Is Religion the Root of All Evil?

[munkle]

A two part mini-series, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, is being shown in the UK exploring the question, is religion the root of all evil?

The bulk of the show (the first episode anyhow) was dedicated to showing how religion is fundamentally opposed to the scientific approach to gaining knowledge about the world. And how faith and science are basically incompatible.

I posted a couple clips on my site. One where Dawkins talk to Ted Haggard and another where he talks to a Islamic fundamentalist who converted from Judaism. Doesn't make for pretty viewing.

Here's the linkety linky (http://tauquil.com/archives/2006/01/12/is-religions-the-root-of-all-evil/). Feel free to join in on the discussions.

[skunk]

Without having visited your link, I would venture that, just as the correct original quote is "the love of money is the root of all evil", so the love of religion is likewise.

[xsedrinam]

Interesting link, and an interesting topic. For the moment, I still cast my vote for "root" with "I want what you have-ism" or "avarice".

[edesignuk]

Yes, it is.

[munkle]

As it's for television they've obviously gone for an inflammatory tabloid-esque title. The real question being posed by Dawkins I guess is whether science and religion can co-exist.

[miloblithe]

As an atheist, I'd like to offer:

no way. Not even close. Religion encompasses almost all of humanity for almost all of history, so it's contributed an endless variety of evil, bad, good, etc.

Same for science, defined as the pursuit of knowledge by experimentation and observation. It's led to an endless variety of results.

And the idea that religion and science are opposites is more than a little annoying.

[silverback66]

This is just propaganda. People who believe it could point to the crusades and say see SEE!?!?! People on the other side could show how science led to the invention of the nuclear bomb and all other killing devices. I don't think it's even a debatable point.

[~Shard~]

Religon causes wars, science builds the weapons to fight those wars. There's not much difference really. :cool:

[Abstract]

Yes there is. One is the reason, and the other provides the means.


Thread: Is Religion the Root of All Evil?

I thought it was women. :eek:

[miloblithe]

Religion rarely "causes" wars. It is often used in rationalization for wars, if not invariably. But the root causes tend to be power, money, resources.

[silverback66]

Religion also helps billions of people all over the world and many of those who attend church donate money every single week to help others.

[emw]

No - evil is the root of all religion. Why would you need religion if you didn't have evil?

[Cooknn]

No - evil is the root of all religion. Why would you need religion if you didn't have evil?Profound! :p

[silverback66]

No - evil is the root of all religion. Why would you need religion if you didn't have evil?

If by religion you do in fact mean religion then you're right if you mean religion as in faith then you're not because Adam and Eve existed before evil and still had a intimate relationship with God.

[sethypoo]

Without having visited your link, I would venture that, just as the correct original quote is "the love of money is the root of all evil", so the love of religion is likewise.

Although I'd agree that religion has caused some pretty messed up and unfortunate situations, I think that if religion is treated properly, and as long as its adherents don't go to the side fanaticism, religion can be a good thing.

Faith, however, has nothing to do with religion. Faith, regardless of what religion you're a part of, is how we can talk and relate to God. Faith is never evil, but sometimes religion can be.

[skunk]

If by religion you do in fact mean religion then you're right if you mean religion as in faith then you're not because Adam and Eve existed before evil and still had a intimate relationship with God.Well now, you're entering into pure conjecture there. I'm pretty sure that Adam and Eve are iconic representations, not historical figures.

[emw]

If by religion you do in fact mean religion then you're right if you mean religion as in faith then you're not because Adam and Eve existed before evil and still had a intimate relationship with God.
Yes, faith and spirituality are not linked only to religion. Religion, in my mind, is an organized assembly of ideals and doctrines designed to regulate faith and promote specific interpretations of historical events to the exclusion of other beliefs.

[silverback66]

Well now, you're entering into pure conjecture there. I'm pretty sure that Adam and Eve are iconic representations, not historical figures.

Then why is Jesus referred to as the second Adam?

[emw]

Then why is Jesus referred to as the second Adam?
He's also referred to as the "Son of God," but there is no more historical proof of God than there is of Adam.

[silverback66]

He's also referred to as the "Son of God," but there is no more historical proof of God than there is of Adam.


Fair enough. That's where faith comes in I suppose.

[Sogo]

I personaly don't think that religion is the root of all evil, its the leaders who use the name of religion to do what they want.

[EGT]

I wouldn't say religion is the root of ALL evil, but it is certainly a major cause. I'm from Northern Ireland. :p I've seen what it does firsthand.

When is the program on again by the way?

[Thanatoast]

Couldn't you say that since religions separate and define good from evil, that they are in fact the root of all evil? Without a religion to tell you that something is evil, would you still think it is? For example, pornography?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Man is the root of evil and man created many ,many, religions.

[silverback66]

I like C.S Lewis' thoughts on it. Check out the first few chapters of Mere Christianity....don't worry, they aren't even about Christianity but about theories on the existence of God and the nature of good and evil. I can aptly explain it and I won't even try, but I will offer this to consider....Evil is the abscence of God just as darkness is the absent of light and cold is the abscence of warmth. Scientifically speaking, darkness doesn't exist. You can't measure darkness. It's just how we describe the abscnce of light. Similarly so, cold doesn't exist. You cant measure cold. It's how we describe the abscence of warmth. Lastly evil in and of itself doesn't exist. It is merely the abscnence of God. I would encourage you to chew on that a bit before responsing to it.

[floyde]

If by religion you do in fact mean religion then you're right if you mean religion as in faith then you're not because Adam and Eve existed before evil and still had a intimate relationship with God.
You mean these guys?
http://covoprieca.com/controinformazione/casicovoprieca/vivisezione/immagini/ani_chimps.gif
I thought Lucifer had existed before them...

Anyway, I think both this post and the videos are further proof that science and religion cannot coexist peacefully. That's no reason for us to try to eliminate either one of them though. I say keep 'em apart and we'll be fine.

[silverback66]

Right Lucifer did exist before them but evil didn't exist until he rebelled against God and mankind didn't know evil until adam and eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[skunk]

Right Lucifer did exist before them but evil didn't exist until he rebelled against God and mankind didn't know evil until adam and eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Which may be your opinion or articles of your faith: please don't state such as facts, which they are definitely not. Other opinions or articles of faith have just as much validity, and by dismissing them you are asserting an entirely subjective truth.

[skunk]

Evil is the abscence of God just as darkness is the absent of light and cold is the abscence of warmth.Some gods are described as evil: what of that?
Scientifically speaking, darkness doesn't exist. You can't measure darkness. It's just how we describe the abscnce of light. Similarly so, cold doesn't exist. You cant measure cold. It's how we describe the abscence of warmth.Bogus analogy. Darkness and light, coldness and warmth, are continua. Goodness and evil, if they "exist", would be likewise.

[floyde]

Right Lucifer did exist before them but evil didn't exist until he rebelled against God and mankind didn't know evil until adam and eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Well ok, but why bring God into this? The way I see it (wether God exists or not), God and religion are not the same thing. God is like a popstar and religion is like the unofficial fanclub that has never actually met God and thus they can't possibly know anything useful about him (ok analogies suck, but my communication skills suck too so I have to use them;) ).

So in this hypothetical scenario, God could be the opposite of evil, and religion could still be the root of evil without much trouble, just like the Britney spears fanclub claims that she can sing, when in fact, she cannot:confused: .
But I don't believe religion is the root of all evil, since man created religion (and science), man (insert politically correct term to include women here) is the root of all evil.

[Ugg]

It is merely the abscnence of God. .

I read that as "abscess" of god and needless to say got quite a chuckle out of it. perhaps you mean absence.

[xsedrinam]

Right Lucifer did exist before them but evil didn't exist until he rebelled against God and mankind didn't know evil until adam and eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Okay, so according to your belief/position whichever, this "existence" of Flip Wilson's copout predates the chronology of your Adam bomb and Second Adam bomb? Maybe you can help fill in the blanks or connect the dots on this one? "Angelogy" is it? Then the good one(s) went "evil"? "Demonology" is it? What's up...or down with that?

[mactastic]

Man is the root of evil and man created many ,many, religions.
Indeed. Paradoxically, Man (people) is also the root of all that is good and noble... and some of that is even religious.

[silverback66]

In a way it's funny to watch you guys struggle for answers to this and yet sad at the same time.

[xsedrinam]

In a way it's funny to watch you guys struggle for answers to this and yet sad at the same time.
Funny? I thought I'd asked a good question. Either way, I'm used to living with the tensions, be they well-in or ill-in; i.e. today, thou shalt be with me in paradox.

[emw]

In a way it's funny to watch you guys struggle for answers to this and yet sad at the same time.Remind me again what we're struggling to answer. The whole "evil = absence of God" thing? I didn't realize it was a question.

I'd prefer evil = the absence of good, if I were to stick with the comparison logic you use.

[xsedrinam]

Remind me again what we're struggling to answer. The whole "evil = absence of God" thing? I didn't realize it was a question.

I'd prefer evil = the absence of good, if I were to stick with the comparison logic you use.
I took it that the rhetorical question in the thread title implies origins of evil. If it's been suggested that Lucifer kicked the ball off, I'm asking questions about the stadium, time clock and team members, rulings, scoring, who's ahead and who wins? Not to mention the fans, coaching staff and owners.

[Thomas Veil]

Why would you need religion if you didn't have evil?Didn't Father Webster (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=171409) ask this very question just last Friday? ;)

Anyway, to the question at hand:

I used to defend religion, but as I'm seeing it used more and more to justify evil, I've come to the reluctant conclusion that religion is indeed a primary cause. It seem that the more fundamentalist you are, the more you embrace ignorance over reason, violence over peace...and that goes for Islam and Christianity.

It's hardly a struggle to reach that conclusion. You see it every day.

[katchow]

In a way it's funny to watch you guys struggle for answers to this and yet sad at the same time.

could u be any more condescending? Baseless superiority, is that a perk to being christian?

[aquajet]

could u be any more condescending? Baseless superiority, is that a perk to being christian?

Oh please, katchow. You should only be so lucky to have silverback's bits grace your computer screen. :rolleyes:

[sethypoo]

I like C.S Lewis' thoughts on it. Check out the first few chapters of Mere Christianity....don't worry, they aren't even about Christianity but about theories on the existence of God and the nature of good and evil. I can aptly explain it and I won't even try, but I will offer this to consider....Evil is the abscence of God just as darkness is the absent of light and cold is the abscence of warmth. Scientifically speaking, darkness doesn't exist. You can't measure darkness. It's just how we describe the abscnce of light. Similarly so, cold doesn't exist. You cant measure cold. It's how we describe the abscence of warmth. Lastly evil in and of itself doesn't exist. It is merely the abscnence of God. I would encourage you to chew on that a bit before responsing to it.

Well put, and good idea quoting C.S. Lewis. This I can agree with.

Religion is a tricky thing that should not be taken lightly. I use religion to help fuel my faith, which in turn keeps me close to God. I suppose some might say that without religion I couldn't know God. I feel that faith plays an important role in one's relationship with God. Religion is just a medium, and we all know that there are plenty to chose from.

[sethypoo]

Bogus analogy. Darkness and light, coldness and warmth, are continua. Goodness and evil, if they "exist", would be likewise.

Can you do us all a favor and flesh out this argument? I'm curious as to why you can debunk darkness, light, coldness, warmth, goodness and evil as being pure continua. Granted, they're not scientific terms, but do you think that means they mean nothing?

[solvs]

In a way it's funny to watch you guys struggle for answers to this and yet sad at the same time.
And yet to me, it's sad that you are so sure of yourself and don't even bother to question your own reality. Funny how that works.

Anyway, back to the original question, I don't think so. Looking at myself, I'd say no. Far from perfect, just don't believe that my beliefs have to come at the expense of what else is out there. But looking at others, I'd have to wonder. Though sometimes I do think people either hide behind religion to justify their own exsistence, wrought with their own hatreds and prejudices, or simply go along with those who use religion to further their own selfish agendas out of ignorance or naivety. Religion, like science or money or anything else, can lead to good or evil depending on how it is used. We've seen the positives and negatives, but unlike some religious types who would discount all science because some of it is used incorrectly or doesn't make sense, I believe we should not let the bad negate the good.

So... short answer, no with an if; long answer, yes with a but.

[skunk]

Can you do us all a favor and flesh out this argument? I'm curious as to why you can debunk darkness, light, coldness, warmth, goodness and evil as being pure continua. Granted, they're not scientific terms, but do you think that means they mean nothing?I don't believe I am "debunking" anything. I'm simply saying that to view all these descriptive terms as either "black" or "white" is unproductive, like saying "You're either with us or against us": in the real world there are degrees.

[zimv20]

So... short answer, no with an if; long answer, yes with a but.
your taunting is forcing me to turn my rage towards the Leftorium.

[Palad1]

No, religion ain't the root of all evil.
this guy is (mailto:root@allevil.com)

:D

[WinterMute]

Lastly evil in and of itself doesn't exist. It is merely the abscnence of God. I would encourage you to chew on that a bit before responsing to it.

Chewed on it, spat it out...

I believe there is no god, which in your view makes my world and everything in it entirely evil...

Way to get banned...;)

Evil as you would define it certainly does exist and its in the hearts and minds of every one of us to a degree, evil needn't be the wholesale slaughter of innocents, or indeed ugly and stupid creatures bent on destruction, evil can be small and petty and is often laughable, but it's human and it's here to stay.

Religion, in my experience, is often a source of conflict, often bitter and armed. It has little to do with the concept of a supreme being, benign or otherwise.

[mpw]

There's no God.
Religion's are started by people who have specific selfish goals.
Good is done by people because they're good not because they are religious.
Evil is done by people who are evil because they are evil.
Evil is also done, sometimes, by people who are good and wouldn't do evil but for their religious faith.

Therefore without religion:
There'd still be no God.
People with selfish goals would need to fulfil them without the support of a religious faithful following.
Good would still be done by good people.
Evil will continue to be done by evil people.
Good people wouldn't be drawn into doing evil through religious faith.

Conclusion:
There would be less evil if there was no religion.

[~Shard~]

In a way it's funny to watch you guys struggle for answers to this and yet sad at the same time.

Then you should be laughing and feeling sad for yourself as well, since you're no smarter on this issue than any of the other people here. :p Plus, there isn't really an "answer" to struggle for, it's more a matter of opinion. When it comes to matters such as God there are no cold hard facts, i.e. no one knows for sure. :cool:

[emw]

Didn't Father Webster (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=171409) ask this very question just last Friday? ;) Nice. I missed that one...

[mactastic]

So... short answer, no with an if; long answer, yes with a but.
Thanks Rev. Lovejoy. Now go back to playing with your trains...

;)

[Sayhey]

Thanks Rev. Lovejoy. Now go back to playing with your trains...

;)

Is that the Love Train (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=867045&s=143441&i=1205746)? Because, ya know, it's time to get on board.

[sethypoo]

There's no God.
Without argument, and in my opinion, this is just plain untrue. Also, following skunks's request, could you please state this as your opinion, and not as a fact that you are completely unable to prove? :rolleyes:

Religion's are started by people who have specific selfish goals.

Untrue. What of the people who start a religion to worship God? Do you consider the worshiping of a particular God to be a selfish act? Perhaps it could be construed as one, but as selfish acts go, that's no biggie.

Good is done by people because they're good not because they are religious.
Evil is done by people who are evil because they are evil.

You're leaving no room for those people who do acts of good simply because they are extremely religious. What of these people? They do exist, and they perform acts of good in a somewhat unselfish sense due to many reasons: getting in to Heaven, repenting, or just wanting to please God. Yes, they do want something in return for doing good, but they are also doing it because they are religious.

Evil is also done, sometimes, by people who are good and wouldn't do evil but for their religious faith.

I must agree with you that some people have done acts of extreme evil in the name of their concept of "God." But by NO means should these people be looked at as being the only examples of evil being committed. Religious folks are capable of acts of extreme kindness.

Conclusion:
There would be less evil if there was no religion.
Yeah, right.:rolleyes: Let's not count all the charities and trust funds and organizations that are religiously based that help millions of people every year. Let's NOT count the shelters and soup kitchens and food drives that exist because a church, synagogue, or mosque has set them up. Are you blind? Yes, religion has done some pretty ******* things, but the amount of good they do should not be overlooked.

[blackfox]

Let me give this a go - though I doubt I will be as eloquent and concise as I would like.

It seems to me that the problem is not Religion - but those who choose to co-opt it for their own ends - noble as some of those may be.

Since Religion involves, almost by definition, the substitution of Faith for fact, and the importance of said faith as a meaning or organizing principle in many peoples lives - there can really be little in the way of rational debate.

The way Religion often is inextricably tied to peoples' identity and psychological foundation (via morality/judgement systems), almosts precludes any participation of rational thought.

It is just too difficult and painful for many to risk that kind of honest self-appraisal - whether it be in how their own actions reflect their religion, or of those who use their religion (often rhetorically) as a cover for evil deeds.

or something like that...

[skunk]

What of the people who start a religion to worship God? Do you consider the worshiping of a particular God to be a selfish act? Perhaps it could be construed as one, but as selfish acts go, that's no biggie.Often this is a selfish act, since religion has all too often been used as a differentiator to define those not sharing that person's version or faith as less worthy of respect or consideration.

You're leaving no room for those people who do acts of good simply because they are extremely religious.Are you implying that some people "do good" not because they actually care, but because they are afraid of hellfire? How odd. Corrollary charity?
What of these people? They do exist, and they perform acts of good in a somewhat unselfish sense due to many reasons: getting in to Heaven, repenting, or just wanting to please God. Yes, they do want something in return for doing good, but they are also doing it because they are religious.If they are doing this purely to guarantee their own salvation and against their "better instincts", then they are not doing good at all, in my humble opinion. They are buying Indulgences.

[Macaddicttt]

Anyway, I think both this post and the videos are further proof that science and religion cannot coexist peacefully. That's no reason for us to try to eliminate either one of them though. I say keep 'em apart and we'll be fine.

I don't understand how anyone can think this. Science and religion have to work together to find the whole Truth. There are some questions science can never solve. There are some questions that religion can never solve. You use both.

And if science and religion are incompatible, how could anyone possibly be religious? How could you believe in something that can be proven false? It doesn't make any sense.

And as for the two never coexisting peacefully, that's not true. In Western Europe, the Catholic Church was the religion of everyone for a very long time. Don't tell me that no scientific developments occurred during that time. Sure, things were a bit slow during the dark ages, but that was due mainly to the political systems, not religion. And during the Renaissance and such, the Church was on the forefront of science, particularly astronomy. Heck, for a long time all schools were religious. Most of the great scientists were religious: Newton, Pascal, etc., etc.

