A religious experience is very personal but not necessarily any less valid. I understand that when it comes to science we use public scrutiny as a litmus test. But science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. The scientific method is a way of finding out more about our universe. Religion is a way to understand the meaning behind the universe.Why shouldn't personal experience be exposed to the litmus test of public scrutiny?
Of course it should. Many times these revelations are meant to be shared. But in the skeptical atmosphere found in contemporary society these people are labeled as the aforementioned kooks.
Also, many people will not go through the necessary steps available to them to have a similar experience. They close themselves off to a religious experience because they think it foolish or illogical. Human error is as much a part of religion as it is a part of science.
If you ever have the opportunity to make an Ignatian 30 day retreat I suggest you do because it can bring about a powerful experience. If the 30 days is hard to break away check out a similar and easier meditation: Examen.
Also, many people will not go through the necessary steps available to them to have a similar experience. They close themselves off to a religious experience because they think it foolish or illogical. Human error is as much a part of religion as it is a part of science.
But please don't presume that atheists have either sought or had a religious experience, or have somehow closed themselves off from even looking for God.
As an atheist, I have in fact had several religious experiences that were quite profound. But even my lay understanding of how the brain and brain chemistry function, and how we as humans perceive the world, makes me less inclined to believe it is God, an angel, or any other supernatural force at work in my life.
Being able to repeat a profound religious experience at will, by creating the right circumstances, kind of takes the mystery out of it.
And yes, sequestering yourself away from the world, surrounding yourself with a small group of people all seeking the same thing (typically through group activity), and any other kinds of deprivation (minimal sleep and food) are all exellent methods of producing a religious experience.
I think you'll have a harder time proving that your religious experience was a direct connection with the divine than I will proving it was (essentially) an hallucination.
I'm curious, how could an atheist, who by definition does not believe in God seek a God they do not believe exists? If one is seeking it would seem more along the lines of agnosticism. Or has the seeking stopped?
And just because we can measure what happens in the brain when someone smells an apple pie and that we understand what is going on biochemically when one sees an apple does not mean that the apple pie does not exist nor that the smell is invalid. Mmmmm... apple pie.
Perhaps like this:
It was late winter when a young man of 15 returned to San Francisco, a city in which he'd spent most of his first four years.
He walked out into the ocean, with Seal Rock nearby, just as he remembered it from childhood. Hip high water... sun and sea... no one else in the water.
He looked out upon the clear horizon and was suddenly aware that the ocean was far greater than him. For the first time ever, he felt small, yet with this sense of shrinking came the serenity of knowing that he was comforted in the rocking arms of something so much larger than man. Something which welcomed him.
This was holy. A golden moment in time. He didn't give it a name, or attach a white beard. He didn't set rules to it or make any suppositions.
Decades passed yet he continued to recall that blissful sense of cosmic placement and ego sublimation so vividly. It was his only experience with anything he'd ever come to know as divine. Well, up to today anyway. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?
I wonder if John Donne ever stood in the water just as I did?
I'm curious, how could an atheist, who by definition does not believe in God seek a God they do not believe exists? If one is seeking it would seem more along the lines of agnosticism. Or has the seeking stopped?
What? Because I don't believe in God, I have to give up all attempts at insight, epiphany, gnosis, enlightenment, wisdom, understanding, or seeking of God?
You know my problem with feelings as "proof" of the reality of God? It's a catch 22. If you get a religious experience (as a result of prayer, scripture study, going to church, etc.) then you have your answer--no need inquire further. If you do not have a religious experience (or have a negative experience) then you are either doing something wrong (doubt, sins that need repenting, lack of preparation) or else the time isn't ready and you need to work for it harder. This is hardly proof of anything because it weeds out any possible false answer. You can't KNOW anything if the investigation process is rigged.
The interesting thing here is I have been on both sides. I've had profound spiritual experiences as a believer, and have still stepped over the line.
