this simply to point out that I don't have an agenda, I'm not trying to defend my own. Indeed, I used to use the same line about what misery the world has suffered at the hand of religion. I now believe that to be absurd.

Were the massacres committed at the behest and by the hand of Genghis Khan were the result of religion? Was the St. Valentine's Day massacre in Chicago due to religion? Was the Opium War where Britain stole Hong Kong due to religion? Did the Inquisition occur because of religion?

I say no. What, how can I say the Inquisition didn't occur because of religion? I say that all of the above examples occurred not because of religion but because man by nature craves power. To blame Christianity for the Inquisition rather than the cold calculating men who were using it as a means to solidify and extend their power base in tremendously unfair in my opinion. I of course am not denying that powerful leaders have used religion as a tool, a vehicle of maintaining and justifying the attempt to expand their power. However, imagine for a moment a world without any organized religion. I submit to you that precisely the same type of attrocities that have taken place in this world would take place in that world, because mans' thirst for power is not tied to organized religion. The fact that man is capable of assuming control of religious institutions and using them to further his own ambitions no more makes religion inherently evil or dangerous than the ability of man to seize an airliner and use it as a bomb makes an airliner inherently evil.

In short, don't blame organized religion for the world's problems. The real culprit is man, and the same problems will exist with or without organized religion.

One thing, ealier in the post I wrote that when some lay the world's woes at the feet or religion they are being disingenuous. That's an overgeneralization and I thought about changing it. I decided not to because I know that there are some I'm sure who sincerely believe that religion is a cause of problems rather than an excuse or a stolen vehicle of those with independent desires for power. I suspect Amon-Ra is sincere. However, just as many try to destroy the faith of others just to smirk, I know from experience many trot out this line just to smirk as well, they don't really believe it, they're just being disingenuous.

Judas, you're right and I was sloppy in how I was using my terms. Huxley came up with agnosticism to mean those who believe the existence of a god is unknowable where atheism can be either strong or weak. It was good that was pointed out because I was using the terms as they are normally used assuming the normal usage was what everyone was referring to here. Look atheism up in Webster's and the second definition is "doctrine that there is neither a god nor any other deity." Now this of course isn't true to the original meaning, but it is how it has come to be understood to most today. You're right though that we should be more precise and I'll strive to be so : )

[ September 26, 2002, 18:28: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

"Yeah God did create a perfect world but we messed things up by choosing for the devil."

in a perfect world would there even be a devil?

 

If the devil doesnt exist in a perfect world the neither does God since
"evil" doesnt exist without "good" and "good" cant exist without "evil"

[ September 26, 2002, 19:42: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Wrongo.

Evil is the absence of God (caused by those who reject him, not because he can't be everywhere). Therefore, a lack of evil just means that God is everywhere, which is altogether logically consistent.

 

Boy, you people are hard to keep up with. I turn around for a few hours and the discussion has progressed leaps and bounds in my absence.

Ok, just a couple things:

MotherT: thanks, though I never actually intended to define free will as such. It´s more of an "if " thing: I think that if God does in fact exist, and he is, in fact, omniscient, and therefore all things to come have already been predetermined, then free will cannot exist, even if nobody is forcing you to do or choose anything, because your own choices in life have already been preestablished and therefore are meaningless (your whole existence is, actually, if we continue to follow this line of reasoning). I try not to make cathegorical statements regarding these sort of things.

Amon-Ra: Yes, sadly, organized religion is too easily abused (more so than most institutions), and there are far too many historical examples of this. I am, too, an atheist, and a skeptic, in the sense that I remain unconvinced as to the existence of supernatural phenomena (gods and devils included), I also believe that membership any given religion is unnecessary to live a good and moral life, and I believe being a good person here and now is more important than worrying about any hypothetical afterlife.

Finally: Shralp, you say that Evil is the absence of God, caused by those who reject him, then please explain the following statement:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. " (Isaiah 45.7).

[ September 26, 2002, 23:09: Message edited by: hermit09 ]

 

My Bible's translation of Isaiah 45:7 ->

The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well being, and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

If you take in the context of the whole chapter and not just a single word in a single verse (a common mistake) - you see that God does not throw "evil" around for fun. The chapter is about the power and authority of God. And that verse and some others are about bringing forth calamity on His enemies, those who worship false gods and idols and who shun Him.

But interesting that you should qoute from that very chapter as we also have this famous passage which has a lot to do with this thread in general:

"Woe to the one who quarrels with the Maker - an earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say 'He has no hands'? Woe to him who says to a father, 'What are you begetting?' Or to a woman, 'To what are you giving birth?'"

And here you are nior, a great passage concerning that nothing can seperate those who believe in God and His love:

Romans 8:38-39 ->

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to seperate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.