Islam, too. Islamic nations made huge scientific advances all the time. In Europe, for a time, all the works of Classical authors (including scientific ones) were translated from Arabic, not the original Greek.

[Ugg]

I don't understand how anyone can think this. Science and religion have to work together to find the whole Truth. There are some questions science can never solve. There are some questions that religion can never solve. You use both.

.

What truth is that? Science is only interested in things that are provable. The existence of a christian god is the ultimate in unprovable assertions. The more science is able to prove, the less need there is for religion because that is the ultimate raison d'etre for religion, a path to explain our world. The migration from religion to science has been and will be slow but to continue to believe in the bible as the source of all knowledge will only hamper human progress.

[skunk]

I don't understand how anyone can think this. Science and religion have to work together to find the whole Truth. There are some questions science can never solve. There are some questions that religion can never solve. You use both.Are there any questions religion can solve?

And if science and religion are incompatible, how could anyone possibly be religious? How could you believe in something that can be proven false? It doesn't make any sense.We all do foolish things from time to time.

And as for the two never coexisting peacefully, that's not true. In Western Europe, the Catholic Church was the religion of everyone for a very long time.Um, which "Western Europe" was that? The Western Europe of the Celtic Church (absorbed in 9thC after the Synod of Whitby), of the Arians, of the Cathars (up until 13thC), of the Moors in Spain and Portugal for 800 years, of the Jews, of the Bolgars? One at a time, please.
Don't tell me that no scientific developments occurred during that time. Sure, things were a bit slow during the dark ages, but that was due mainly to the political systems, not religion.Highly debatable.
And during the Renaissance and such, the Church was on the forefront of science, particularly astronomy.Galileo Galilei might disagree.
Heck, for a long time all schools were religious.Oh really? Whatever happened to the humanistas?

[Macaddicttt]

What truth is that? Science is only interested in things that are provable. The existence of a christian god is the ultimate in unprovable assertions. The more science is able to prove, the less need there is for religion because that is the ultimate raison d'etre for religion, a path to explain our world. The migration from religion to science has been and will be slow but to continue to believe in the bible as the source of all knowledge will only hamper human progress.

Here's a question science cannot prove: How did the world start? It's impossible. It's impossible to observe the creation of the world, science requires observation, therefore science cannot prove anything about it.

Also this: science requires that everything comes from something else, right? One thing causes another. Well, keep going back further and further in time. Let's assume that the big bang is true. Well, what caused it? And what caused what caused the big bang? Etc., etc. You have to make a leap of faith to make science true. You have to simply believe that something existed only because of itself, with nothing else causing it. So there's one thing religion (or faith, if you prefer) proves: science.

[silverback66]

I'll throw in something simple and probably controversial:


Evil is caused by the conflict between heaven and hell. It's a matter of the spiritual warfare that exists beyond our own perception. I'll cite Ephesians 6 since people like sources so much:

10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power.
11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.
12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

[zimv20]

Here's a question science cannot prove: How did the world start?
couple comments about the above. first, understand that the scientific method operates on theories, and that "proving" a theory doesn't mean absolute truth, it means it stands up to scrutiny under the scientific method. it also means that a theory can be disproved later on and replaced w/ a better. for example, newtonian physics was a fine theory, but it broke down under certain conditions. enter einsteinian physics, which explained all of it. note that newtonian physics is still useful and is still taught, but it isn't, nor ever was, "the truth."

regarding how the world started, there are some pretty solid theories on that. and some of them can trace back what happened to a fraction of a second after the big bang. is it "proved?" depends on your definition of proof.


Let's assume that the big bang is true. Well, what caused it? And what caused what caused the big bang? Etc., etc. You have to make a leap of faith to make science true.
there's a lot of research and a lot of debate, and religion is definitely in the picture. but let us note the limits of science: it is based on our observations. if we're unable to look past the big bang, then science has nothing to say about it. that doesn't invalidate science, its method, or any of its applications.

i mean, if the pope and the dali lama disagree on the nature of the beginnings of the universe, it doesn't mean your microwave oven suddenly stops working.

[silverback66]

couple comments about the above. first, understand that the scientific method operates on theories, and that "proving" a theory doesn't mean absolute truth, it means it stands up to scrutiny under the scientific method. it also means that a theory can be disproved later on and replaced w/ a better. for example, newtonian physics was a fine theory, but it broke down under certain conditions. enter einsteinian physics, which explained all of it. note that newtonian physics is still useful and is still taught, but it isn't, nor ever was, "the truth."

regarding how the world started, there are some pretty solid theories on that. and some of them can trace back what happened to a fraction of a second after the big bang. is it "proved?" depends on your definition of proof.


there's a lot of research and a lot of debate, and religion is definitely in the picture. but let us note the limits of science: it is based on our observations. if we're unable to look past the big bang, then science has nothing to say about it. that doesn't invalidate science, its method, or any of its applications.

i mean, if the pope and the dali lama disagree on the nature of the beginnings of the universe, it doesn't mean your microwave oven suddenly stops working.

To go beyond Macaddicts question, how did all of the matter that exists in the universe come to exist? I'd really like to knwo what you think because speaking for myself it takes a far bigger leap fo faith to believe that it has always existed and there was never a point where it didn't than to believe that God created it.

[Macaddicttt]

Are there any questions religion can solve?

See above post.

Um, which "Western Europe" was that? The Western Europe of the Celtic Church (absorbed in 9thC after the Synod of Whitby), of the Arians, of the Cathars (up until 13thC), of the Moors in Spain and Portugal for 800 years, of the Jews, of the Bolgars? One at a time, please.


Exactly. Political turmoil.

Okay... so maybe not everyone was Catholic, but you know what I mean. I didn't see the Cathars or Bulgars or Jews making any scientific advances during that time. My point here isn't so much the unity of religion in Western Europe but the fact that scientific development occurred when everyone was religious. I'd like to find an atheist during those years...

Highly debatable.

I agree, but I was generalizing to make a point. Science wasn't crushed because of religion. It played a part in the overall stagnation of the period, but you didn't have people creating new methods of agriculture and the Church saying, "That's evil because my religion is incompatible with it."[/QUOTE]

Galileo Galilei might disagree.

Okay, so a few under-qualified clergymen got together and punished some poor guy because they misunderstood a verse of the Bible. I quote you to prove my point: :)
We all do foolish things from time to time.
Again, your missing my point. It would be ludicrous to now use that verse to prove that the sun goes around the earth because it's been proven not to. The earth going around the sun isn't incompatible with religion.

Oh really? Whatever happened to the humanistas?

I didn't say always. Sure, secular schools popped up in the Renaissance (I assume you're talking about the humanist movement), but I can assure you, the first cathedral school was started much earlier.

And I thought of another religious person who made scientific advances. I forget the guy's name, but the monk who discovered genes using plants.

[silverback66]

Science and Faith in action

http://space.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=space&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fnssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Fplanetary%2Fimage%2Fapollo8_xmas.mov

[Macaddicttt]

couple comments about the above. first, understand that the scientific method operates on theories, and that "proving" a theory doesn't mean absolute truth, it means it stands up to scrutiny under the scientific method. it also means that a theory can be disproved later on and replaced w/ a better. for example, newtonian physics was a fine theory, but it broke down under certain conditions. enter einsteinian physics, which explained all of it. note that newtonian physics is still useful and is still taught, but it isn't, nor ever was, "the truth."

regarding how the world started, there are some pretty solid theories on that. and some of them can trace back what happened to a fraction of a second after the big bang. is it "proved?" depends on your definition of proof.


there's a lot of research and a lot of debate, and religion is definitely in the picture. but let us note the limits of science: it is based on our observations. if we're unable to look past the big bang, then science has nothing to say about it. that doesn't invalidate science, its method, or any of its applications.

i mean, if the pope and the dali lama disagree on the nature of the beginnings of the universe, it doesn't mean your microwave oven suddenly stops working.

This is sort of my point. Science requires some belief, so does religion. How are the two so different? Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "prove." Maybe "explain" is better.

[Macaddicttt]

To go beyond Macaddicts question, how did all of the matter that exists in the universe come to exist? I'd really like to knwo what you think because speaking for myself it takes a far bigger leap fo faith to believe that it has always existed and there was never a point where it didn't than to believe that God created it.

As much as I'd like to distance myself from Silverback66's arguments and beliefs, he does sort of have a point here. It's another example of both science and religion taking leaps of faith.

[Ugg]

Here's a question science cannot prove: How did the world start? It's impossible. It's impossible to observe the creation of the world, science requires observation, therefore science cannot prove anything about it.

Also this: science requires that everything comes from something else, right? One thing causes another. Well, keep going back further and further in time. Let's assume that the big bang is true. Well, what caused it? And what caused what caused the big bang? Etc., etc. You have to make a leap of faith to make science true. You have to simply believe that something existed only because of itself, with nothing else causing it. So there's one thing religion (or faith, if you prefer) proves: science.

It's not impossible. The biggest error that deists make is that humankind has only been exploring its world through science for a very short time. Two hundred years ago, who could have predicted that we would some day land on the moon, communicate through wires, etc, etc. In other words, we don't know what we will know in another 200 years from now. Just because we don't now means absolutely nothing.

Religion proves nothing other than that mankind wants to know the origins of its existence and has resorted to some rather fanciful explanations. Explanations that are increasingly out of touch with the world we live in.

[silverback66]

It's not impossible. The biggest error that deists make is that humankind has only been exploring its world through science for a very short time. Two hundred years ago, who could have predicted that we would some day land on the moon, communicate through wires, etc, etc. In other words, we don't know what we will know in another 200 years from now. Just because we don't now means absolutely nothing.

Religion proves nothing other than that mankind wants to know the origins of its existence and has resorted to some rather fanciful explanations. Explanations that are increasingly out of touch with the world we live in.


Explain the existence of matter Ugg. Why do I get the feeling you're going to give me a fanciful notion thats out of touch with reality?

[Macaddicttt]

It's not impossible. The biggest error that deists make is that humankind has only been exploring its world through science for a very short time. Two hundred years ago, who could have predicted that we would some day land on the moon, communicate through wires, etc, etc. In other words, we don't know what we will know in another 200 years from now. Just because we don't now means absolutely nothing.

Religion proves nothing other than that mankind wants to know the origins of its existence and has resorted to some rather fanciful explanations. Explanations that are increasingly out of touch with the world we live in.

I am quite certain that there are certain things we cannot and will never know. There are certain things that are simply beyond human experience. Here's a more personal example: What is death? What happens to one's consciousness after death? You cannot know this. It's impossible. You cannot experience death and bring back your observations to the living. I'm sorry, but no amount of science can possibly explain that.

And I don't see how these explanations religion has devised are so out of touch with the world we live in. Sure, those who take the Bible literally are out of touch, but to me, the Creation Myth in the Bible is very relevant to today. Things may not have happened exactly as such, but the story points out some very important truths (or I believe them to be true): God imparted souls upon humankind, men are flawed, etc.

[Macaddicttt]

Nothing personal against you, Silverback99, but I want to point this out before it becomes a point of confusion later in the discussion as it has in other threads involving people with similar beliefs as Silverback99.

I am not arguing the same thing as Silverback99. My arguments should be kept separate from his. Please do not group us both in the same group: "Christians." Personally, certain things Silverback99 believes in are in no way true in my mind. I have a completely different outlook on these matters. It just so happens that our outlooks have been somehow appropriated the same name because of one similarity, despite huge gulfs of difference.

[Ugg]

Nothing personal against you, Silverback99, but I want to point this out before it becomes a point of confusion later in the discussion as it has in other threads involving people with similar beliefs as Silverback99.

I am not arguing the same thing as Silverback99. My arguments should be kept separate from his. Please do not group us both in the same group: "Christians." Personally, certain things Silverback99 believes in are in no way true in my mind. I have a completely different outlook on these matters. It just so happens that our outlooks have been somehow appropriated the same name because of one similarity, despite huge gulfs of difference.

There are christians here who also don't profess the same beliefs that sb does. Nobody's going to lump you in with him unless you so desire it.

[vniow]

There are christians here who also don't profess the same beliefs that sb does. Nobody's going to lump you in with him unless you so desire it.

I second this although its getting really difficult to believe that religion isn't the root of a lot of evil after looking at some of our more recent threads.

[Macaddicttt]

There are christians here who also don't profess the same beliefs that sb does. Nobody's going to lump you in with him unless you so desire it.

Okay, good. I had some problems with that in a thread about homosexuality. Oh yeah, that was bad. :)

[silverback66]

Mac, what does it matter what others think of you? Why not concern yourself with what God says instead?

Oh I smell it already, the mocking hand is coming from others, but seriously, it's fine if you disagree wth me, but don't worry yourself over others perceptions of you.

[Macaddicttt]

Mac, what does it matter what others think of you? Why not concern yourself with what God says instead?

Oh I smell it already, the mocking hand is coming from others, but seriously, it's fine if you disagree wth me, but don't worry yourself over others perceptions of you.

I'm not afraid of perceptions. It's just that in another thread, someone else's arguments were hurled against me and I had to explain that they weren't mine. They caught "me" in contradictions I didn't make. I meant no offense, I just wanted to clear up a potential source of confusion. Obviously I've failed here. I guess I won't make such posts in the future.

Plus, in the end God might be all that matters, but keeping your position clear and consistent is important in a discussion.

[floyde]

I don't understand how anyone can think this. Science and religion have to work together to find the whole Truth. There are some questions science can never solve. There are some questions that religion can never solve. You use both.

And if science and religion are incompatible, how could anyone possibly be religious? How could you believe in something that can be proven false? It doesn't make any sense.

And as for the two never coexisting peacefully, that's not true. In Western Europe, the Catholic Church was the religion of everyone for a very long time. Don't tell me that no scientific developments occurred during that time. Sure, things were a bit slow during the dark ages, but that was due mainly to the political systems, not religion. And during the Renaissance and such, the Church was on the forefront of science, particularly astronomy. Heck, for a long time all schools were religious. Most of the great scientists were religious: Newton, Pascal, etc., etc.

Islam, too. Islamic nations made huge scientific advances all the time. In Europe, for a time, all the works of Classical authors (including scientific ones) were translated from Arabic, not the original Greek.

You make some very good points, but I still feel that both science and religion function better on their own. Of course there are quite a few examples of peaceful coexistence between the two, but have they ever contributed to one another? I feel that, so far, they have merely "let each other be", a true peace would be that of respect and/or support for each other's goals.

To go beyond Macaddicts question, how did all of the matter that exists in the universe come to exist? I'd really like to knwo what you think because speaking for myself it takes a far bigger leap fo faith to believe that it has always existed and there was never a point where it didn't than to believe that God created it.
Well that's what's different about science: it draws a line. Science doesn't claim to have the answer to everything, it admits that there are some things (a lot of things) that we will never know. But at least we know that with absolute certainty.
BTW, I believe in God (sometimes, when I'm in the right mood;) ) but I find it just as hard to believe that the universe always existed as the notion that God always existed and then he created the universe. It's the same thing!:) Explain how God came to be please... Anyway, I believe in what feels right to me, not in what is easier to digest.

[blackfox]

...SNIP... Science and religion have to work together to find the whole Truth...SNIP...

I find this obvious, and in this way Science and Religion are compatible and complementary avenues to the same destination - Truth. Much like Science and Art.

The scientific method, in many ways is nothing more than a set of conventions and procedures that have developed over the centuries in the interest of Truth - in order to combat the very human tendency to deceive ourselves.

I feel it this tendency to deceive ourselves, to avoid the pain of uncertainty, that often puts the Religion against Science. There is nothing inherently threatening about one towards the other, except the character of it's supposed adherents.

As to the question of Evil, one of the best definitions of Evil I have heard is "Militant Ignorance" or "Militant unconsciousness".

Jung ascribed human evil to "the refusal to meet ones' shadow. Not the shadow itself.

What I take this to mean is that this refusal is a very active term - evil people are not passively ignorant, they go out of their way to remain so - often starting wars or killing to this end - to avoid the self-examination and realization, often painful - that we don't know anything and that we may therefore often be wrong.

So Religion is not the root of the problem - it is humanity - all too often people are unwilling or unable to deal with the pain of living in a complex world they don't understand. Science and Religion both offer comfort along the journey of life, but should also engender the asking of ever more intelligent questions and the living of a harder, yet more fufilling life.

Or not.

I mean, if the pope and the dali lama disagree on the nature of the beginnings of the universe, it doesn't mean your microwave oven suddenly stops working.
I love this quote - thanks zim.
__________________

[skunk]

Explain the existence of matter Ugg. Why do I get the feeling you're going to give me a fanciful notion thats out of touch with reality?Why on earth should anyone be made to explain the existence of matter? Is this a requirement of some kind? I prefer to think it just is. Its "isness" is enough for all practical purposes. An occasional delving into the question of why is certainly entertaining, and gives one something to do on those long winter evenings, but it's hardly required in order to give a meaning to one's life. That can be achieved - or not - by philosophizing just as well as by religion.

Edit: OH!! He's just been excommunicated!:eek:

[Macaddicttt]

You make some very good points, but I still feel that both science and religion function better on their own. Of course there are quite a few examples of peaceful coexistence between the two, but have they ever contributed to one another? I feel that, so far, they have merely "let each other be", a true peace would be that of respect and/or support for each other's goals.

Okay, I think I misunderstood what you originally meant. I thought that you meant that religion and science were incompatible, as in, you couldn't believe in both. I'm sorry for misunderstanding. But yes, I do agree with you here. Religion shouldn't try to find answers that science can find. Religion should just find answers to what science cannot find. I think we get a lot of problems from the fact that some people want to use the Bible for everything, including things like astronomy, when not everything falls under the realm of the spiritual or religious. What I was saying is that science and religion don't contradict each other.

Well that's what's different about science: it draws a line. Science doesn't claim to have the answer to everything, it admits that there are some things (a lot of things) that we will never know. But at least we know that with absolute certainty.

I'm pretty sure religion draws a line, too. I don't see the pope claiming to know how to make a microwave because God revealed it to him (sort of stealing Zim's example...)

[zimv20]

Science requires some belief, so does religion. How are the two so different?
they're vastly different because of the mechanism used to assert their own validity. any theory subjected to the scientific method must pass muster with two key attributes: the experiment/calculation must be repeatable and it must be falsifiable. when a hyopthesis is presented, scientists around the world test it and try to prove it false. it's only on the other side of that process can a hyopthesis be generally accepted as a theory. it's the community that decides. and, again, it's about our observable world.

for christianity, you've got singular sources such as the bible or the pope. while religious questioning happens continually, much of it relies on the notion that some things are not meant to be understood by humans. it requires a suspension of belief in things outside our observable world.

so long as we're talking about such things (i.e. outside our observable world), science and religion do not overlap. but when people use religion to explain things which are observable, and those views conflict with science, that we get so much controversey.

science says the earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old. the bible says it's much younger. science provides a mechanism for self-policing, religion does not, it simply asserts its position without question.

and, naturally, the followers of religion then attack the followers of science. we see instances of that every day. the topic du jour is intelligent design.