Is religion akin to getting married in the depth of the feeling of rightness and closeness and eternal destiny? Yep. Sure is. But there is another kind of satisfaction and relief to atheism. I'm not less happy now. I don't have less joy or peace or whatever. It's a different kind of joy and peace. I don't have to run from the light of truth anymore. I don't have to skitter under the floorboards whenever scientists shine the light into some unknown corner and discover the body of Jesus, or life on Mars. I can talk comfortably about dinosaurs, or the climate 100,000 years ago without being embarrassed that the facts don't back up my preconcieved beliefs.
It's a good good feeling. I don't have to protect the ark anymore, or the flood, or why Jesus and his followers misquote Isaiah so much, or defend Daniel killing every man, woman, child and beast on entering the promised land. I can look at other religions and love them rather than having to recoil lest they corrupt me to the worship of an alien god. I can really talk about my feelings and thoughts on religious issues without feeling like I might be misrepresenting my church or somehow failing God. It's nice in as many ways as it's sad for me...
Jade and Sean,
I am not saying that you cannot have feelings of something bigger than yourself or that you cannot seek for these things. But atheism by definition means that one believes that any divine power or god cannot exist. If one seeks for god then there is from one perspective hope or from the other doubt -- both at least are open to the possibility of a god and therefore are not atheism. I was not trying to condemn or judge, just clarify what you (and other posters) meant by the term "atheism" for my own sake.
Grimcleaver,
I can only say that as a Roman Catholic I have never felt opposition between those things that you mention. As I posted earlier science and religion do not contradict each other. In fact many scientific discoveries came about by humanity's attempt to make sense of God's world around them. Good theology, regardless of denomination, and good science, regardless of concentration, should always be seeking understanding.
I guess my definition of my own atheism is that I don't believe in a godhead, or a plan for Earth, let alone mankind.
The universe itself... there is my mystery. The arena itself.
Perhaps one searches for a why because one needs to feel relevent. Though there are those who will tell you their simple formula will tell you how old the universe is, the universe may very well have always existed for no other reason than it hasn't been able to stop existing... but how miraculous that we are here at all! It is amazing. Eons of cultural masterpieces and candy that pops in your mouth. What an odd story we've decided to tell. All a part of the rich pageant, eh wot?
I find my own belief in all things universal is more based upon disbelief with the current models than belief.
Grimcleaver,
I can only say that as a Roman Catholic I have never felt opposition between those things that you mention. As I posted earlier science and religion do not contradict each other. In fact many scientific discoveries came about by humanity's attempt to make sense of God's world around them. Good theology, regardless of denomination, and good science, regardless of concentration, should always be seeking understanding.
You'd be suprised how many times friends I talk to just don't have the same quandries and reservations that I do. I sometimes wonder why. I mean I guess I feel that my doubts are relevant--so it's strange that they aren't more widespread.
It seems like a lot of religious people seem fine taking cover in the Intelligent Design foxhole, but to me its always felt like a rout. I have a hard time believing everything science says AND everything religion says. There's a lot of things that just don't jive for me that way. It's interesting to see how much science can take away from religion before religion folds. It's like watching a losing chess game for me. A pawn goes down here, a pawn goes down there, and eventually it just feels like religion is going to get checkmated, that all the room to imagine a supernatural realm is going to be so diminished by what we learn that everything will end up being charted and plotted and calculated. And in a way that's good, because truth will win out in the end--but it's sad. It's sad in the same way it was when people could see the top of Mount Olympus, or when they learned that the World didn't rest on the back of a turtle, or up in the branches of a massive tree. It feels like the death of a culture.
I am not saying that you cannot have feelings of something bigger than yourself or that you cannot seek for these things. But atheism by definition means that one believes that any divine power or god cannot exist.
If one seeks for god then there is from one perspective hope or from the other doubt -- both at least are open to the possibility of a god and therefore are not atheism.
I really don't want to derail this conversation and quibble over definitions, but my atheism is not that binary. I can seek and still be comfortable calling myself an atheist.