[zimv20]

I love this quote - thanks zim.
:-)

[zimv20]

Religion shouldn't try to find answers that science can find. Religion should just find answers to what science cannot find.
i think this a fine distinction. fwiw, i wrote post #80 before i read this post.

[skunk]

Well that's what's different about science: it draws a line. Science doesn't claim to have the answer to everything, it admits that there are some things (a lot of things) that we will never know. But at least we know that with absolute certainty.We do? One thing we certainly don't know is how much we will know in the future.
Anyway, I believe in what feels right to me, not in what is easier to digest.That sounds fair. Taking account of available evidence is always useful, too.:)

[katchow]

for example, newtonian physics was a fine theory, but it broke down under certain conditions. enter einsteinian physics, which explained all of it.

maybe you were simplifying for the sake of argument, but you're not suggesting that Einstein unified gravity are you (not to take away from his amazing, jaw-dropping work of course)?

[skunk]

maybe you were simplifying for the sake of argument, but you're not suggesting that Einstein unified gravity are you (not to take away from his amazing, jaw-dropping work of course)?
:)

Even Einstein didn't believe that.

[Ugg]

Religion should just find answers to what science cannot find.

What happens if science does someday find all the answers? That would totally invalidate all of religion wouldn't it? Is it ok that religion is just a stopgap measure and a means of dealing with that which we don't understand?

Take a rectangle, draw a diagonal line through it and at one end you'll find how we were when we left the african savannah. Mysticism abounded and science was limited to the harnessing of fire. The other end represents what I feel is our future. Religion will be seen as a relic of our ignorant beginnings while science will be the pillar around which we form our lives.

[skunk]

What happens if science does someday find all the answers? That would totally invalidate all of religion wouldn't it?Maybe not. But it would be a weird kind of science which could prove any or all religions to be valid...
Take a rectangle, draw a diagonal line through it and at one end you'll find how we were when we left the african savannah. Mysticism abounded and science was limited to the harnessing of fire. The other end represents what I feel is our future. Religion will be seen as a relic of our ignorant beginnings while science will be the pillar around which we form our lives.Ah, so two-dimensional planar geometry is the meaning of life? What happened to 42?

[EGT]

I'm not intelligent enough to argue about this, but I just feel that people think too much of themselves. We're all the same at the end of the day. Religion divides. Good over evil, I'm better than you type crap etc. Just get on with it and stop bickering about vague answers to impossible questions based on unclear beliefs. This is FACT, no matter what anyone says.

Science is faithful and realistic. It has given us more than any religion ever will and I know which I have faith in, speaking as someone who was brought up in a catholic home.

The argument will never have a definitive answer. Religion is too vague and causes far more harm than good but that's a good enough answer for me.

[katchow]

Maybe not. But it would be a weird kind of science which could prove any or all religions to be valid...
Ah, so two-dimensional planar geometry is the meaning of life? What happened to 42?

that all depends, what's the question eh?

[zimv20]

maybe you were simplifying for the sake of argument, but you're not suggesting that Einstein unified gravity are you (not to take away from his amazing, jaw-dropping work of course)?
i'm talking about quantum mechanics supplanting newtonian mechanics.

[zimv20]

What happened to 42?
that's the area of the rectangle.

[Macaddicttt]

What happens if science does someday find all the answers? That would totally invalidate all of religion wouldn't it? Is it ok that religion is just a stopgap measure and a means of dealing with that which we don't understand?

As I said before, science cannot find all the answers. If it could, there'd be no purpose for religion. Just let me know when science proves/disproves the existence of God or something like Him. Let me know when science discovers the meaning of life. Let me know when science tells me what's the right thing to do and what the wrong thing is. Science cannot know everything. It's impossible. Most scientists today acknowledge this. Quantum science and other advances since then have destroyed the notion that the universe is completely orderly and knowable. Take the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It says that we cannot know everything through science and observation. There are limits to science. That's where religion steps in (no, I'm not suggesting religion can find the missing characteristic when applying the Uncertainty Principle :) ).

Science is not applicable to things beyond the physical. But there's more to human life than just the physical. That's what religion is for. Even if you believe there is nothing beyond human life than the physical, you're taking a leap of faith; you have a kind of religion.

[mpw]

Without argument, and in my opinion, this is just plain untrue. Also, following skunks's request, could you please state this as your opinion, and not as a fact that you are completely unable to prove? :rolleyes:
It's my opinion that there is no God based on the fact that there is no proof of God in the same way that it is my opinion that there is no glass of water on my desk. Of course there might be a glass of water on my desk and you may have faith in there being a glass of water on my desk. It's just that I can't see it, feel it or find any evidence of there being a glass of water on my desk and I didn't put one there and nobody's been in my house who could've put a glass of water on my desk. But if you want to really believe there's a glass of water on my desk I can't offer proof it is there.

Untrue. What of the people who start a religion to worship God? Do you consider the worshiping of a particular God to be a selfish act? Perhaps it could be construed as one, but as selfish acts go, that's no biggie.
Why are they worshipping God, to keep out of hell? to get in to heaven? Seems like they're doin' it to gain something for themselves to me.

You're leaving no room for those people who do acts of good simply because they are extremely religious. What of these people? They do exist, and they perform acts of good in a somewhat unselfish sense due to many reasons: getting in to Heaven, repenting, or just wanting to please God. Yes, they do want something in return for doing good, but they are also doing it because they are religious.
I don't believe that someone who's evil will do good just because they are religious, but I guess there might be some people who would, without the fear of their God's punishment, not do good who do. These are the same people who'd do evil things they also wouldn't normally do just because their God wanted them too.

Yeah, right.:rolleyes: Let's not count all the charities and trust funds and organizations that are religiously based that help millions of people every year. Let's NOT count the shelters and soup kitchens and food drives that exist because a church, synagogue, or mosque has set them up. Are you blind? Yes, religion has done some pretty ******* things, but the amount of good they do should not be overlooked.
Many shelters and soup kitchen are organized by people for non-religious reasons and I'd bet that some of the people who act under the banner of religion are simply good people who would act anyway even without religion.
Yes some good has been done in the name of religion and some evil has been done in the name of religion and yes it's only my opinion but I think without religion more of the good would still have been done than the evil.

Do you disagree, and if you do are you saying that religious people are on balance only good people because they are religious and that without religion these people would not take action to help others?

[zap2]

Of all evil, No
of Some, Yes

[katchow]

Quantum science and other advances since then have destroyed the notion that the universe is completely orderly and knowable.

What's the quote? "God does not play bingo" later challenged with "Not only does God play bingo, but...he sometimes calls out 'bingo!' and runs out the door laughing."

[Macaddicttt]

It's my opinion that there is no God based on the fact that there is no proof of God in the same way that it is my opinion that there is no glass of water on my desk. Of course there might be a glass of water on my desk and you may have faith in there being a glass of water on my desk. It's just that I can't see it, feel it or find any evidence of there being a glass of water on my desk and I didn't put one there and nobody's been in my house who could've put a glass of water on my desk. But if you want to really believe there's a glass of water on my desk I can't offer proof it is there.

But a glass of water is observable. God isn't. What do you believe created the universe? I happen to believe it is a benevolent being whom I call God. Whatever you choose to believe in about the creation and existence of the universe is no more or less valid than mine. If you want to believe that an invisible glass of water that resides on your desk created the universe, I could not refute that. But personally, I like my God theory better.


Why are they worshipping God, to keep out of hell? to get in to heaven? Seems like they're doin' it to gain something for themselves to me.

This might seem like a cop out to you, but people worship God because he deserves to be worshipped. If he's half as good and wonderful as people make Him out to be, it seems like it would be a good idea to worship Him. God created the world so we would worship Him. (Here comes the cop out.) And if you think this is selfish, I would say that the way God thinks is way different and superior to the way we think, so if God created us to worship Him, He's right.

As for people being good in fear of divine retribution, I do not view religion in this way. I don't believe in God and Jesus so that I'm "saved." I believe in God and Jesus because I think it's true and it gives meaning to my life. If there was no God or afterlife or any of that, I think I would have just blasted myself into nothingness with a well-aimed shot to the head and consigned myself to the empty void a long time ago, rather than deal with this pesky thing known as life. But I think there's a good chance there is an afterlife, that there is a God, so I live my life the best way that I can, helping others and all that, since life has meaning.

To me, life has no meaning without God. If you want to find meaning in life some other way, go ahead. Your leap of faith in the meaning of life would be no more or less plausible than mine. How do you find meaning? Why are you still living? What are you living for? What's your religion?

[zimv20]

Take the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It says that we cannot know everything through science and observation.
well, no, the principle says nothing of the sort. it has to do with the limits of accurately measuring the position and momentum of a particle.

what limits our understanding of science is our ability to observe the universe and its effects. but don't confuse that with the reality of the universe being based on our understanding of it. it exists as it exists w/o a whit of care what we think of it.

[Macaddicttt]

well, no, the principle says nothing of the sort. it has to do with the limits of accurately measuring the position and momentum of a particle.

what limits our understanding of science is our ability to observe the universe and its effects. but don't confuse that with the reality of the universe being based on our understanding of it. it exists as it exists w/o a whit of care what we think of it.

But does it? If I'm not mistaken, quantum computers (see this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=173093)) run on the fact that an electron can be in two different places at the same time. It isn't until we observe it that it actually is in one of the two positions. We can change the result by measuring it. It is quite possible, using modern scientific theories, to say that something can be at two places at the same time, that something can be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. I'm sorry, but I'm not a theoretical physicist and probably cannot explain this well enough, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but I'm pretty sure modern physics has brought us to such conclusions (or something very like what I've just said).

[zimv20]

We can change the result by measuring it.
yes, something which Erwin Schrödinger illustrated quite nicely by suggesting a cat be put in a box.

i didn't mean to imply that humans have no effect on the universe, we do. what i meant was that the universe is governed by a set of rules. some of these we have an understanding of, some of these we do not. but we do play within those rules. it's the rules we cannot change.

now, who wrote the rules? thus enters religion.

[Macaddicttt]

now, who wrote the rules? thus enters religion.

Exactly my point. Science cannot explain everything, such as who wrote the rules. Religion answers that question. It just so happens that several possible answers to that question bring in more questions and more answers that then affect way more than the question of who wrote the rules, but how one should live one's life.

[zimv20]

Exactly my point. Science cannot explain everything, such as who wrote the rules. Religion answers that question.
whoa, i didn't say that. those rules aren't necessarily beyond the limits of scientific understanding. as i said, we've already uncovered some of its workings (quantum mechanics, for example), and i suspect more is on the way.

it's only when we run out of observable data that we cannot use science to explain more. that religion tries to answer such questions doesn't exclude or invalidate science.

now, when we talk about the moral teachings of religion, we're talking about something else entirely. in my posts, i've been talking about religion in terms of how it tries to answer the questions about the origins of the universe, nothing more.

[Macaddicttt]

whoa, i didn't say that. those rules aren't necessarily beyond the limits of scientific understanding. as i said, we've already uncovered some of its workings (quantum mechanics, for example), and i suspect more is on the way.

it's only when we run out of observable data that we cannot use science to explain more. that religion tries to answer such questions doesn't exclude or invalidate science.

now, when we talk about the moral teachings of religion, we're talking about something else entirely. in my posts, i've been talking about religion in terms of how it tries to answer the questions about the origins of the universe, nothing more.

Are we both arguing the same thing here? I'm confused. I'm trying to say that religion explains what cannot be explained by science. I think that religion and science do not conflict. Science explains and discovers the rules, but doesn't say who or what wrote them. Religion says who wrote them. Is that what you're saying?

I'm talking about the origins of the universe, too. I just stuck in that last little line to show how the question of the origins of the universe eventually affects morals.

[Ugg]

Exactly my point. Science cannot explain everything, such as who wrote the rules.

That is exactly my point. At this point in time, we do not know all the answers to all of life's pressing questions but human history has shown that with the passage of time more and more of them have been answered. I won't say that all of them ever will be answered but there's a good chance if we don't screw up this planet.

In regards to the meaning of life, after the age of 42, 42 can no longer suffice. What gives me meaning to my life is the simple fact that I am a product of all those who came before me. From proto humans to the Celtic warriors to whoever those Finns might really be to my grandparents who settled in the midwest and fought for their very existence during the great depression. I too will become a link in that chain and little bits of me will be passed on to the following generations. Not as genetic material, as there will be no product from my loins but in the little bits that I've passed on through conversation, relationships, work, etc, etc.

Humanity is a continuous and ever evolving process. I'm but one small part of it when seen as a whole but my impact is as essential as anyone else's. I don't need to believe in a higher being to give meaning to my existence as my existence is proof enough.

[zimv20]

I'm trying to say that religion explains what cannot be explained by science.
i'm saying religion tries, but sidesteps the burden of proof.

Science explains and discovers the rules, but doesn't say who or what wrote them. Religion says who wrote them. Is that what you're saying?
i'm not ready to abandon science as being able to answer the questions about the origins of the universe, i.e. who wrote the rules.


I'm talking about the origins of the universe, too. I just stuck in that last little line to show how the question of the origins of the universe eventually affects morals.
aside from assigning those two duties to religion, what else ties them together?

[Macaddicttt]

In regards to the meaning of life, after the age of 42, 42 can no longer suffice. What gives me meaning to my life is the simple fact that I am a product of all those who came before me. From proto humans to the Celtic warriors to whoever those Finns might really be to my grandparents who settled in the midwest and fought for their very existence during the great depression. I too will become a link in that chain and little bits of me will be passed on to the following generations. Not as genetic material, as there will be no product from my loins but in the little bits that I've passed on through conversation, relationships, work, etc, etc.

Humanity is a continuous and ever evolving process. I'm but one small part of it when seen as a whole but my impact is as essential as anyone else's. I don't need to believe in a higher being to give meaning to my existence as my existence is proof enough.

I'm curious about this way of deriving meaning for your life. Does it require humanity to exist forever? Does it require the universe to exist forever at the very least? Is there any reason for you to be good if meaning is simply being part of chain? Is there anything that makes your life a good life or a bad life?

[Macaddicttt]

aside from assigning those two duties to religion, what else ties them together?

This is what ties them together. If the answer to "Who wrote the rules?" is God, then you have to ask "Why?" Then some answer, "Because God is good, he created us and the universe and the rules so that we could reflect the glory of God." Then one asks, "How can one best reflect the glory of God?" Answer again, "By being a good person and obeying the rules that God laid down." Then: "What are these rules and why did he make them?" Answer again: "He made them the way they are because by following them, we can lead the happiest possible lives." And the answer to the other question then is the morals that one lives by, that one believes are God's will.

Maybe I should simplify this. If you answer the question "Why wrote the rules?" and you get "God," then a million other questions follow such as "Why?" etc. etc. My point is that the answer to "Who or what created the universe?" has more implications than "X created the universe."

[Macaddicttt]

i'm not ready to abandon science as being able to answer the questions about the origins of the universe, i.e. who wrote the rules.

I am. Science relies on observation and who or what created the universe is unobservable by man. To me, that's good enough to look elsewhere for the ultimate origins of the universe.

[mactastic]

Humanity is a continuous and ever evolving process. I'm but one small part of it when seen as a whole but my impact is as essential as anyone else's. I don't need to believe in a higher being to give meaning to my existence as my existence is proof enough.
So right. Existence doesn't need any justification at all in my book.

Personally I find it odd that people search outwardly for meaning instead of looking within themselves, but hey whatever floats your boat... :)

[mactastic]

I am. Science relies on observation and who or what created the universe is unobservable by man. To me, that's good enough to look elsewhere for the ultimate origins of the universe.
Science also operates on inference and examination of past events to inform us about things. We've never been to the core of the earth, but we're reasonably sure we have a handle on what's in there, right? We've never seen a planet like ours form up close, but we have some evidence and some pretty good guesses about how it went, right?

Who knows, someday we might be able to revive a person who's been dead for several hours... We just don't know what the future holds. To say that you know what things we will never know about is folly.

[Macaddicttt]

Who knows, someday we might be able to revive a person who's been dead for several hours... We just don't know what the future holds. To say that you know what things we will never know about is folly.

Here I'll just have to respectfully disagree and leave it at that. To me it seems that being a part of the universe severely limits us to what we can know about it. I guess we'll have to wait a few thousand years to see who's right, huh? :)

[Ugg]

I'm curious about this way of deriving meaning for your life. Does it require humanity to exist forever? Does it require the universe to exist forever at the very least? Is there any reason for you to be good if meaning is simply being part of chain? Is there anything that makes your life a good life or a bad life?

Give me the definition of forever and I'll answer your question:D To me it doesn't matter.

Being good isn't necessarily a part of it as even those who do bad deeds will be remembered and will pass something along. I do think though that goodness is in all of us and is more likely to be rewarded than badness is. Much of it is a matter of personal choice but much also has to do with who and where we came from.

Life itself is what makes it good.

I was in Bosnia and Croatia last fall. The number of stray cats was astounding. Here, I have some friends who have a cat with diabetes. They've spent untold sums of money to keep it alive. Sums that would do a great deal to alieve the suffering of hundres of cats in the Balkans. Are my friends good or bad people for spending what they do on their cat as opposed to helping other cats around the world? It's a tough question really. They're not bad people at all IMO but their actions in hindsight seem somewhat immoral.

Is there a moral to this story, maybe, maybe not. We all have to decide what is good and what is bad. Nobody else can make that decision for us. Morality doesn't come from above but from those around us and those that preceded us.

[Macaddicttt]

Give me the definition of forever and I'll answer your question:D To me it doesn't matter.

Being good isn't necessarily a part of it as even those who do bad deeds will be remembered and will pass something along. I do think though that goodness is in all of us and is more likely to be rewarded than badness is. Much of it is a matter of personal choice but much also has to do with who and where we came from.

Life itself is what makes it good.

I was in Bosnia and Croatia last fall. The number of stray cats was astounding. Here, I have some friends who have a cat with diabetes. They've spent untold sums of money to keep it alive. Sums that would do a great deal to alieve the suffering of hundres of cats in the Balkans. Are my friends good or bad people for spending what they do on their cat as opposed to helping other cats around the world? It's a tough question really. They're not bad people at all IMO but their actions in hindsight seem somewhat immoral.

Is there a moral to this story, maybe, maybe not. We all have to decide what is good and what is bad. Nobody else can make that decision for us. Morality doesn't come from above but from those around us and those that preceded us.

I guess I'm just trying to get you to admit that whatever you believe about life and its meaning is a leap of faith. I'm just trying to point out that everyone, to some extent, has a religion, has religious beliefs, makes leaps of faith. I'm just trying to get you to recognize the important part that religion and faith play in human life, that perhaps it is the root of all evil, but it is a necessary part of human existence.

[Ugg]

I guess I'm just trying to get you to admit that whatever you believe about life and its meaning is a leap of faith. I'm just trying to point out that everyone, to some extent, has a religion, has religious beliefs, makes leaps of faith. I'm just trying to get you to recognize the important part that religion and faith play in human life, that perhaps it is the root of all evil, but it is a necessary part of human existence.

That's always a tough one. Is it faith to believe that you will read this response? Well, SBC's DSL service is pretty reliable and you seem to be responding to my posts so I don't think that's a leap of faith. Is it a belief backed by science, yeah, that's probably a lot closer to the mark.

My existence is backed up by science. The fact that there has been a continuous chain of human experience is also a scientific reality. The fact that human life will continue in the future is more of a leap perhaps but humans don't have the ability to predict the future only guess.

Religion, I firmly believe, is for those who are unable to grasp their own connection to the planet we live on. I'm not trying to be condescending or insult you just trying to point out that we are a part of this planet, every molecule in our body is made up of minerals and water that exist here. No part of the human body comes from elsewhere.

We are the planet just as the squirrel outside my window and the tree he is sitting on is. One of my favorite ways of truly relaxing is to find the nearest redwood grove, find a spot free of poison oak sit back and stare at the complexity that is a redwood tree. Knowing that it has existed for hundreds of years and may well have witnessed the coming of the Chinese or the Spanish explorers, etc. There's too much beauty and history in this world for me to look outside of it for the meaning of my existence. I have no faith, all I have are beliefs based on science and the human experience.

Religion is man's way of explaining his place in the world. It's slowly being supplanted by science and whenever things change, you can bet that a lot of people will fight it tooth and nail.

[Macaddicttt]

That's always a tough one. Is it faith to believe that you will read this response? Well, SBC's DSL service is pretty reliable and you seem to be responding to my posts so I don't think that's a leap of faith. Is it a belief backed by science, yeah, that's probably a lot closer to the mark.

My existence is backed up by science. The fact that there has been a continuous chain of human experience is also a scientific reality. The fact that human life will continue in the future is more of a leap perhaps but humans don't have the ability to predict the future only guess.

Religion, I firmly believe, is for those who are unable to grasp their own connection to the planet we live on. I'm not trying to be condescending or insult you just trying to point out that we are a part of this planet, every molecule in our body is made up of minerals and water that exist here. No part of the human body comes from elsewhere.

See, here I guess is a point at which we differ. To me, existing is not the same as having meaning. I consider my life to have meaning, but I don't consider an ant's life to have a meaning. There's something different between us two that gives my life meaning.

And as for religion being for those who cannot grasp their connection to the planet, I disagree. Where we disagree, I guess, is that to me, my life is more than just the physical. And I can see how that makes you come to your conclusion.

I do not believe that if someone loves his wife, for example, that it is merely a collection of electrical impulses and hormones. There is something about human life that is special. Just think of how different we are from everything else on earth. Only humans can ponder their own existence. Only humans have the ability to know unobservable ideas such as "equality" or "truth."

But as to you finding meaning merely in existing. I maintain that that belief is a leap of faith. The question "Is life meaningful?" is religious in nature since it requires leaps of faith. Even believing that the universe existed always, that there was no creator, is a religious belief since it requires faith. I still maintain that human existence is necessarily religious.

[aswitcher]

This might seem like a cop out to you, but people worship God because he deserves to be worshipped. If he's half as good and wonderful as people make Him out to be, it seems like it would be a good idea to worship Him. God created the world so we would worship Him. (Here comes the cop out.) And if you think this is selfish, I would say that the way God thinks is way different and superior to the way we think, so if God created us to worship Him, He's right.

SNIP

To me, life has no meaning without God. If you want to find meaning in life some other way, go ahead. Your leap of faith in the meaning of life would be no more or less plausible than mine. How do you find meaning? Why are you still living? What are you living for? What's your religion?

Nicely put.

Expanding on the C.S Lewis reference, without Christianity there is no moral rule. One man's evil is another man's good.

[zimv20]

I consider my life to have meaning, but I don't consider an ant's life to have a meaning. There's something different between us two that gives my life meaning. [...] Only humans can ponder their own existence.[...] I still maintain that human existence is necessarily religious.
so in a way, you're saying that creatures which have self-awareness create religion and god. and if humans didn't exist, neither would god.

i'd agree with that.

[Macaddicttt]

so in a way, you're saying that creatures which have self-awareness create religion and god. and if humans didn't exist, neither would god.

i'd agree with that.

Sort of. But of course from my perspective, I would say that if God didn't exist, humans wouldn't either. I would say that God made us in a way to be able to recognize the existence of God. Or course not everyone will agree, though.

But this isn't really my main point. Whether or not humans made up God is irrelevant. I'm just saying that there's more to human life than the physical and that it is necessarily religious in nature since it requires faith of some kind.

[dogbone]

Is Religion the Root of All Evil?

I didn't see the program, however it pretty obviously isn't. The root of all "evil" (actually let's forget that word and replace it with "wrong actions") is the peculiar ability of humans to be conscious of themselves as conscious, self aware individuals.

This leads to a mistake about the 'self' and an erroneous conclusion. All the "bad stuff" that happens stems from this.

[zimv20]

there's more to human life than the physical and that it is necessarily religious in nature since it requires faith of some kind.
following, is consciousness granted or can it self-form?

[Macaddicttt]

following, is consciousness granted or can it self-form?

I would say granted, but I'm sure others would say it can self-form. In support of my position, I'd point out that no other animal on earth has developed the sort of consciousness we have.

[leekohler]

I would say granted, but I'm sure others would say it can self-form. In support of my position, I'd point out that no other animal on earth has developed the sort of consciousness we have.

Interesting points. BTW- way OT, good to see you Macaddicttt.

I've always prefered not to know where we came from or how we got here. For some reason, I find that comforting. "I don't know" feels right to me.

[blackfox]

Expanding on the C.S Lewis reference, without Christianity there is no moral rule. One man's evil is another man's good.
I am not sure I buy that argument. I do agree with the underlying idea that man must submit himself to a higher ideal than himself, but that need not be a particular God - It can be something like Love or Truth, the latter of which has guided many a scientist and philosopher.

While Christianity has the convenience of giving one a well-regimented, codified system of morality under a higher ideal, it is only one of many paths to the same destination.

Originally Posted by Macaddicttt
This might seem like a cop out to you, but people worship God because he deserves to be worshipped. If he's half as good and wonderful as people make Him out to be, it seems like it would be a good idea to worship Him. God created the world so we would worship Him. (Here comes the cop out.) And if you think this is selfish, I would say that the way God thinks is way different and superior to the way we think, so if God created us to worship Him, He's right.

SNIP

To me, life has no meaning without God. If you want to find meaning in life some other way, go ahead. Your leap of faith in the meaning of life would be no more or less plausible than mine. How do you find meaning? Why are you still living? What are you living for? What's your religion?
Again, the ideals and concepts which God represents - Truth, Love, Light - are worthy enough in their own right, and do not necessarily need to be made explicit in a particular form, with a set of surrounding myths and rules to be followed.

I do take much of Christian dogma/doctrine as myth - I hope no-one takes this as an insult, I mean quite the opposite - as all myths are the embodiment of a Truth. I find the Bible to be a singularly amazing piece of literature - it is full of fundamental truths and insights - but I do not take it as literal fact, only as a valuable resource in leading a better life in submission to those ideals I listed earlier. The search for truth, an understanding and acceptance of love are all "godly" pursuits in my book.

So although I am not a Christian, I have no lack of morality, or of meaning.

To try and steer this thread back on track, however, the evil in this world is created by those who actively refuse to do such activities - and some have called themselves members of Organized Religion.

[Macaddicttt]

Interesting points. BTW- way OT, good to see you Macaddicttt.

Leekohler is now officially my favorite person on MacRumors. Not only is he always fair and considerate in debates like this, but he's the only person on MacRumors to recognize me (well, you know what I mean). :)

[leekohler]

Leekohler is now officially my favorite person on MacRumors. Not only is he always fair and considerate in debates like this, but he's the only person on MacRumors to recognize me (well, you know what I mean). :)

Thanks man! You know you're my favorite conservative. I always can exchange ideas with you in a fair, honest open way. You're what conservatives SHOULD be. I've missed sparring with you buddy- where have you been?

[Ugg]

so in a way, you're saying that creatures which have self-awareness create religion and god. and if humans didn't exist, neither would god.

i'd agree with that.

I'd agree too. We all have a need to explain our world and religion is simply the most basic explanation, or perhaps the most primitive.

[.Andy]

I'd agree too. We all have a need to explain our world and religion is simply the most basic explanation, or perhaps the most primitive.
It's also the most intellectually attainable. Instead of needing edivence to form one's explanations, faith in God allows you to 'understand' everything in the space of time it takes to believe. I can see there's a lot of comfort in that, although for me it doesn't amount to much in the way of tangible benefit for mankind.

[aswitcher]

I am not sure I buy that argument. I do agree with the underlying idea that man must submit himself to a higher ideal than himself, but that need not be a particular God - It can be something like Love or Truth, the latter of which has guided many a scientist and philosopher.

Sorry, so why do you agree man must submit to a higher ideal? and how does this link back to the origins of evil? Surely a scientist lead by the pursuit of truth could maim and kill people in the pursuit of science (like the Nazi's did in WWII)? Surely that was evil for most of us? Given this example doesn't that logic support "without Christianity there is no moral rule. One man's evil is another man's good" and refute your higher ideal view?


While Christianity has the convenience of giving one a well-regimented, codified system of morality under a higher ideal, it is only one of many paths to the same destination.

What is this "same destination" you are referring to?


So although I am not a Christian, I have no lack of morality, or of meaning.

To try and steer this thread back on track, however, the evil in this world is created by those who actively refuse to do such activities - and some have called themselves members of Organized Religion.

For the reasons mentioned here I disagree that just because people pursue some ideal they are not evil - even if that ideal is truth or love. Do you see my point of view? Have I missed some deeper meaning to your view?

[~Shard~]

Instead of needing edivence to form one's explanations, fatih in God allows you to 'understand' everything in the space of time it takes to believe. There's a lot of comfort in that.

Sounds like a pretty lazy convenient copout to me. :p ;) :D

[dornoforpyros]

eh I'm too lazy to read this whole thread, but I think my opinion can be summed up pretty quick.

Don't pray in our schools and we won't think in your church


God did not create human beings, human beings created god

[.Andy]

Sounds like a pretty lazy convenient copout to me. :p ;) :D
Bugger! You quoted me too early shard :D!!!! I've edited it for clarity now. Myself, I subscribe to the physical world where I want evidence. I find a massive amount of comfort in not beggining to know the answers to everything. Makes life more of an adventure. Especially my own oblivion.

Although I am interested in the people in the thread who have said that Religion is trying to attain 'truth'. I've always been interested to find out what truth Religion is on the quest to attain and the method it goes about attaining it? And what tangible benefit this truth has to mankind?

[blackfox]

Sorry, so why do you agree man must submit to a higher ideal? and how does this link back to the origins of evil? Surely a scientist lead by the pursuit of truth could maim and kill people in the pursuit of science (like the Nazi's did in WWII)? Surely that was evil for most of us? Given this example doesn't that logic support "without Christianity there is no moral rule. One man's evil is another man's good" and refute your higher ideal view? Well, many Christians have maimed and killed people in pursuit of advancing their belief in their God's or Religion's righteousness. That was also evil, was it not? (I use Christianity as one example - I could easily subsitute Islam etc.) In any case, I feel the evil commited by the scientist of your example and the Christian of mine can be more accurately pinned to the refusal to make the difficult judgements of themselves and their actions in light of said ideals. Does this make sense?



What is this "same destination" you are referring to?Understanding. Oneness with the universe. This would seem like heaven to me.



For the reasons mentioned here I disagree that just because people pursue some ideal they are not evil - even if that ideal is truth or love. Do you see my point of view? Have I missed some deeper meaning to your view?Well, not just any ideal - but those I mentioned seem pretty good ones to aspire to.

My point was not to refute that Christianity is not helpful in creating a moral individual or society - as indeed it is - but that there are other methods to the same end. And I think of evil as the unwillingness to submit to anything but themselves and to deliberately remain ignorant of the consequences, to protecting their ego at all costs, even when it means actively destroying all potentially damning evidence.

sorry, I was always a bad debater. Am I clearer? Probably not.

[aswitcher]

Bugger! You quoted me too early shard :D!!!! I've edited it for clarity now. Myself, I subscribe to the physical world where I want evidence. I find a massive amount of comfort in not beggining to know the answers to everything. Makes life more of an adventure. Especially my own oblivion.

Evidence. Ok, if your interested in questions that prompt you to think about more than you can see and touch, how about these...

Why do you love anyone? Is it just a pleasure / survival mechanism? Then why do people about to dies in planes and the like write letters of love to their families? Whats the point if their is beenfit to them?

Where did the universe come from? How did it pop out of nothing? Why are many factors (gravit, quantum mechanics etc) so finey balanced to allow the universe to exist long enough for life to exist?


Although I am interested in the people in the thread who have said that Religion is trying to attain 'truth'. I've always been interested to find out what truth Religion is on the quest to attain and the method it goes about attaining it? And what tangible benefit this truth has to mankind?

The Bible tells us that mankind has turned away from God in their selfishness, and that we should seek to find God, understand his love for us and the desires he has for how we should live our lives so that we can return to him and live in harmony with him and one another. Thats a thumbnail from me anyway ;)

[leekohler]

Sorry, so why do you agree man must submit to a higher ideal? and how does this link back to the origins of evil? Surely a scientist lead by the pursuit of truth could maim and kill people in the pursuit of science (like the Nazi's did in WWII)? Surely that was evil for most of us? Given this example doesn't that logic support "without Christianity there is no moral rule. One man's evil is another man's good" and refute your higher ideal view?

I've always seen it his way- if something you do harms someone else, it's immoral. I don't need a God or religion to figure that out. I personally can figure that out on my own. However, if you do need that guidance, thank God a religion is there to tell you so.

[zimv20]

without Christianity there is no moral rule.
hmmmmm.... that implies:
1. man was without morality until the last 2000 years or so
2. no other religion can provide a moral compass
3. no non-religious mechanism can provide a moral compass
4. a person not exposed to christianity is immoral
5. someone unable to comprehend christianity (too young, unable to communicate, etc.) is immoral

do you agree with those points?

[.Andy]

Evidence. Ok, if your interested in questions that prompt you to think about more than you can see and touch, how about these...

Why do you love anyone? Is it just a pleasure / survival mechanism? Then why do people about to dies in planes and the like write letters of love to their families? Whats the point if their is beenfit to them?

Where did the universe come from? How did it pop out of nothing? Why are many factors (gravit, quantum mechanics etc) so finey balanced to allow the universe to exist long enough for life to exist?

But my question was what does religion bring to these that observation can't? It can easily be answered what observation/experimentation has bought to each of these questions thus far - but I'm interested in how religion goes about answering these questions.

[aswitcher]

Well, many Christians have maimed and killed people in pursuit of advancing their belief in their God's or Religion's righteousness. That was also evil, was it not? (I use Christianity as one example - I could easily subsitute Islam etc.) In any case, I feel the evil commited by the scientist of your example and the Christian of mine can be more accurately pinned to the refusal to make the difficult judgements of themselves and their actions in light of said ideals. Does this make sense?

Many people professing to be Christians have ained and killed people. Given what the Bible says I suggest many of these people were not acting as Christians (and I doubt were Christians). The Bible warns Christians many times about acting with pride or other forms of selfishness, and says that such actions are turning away from God.


Understanding. Oneness with the universe. This would seem like heaven to me.

Being a Christian effectively makes you one in love with God who created everything as well as the rest of the human race.


Well, not just any ideal - but those I mentioned seem pretty good ones to aspire to.

My point was not to refute that Christianity is not helpful in creating a moral individual or society - as indeed it is - but that there are other methods to the same end.

If you read the Bible and say its helpful ok, but then dont accept that any of the claims by Jesus etc are valid, what do you think the Bible is a lie with some nice morals? Or could it really be about a war between good and evil?


And I think of evil as the unwillingness to submit to anything but themselves and to deliberately remain ignorant of the consequences, to protecting their ego at all costs, even when it means actively destroying all potentially damning evidence.

sorry, I was always a bad debater. Am I clearer? Probably not.

Actually that last point sounds to me like a pretty good Christian viewpoint. If life, as Christians see it, is about God deciding by our actions who sacrifice some of their desires to support and love others, as well as accept that their creator deserves their respect and love etc, and that turning away from God for selifish desires is evil and destructive and thus must be kept out of heaven, then that's pretyt close to your view already from what I can see. What do you think?

[leekohler]

Many people professing to be Christians have ained and killed people. Given what the Bible says I suggest many of these people were not acting as Christians (and I doubt were Christians). The Bible warns Christians many times about acting with pride or other forms of selfishness, and says that such actions are turning away from God.



Being a Christian effectively makes you one in love with God who created everything as well as the rest of the human race.



If you read the Bible and say its helpful ok, but then dont accept that any of the claims by Jesus etc are valid, what do you think the Bible is a lie with some nice morals? Or could it really be about a war between good and evil?



Actually that last point sounds to me like a pretty good Christian viewpoint. If life, as Christians see it, is about God deciding by our actions who sacrifice some of their desires to support and love others, as well as accept that their creator deserves their respect and love etc, and that turning away from God for selifish desires is evil and destructive and thus must be kept out of heaven, then that's pretyt close to your view already from what I can see. What do you think?

I still don't see how a belief in God is necessary to be a good person or do good works. Just my opinion.

[aswitcher]

hmmmmm.... that implies:
1. man was without morality until the last 2000 years or so
2. no other religion can provide a moral compass
3. no non-religious mechanism can provide a moral compass
4. a person not exposed to christianity is immoral
5. someone unable to comprehend christianity (too young, unable to communicate, etc.) is immoral



1. Pre Jesus we had the old Testament...that covers what was right and wrong then. We failed obeying rules, as God knew we would, so as prophecised so Jesus came to save us.