And no worries, I'm not feeling condemned.
Let's just say I'm open to the possibility of god, but I very definitely don't believe in your god, or anyone else's. But I don't entirely discount the possibility.
Of course, what would meet my definition of god is probably not something any Christian would necessarily agree with.
|
A religious experience is very personal but not necessarily any less valid. I understand that when it comes to science we use public scrutiny as a litmus test. But science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. The scientific method is a way of finding out more about our universe. Religion is a way to understand the meaning behind the universe.
Just because we have found that certain groupings of protons and electrons form particular elements and behave in a particular fashion and organized them in a nice chart doesn't mean that God cannot or does not exist.
Just because species evolve through natural selection and seemingly random mutations either survive or die off does not mean that a divine being cannot or does not exist.
A healthy skepticism is a good thing -- especially for those who believe.
Yeah - but the holy text says the world was created in six days, which flatly contradicts our scientific understanding. If you are prepared to disbelieve large chunks of the Bible, then I can see your point. But then, why bother believing any of it? This is what I don't understand about the supposed compatibility of science and religion - at what point do you stop believing the Bible and start believing science?
This pick-and-mix approach seem fundamentally dishonest, since you can have your cake and eat it. Scientific progress based on impersonal physical principles? Check! Benevolent deity who will bail you out? Check! I just don't see how the two are reconciled.
And just because we can measure what happens in the brain when someone smells an apple pie and that we understand what is going on biochemically when one sees an apple does not mean that the apple pie does not exist nor that the smell is invalid. Mmmmm... apple pie.
No, but it does mean that we know the brain is detecting an apple pie. If for some reason a person is claiming it is blueberry then we can tell them that there is something wrong with their perception.
But atheism by definition means that one believes that any divine power or god cannot exist. If one seeks for god then there is from one perspective hope or from the other doubt -- both at least are open to the possibility of a god and therefore are not atheism.
Or they are still atheists but open to adopting new ideas if they come across them. Which is normally called being open minded and I hope this can be compatible with any religious view.
I still say crap like "Oh my god!" or "Jesus!" just out of habit. I have no inclination to change because I have no reason to. Thats one of the nicer parts to being a heathen. It's impossible to blaspheme.
|
Yeah - but the holy text says the world was created in six days, which flatly contradicts our scientific understanding. If you are prepared to disbelieve large chunks of the Bible, then I can see your point.
I am not sure if this will help or not. Some of the issue may be our limited interpretation of the ancient Hebrew. Since I am not a Hebrew scholar, I am going off of what I have heard -- but as I understand it, ancient Hebrew has one word for quite a number of different concepts. As I understand it, the same word for "Hell" can also mean "under the ground", "under the earth", "down", or even "cave".
My point is -- what is a "day"? Especially before there was "Night and Day"? Was it exactly 24 hours? How long is a day to a being that fuctions and exists outside of time? Would Moses (the assumed author of Genesis) have understood God if God had said "Well, the first bit of what I did took approximately 2,874,345,962 years of your current understanding of what a year entails -- since you really don't understand that the sun is really a star, but closer and the earth is circling the sun and the earth is rotating within this giant area of space -- and by the way, people are going to come up with this 'hour' concept, which really doesn't make sense as it should all be decimalized. In addition, this was kind of a work in progress and as things moved along, I kind of wanted it to make sense. The first creation of mine during this time was..." How much would Moses have understood? Did he have a Biology or Geology degree? It seems much simpler to say "I created the earth in a specific time period -- to me it was as if only a day had passed."
My point is that the more we know about science, it seems to me that the more we know and understand how the Bible fits. I don't feel that I am "throwing out" large sections of the Bible. There is a lot of Revelations that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If John (the author of Revelations) really saw the future in a dream, I find it hard to believe that he would have written "I don't know what this all means, but some day people will -- I see a nuclear warhead traveling towards what will some day be a building called the Pentagon. I see F-15 fighters doing maneuvers over Bagdad..."