2. 3. The debate I thought was about evil. Morality is an invention of mankind and it varies quite a bit between religions and cultures. Whether they provide a moral compass or not is not hugely relevant to Christianity which in the view I am following says it defines what is good and evil.

4. 5. All of us are sinners (transgressors/paraptoma). God (& Jesus) is a God of love. He is more just and loving than anyone could possibly be - perhaps even conceivably be. Chrisitians have faith that those who have not heard or understood his word will be judged as fairly and compasionately as can be, God knowing their hearts fully when deciding if they have a place in heaven through his grace.

[dogbone]

"Pre Jesus we had the old Testament...that covers what was right and wrong then".


Pre Jesus we had/have common sense ethics, which are universal and apply to all people thoughout all time. They don't need to be taught. They are all one needs to live a moral life.

[leekohler]

"Pre Jesus we had the old Testament...that covers what was right and wrong then".


Pre Jesus we had/have common sense ethics, which are universal and apply to all people thoughout all time. They don't need to be taught. They are all one needs to live a moral life.

Thank you. I've been saying this all night, but have been ignored.

I mean really- if you can't figure out on your own that killing, cheating on your spouse, etc. aren't bad, you need to be locked up.

[aswitcher]

I still don't see how a belief in God is necessary to be a good person or do good works. Just my opinion.

What is absolute good as seen by everyone? Not just the Western world but everyone? I think you'll find it hard to find anything that everyone agrees is good?

For example
Some people believe that execution of prisoners is justified, others that it is evil.
Some people think that going to war (pick a war) can be justified, others that it is not except in defense. Some people dont think it ever is.

And whats the point of "good works" and being a "good person" if there is no afterlife? Why not be selfish; earn as much money as possible, have as much fun as possible, ignore other peoples feelings accept when it gives you pleasure or security?

[aswitcher]

"Pre Jesus we had the old Testament...that covers what was right and wrong then".


Pre Jesus we had/have common sense ethics, which are universal and apply to all people thoughout all time. They don't need to be taught. They are all one needs to live a moral life.

Universal common sense ethics throughout all time. Ok, there is a strong view point amoungst Christians that this sense of common ethics comes from God, since he created us and in doing so we know deep down what is right and wrong, and have the ability to choose to love or hate. I see this position as supporting my faith that God exists. If we were just animals then we would not have this universal view...

[leekohler]

What solute good as seen by everyone? Not just the Western world but everyone? I think you'

For example
Some people believe that execution of prisoners is justified, others that it is evil.
Some people think that going to war (pick a war) can be justified, others that it is not except in defense. Some people dont think it ever is.is abll find it hard to find anything that everyone agrees is good?

And whats the point of "good works" and being a "good person" if there is no afterlife? Why not be selfish; earn as much money as possible, have as much fun as possible, ignore other peoples feelings accept when it gives you pleasure or security?

Some of us don't believe in an afterlife. Also, I feel no need to be rewarded for doing what doesn't harm others. I feel I'm here for a brief period of time. Harming someone else just brings sorrow and misery. No point in hurting someone else. It's counter-productive.

[zimv20]

1. Pre Jesus we had the old Testament...that covers what was right and wrong then.
forgive my ignorance on the matter, but exactly when is "then?" i was under the impression that the books that make up the O.T. weren't that much older than the life of christ. on the order of a few hundred years, i thought.

[.Andy]

Some of us don't believe in an afterlife. Also, I feel no need to be rewarded for doing what doesn't harm others. I feel I'm here for a brief period of time. Harming someone else just brings sorrow and misery. No point in hurting someone else.
True leekohler. It seems the whole premise of altruism is lost.

[aswitcher]

But my question was what does religion bring to these that observation can't?

Ok, love for example.

If you believe in God and Jesus, then you know from the Bible that love comes from God, and is not a socio-bio-chemical-electrical survival/pleasure mechanism. Love is spiritual. It has physical effects on our bodies and our what happens to our bodies can influence us spiritually, but it is not physical as our true selves are beyond our physical fleshy bodies.

Before I go further I want to make sure I have been clear. Does this make sense (even if you disagree with it)?

Do you disagree that we have a spiritual self?

[leekohler]

True leekohler. It seems the whole premise of altruism is lost.

Yep. I don't get what's so hard about this concept. Performing good works gets you good results. The opposite gets you bad. I don't need a God to threaten me with eternal damnation to get that. Some people do. Fine.

[aswitcher]

forgive my ignorance on the matter, but exactly when is "then?" i was under the impression that the books that make up the O.T. weren't that much older than the life of christ. on the order of a few hundred years, i thought.


No, NT covers Christs life and the oldest original copies are recorded in the first century, with most originals coming in the next two.

The OT is the Jewish religion we know now. Its books go back to when books were first written and are based upon the oral record keeping traditions.

Here is a good link for some background http://www.christianity.net.au/jesus/bible2.htm

[aswitcher]

Yep. I don't get what's so hard about this concept. Performing good works gets you good results. The opposite gets you bad. I don't need a God to threaten me with eternal damnation to get that. Some people do. Fine.


I am sorry that Christianity has been presented to you as a threat. Trully God is about love. God wants us all in the world he had envisioned which we know as heaven. But can you see how our world is and what mankind gets up to and how much evil their is. Heaven will be like this fallen world if everyone was in it. That God (all knowing etc) tells us what is required to get into heaven so that heaven will be perfect, makes sense when we consider we are far from all knowing, and have cultural and personal biases on what is right and wrong, and what is required to live in true love and harmony with everyone.

[leekohler]

I am sorry that Christianity has been presented to you as a threat. Trully God is about love. God wants us all in the world he had envisioned which we know as heaven. But can you see how our world is and what mankind gets up to and how much evil their is. Heaven will be like this fallen world if everyone was in it. That God (all knowing etc) tells us what is required to get into heaven so that heaven will be perfect, makes sense when we consider we are far from all knowing, and have cultural and personal biases on what is right and wrong, and what is required to live in true love and harmony with everyone.

I think I stated earlier in this thread (it may be somewhere else) that I find "not knowing" very comforting. So we agree on that point. However, I fail to see that belief in a "God" necessitates morality and vice-versa. There are very good reasons outside of religion to perform good works. Mainly, they bring about good results.

[zimv20]

Here is a good link for some background http://www.christianity.net.au/jesus/bible2.htm
thanks for the link. i had a quick look, but i think i'll need to revisit it when my brain's a little more awake.

lee -- i, for one, am with you in the notion that morality can come from non-religious influences.

[leekohler]

thanks for the link. i had a quick look, but i think i'll need to revisit it when my brain's a little more awake.

lee -- i, for one, am with you in the notion that morality can come from non-religious influences.

Exactly- because causing harm to others gets you nothing but pain and sorrow. Hurting others comes back to haunt you no matter what. I get this not from a belief, but from experience.

[aswitcher]

Exactly- because causing harm to others gets you nothing but pain and sorrow. Hurting others comes back to haunt you no matter what. I get this not from a belief, but from experience.


What mechanic (Physics? Kharma?) do you think this is based on?

[leekohler]

What mechanic (Physics? Kharma?) do you think this is based on?

It's based on my own experience. Hurting others brings about self-hurt. Have you ever hurt someone and escaped unscathed or unaffected? With regards to physics or kharma- I don't know. And I'm happy to admit that I don't know.

[aswitcher]

It's based on my own experience. Hurting others brings about self-hurt. Have you ever hurt someone and escaped unscathed or unaffected? With regards to physics or kharma- I don't know. And I'm happy to admit that I don't know.

Well I dont recall anything in the realm of physics that would account for what you are referring to...

Do you believe in a spiritual side to life? Something that science hasn't proven yet?

[dogbone]

Universal common sense ethics throughout all time. Ok, there is a strong view point amoungst Christians that this sense of common ethics comes from God, since he created us and in doing so we know deep down what is right and wrong, and have the ability to choose to love or hate. I see this position as supporting my faith that God exists. If we were just animals then we would not have this universal view...

Well at least you agree that there are a set of common sense ethics which have nothing to do with religion. You probably have second guessed me. I wonder why you brought Jesus into the question of ethics then? I can only think that it must be becuase you suggest that Jesus brought them down from God, but then that would contradict your agreement that they were already known?

"And whats the point of "good works" and being a "good person" if there is no afterlife? Why not be selfish; earn as much money as possible, have as much fun as possible, ignore other peoples feelings accept when it gives you pleasure or security?"

First of all let me say that 'good' and 'bad' are incorrect choices of word, better to use 'right action' and 'wrong action'. You have posed a really good question that I am happy to answer.

Inadvertantly you have mentioned three of the 4 pursuits in life. Atha, Kama, Dharma, and Moksa. Otherwise known as Security, Pleasure, Right Action, Freedom.

Security and Pleasure are the main pursuits of most people, they are self explanatory. The third one (Dharma) is also the pursuit of religious people and I'd like to bring in the Vedic concept of Heaven here. The Vedic Heaven is called Swarga, and it was around a long long time before Christianity. It is a religious view that therefore is based on belief. However it is at least believable because the Hindu heaven is a place that you go to and come back from (more on this in a minute), therefore while it requires belief, it doesn't contradict logic.

The Christian version of Heaven is Eternal. And that is just not believable. For the very simple fact that Eternity, cannot begin. Simple really. But apart from that there are many similarities for the Dharmi, or the one who seeks Heaven.

How it works is one picks up Punya or Papa, which are like Good and Bad trading stamps. The one who seeks Heaven is sort of like going on a holiday. The more green trading stamps the longer you get to stay. However in Heaven there is no Doership, which means that one cannot earn any more Punya so when it all runs out back you come to live another life.

Now I stress that all this is the Hindu religious belief and not something that interests me, for two reasons. One: it requires blind faith, and Two: what's the point? Seeing as you just come back again. Remember that the Christian notion of Eternity having a beginning is just nonsense. Eternity cannot begin any more than Infinity can have an end.

Now we come to Moksa, the neglegted pursuit of Freedom. Freedom always means Freedom from something.

To understand Moksa one needs to understand the concepts of Means and Ends, not really difficult. One would think it were obvious. One chooses and End and then the Means can be worked out.

What is fascinating about Atha, Kama, and Dharma, is that they are all means to ends and if one examines the ends that one wishes to achieve one will find that the end that is really sought is in fact Moksa. But it requires a little analysis to see this.

First of all it can be understood that human beings all want the same thing basically. They want to be free from the feeling of 'want'. That feeling that "I" lack. That yearning, craving feeling that I need to acquire something to get rid of this feeling of inadequacy. Has anyone noticed that no matter how much money someone has, they always want more.

This feeling of insecurity is what drives people into the first three pursuits. You see the problem with a crutch is that it doesn't make you feel secure. Someone who has broken their leg will use crutches, but the crutches do not make that person feel secure on their leg. In fact quite the opposite. The very presence of the crutch is a constant reminder of ones insecurity. Really the person want to be free of the crutch.

Humans are animals and as such they have animal needs. Reproduction and survival. Notice that squirrels bury nuts for the coming winter, but they do not bury nuts for the winter after that.

As well as being free from the feeling of want people also want to be happy, which is probably the same thing. So let's go back to our concept of Means and Ends and look at the means we use for Security and Pleasure. Are we acheiving our ends? One might want a lot of money, but not for the sake of the money. It is to buy things, why? for the sake of the pleased self. Although one can see that it is possible to sometimes be this pleased self without doing anything or satisfying any desire.

Let's looks at your pursuit of Heaven. This is the choice of the Dharmi, the one who chooses 'right' action or altruistic deeds. But what is the end? Is it not true that these altruistic deeds are also for the sake of the pleased self? In fact anything one does is only for the sake of the pleased self.

This is not a concept that religious people like to hear as they see their pursuit of Dharma to be more noble than the common pursuits of Atha and Kama.

Let's look at an example. Take a father who is working two jobs. What for you might ask, well he want's to make sure that he has enough to send his kids to college and set them up in business. He might think he is being selfless and doing for the kids. That is not incorrect but theres more to it, isnt' there. Why does he want to do that for his kids. Bottom line is that knowing his kids will have a good start and have a better chance than he did makes him feel good. In other words it's all for the sake of the pleased self.

I'm not suggesting this is a bad thing. Far from it, but one should be aware of the end that one wishes to achieve otherwise the means don't make sense. After all he obviously has an agenda for his kids and what if they don't want to go to medical school, will this father now force them for their own good. What if he has a heart attack because of his workload and stress, will that help his kids? What if they end up living a successful life as he wanted but they bitterly regretted never seeing their father because he was always either working or too tired.

If one cannot discern what ones reall ends are then how can one choose the correct means? Sure a human like other animals requires a certain amount of security and pleasure but it is never sated.

Only when one discerns the real goal in life is to be fully secure and happy, in fact fully adequate and not wanting. In other words limitless. We occasionally have these moments in life. And if one examines when these moments occur one will see that they happen when one forgets the notions that one has about oneself. Ones self conclusions. When these are forgotten one is spontaneously happy. This is what movies, drugs, jokes, this forum, going on holidays, or any distraction, are really about.

The question then is should we work for self knowledge or self forgetfullness.

The freedom that is Moksa is the freedom from the erroneous notions of who I think I am. It is an inquiry into the nature of the "I". It begins by seeing that the world can be split up to two things. "I" and "not I". There is no third thing.

What about 'God'. Well, God is you then that is the first thing and if God is not you then that is the second thing.

I think I'll leave it there for the moment.


Some people believe that execution of prisoners is justified, others that it is evil.
Some people think that going to war (pick a war) can be justified, others that it is not except in defense. Some people dont think it ever is.

It really is not a matter of justifying war, it is just a matter of seeing what is the right action in a given circumstance. It may very well be going to war if one has no choice.

Thank you. I've been saying this all night, but have been ignored.

I mean really- if you can't figure out on your own that killing, cheating on your spouse, etc. aren't bad, you need to be locked up.

The thing is that one doesn't even need to "figure it out". They are called common sense ethics because they are commonly sensed. The ethics are based on the very clear ideas of how we wish others to treat us and the certain knowlege that they wish the same thing. Does anyone need to "figure out" that they do not wished to be cheated? Even a young child knows that they don't want to be hurt or have their property stolen.

[dogbone]

Exactly- because causing harm to others gets you nothing but pain and sorrow. Hurting others comes back to haunt you no matter what. I get this not from a belief, but from experience.


What mechanic (Physics? Kharma?) do you think this is based on?

It is based on the common sense moral that I have already spoken of. Because they are commonly sensed, because we are all very clear on how we wish to be treated, we also know when we have done wrong. As Dostoyesky said the crime *is* the punishment.

The real question is why do we go against our common sense ethics. The reason for that is another long post I'm afraid.

[dogbone]

Aswitcher

May I ask you a question. You have used the God word quite a lot. I would like to ask you "what is god"?

Another question for you seeing as you are hell bent on going to Heaven is: Do you retain your sense of self identity in Heaven?

[dogbone]

... i, for one, am with you in the notion that morality can come from non-religious influences.


That's good to know because otherwise I'd ask you where religion comes into the equation when I say to you that I am certain that you, like me, do not wish to be deceived, lied to, or hurt in any way.

[dogbone]

It's also the most intellectually attainable. Instead of needing edivence to form one's explanations, faith in God allows you to 'understand' everything in the space of time it takes to believe. I can see there's a lot of comfort in that, although for me it doesn't amount to much in the way of tangible benefit for mankind.


Actually .Andy, (I know you were being facetious) there is no comfort in belief at all. That is why evangelists knock on your door. Because a beleif is fundamentally insecure. One can change ones belief for no other reason than I now believe something else. Whereas science is based on understanding, not belief. Something might be believed for a short while pending discovery of a fact or proof against it. A scientist will have no problem adjusting their understanding based on new facts. Einstein's view of gravity did not cause scientist to throw out Newton's view. It is still useful for getting a rocket to land on the moon.

This is why you don't see scientists knocking on your door trying to interest you in Relativity. They are secure in what they know and also what they don't know.

[solvs]

It's nice to see this thread has continued without devolving into a flamefest.

"what is god"?
Well, there is a god... but it isn't what you'd think. ;)

[dogbone]

It's nice to see this thread has continued without devolving into a flamefest.


Well, there is a god... but it isn't what you'd think. ;)


How do you know what I think

What do you think. Can you answer the question, what do you mean when you say 'God'?

[angelneo]

I just skimped through this discussion and I just want to bring up the point that there are more religions other than Christianity. Nah, perhaps, more than 50% of this planet population are due to go to hell as christians believe.

I never knew about christianity until the age of 18 but I guess I turn out pretty fine. I always believe religion is just a guideline to this world, not an absolute. But seeing how historical and current events has turned out, I would say religion is a contributing cause to all things "evil".

[solvs]

what do you mean when you say 'God'?
If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand. :p Don't feel bad, I don't understand either. But then, I can admit that I don't know what I don't know. You know?

[.Andy]

Actually .Andy, (I know you were being facetious) there is no comfort in belief at all. That is why evangelists knock on your door. Because a beleif is fundamentally insecure. Well facetious or not I see the biggest advantage in faith being comfort. For those with faith they can answer any question they want to. Where we came from, why they sinned, where they'll go when they die, what is in the heavens, what the meaning of life is, why their mother died. They can completely remove all ignorance they have for workings of the outside world, allay any fears they have of the unknown, and be reassured that ***** doesn't just happen.

As you say there is insecurity to their comfort, which is due to the obvious tentativeness of faith. The best way to reassure one's self is in numbers, hence the constant push to get religion into schools, into law, into the media, and keep contraception from their followers.

People can have their faith and I'm fine with that. But I'll happily lay my cards down on the table. I am of the very strong opinion that faith has nothing at all to offer science and it has very little if anything to offer humanity in tangible benefit. It certainly has no claim to being the be-all and end-all of good/morality/anything.

[pseudobrit]

lee -- i, for one, am with you in the notion that morality can come from non-religious influences.

Of course. We call it ethics.

[dogbone]

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand. :p Don't feel bad, I don't understand either. But then, I can admit that I don't know what I don't know. You know?


It is interesting that you brought up the glorious fact that this thread has not turned into a flaming pit of hell, yet you answer me in a way that is so patronising that you are unsuccessfully begging to be flamed. Fancy that. I suppose that is the way of the believer, when one smells a challenge. It is disingenuous and against the spirit of public discussion for you to use a word and then refuse to say what the word means. But the wonderful thing is that you are free to do this.

[zimv20]

perhaps, more than 50% of this planet population are due to go to hell as christians believe.
more like 67% (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

[.Andy]

Ok, love for example.