Yeah - but the holy text says the world was created in six days, which flatly contradicts our scientific understanding. If you are prepared to disbelieve large chunks of the Bible, then I can see your point. But then, why bother believing any of it? This is what I don't understand about the supposed compatibility of science and religion - at what point do you stop believing the Bible and start believing science?
Although Moff touched upon some of this let's clear this up...
Fundamentalists who believe the Bible literally may have problems regarding many scientific principals.
As a Roman Catholic I do not read the Bible literally. There is a difference between literal or historical truth and spiritual truth.
I find it necessary to explain myself and since a few people are summarizing the creation story in the book of Genesis I'll use that.
Genesis was written after generations of semetic peoples (in this case the Israelites or Hebrews) shared an oral tradition of their understanding of the creation of the world. This was also created in relation to the Babylonian creation myth (which by the way has many similarities) since the Hebrews were exiled and lived among them. But where the Babylonian creation myth has order and chaos and good and evil in a battle for supremacy and pretty much in balance the Hebrew creation myth always has law and good (God) constantly winning and having supremacy. First there was amorphous chaos and darkness, pretty scary stuff because it is mysterious and unknown. Then God creates light and makes order out of chaos. While this happens is constantly repeated the phrase: "and it was good." The major theme in this creation myth is the idea that God makes order out of chaos and is always striving for good.
The seven days is actually a "3+3+1" pattern to help remember what was created when in the oral tradition.
1st Day: Light.....................................4th day: stars in the sky (thus a "concentration" of the light)
2nd Day: Air and water seperated.....5th day: air and water populated by birds and fish
3rd Day: Land......................................6th day: land populated by animals and man
7th Day: seeing everything as good, God rests, thus sanctifying creation
Many people choose to ignore the history surrounding the writing of a text. Instead of looking for the literal historical accuracy one instead should look for a spiritual or moral truth when reading scripture.
As I understand it, the same word for "Hell" can also mean "under the ground", "under the earth", "down", or even "cave".
Actually, the Hebrew concept for the realm of the dead was called "She'ol." This is a grand cavern under the earth that all dead people go to. It was not considered punishment as is the Christian concept of hell - it just was.
You're right about there being misinterpretations of language. Many versions of the Bible have been misquoted and mistranslated from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. For example the King James Bible was changed to support royalty and thus more "proper." EDIT - It should be noted that many denominations have changed the translation to better fit their politics or power structure. There are current movements to go back to the earliest documents to make sense of it all.
There is a lot of Revelations that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
From the Catholic scholar perspective the Book of Apocolypse (Greek word for "revelation" or "revealed knowledge") is actually a work of inspired political satire. John of Patmos was incarcerated for being Christian (As were many Christians of his time). And because it was illegal to be Christian the images that he shares are highly metaphorical, a code. For example: "Jesus with a sword for a tongue" is his way of showing the Word of God is a powerful tool or weapon. Or "the six-headed beast" is actually the empire of Rome because there were six Roman emperors that had persecuted Christians by the time John wrote his book. Reading the Book of Revelation through this lens we begin to see a message of hope for the persecuted Christians of his time: "Sure, we're arrested, tortured, and thrown to the lions, but what awaits our persecutors is far worse and our future is going to be great!" In fact, some say that the events of Revelation have indeed come to pass already because the empire of Rome became Christian (thus falling to the Word of God) and was a grand kingdom of peace and prosperity (until those in power became just as misguided and began persecuting non-Christians, then the eventual fall of Rome, etc.).
Hope this helps.
Fundamentalists who believe the Bible literally may have problems regarding many scientific principals. As a Roman Catholic I do not read the Bible literally. There is a difference between literal or historical truth and spiritual truth.