If you believe in God and Jesus, then you know from the Bible that love comes from God, and is not a socio-bio-chemical-electrical survival/pleasure mechanism. Love is spiritual. It has physical effects on our bodies and our what happens to our bodies can influence us spiritually, but it is not physical as our true selves are beyond our physical fleshy bodies.

Before I go further I want to make sure I have been clear. Does this make sense (even if you disagree with it)?

Do you disagree that we have a spiritual self?
Not spiritual at all aswitcher which you may have picked up on ;). What you've written does make perfect sense though :)! But I'm sure you'll see why I can't take your line of thought with your initial premises.

I strongly disagree that the origin of love is spiritual and purely the manifestation is biological. You'll no doubt answer me with the question of what evidence do I have to refute your claim. Which of course you could claim as a non-sequitur victory but you seem far too intelligent for that.

To me I'm happy with the idea that love is purely biochemical and psychological. It can be induced pharmacologically, can be blunted psychologically, and vice versa. It doesn't make it any less wonderful to me. The addition of a faith component seems to myself completely unecessary in understanding it. The interest to me is why I love who I love, which is so multifactorial that I'm sure I won't fully understand it throughout my entire life - but it won't stop me asking myself.

[blackfox]

If you read the Bible and say its helpful ok, but then dont accept that any of the claims by Jesus etc are valid, what do you think the Bible is a lie with some nice morals? Or could it really be about a war between good and evil? I happen to think the bible is a fabulous book, though not necessarily historically accurate - somewhat like the Illiad, for example. The point to me is not that the stories/events therein are absolutely factual, but that they illustrate important truths about the human condition. I actually do think that much it it revolves around a war between good and evil. I happen to think it, through myth, illustrates (brilliantly) much about basic human psychology and sociology.

For example - The story of the garden of Eden is about the realization of consciousness, and how difficult that journey can be, an how we can never go back to the blissful state of unknowingness. The apple speaks of curiousity, and the serpent of the more dangerous part of the ego -etc.



Actually that last point sounds to me like a pretty good Christian viewpoint. If life, as Christians see it, is about God deciding by our actions who sacrifice some of their desires to support and love others, as well as accept that their creator deserves their respect and love etc, and that turning away from God for selifish desires is evil and destructive and thus must be kept out of heaven, then that's pretyt close to your view already from what I can see. What do you think?
Well yes, except that my point is that I don't necessarily have to accept the Christian notion of God, or it's Dogma to reach the same understanding.

The general point, in relation to evil, is that any emulation of God (or what I roughly equate Truth, Love, Wisdom etc) requires a certain amount of flexibility and mutability. I am able to look at the great Christian inspired thought and say "wow, that's really profound, that will really help me become a better person" yet not be hung up that being the only answer. I am free to look towards great Secular thinkers for their wisdom, as well as those of Islam, of Confuscius, of Buddha, and of the pagan thinkers of antiquitie. Truth is truth, and it stands to reason that many thoughtful people have found some and have managed to transmit that for the rest of us. This flexibility allows me not to become fixed and rigid in my ideology or limited in the means I choose to look for further answers.

My problem with Christianity with relation to Evil is that so many people are unwilling and unable to do the hard work of true spiritual growth that they hide behind an Ideology - Religion - that already has most of the answers proscribed for them, and more importantly promises an eventual respite from the pain of existence. Like is full of painfully difficult and complex decisions, which do not generally lend themselves well to blanket rules on how to answer them.

Let's take abortion for example. It is a complex and nuanced issue, with good points on both sides. There are no cut-and-dry answers as to what is right or wrong - both in aggregate, but especially in regards to individual cases. Many use Christianity to conveniently save themselves the anguish of judgement on the issue, conveniently letting themselves off the hook in responsibility for the effects of their decisions and missing out of the important spiritual growth which comes from making an honest decision about such an issue, that will likely cause you great discomfort.

The fact that a great amount of evil deeds have been done by those in the Church is a testament to the fact that to those who wish to avoid the pain of self-responsibility and self-appraisal, the Church is often a convenient cover.

OK?

[.Andy]

more like 67%

At least we'll all be in good company :).

[dogbone]

... how we can never go back to the blissful state of unknowingness.

Ignorance is bliss, only if it is total.


...as well as those of Islam, of Confuscius, of Buddha, and of the pagan thinkers of antiquitie.

What a shame that you omitted the Vedas. The Bhagavad Gita is a better amalgam of psychological archetypes. If it is translated correctly unlike the Hare Krsna version for example which is the complete opposite of what it says.


Truth is truth, ...

Not really. If you mean Truth is the big sense of the word then it only has one meaning. It must be that which cannot be denied. Otherwise it is not Truth it is just a personal notion.


...Religion - that already has most of the answers proscribed for them, and more importantly promises an eventual respite from the pain of existence.

Yes that is the Christian way, it says basically that you are stuffed. You were born from Sin. You didn't know you were stuffed until they told you then they promise you salvation if you do what they say.

The Vedas on the other hand tell you that you already are what you want to be, full and complete. But you don't know it. And they seek to teach the true nature of the Self. So in effect there is nothing to do, only something to know.

[~Shard~]

Bugger! You quoted me too early shard :D!!!! I've edited it for clarity now.

No worries mate, I was just joking around anyway. ;) I always find these Political/Religion/Social discussion threads quite amusing, and always love throwing in comments like that. Just call me a bastard. :cool:

[Macaddicttt]

Thanks man! You know you're my favorite conservative. I always can exchange ideas with you in a fair, honest open way. You're what conservatives SHOULD be. I've missed sparring with you buddy- where have you been?

I've been around, just not posting. But I think it's funny that I'm your favorite conservative because I'm only religiously so. Economically, I'm very liberal. And you won't find me voting Republican all that often. I vote at least 90% Democrat. :)

But damn sleeping put me out of this conversation for too long. I need to catch up and then post my thoughts.

[Macaddicttt]

Too much has been said since I last posted, so I don't know if I can really cover everything that's been said, but I'll pick one thing: Christianity being the threat that convinces people to do good works.

I'll agree that many people think this way. I can't tell you how many evangelicals have tried to "save" me despite the fact that I am Catholic. To me, if you're a Christian in order that you will be "saved," then you are Christian for all the wrong reasons. Christianity is about selflessness, and being nice to others and professing a faith in God just to get into heaven is very selfish.

To me, this is how it works: I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was true, that it was right. I came to the conclusion the Christianity is what God wanted, that Jesus actually is the Son of God and lived and died here on earth 2000 years ago. I believe that before that, God gave the Law to the Jews, His holy people. The Law was a place holder until the human race matured enough to be ready for Jesus. When Jesus came and died, mankind was redeemed for its sins.

As for who is "saved" and who isn't. I don't claim to know that. I don't claim to really have any idea. I know of many non-Catholics, many non-Christians with whom I'd have no problem if they got to heaven instead of me. Perhaps only Christians are "saved." Maybe only Catholics. But I find that hard to believe considering how many people lived before Jesus or in a position where they could never be Christian.

So my motivation for my faith is simply because I think it's true. No other reason. I don't expect to go to heaven. I sort of expect hell. I just live my life the best I can and when I die, I hope I go to heaven.

[Macaddicttt]

In response to the topic of morality without religion, I agree that there are morals without religion. To me, morals are woven into the universe. But of course, in my opinion, God put them there. And as I said above, I'm just trying to find what is true.

This is how I see it. There are absolute rights and wrongs. Something is right not just because someone says it is. And something is wrong not just because someone says it is. In my opinion, my religion, Catholicism, teaches those morals that are bound in the universe, or at least is included with them. As blackfox was getting at, there are moral debates (such as abortion). If you notice, for the most part, society comes to a conclusion about these debates eventually.

Let's take an easier example like slavery. If you look at early Christianity, if you look at what the Catholic Church has been teaching about human equality since its founding, you would see that the Church has always been against slavery. Perhaps its followers didn't always reject slavery, and perhaps even its leaders, but the Church was anti-slavery from the beginning. Now on which side of the debate did society settle? What is the accepted morality now? Anti-slavery: the morality that I say is built into the universe and pointed to us by Catholicism.

Now with the abortion debate, we've run into trouble. The problem is that there is no debate. The religious right just says, "Abortion is wrong because it is," and that's that. But I believe that if the debate ever gets going and we actually come to consensus like we have on murder, rape, slavery, etc., we will land on the side that says abortion is wrong.

[Macaddicttt]

It's based on my own experience. Hurting others brings about self-hurt. Have you ever hurt someone and escaped unscathed or unaffected? With regards to physics or kharma- I don't know. And I'm happy to admit that I don't know.

See, this to me is the same as Christians who are Christian just so that they are "saved." The mentality is, "Being good helps me, so I'll be good." I think the justification for doing good shouldn't have to include getting something in return. Think of how many people for whom doing the right thing ended in pain and suffering. Just off the top of my head, both Lincoln and MLK, Jr. were assassinated for doing good. Does that mean they must have been doing something wrong since they were punished? To me, right and wrong are beyond the material world and their effects are not bound to it.

[mactastic]

So do you think the Church will come down on the 'right' side of the Homo debate?

[leekohler]

So do you think the Church will come down on the 'right' side of the Homo debate?


Nope.

[Macaddicttt]

So do you think the Church will come down on the 'right' side of the Homo debate?

I'd say that the homosexuality debate will come down on the side of the Church, not the other way around. Or maybe that issue will never be completely resolved since it's something so personal. For example, I think most people would say that swinging is immoral (although not all), but can there really be a debate about it? It doesn't affect anyone but those who choose to be swingers, so how can it be debated? I think that personal morality issues like homosexuality and masturbation, etc., etc. won't ever be decided by society, because there'll always be the argument that if it doesn't harm anyone else, why does it matter?

But if the debate is ever settled, I would think that it would come down on the side of the Church. (I don't expect the matter to ever be settled.)

EDIT: And I think your question is worded very poorly. You seem to think that you've come to the right conclusion before society has. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but don't assume that what you think is automatically right. Throughout this whole thing I've always said, "I think" or "it's my belief" etc. While your views might be right in your mind, they aren't in everyone else's.

[leekohler]

See, this to me is the same as Christians who are Christian just so that they are "saved." The mentality is, "Being good helps me, so I'll be good." I think the justification for doing good shouldn't have to include getting something in return. Think of how many people for whom doing the right thing ended in pain and suffering. Just off the top of my head, both Lincoln and MLK, Jr. were assassinated for doing good. Does that mean they must have been doing something wrong since they were punished? To me, right and wrong are beyond the material world and their effects are not bound to it.

Interesting. So MLK and Lincoln reaped no benefits whatsoever for their good deeds? Is that what you're saying? I understand what you're saying, but look beyond their lives. Wouldn't you say that the results of their actions are still producing good for the most part?

[Macaddicttt]

Interesting. So MLK and Lincoln reaped no benefits whatsoever for their good deeds? Is that what you're saying? I understand what you're saying, but look beyond their lives. Wouldn't you say that the results of their actions are still producing good for the most part?

They probably did reap some sort of material benefit for their deeds, but even if they hadn't, I'd still say what they did was the right thing. I think that good deeds are rewarded after death, whether it's in heaven or some sort of oneness with the world or whatever myth you want to believe in about what happens after death. But I don't think your reason for doing right should be this reward. I think life makes a good "test" for whatever comes after life because doing the right thing is very often hard and the rewards are not directly evident.

[mactastic]

I'd say that the homosexuality debate will come down on the side of the Church, not the other way around. Or maybe that issue will never be completely resolved since it's something so personal. For example, I think most people would say that swinging is immoral (although not all), but can there really be a debate about it? It doesn't affect anyone but those who choose to be swingers, so how can it be debated? I think that personal morality issues like homosexuality and masturbation, etc., etc. won't ever be decided by society, because there'll always be the argument that if it doesn't harm anyone else, why does it matter?

But if the debate is ever settled, I would think that it would come down on the side of the Church. (I don't expect the matter to ever be settled.)

EDIT: And I think your question is worded very poorly. You seem to think that you've come to the right conclusion before society has. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but don't assume that what you think is automatically right. Throughout this whole thing I've always said, "I think" or "it's my belief" etc. While your views might be right in your mind, they aren't in everyone else's.
Well first of all I put 'right' in quotes for the very reason that I'm not making a value judgment on it. Personally I think it's about as valid to make value judgments on whether blondes are more moral than brunettes. And secondly, I'd argue that you seem to have worded your opinion on the abortion issue as what you think is automatically right, didn't you?

[Macaddicttt]

Well first of all I put 'right' in quotes for the very reason that I'm not making a value judgment on it. Personally I think it's about as valid to make value judgments on whether blondes are more moral than brunettes. And secondly, I'd argue that you seem to have worded your opinion on the abortion issue as what you think is automatically right, didn't you?

Yes, I did word it that way, but I didn't assume that you thought it was right. By asking me a question using the word "right" instead of your position, you assumed that I thought your position was right. I have never once assumed that your and my position are the same the way you did in asking that question. Writing a question like that makes you come off as sort of smug. I've always just been stating my opinions.

But to what the original question was getting at, no I don't believe the Church will change. I believe it goes the other way. As I said, I think the Church guides you to what's right, not the other way around.

[aquajet]

As I said, I think the Church guides you to what's right, not the other way around.

Hi there...question.


Would you say the Church (whatever/whomever that entails) is right, absolutely?

[Macaddicttt]

Hi there...question.


Would you say the Church (whatever/whomever that entails) is right, absolutely?

That's a sticky question and my answer will probably have some holes in it since it's hard to communicate complicated things like this on a forum. In my opinion, the Catholic Church is right absolutely. That does not mean that those in it or running it are absolutely right. But whenever the magisterium, that is, the collection of bishops and church leaders, speak officially about doctrine, they are right. Or when the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is right (if I remember correctly, the institution of the papacy has done this only twice). I do not think that the clergy is infallible, but that the institution of the Church, as a whole, is.

[mactastic]

Yes, I did word it that way, but I didn't assume that you thought it was right. By asking me a question using the word "right" instead of your position, you assumed that I thought your position was right. I have never once assumed that your and my position are the same the way you did in asking that question. Writing a question like that makes you come off as sort of smug. I've always just been stating my opinions.
Well I did word it that way too, but I didn't assume you would think it was right. All of this is my opinion. I'm not being smug, all I did was ask a question. Why the double standard? :confused:

But to what the original question was getting at, no I don't believe the Church will change. I believe it goes the other way. As I said, I think the Church guides you to what's right, not the other way around.
Galileo might take umbrage with that statement. Copernicus also. The earth isn't 6000 years old, nor is it flat or the center of the universe. There is no evidence woman evolved out of man, nor that snakes are inherently evil.

What you are suggesting here is that the Church is infallibly right all the time, which simply isn't true. Like most of us, they get some things right, and not others.

As to Gays, the Church's position rests entirely on their assumption that Homosexuality is a choice. If it is ever proven that Homosexuality is, as many of us suspect, not a choice at all -- then what? Will the Church wait 400 years to admit they were wrong again? Or is it not possible that Homosexuality is an inherent trait, since the Church is, in your eyes, always right?

But of course if you believe that, I'd ask you at what age you decided to be straight...

[aquajet]

But isn't the Church, as an institution, composed of exactly that -- the clergy? And since church doctrine was established by exactly that -- the clergy -- in essence makes the Church, as a whole including its doctrines, fallible?

[Macaddicttt]

Well I did word it that way too, but I didn't assume you would think it was right. All of this is my opinion. I'm not being smug, all I did was ask a question. Why the double standard? :confused:

Well, color me confused, too. I guess there's just some sort of misunderstanding between us because I see no double standard. I guess we'll just have to let this one go.

Galileo might take umbrage with that statement. Copernicus also. The earth isn't 6000 years old, nor is it flat or the center of the universe. There is no evidence woman evolved out of man, nor that snakes are inherently evil.

What you are suggesting here is that the Church is infallibly right all the time, which simply isn't true. Like most of us, they get some things right, and not others.

As to Gays, the Church's position rests entirely on their assumption that Homosexuality is a choice. If it is ever proven that Homosexuality is, as many of us suspect, not a choice at all -- then what? Will the Church wait 400 years to admit they were wrong again? Or is it not possible that Homosexuality is an inherent trait, since the Church is, in your eyes, always right?

But of course if you believe that, I'd ask you at what age you decided to be straight...

As for the infallibility of the Church, I told you it was sticky. :) But here's what I mean. As for Gallileo, etc., the Church's official position never included "the sun goes around the earth." It was just the common assumption of the time. A number of clergymen errantly thought Gallileo's discoveries were somehow heretical, despite the fact that the Church is in no position to make such claims about the scientific world in which we live. Don't confuse the mistakes and errors of a few with the whole Church.

As for homosexuality, obviously you misunderstand the Catholic position on the subject since it does not assume that homosexuality is a choice. It just says that homosexual sex is wrong. People are inclined to do wrong things, such as have homosexual sex. Those inclinations aren't sinful, but the act is. You don't have to "choose" to be straight to be moral. You just have to not have homosexual sex (according to the Catholic Church). The Church's position on homosexuality does not rely on the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, but rather that acting on homosexuality is a choice, which it is.

[Macaddicttt]

But isn't the Church, as an institution, composed of exactly that -- the clergy? And since church doctrine was established by exactly that -- the clergy -- in essence makes the Church, as a whole including its doctrines, infallible?

I would say that the Church gets its infallibility from God. Yes, the Church is composed of the clergy, but when they create doctrine, they are very serious about it. In my opinion, God guides the clergy to do the right think when talking about doctrine. You will have some members of the clergy speak heretically, but when the Church as a whole comes to a decision on something, I believe it to be right.

Once the Church contradicts itself on matters of doctrine I will be in no position to argue such a belief. But as of yet, it hasn't happened. And I have to emphasis doctrine here. Canon Law, little things, opinions, etc. can be changed. But not the things set out by the clergy as official doctrine. Stuff can be added, but stuff cannot be changed or taken away.

[aquajet]

How would you explain the existence of homosexuality then? Is it some sort of cruel game God is playing? Did God grant me the gift to love and care for another man, only to entice me with urges to express my love through my sexuality and damn me to hell for all eternity?

[mactastic]

Well, color me confused, too. I guess there's just some sort of misunderstanding between us because I see no double standard. I guess we'll just have to let this one go. OK then.

As for the infallibility of the Church, I told you it was sticky. :) But here's what I mean. As for Gallileo, etc., the Church's official position never included "the sun goes around the earth." It was just the common assumption of the time. A number of clergymen errantly thought Gallileo's discoveries were somehow heretical, despite the fact that the Church is in no position to make such claims about the scientific world in which we live. Don't confuse the mistakes and errors of a few with the whole Church.So what you're saying is that when the Church gets it wrong it's the fault of the clergy, but when it gets something right it's the Church that gets it right?