I was raised Catholic, but that was in another time, in a different place. In many parts of the southern and central United States now, Catholocism is considered a non-Christian heathen religion. The forms of "Christianity" that largely hold sway here are basically a form of Bible worship, in which "favorite" quotations trump Christ's message at every turn. I know some people who can't even say "good morning" without putting a Mark 7:16 or something after it. They organize trips to the Grand Canyon to "teach" how it was formed by Noah's flood. Any hint that any passage of any Bible (no matter who translated it and no matter how it might contradict other passages or translations) is considered heresy.
Contrast this with the understanding of Christianity that you've described, and you'll see that there are two VERY different religions here, despite the fact that both are called "Christian." The difference is deep, wide, and fundamental, bigger than the Sunni-Shi'ite schism, and I'm glad that it's not currently a cause for civil war (although I suspect that some of the "culture warriors" don't share my opinion of that).
Man, my HD being down for several days has got me backed up again...it looks like Moff and Timault have covered some items I'd respond to in a similar manner. They appear to be on similar ground with me in many areas regarding Biblical interpretation, interaction of science and religion, etc., so I'll just read back through and see if there's anything else to cover.
Kirth, I'm a Southerner born and bred (currently living in Birmingham) so I definitely understand the situation you describe. This is a sad truth to Christianity (and indeed most religions) in that the "truth" of the religion is often lost in the mechanical aspects. Again I'd argue this is largely due to people wanting things simple, clear cut, and decided for them as this alleviates the need for personal struggle and contemplation. Christ does not call us to this robot-religion.
Timault provides a very good introduction into the literary history/nature of Gensis. I would also point out that at least two oral traditions (the Elohistic and Yahwistic treatments of God) make up this story, but this distinction is generally only notable when one either (a) reads the Hebrew text or (b) carefully considers when and why the English (or other language) translation uses a term such as "God" versus "Lord God." His brief analysis for the Book of Apocalypse is likewise similar to my understanding.
Some have asked why I believe what I believe, versus non-belief/pure science/another religion. My answer there is complex--I'm not sure I can adequately cover it really and have it make any sense to someone other than me--but it comes down to going on two decades of study, life experience, and ultimately a personal decision. Yes, my choice of Christianity is arbitrary (in the sense of being an individual judgment, not as being chance or whimsy), but that choice is one made after much consideration and investigation.
Some specifics--for life experience, I have personally experienced and witnessed "miracles" that could not be explained by science. I know there is skepticism regarding miracles, the "he said, she said" game, and a lack of scientific examination (thus the miraculous rather than mundane). I have personally been in situations where I should have died, and yet did not. I personally know a person that was dying of cancer that was fully restored to health (against all the logic and reasoning of her doctors). Might there be other explanations than God for these things (utilization of untapped mental potential in the human brain, aliens, etc.)? Yes. But thus far those explanations have proven less acceptable than God, and science/reasoning has failed me entirely. Too many Christians today approach miracles as things that happened in Jesus day, but not now, as a way of avoiding this difficult issue. Beyond the miraculous, I have experienced personal transformation--of mind, of behavior, of emotion--that directly coincide with what I know of scripture describing a transformed life in the image of Christ. These changes could come about in other ways, but I do not see it as happen-stance that I have achieved them through my faith.
For specifics on study, I have read many philosophers and scientists, investigated religions from the primitive to the modern, and have come to see them all as humanity striving to know God. I do not discount any of these as valid, but I do see them all as inadequate to fully explain (not just the "how" but the "why" as well) existence in a way better then Christ.
Finally, coming back around to the issue of evolution...I have not as yet seen a fossil record that clearly proves macroevolution. If anyone can direct me to this evidence (that is not strung together by hyotheses), I'll be much further along on my understanding of evolution. And as Timault noted, reconciling Evolution and my understanding of God is not something that would cause me to reject God (we are, after all, noted as being creations of earth given life by God, in a manner similar to other creation beliefs), as I understand God to operate within the very laws we are discovering (as the author of such laws). As such, it is not that I am trying to disprove/deny evolution, but rather understand it more fully. At present, I simply have not seen enough observable evidence to support macroevolution as a viable option. It appears as provable and likely to me as creation by an Other (whether it be God, aliens, etc.).
Getting down to a more basic level regarding creation, how did existence begin? If from the Big Bang (as with evolution, a theory I do not reject) what was the First Cause, keeping in mind accepted laws/theorems of physics? This gets to the heart of my ex nihilo "life from nothing" statement.
Here's the trouble I have with miracles, and its kindova' two parter. Miracles are supposed to accompany true faith, and the working of wonders is supposed to be only God's domain. When you're trying to find out who's the real God between Him and Bhaal, you get two sacrifices and see which one the fire comes down and consumes. The one with the miracle is the one you should follow (the other ones you should hack to peices with swords?)
So moreso than that miracles exist, my question is why is it that miracles seem to exist among EVERY religion, and some unexplainable things (like when it rains fish, or rat kings are found--colonies of dozens of rats found with their tails grown together in a huge unfixable knot) have no religious explanation at all. Now as far as I've been able to tell the canned response to all of this is "It's Satan!" It just makes me shake my head--so EVERYONE else's miracles are just Satan, but YOUR miracles are real? And everyone says this? Sigh. I think strange things just happen.
Argument two. When people die in a plane crash that never should have happened, God didn't make it happen--just because we don't understand it and science can't explain what went wrong doesn't mean God caused it to crash. Right? When good people die of heart attacks, it isn't God's fault. Why not? Because he's created the rules that the world works by, and we're subject to them. They work in capricious and often cruel ways, and often it is the moral wickedness of others that causes these awful things to happen--so God isn't at fault, it's just the way of the world. Right? Well miracles kind of destroy this immunity by impartiality. If bunches of people can be miraculously healed of blindness, or sickness, or disability then all of a sudden what would have been heartsick support but moral inability to act becomes capricious favoritism. While I wouldn't mind a God who was more human in this regard it certainly doesn't paint him as All Good and All Merciful. It seems like his mercy and goodness end up being distributed at random. Some people get saved, some people just die, and God just chooses who to sacrifice and who to save for reasons known only to him, but certainly He doesn't save everyone he could. It really seems like it would be easier to imagine a loving God who refused to work miracles for our own good, so we could be tested in the world as was intended as though not to show favoritism or to ruin the test value of earthly experience.
I'd say look at miracles a different way. Miracles are not simply the result of one having enough faith to make something "magic" happen, they are the physical manifestation of God intervening on this world for God's purpose. You can have as much faith as you like and pray ardently for something to occur, but if it is not in God's purpose, it's not going to happen. It is not faith that causes the miracle, but God. When we have true, deep-rooted faith, it means we are content in what God has provided, whether wealth or poverty, health or sickness (again echoing St. Ignatius).
Actually, I'd say all miracles are from God, a concept more rooted in Hebrew tradition. They are not the sole province of Christians, but may manifest anywhere to further God's purpose (as above). Satan ("one who opposes" in Hebrew) serves God's purpose just as well, whether one sees Satan as a literary construct, a physical being, or a spiritual manifestation of humanity's wickedness.
Now, rat kings and raining animals seem like either fairly natural, if unusual, events or fabrications to me--rat kings have, to my knowledge, never been substantiated as real. Raining animals would be the result of meteorological events (living in the Southeast, with tornadoes brewing even as I type, this is a fairly easy one for me to understand).
I guess for me, strange things can't just "happen." They are either scientifically explainable events or are the act of God.
And speaking of tornadoes...our office just got shut down due to tornado warnings. I'll continue once I get home and things settle down.
I laugh at the idea of a just God. Keep in mind this are just my opinions but I find it a very sick joke.
First off we can throw out the complaints about random undeserved deaths. I know all the convenient excuses. The lord is testing our faith, the lord has a plan, the lord does not actually allow himself to intervine, or my personal favorite "the lord works in mysterious ways".