As for homosexuality, obviously you misunderstand the Catholic position on the subject since it does not assume that homosexuality is a choice. It just says that homosexual sex is wrong. People are inclined to do wrong things, such as have homosexual sex. Those inclinations aren't sinful, but the act is. You don't have to "choose" to be straight to be moral. You just have to not have homosexual sex (according to the Catholic Church). The Church's position on homosexuality does not rely on the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, but rather that acting on homosexuality is a choice, which it is.
I think you're missing the fundamental point upon which the Church bases it's objection: that of whether or not homosexual tendencies -- call them acts, or homosexuality, or whatever -- are something we choose. If they are innate it would of course mean that God had to have granted homosexuals to us, because He is always right. If it's a choice, then it is something that can be considered sinful.

Thus the debate over homosexuality comes down to Christians arguing that homosexuals somehow CHOOSE a life full of hatred and rejection. Like it has some secret benefit that makes it worth putting up with scorn and ridicule, discrimination, and attacks both verbal and physical.

If you agree with the Church's infallible position, then I indeed am curious -- at what age did you decide you were straight? Was it a difficult choice?

[Macaddicttt]

In reply to both Mactastic and Aquajet in terms of homosexuality. You are still misunderstanding the Church's position on homosexuality. It is not a choice to have homosexual tendencies, it is not a choice to have homosexual urges. Having these urges and tendencies are not immoral in themselves. Acting upon them is wrong. I'll make an analogy to a situation that is almost identical.

I am not married. I have a girlfriend. I want to have sex with said girlfriend. I have urges to have sex with my girlfriend. Yet I believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Therefore, I do not act on these urges. I did not choose to have sexual urges towards my girlfriend and having them is not sinful. If I were to act upon them, then they would be sinful and my sin would be no greater or worse than that of a homosexual who had homosexual sex. We both would be guilty of the same sin: extramarital sex.

People have urges to do things that are bad, otherwise, evil would not exist. The urges are not sinful. The acts are.

And with all due respect, Mactastic, I do not think you are in a position to say on what I or the Church base our condemnation of homosexual sex. Any sort of hate or will to murder or will to commit violence or urges to have extramarital sex are all innate. I don't think anyone chooses to want to kill someone, but people do. In the same way, no one chooses to have homosexual urges, but some people do.

[Macaddicttt]

So what you're saying is that when the Church gets it wrong it's the fault of the clergy, but when it gets something right it's the Church that gets it right?

No, that's not what I'm saying. The Church doesn't get it wrong. Let's take the issue of the earth and the sun and their motion. No where did the Church write out and proclaim: "This is God's word, this is Truth: the sun orbits the earth." At no time was this part of the Church's teaching. It was just the belief of most people at the time.

But the Church has said, in essence: "Jesus is the Son of God, so says God. It is True." And I believe that to be true. It is not just the opinion of the majority of the clergy. At some point, they all got together and discussed things and in the end decreed that Jesus is the Son of God. At no time did they all get together and say that the sun orbits the earth. At no time did they decree that heretics deserve the Inquisition and death. But people in the Church believed these things and acted on them. Now if the Church had gotten together and held a council and decreed that the Inquisition was moral and then later recanted, I'd reject the infallibility of the Church. But they never did this.

Similarly, the Church cannot take credit for good things its members have done that it did not decree. The Church is only infallible when officially proclaiming doctrine.

[aswitcher]

Well at least you agree that there are a set of common sense ethics which have nothing to do with religion. You probably have second guessed me. I wonder why you brought Jesus into the question of ethics then? I can only think that it must be becuase you suggest that Jesus brought them down from God, but then that would contradict your agreement that they were already known?

I bought Jesus up because we are discussing evil - not so much ethics. I was agreeing with the posted who quote CS Lewis.

God created everything. I said he created us, which is why we do have this sense of good and evil.


"And whats the point of "good works" and being a "good person" if there is no afterlife? Why not be selfish; earn as much money as possible, have as much fun as possible, ignore other peoples feelings accept when it gives you pleasure or security?"

First of all let me say that 'good' and 'bad' are incorrect choices of word, better to use 'right action' and 'wrong action'. You have posed a really good question that I am happy to answer.
SNIP


You didn't answer if you think there is an afterlife?

What a Christians goals are laid out in the Bible. Mostly its about love and forgiveness. It identifies what is evil and what is good (Christian/Godly). I think I have used the correct choice of words.



Some people believe that execution of prisoners is justified, others that it is evil.
Some people think that going to war (pick a war) can be justified, others that it is not except in defense. Some people dont think it ever is.

It really is not a matter of justifying war, it is just a matter of seeing what is the right action in a given circumstance. It may very well be going to war if one has no choice.


And whose moral compass do you use for that? The Nazi's and the Japanese in WWII thought it was ok to go on an offensive war. Why weren;t they right?

[aswitcher]

Aswitcher

May I ask you a question. You have used the God word quite a lot. I would like to ask you "what is god"?

John 4:24
1 John 3:20
Ps 139
Heb 4:131 Thess 5:23-24
2 Thess 3:3
1 Cor 2:13
etc

"God is an invisible, personal, and living Spirit, distinguished from all other spirits by several kinds of attributes: metaphysically God is self-existant, eternal, and unchanging; intellectually God is omniscient, faithful, and wise; ehtically God is just, merciful, and loving; emotionally God detests evil, is long-suffering and compasionate; existentially God is free, authentic, and omnipotent..." (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd ed, ELWELL, Sept 2003, Baker Academic, page 492)


Another question for you seeing as you are hell bent on going to Heaven is: Do you retain your sense of self identity in Heaven?

We retain the good aspects of ourselves. Our identity is not "borged" :) Fortuetly we are cleansed of what remains of our evil side.

[aswitcher]

I happen to think the bible is a fabulous book, though not necessarily historically accurate - somewhat like the Illiad, for example. The point to me is not that the stories/events therein are absolutely factual, but that they illustrate important truths about the human condition. I actually do think that much it it revolves around a war between good and evil.

So you doubt the Bible's historical basis because?

The way you describe the Bible you do not beleive its authors were recording things accurately, nor that these events happened. What evidence do you have for this view point?


My problem with Christianity with relation to Evil is that so many people are unwilling and unable to do the hard work of true spiritual growth that they hide behind an Ideology - Religion - that already has most of the answers proscribed for them, and more importantly promises an eventual respite from the pain of existence. Like is full of painfully difficult and complex decisions, which do not generally lend themselves well to blanket rules on how to answer them.

I think the opposite. Attending Church is challenging. The guidance goes against our sinful nature, and challenges us to act more Christianly to come closer to God. Knowing what the answer is differs from being able to doing the right thing. Church is about constantly being shown that God's love contrast against the evils of this world (to get back to CS Lewis.)



Let's take abortion for example. It is a complex and nuanced issue, with good points on both sides. There are no cut-and-dry answers as to what is right or wrong - both in aggregate, but especially in regards to individual cases. Many use Christianity to conveniently save themselves the anguish of judgement on the issue, conveniently letting themselves off the hook in responsibility for the effects of their decisions and missing out of the important spiritual growth which comes from making an honest decision about such an issue, that will likely cause you great discomfort.

Without God what are they responsible to in your example here?

Spiritual growth in your view leads to where?


The fact that a great amount of evil deeds have been done by those in the Church is a testament to the fact that to those who wish to avoid the pain of self-responsibility and self-appraisal, the Church is often a convenient cover.

OK?

That people with evil desires would hide within/behind the Church or government or any other power structure in society like the police, the rich etc, just goes to show the nature of evil, not of the Church. It doesn't say more than that.

[zimv20]

It is not a choice to have homosexual tendencies, it is not a choice to have homosexual urges. Having these urges and tendencies are not immoral in themselves. Acting upon them is wrong.
so, coveting your neighbor's wife is a sin, but coveting the husband is not?

:-)

[Macaddicttt]

so, coveting your neighbor's wife is a sin, but coveting the husband is not?

:-)

No, I'd say they're both wrong since they're both jealousy. They're both the same thing. There's no sin in finding your neighbor's wife attractive, and no sin in finding your neighbor's husband attractive either.

[Sayhey]

"God is an invisible, personal, and living Spirit, distinguished from all other spirits by several kinds of attributes: metaphysically God is self-existant, eternal, and unchanging; intellectually God is omniscient, faithful, and wise; ehtically God is just, merciful, and loving; emotionally God detests evil, is long-suffering and compasionate; existentially God is free, authentic, and omnipotent..." (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd ed, ELWELL, Sept 2003, Baker Academic, page 492)

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value the may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so." Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World p.171.

Sorry, when I read people's descriptions of God, I'm always reminded of this passage from Sagan's book.

[skunk]

So you doubt the Bible's historical basis because?Not wishing to pre-empt bf, but the Old Testament was a setting down of a long tradition of oral history many centuries after the events and stories recorded. There is no reason to regard it as any more historically accurate than the Iliad or the Odyssey. The New Testament may be historically more accurate, since it was compiled from documents produced in a time of greater literacy and an established historiographical tradition, but again, there is no reason to suppose that the supernatural component is any more reliable than Constantine's "in hoc signum vinceris" at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.

That people with evil desires would hide within/behind the Church or government or any other power structure in society like the police, the rich etc, just goes to show the nature of evil, not of the Church. It doesn't say more than that.On the contrary, it says, loud and clear, that the Church is not averse to providing cover for people with evil desires.

[blackfox]

So you doubt the Bible's historical basis because?

The way you describe the Bible you do not beleive its authors were recording things accurately, nor that these events happened. What evidence do you have for this view point?
I think you miss my point - It does not matter to me whether the stories contained in the Bible are factual or not - only that they are full of wisdom. My big problem with some in the Church is that they get hung up on the literal at expense of the metaphorical - that somehow the events and words contained within the bible lose validity without them being seen as historical. I honestly don't know whether the Bible is a historical, factual document - I tend to think it is not (as it has been written and translated so many times over a time-span removed from the events described), but that doesn't diminish it's genius to me.



I think the opposite. Attending Church is challenging. The guidance goes against our sinful nature, and challenges us to act more Christianly to come closer to God. Knowing what the answer is differs from being able to doing the right thing. Church is about constantly being shown that God's love contrast against the evils of this world (to get back to CS Lewis.) I believe it goes both ways. You seem the best kind of Christian, aswitcher, and I have no fundamental disagreement with your viewpoint. My point is only that the structured, codified rules of the Church often discourage honest appraisals and difficult judgements on complex issues like homosexuality and abortion or other persistant problems society has to face. Some evil choose to use this as a cover for their bigotry and prejudice.




Without God what are they responsible to in your example here?

Spiritual growth in your view leads to where?
Well, I think people are responsible to Truth. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but I honestly think people instinctively know right-and-wrong if they allow themselves to.

Spiritual growth leads to "godliness". Which is to say, a journey towards those things which "god" represents, whatever that God might be - there are certainly important commonalities in ideals.



That people with evil desires would hide within/behind the Church or government or any other power structure in society like the police, the rich etc, just goes to show the nature of evil, not of the Church. It doesn't say more than that.

My point is only that imo, any structure which puts parameters on free-thinking is bound, by it's nature to encourage a % to use this to evil ends. I am not blaming the Church per se - just making an observation that it's structure implies and determines more than you might think.

Btw, I really commend you for taking the time to honestly banter with me and others - I really have enjoyed it.

[skunk]

And whose moral compass do you use for that? The Nazi's and the Japanese in WWII thought it was ok to go on an offensive war. Why weren;t they right?Why wasn't God right when he told George Bush it was OK for him to start one?

[aquajet]

No, I'd say they're both wrong since they're both jealousy. They're both the same thing. There's no sin in finding your neighbor's wife attractive, and no sin in finding your neighbor's husband attractive either.

But we're not talking about finding someone "attractive" are we?

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 5:28

Looks like you just sinned right here on these boards, considering you just confessed that you would like to have sex with a girl you are not married to. Likewise, anybody who merely identifies as homosexual must be a sinner.

That is, if you accept this excerpt from the Bible.

[aswitcher]

Why wasn't God right when he told George Bush it was OK for him to start one?


Really, is that what George claims? If so, just because a Christian claims something doesn't make it automatically God's will - surely thats apparent from the Bible?

[Macaddicttt]

But we're not talking about finding someone "attractive" are we?

Matthew 5:28

Looks like you just sinned right here on these boards, considering you just confessed that you would like to have sex with a girl you are not married to. Likewise, anybody who merely identifies as homosexual must be a sinner.

That is, if you accept this excerpt from the Bible.

I'm sorry, but you seem bent on not being able to accept my beliefs as credible no matter what I say. Fine, lusting after someone is a sin. So what? I sin everyday. Everyone does. But I do my best not to sin. Fine, a homosexual who lusts after someone is committing a sin, but so is the straight person who does that same thing. But being homosexual is not a sin, just like being straight is not a sin.

I think I'm going to try my best not to respond anymore because you seem so confident that you know my own views better than I do. If you want to think that I hate homosexuals and think they are sinning just for existing, fine. But that's not what I think, and I don't have to justify myself to you anymore. I just wanted to show you my point of view, but obviously you won't see it because you don't want to. If you want to think all people against homosexual sex are evil and hateful, fine.

[aswitcher]

Not wishing to pre-empt bf, but the Old Testament was a setting down of a long tradition of oral history many centuries after the events and stories recorded. There is no reason to regard it as any more historically accurate than the Iliad or the Odyssey.

Sure there is.

http://members.aol.com/BaxterInstitute/TrustBible.html

"This chart in the outline lists the number of ancient manuscript copies for each.
Document
Manuscripts

Plato's Tetralogies 7
Caesar's Gallic Wars 10
Homer's Iliad 643

Did you know that the New Testament weighs in with an astounding 24,300 copies from the first few centuries?"

"Again, let's compare the New Testament with other ancient writings:


Document Name

Date Written - Earliest Fragment - Interval

Plato's Tetralogies 380 B.C. A.D. 900 1280 yrs
Caesar's Gallic Wars 60 B.C. A.D. 900 960 yrs
Homer's Iliad 850 B.C. 350 B.C. 500 yrs

What about the New Testament? It was completed anywhere from A.D. 70 to A.D. 90 and the oldest fragment still in existence is of John 18. It's dated at A.D. 125, an interval of only 55 years (at the most) from the original writing."



The New Testament may be historically more accurate, since it was compiled from documents produced in a time of greater literacy and an established historiographical tradition, but again, there is no reason to suppose that the supernatural component is any more reliable than Constantine's "in hoc signum vinceris" at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.



Except the bible refers to hundreds of witnesses and is written by numerous authors, its not one mans account of a single vision. To say the Bible is fiction or wrong you have to be saying they were ALL liars and/or ALL were somehow deceived to say that the Bible is not accurate.

[aswitcher]

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value the may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so." Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World p.171.

Sorry, when I read people's descriptions of God, I'm always reminded of this passage from Sagan's book.

You know Sagan was a relgious man, in that he had his own religious outlook concerning the "Cosmos"? In effect this statement contradicts his own outlook on life that is speculative philosophy.

But in respect of this comment, Christianity is about a leap of faith. Without the "need" for that leap - if God/Jesus rocked up and proved to you otheir existence - there would be no free will, no choice seek God out or turn away from him.

[aswitcher]

On the contrary, it says, loud and clear, that the Church is not averse to providing cover for people with evil desires.


People in the Church have sinned and covered things up. The Church is the body of Christ and includes all who attend church, not just those who minister to it.

[skunk]

I'm sorry, but you seem bent on not being able to accept my beliefs as credible no matter what I say. Fine, lusting after someone is a sin. So what? I sin everyday. Everyone does. But I do my best not to sin. Fine, a homosexual who lusts after someone is committing a sin, but so is the straight person who does that same thing. But being homosexual is not a sin, just like being straight is not a sin.The difference is clearly that the heterosexual has the option of regularizing his or her lust within the Church, whereas, according to your reading, the homosexual has no such option. His or her lustful urges are doomed to be forever disallowed on pain of Hellfire. Does this seem reasonable?

[aswitcher]

I think you miss my point - It does not matter to me whether the stories contained in the Bible are factual or not - only that they are full of wisdom. My big problem with some in the Church is that they get hung up on the literal at expense of the metaphorical - that somehow the events and words contained within the bible lose validity without them being seen as historical. I honestly don't know whether the Bible is a historical, factual document - I tend to think it is not (as it has been written and translated so many times over a time-span removed from the events described), but that doesn't diminish it's genius to me.

Well some of the other links I have posted recently to this forum should allow you to learn about the authenticity of the Bible if you desire.


My point is only that the structured, codified rules of the Church often discourage honest appraisals and difficult judgements on complex issues like homosexuality and abortion or other persistant problems society has to face. Some evil choose to use this as a cover for their bigotry and prejudice.



I agree in the sense that Churches that add dogma, and other things outside of the Bible, are prone to error. If your experience is a church that doesn't preach heavily from the Bible and encourage debate, then try another church. I hate the idea of a non-intellectual church.


Well, I think people are responsible to Truth. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but I honestly think people instinctively know right-and-wrong if they allow themselves to.

Spiritual growth leads to "godliness". Which is to say, a journey towards those things which "god" represents, whatever that God might be - there are certainly important commonalities in ideals.


So you do believe in an afterlife? You do believe in a soul? You beleive there are such things as good and evil?


My point is only that imo, any structure which puts parameters on free-thinking is bound, by it's nature to encourage a % to use this to evil ends. I am not blaming the Church per se - just making an observation that it's structure implies and determines more than you might think.

Btw, I really commend you for taking the time to honestly banter with me and others - I really have enjoyed it.

No probs. I enjoy the opportunity to make people think about Christianity. I wasnt for most of my life so I know there are many questions especially from those with a science/computing background. This has been one of the friendly religious threads, which is nice. I dont like ones that egt so aggresive that I wince whenever I see an email telling me their is a reply.

[aswitcher]

The difference is clearly that the heterosexual has the option of regularizing his or her lust within the Church, whereas, according to your reading, the homosexual has no such option. His or her lustful urges are doomed to be forever disallowed on pain of Hellfire. Does this seem reasonable?


Well to support MacAddicttt some, everyone is a sinner. The most holy Christian you can think of is a sinner. Chronic sin is a problem for all Christians. Lust, greed, etc all haunt us in different ways and different strengths.