Why do I have it so good? I was born into a white middle class midwestern family. I wanted for nothing. I had a great childhood and lots of friends. I'm in college but I didn't work that hard to get here. I was born fairly bright so school took little effort on my part. I'm in a great college surrounded by great guys and beautiful women. I don't even have to work all that hard to keep my grades up! Why do I have it so good when I spit in Christs eye daily by not even acknowledging his existance?
Meanwhile in the Congo a twelve year old is ripped away from his recently slaughtered family, given a rifle and told by radicalists A (who actually killed his family) that radicalist group B killed everyone he has loved and they are giving him a shot at revenge. Two months later he has racked up a few kills , eaten bits of a human heart laced with cocain (to keep them docile if I understand correctly), and has learned how to rape a nine year old. What the hell did this kid do? Why does he not deserve the chances I've had. Hell I'm not even that nice of a person!
Why does a mudslide cover an entire town, including an elemwntary school filled with children, slowly crushed as the tons and tons of earth press down making their friggin kindergaten class a cruel unescapeable deathtrap.
If god wanted "I work in ways you cannot understand" to fly with me then he should have altered the way my mind evaluates what is just. For me that does not cut it. I worry that there is a God. Because if he exists, then so far, he is the biggest jerk I've ever heard of.
Some specifics--for life experience, I have personally experienced and witnessed "miracles" that could not be explained by science.
Grimcleaver kind of summed up my position: I don't see the fact that diseases sometimes suddenly heal themselves as a failure by science or proof of intervention. It proves for me how freakin' amazing the human body is. Why is sudden unexplained health seen as a sign from God, but sudden unexplained death not? (This goes back to the whole micromanaging god question.)
Getting down to a more basic level regarding creation, how did existence begin? If from the Big Bang (as with evolution, a theory I do not reject) what was the First Cause, keeping in mind accepted laws/theorems of physics? This gets to the heart of my ex nihilo "life from nothing" statement.
The thing to remember about the Big Bang is that it wasn't an explosion /in/ space, but an explosion /of/ space. All the matter and energy could have been already there, it was just wasn't doing anything without space/time. I'm in no way qualified to talk about the universe before the big bang, so I can't rule out the possibility of a demiurge.
I'm short on time at the moment, so I'll have save my intro to evolution for another time.
|
|
I laugh at the idea of a just God. Keep in mind this are just my opinions but I find it a very sick joke.
First off we can throw out the complaints about random undeserved deaths. I know all the convenient excuses. The lord is testing our faith, the lord has a plan, the lord does not actually allow himself to intervine, or my personal favorite "the lord works in mysterious ways".
Sexi, first of all, I really appreciate that you tell it how you see it. I don't think that I will ever really be offended at what you say -- because you tell people exactly how you feel and you also preface things letting everyone know that this is where you stand on the subject at hand. And at the very least, it gets me thinking.
A lot of the following will probably be a bit of rambling and thinking "out loud".
What is the point of life? What does it matter if I live 20 years or 50 years or 120 years? Why is living longer, better?
Here is a question I just don't get. What kind of miracle are people looking for? What kind of miracle would it take to ensure loyalty among people? According to the Bible, God was doing all kinds of miracles for Israel -- parting the Red Sea, bringing up water from a rock, pillar of fire at night, the burning of the sacrifice that Grimcleaver mentioned, making an axe-head float, and so on. Some pretty major and some pretty minor. And yet time and again, Israel would turn its back on God and end up having some pretty hard times. I have heard quite a number of people "pray" things like -- oh, God - if you would ONLY do XXXXX, I would stop YYYYYY and follow you. Usually, XXXXX would eventually happen seemingly on its own and the person would take the credit and would usually not stop YYYYY. So what miracle would you want to see that would convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt? What kind of miracles are people really looking for? If the miracle that people are looking for is ultimately to extend one's life -- I ask again -- to what point? I feel that God is ultimately looking to save one's soul -- if that isn't going to happen as a result of a miracle, then why do the miracle?