1 Cor 10:13 ISV
"No temptation has overtaken you that is unusual for human beings. But God is faithful, and he will not allow you to be tempted beyond your strength. Instead, along with the temptation he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to endure it." Ps 125:3, Jer 29:11, 1Cor 1:9, 2Pet 2:9

[skunk]

People in the Church have sinned and covered things up. The Church is the body of Christ and includes all who attend church, not just those who minister to it.Those who minister to it have done this also. Why differentiate?

[skunk]

Well to support MacAddicttt some, everyone is a sinner. The most holy Christian you can think of is a sinner. Chronic sin is a problem for all Christians. Lust, greed, etc all haunt us in different ways and different strengths.But homosexuals appear to be discouraged from expressing their natural urges in a way that heterosexuals are not. Heterosexuals are "permitted" to express their lust, albeit after a witnessed ritual of commitment, whereas homosexuals are not.

[aquajet]

The difference is clearly that the heterosexual has the option of regularizing his or her lust within the Church, whereas, according to your reading, the homosexual has no such option. His or her lustful urges are doomed to be forever disallowed on pain of Hellfire. Does this seem reasonable?

Precisely what I'm hinting at skunk.

[aswitcher]

Those who minister to it have done this also. Why differentiate?

I want to make sure that anyone here doesn't think that the Church in the Biblical meaning concerns just the priestly hierarchy. Jesus talks about the Church being all who are Christians. That some Church denominations clergy have concealed from the world, and the rest of the Church, the abuses and sins of some of the number in now way reflects on the Bible, Jesus or the teachings. These are faults/sins of man, these sinners are not following the word of God. That they fail is a reflection on them not the Church. When these maters come to light of the greater Church, they are quickly denounced for what they are.

[zimv20]

here's my issue w/ any historical text, especially something as old and from as many varied sources as the bible.

we can't agree on what happened today. if we decided to group write a book on, say, bush, imagine how controversial each chapter would be. or, what if tales of his presidency were passed down orally for a couple hundred years and then written down? what would we expect to get? the truth? or some kind of spin?

[Macaddicttt]

But homosexuals appear to be discouraged from expressing their natural urges in a way that heterosexuals are not. Heterosexuals are "permitted" to express their lust, albeit after a witnessed ritual of commitment, whereas homosexuals are not.

Okay, I'm persuaded to post at least once more. :)

I disagree. To me, lust is lust and lust is a sin. If a man lusts after his wife, it is a sin. Lust is wanting sex merely for physical pleasure. In my eyes, marriage is not a channel for lust. It is a channel for love. If I were homosexual, I would try my best to try and channel love through something else, like the priesthood. I know it's a harder path, and I'm thankful that I don't have to take it. I know I say this is what I'd do, but I don't know if I'd be able to carry it out.

I'm just trying to say that my faith does not place homosexuals in the "sinning" category just for existing. Lots of people think that way, but I don't. Please just don't insist that my views put me in that category of people.

[aquajet]

I'm sorry, but you seem bent on not being able to accept my beliefs as credible no matter what I say. Fine, lusting after someone is a sin. So what? I sin everyday. Everyone does. But I do my best not to sin. Fine, a homosexual who lusts after someone is committing a sin, but so is the straight person who does that same thing. But being homosexual is not a sin, just like being straight is not a sin.

I think I'm going to try my best not to respond anymore because you seem so confident that you know my own views better than I do. If you want to think that I hate homosexuals and think they are sinning just for existing, fine. But that's not what I think, and I don't have to justify myself to you anymore. I just wanted to show you my point of view, but obviously you won't see it because you don't want to. If you want to think all people against homosexual sex are evil and hateful, fine.

I'm not suggesting that people against homosexuality are evil and hateful, Macaddicttt. Your views, I suppose, are no more or less credible than my own. I'm just trying to point out the holes in the Church, and to further hint at my belief that the Church is entirely fallible. It's not meant to demean one's faith in God. I'm just a bit suspect of the Church as an institution, that's all. :)

[aswitcher]

But homosexuals appear to be discouraged from expressing their natural urges in a way that heterosexuals are not. Heterosexuals are "permitted" to express their lust, albeit after a witnessed ritual of commitment, whereas homosexuals are not.

Ok, I know I am walking into tricky territory here. I dont intend to offend or be condescending.

First up, "natural urges" is a tricky expression. I am not sure we know enough about biology to know if homosexuality is a natural urge since it serves no reproductive purpose. But this is not something I am particuarly knowledgable about but I do question the word "natural" being employed. I am not trying to be harsh. I know a fair number of Gay people, a few are good friends to me and the family. If God is about love, and we are to reflect that, then one sin is as bad as another, and we are all sinners. Just because you are "gay" doesn't mean you cant be a Christian. But to my knowledge any Christian who continues to indulge in chronic sins in the face of the Bibles teachings still deserves all our love but is likely to be turning away from God.

Ok, on another point. Hetrosexuals are only "permitted to express their lust" when they are married. Mmm. The Bible is very strict about no marrying for lust for one. And just to put things in a bit more perspective I know many Christians who are older (mid/late 30s) and have no wife/husband. Many of these people I believe have never had sex. Some have in their pre-Christian days. They are likely all tempted just like homosexuals would be and arguably may never marry...

[skunk]

Okay, I'm persuaded to post at least once more. :) Oh goody! :)

I disagree. To me, lust is lust and lust is a sin. If a man lusts after his wife, it is a sin. Lust is wanting sex merely for physical pleasure. In my eyes, marriage is not a channel for lust. It is a channel for love.Are you saying that physical desire has no place in marriage?
If I were homosexual, I would try my best to try and channel love through something else, like the priesthood.And look what damage that has done in the Catholic Church.
I'm just trying to say that my faith does not place homosexuals in the "sinning" category just for existing. Lots of people think that way, but I don't. Please just don't insist that my views put me in that category of people.Isn't suggesting there is a difference somewhat disingenuous?

[blackfox]

aswitcher ( a whomever, really) - here is a question for you.

I feel this somewhat simplifies my position vis-a-vis our back-and-forths.

Take the precept that as a Christian if you accept Jesus Christ (into your heart, or as Lord and Savior), then you will be saved.

Does this have to occur in one proscribed way?

Could it not mean that you take to heart the concepts and values that he embodies? - that you hold them up as examples by which to live by? That by doing so you allow those to "lord" over your decisions?

My point being, is that imo, whether Jesus existed, was the son-of-god, doesn't matter - and I believe that thinking he did and was is only one way of coming to terms with what that phrase means.

The way I look at it allows a certain commonality and brotherhood with people of all creeds and beliefs who come to the same conclusion with respect to the concepts and values Jesus represents.

With respect to evil ( again relating to my example ) - they would be those who actively refuse to accept, or indeed even acknowledge those same values -

Do you see what I am getting at? Metaphor is so much richer than literal interpretation because of the variety it allows.

[aswitcher]

I'm just a bit suspect of the Church as an institution, that's all. :)

Believe me, your not alone. Many Christians are as well. Why do you think there are so many denominations.

[yoak]

If one assume the Bible is proven to be historical correct, the same must be assumed for the Koran and other holy scripts?

Or were all the others wrong?

[aquajet]

First up, "natural urges" is a tricky expression. I am not sure we know enough about biology to know if homosexuality is a natural urge since it serves no reproductive purpose.

Well, we already know that many higher-level mammals engage in homosexual activity, including marine mammals, such as the bottlenose dolphin and higher primates, such as the chimpanzee. So I would argue that it should be considered at least a natural abnormality.

[skunk]

If one assume the Bible is proven to be historical correct, the same must be assumed for the Koran and other holy scripts?

Or were all the others wrong?Historically and/or geographically speaking, there's little overlap, so there's little problem of mutual exclusivity. Theologically speaking, of course, each one asserts exclusive ownership of the truth, so there we do have a bit of a problem.
:)

[aswitcher]

aswitcher ( a whomever, really) - here is a question for you.

I feel this somewhat simplifies my position vis-a-vis our back-and-forths.

Take the precept that as a Christian if you accept Jesus Christ (into your heart, or as Lord and Savior), then you will be saved.

Does this have to occur in one proscribed way?

SNIP
Do you see what I am getting at? Metaphor is so much richer than literal interpretation because of the variety it allows.

I see what your getting at. But, no, the Bible says that only through Jesus Christ and the Grace of God can you be saved.

What I think you are talking about is known as form of Universalism (everyone will be eventually saved) or philosophy that all good people will be saved (cant remember the ism for that at the moment, but faiths like Bahai etc). But God and Jesus are clear, we need them in our everyday lives to guide us away from our sinful nature. Its about a personal relationship. Other paths dont lead to salvation, although ultimately thats up to Jesus to judge not us. There is real evil in the world to tempt us into selfish / meaningless existences that tempt us to have faith in ourselves (intellect etc) and our feelings. We are warned that such paths do not lead to God.

[aswitcher]

here's my issue w/ any historical text, especially something as old and from as many varied sources as the bible.

we can't agree on what happened today. if we decided to group write a book on, say, bush, imagine how controversial each chapter would be. or, what if tales of his presidency were passed down orally for a couple hundred years and then written down? what would we expect to get? the truth? or some kind of spin?

The writers and rewriters relied upon God. Its part of our faith that these writings are accurate to God's will.

[skunk]

Well, we already know that many higher-level mammals engage in homosexual activity, including marine mammals, such as the bottlenose dolphin and higher primates, such as the chimpanzee. So I would argue that it should be considered at least a natural abnormality.Ah, but chimpos and dolphins don't know it's a sin, so they're OK.
:)

[Macaddicttt]

Just so you don't think I'm just cutting my losses and running... :)

I think this discussion has gotten about as far as it can go on an online message board. Things keep splitting into more and more things and it's too hard to keep track of it all. If anyone is seriously interested in continuing to debate, you can IM me on AIM. My screen name is my name here plus @mac.com

[skunk]

The writers and rewriters relied upon God. Its part of our faith that these writings are accurate to God's will.Even the bits exhorting the massacre of women and children?

[Blue Velvet]

Actually... some of them sound quite reasonable. :D ;)

The nine Satanic statements

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!


The eleven Satanic rules of the Earth

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

[zimv20]

Actually... some of them sound quite reasonable. :D ;)
and a number of them seem to have been adopted by the GOP.

[skunk]

Actually... some of them sound quite reasonable. :D ;)Others remind me of Libertarianism™
:)

[aswitcher]

If one assume the Bible is proven to be historical correct, the same must be assumed for the Koran and other holy scripts?

Or were all the others wrong?

All the others are wrong.

Jesus warned of false prophets coming after him for one.

[Blue Velvet]

All the others are wrong.

Hahaha! Of course they are... :D

[skunk]

All the others are wrong.

Jesus warned of false prophets coming after him for one.And there we have it.


And what of Zoroaster and Buddha who came before?

[skunk]

Jesus warned of false prophets coming after him for one.Don't they all? "The prophet to end all Prophets"? Such Vanity!

[zimv20]

All the others are wrong.

Jesus warned of false prophets coming after him for one.
if you were born to different parents in, say, dehli and were brought up in the hindu faith, what's your feeling on which religion you'd be following now?

[aswitcher]

And there we have it.


And what of Zoroaster and Buddha who came before?

Come on, surely your surprise is feigned... :rolleyes:

People always seem to forget how old the Old Testament is.

Zen Buddhism - see http://www.probe.org/content/view/64/65/

Zoroaster...yeah, that religions success is very apparent today...

[aswitcher]

if you were born to different parents in, say, dehli and were brought up in the hindu faith, what's your feeling on which religion you'd be following now?

I wasn't born or bought up in a Christian house hold. I looked around for many years at relgion at first with very skeptical eyes and then with very critical ones at all the sorts of question people ask in these forums. If I was born in India chances are I would have been raised as a Hindu but I would point out that Christianity is growing faster in the third world, and places like Indian and China, than it is in the Western world. Our Church has members over in India right now. In this hyperthetical I would hope that word of the Bible reached me since I would be similiarly skeptical of faith and looking for other faiths.

[blackfox]

I see what your getting at. But, no, the Bible says that only through Jesus Christ and the Grace of God can you be saved.

What I think you are talking about is known as form of Universalism (everyone will be eventually saved) or philosophy that all good people will be saved (cant remember the ism for that at the moment, but faiths like Bahai etc). But God and Jesus are clear, we need them in our everyday lives to guide us away from our sinful nature. Its about a personal relationship. Other paths dont lead to salvation, although ultimately thats up to Jesus to judge not us. There is real evil in the world to tempt us into selfish / meaningless existences that tempt us to have faith in ourselves (intellect etc) and our feelings. We are warned that such paths do not lead to God.
Look, I understand what the Bible says. What do you say?

If it is the same, do you not see the potential problem with regards to critical-thinking?

I understand that as a Christian I am asking you to question the very foundation of your belief system, and please understand I mean no disrespect - but I find the very concept of shoving the burden of judgement onto some text or possibly imaginary entity to be a rather large cop-out and missed opportunity.

What, in my metaphorical appreciation of the phrase (from my previous post), does not allow me to have a personal relationship with those values and concepts - to take them to heart?

And as far as the final judgement we may all face from Jesus (in your view), could that not mean that ultimately we will have to be judged by the integrity of what those values actually embody at the end of the day?

Relatedly - how are you sure that other faiths are wrong? Does it matter, or is your identity (individual and collectively) more important than the Truth? How is being exclusive preferable to a more inclusive methodology. Because such rote certaintly can most certainly be a road to great evil.

Do you honestly think your "God" would prefer you to kill the "heathens" in his name? Or could it be perhaps that, as I mentioned in an earlier post, that this actually reflects a human psychological pathology - and an evil one perhaps - as rather than accept the uncomfortable notion that you may be wrong, or that the Answer is more complicated and paradoxical than you might like - you seek to exterminate any competion to your beliefs and values.

[aquajet]

Ah, but chimpos and dolphins don't know it's a sin, so they're OK.
:)

Shoot...we better call the Good Reverend Phelps, have him picket the Atlantic. You fishes are gonna burn!!!

[skunk]

Come on, surely your surprise is feigned... :rolleyes: Well of course I was expecting such a dénouement to the argument, but your assertion merely serves to underline that it is not the excellent philosophy or ethical teachings of Jesus which are ultimately important, so much as the membership of some club or other.

People always seem to forget how old the Old Testament is.I thought the quotation was from Jesus. And anyway, when was the OT written down?

Zen BuddhismI know. 530 BC or so. That's "B. C."

Zoroaster...yeah, that religions success is very apparent today...I'd say so. Ask any Parsee.

[zimv20]

Zoroaster...yeah, that religions success is very apparent today...
to be fair, i'm not sure what popularity has to do with how true a religion may be. and what is "success" in this context?

btw, thanks for the response about the hypothetical hindu thing.

[~Shard~]

But, no, the Bible says that only through Jesus Christ and the Grace of God can you be saved.

Sounds like a great, loving religion to me, who treats all people equally - believe in what we believe or else you are all wrong and are going to Hell. We're right, you're wrong - if you don't believe in what we believe (i.e. Jesus) you're f*cked. I don't want to have anything to do with a God who would be that narrow-minded and condemning. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

In this hyperthetical I would hope that word of the Bible reached me since I would be similiarly skeptical of faith and looking for other faiths.So your salvation would essentially be a matter of chance and access to communication?

[aswitcher]

Look, I understand what the Bible says. What do you say?

I now agree with the Bible's teachings. Most of my life I did not. I can to this through critical reasoning and much research of other faiths and Christianity.


If it is the same, do you not see the potential problem with regards to critical-thinking?

No, contra to what the Simpsons might have you beleive most Christians I know are very well educated and spend a great deal of time trying to understand what and why the Bible says what it does, and how this fits into the world.



I understand that as a Christian I am asking you to question the very foundation of your belief system, and please understand I mean no disrespect - but I find the very concept of shoving the burden of judgement onto some text or possibly imaginary entity to be a rather large cop-out and missed opportunity.

It took me many years to understand the reliability and authority of the Bible. I was always cocnerned about "brain washing" and peer pressure. I came at the issue from all sorts of directions, attended Christian run introductionary courses, read books, went intermitantly to Church etc before I became a Christian. Faith is a hard thing to grapple for me.


What, in my metaphorical appreciation of the phrase (from my previous post), does not allow me to have a personal relationship with those values and concepts - to take them to heart?

And as far as the final judgement we may all face from Jesus (in your view), could that not mean that ultimately we will have to be judged by the integrity of what those values actually embody at the end of the day?

You either accept what the Bible says or you form your own rationality that suits you. The latter in my mind suffers badly from personal bias and the sorts of unintellectual problems you suggest I as a Christian have in my view.


Relatedly - how are you sure that other faiths are wrong? Does it matter, or is your identity (individual and collectively) more important than the Truth? How is being exclusive preferable to a more inclusive methodology. Because such rote certaintly can most certainly be a road to great evil.


I have faith in God, Jesus and the teachings in the Bible. I have looked hard at most mainstream religions and beliefs over the years and found them all wanting. Preference and inclusivity might sound more attractive but I believe God knows that they are unworkable and has put in lace the only way that will save as many as possible an still allow Heaven to be Heaven.

http://www.christianity.net.au/questions/never_heard.html


Do you honestly think your "God" would prefer you to kill the "heathens" in his name? Or could it be perhaps that, as I mentioned in an earlier post, that this actually reflects a human psychological pathology - and an evil one perhaps - as rather than accept the uncomfortable notion that you may be wrong, or that the Answer is more complicated and paradoxical than you might like - you seek to exterminate any competion to your beliefs and values.

I dont think God wants me to kill anyone. I think he wants me to act as a conduit for his love to spread it to others.

Any competition to Christianity does not serve God as far as I can see. It would be far easier (and tempting) for me to take the point of view that everyone good will be saved but thats not what the Bible says. Its not what God tells us. Arguments like that remind me of the Garden of Eden temptation and other Bible events where efforts are made to deny God's word meant what they said or were said at all - that he is good and their would never be any consequences.

[aswitcher]

Sounds like a great, loving religion to me, who treats all people equally - believe in what we believe or else you are all wrong and are going to Hell. We're right, you're wrong - if you don't believe in what we believe (i.e. Jesus) you're f*cked. I don't want to have anything to do with a God who would be that narrow-minded and condemning. :rolleyes:

Shard, can you imagine for a moment that God exists and has looked at all the angles on the creation of human beings and come up with the only solution to save as many of us as possible to live in harmony in heaven? That he has to allow us choice, free will, which means a leap of faith, to turn away from our selfish ways as best we can to be able to receive his grace? Hyperthetically can you at least appreciate that Christians accept that God is smarter than us and he has done all he can to allow this free choice?

[skunk]

[QUOTE=aswitcher]Any competition to Christianity does not serve God as far as I can see.{/quote]Do competing Christian churches?