Congo -- I know a pastor who is a native from Congo. He is currently in the states taking engineering courses to help out his people in Congo. He can tell you about more true miracles that he has been witness to than probably anyone else I know. He and many of his people have been saved countless times by incredibly unexplainable means. This would never make it in the media -- however, news of these miracles do get around in that area and it has become rather evident of the purpose of the miracles and word is getting out to the radicalists to avoid certain areas.
So what miracle are you looking for?
Here is a question I just don't get. What kind of miracle are people looking for? What kind of miracle would it take to ensure loyalty among people? According to the Bible, God was doing all kinds of miracles for Israel -- parting the Red Sea, bringing up water from a rock, pillar of fire at night, the burning of the sacrifice that Grimcleaver mentioned, making an axe-head float, and so on. Some pretty major and some pretty minor. And yet time and again, Israel would turn its back on God and end up having some pretty hard times.
Well my default answer would be that none of these ever really happened. That's a dead end and not your point though so I'll move on.
I do not want a miracle. I do not want a God that fixes anything. I don't want him smiting any firstborn either (interesting "miracle" killing innocents). I do not want a god of any sort. I just want people to stop acting like the world is an even playing field. It's like playing a game of snakes and ladders and calling it a fair game. But a lot of the players get to start halfway up the board.
Having a God that will sort things out for everyone kind of blunts this reality a little bit. Whenever I see some tragedy or death that could have been avoided I see friends and relatives saying "Well at least they're with God now." I always think to myself now? where was he before the pregnant newlywed got hit by a drunk driver?
I try to be tolerant of others faith, but it seriously annoys me that every bad thing ultimately gets sorted out by some all just being that will make sure it's all even post mortem. It just feels like a convenient way not worry about serious problems. Not to worry about why they have so much and others have so little.
The world may not be fair, but God is, it just doesn't pan out the way you would think because he want's to keep us on our toes. So why worry? Ultimately we don't need to do anything because the big guy will take care of it.
My grandpa was in the hospital for a serious stroke and was schedualed to be home from the hospital soon. Me and a lot of the rest of my family were trying to make the house more wheelchair accessable for when he came back. We were way behind building a few of the ramps and I was working on getting the varnish on one of them (pap was a woodsman so he appreciated the little things like that a lot) when my family gets together in the living room to pray the rosary for granpas health(I'm pretty sure the rosary is a strictly catholic thing so I'll just tell you it takes a while). It was getting dark and we couldn't take most of the ramps inside so I was wondering where everyone was going. When I finally realized what was going on I was so pissed off I broke the screen door when I opened it.
"You are praying? You've got an hour of sun left, four hours of work to do, and you're praying? I tell you what, you find that passage in the Bible that says praying will get ramps built and I'll drop to my knees right now and help. If any of you feel like actually helping grandpa I'll be out here with brush and a hammer."
I almost started a family feud right there but we got the ramps done. My family are for the most part really good people. They just are used to devoting a standard amount of time to asking god to help and not enough time fixing it themselves.
Now Moff you Erian and the others have your personal beliefs but none of you strike me as the type to forgo reason because of them. So long as people did that I wouldn't care what they believed in. But as it stands I see plenty of backs ruined bending over bedsides and pews that could have been ruined rebuilding New Orleans or sending crap to Goodwill. Yeah it kind of bugs me a little.
I'd like to think that if god was out of the picture then everyone might take a little more responsibility for the way the world is and might start trying to make it better. (Yeah naive pipe dream but what can I say I'm all sappy tonight).
I used to pray that god would bring my dog back to life. A few years later I felt selfish and immature for that so I prayed to end world hunger. A week after that I started praying that my mom would get better then I stopped. I started thinking, the dog is still dead, people still starve, praying will not make mom better. So I got off my knees and made her some soup. Never prayed again. Still don't see any point to it.
|
|
Although Moff touched upon some of this let's clear this up...
Fundamentalists who believe the Bible literally may have problems regarding many scientific principals.
As a Roman Catholic I do not read the Bible literally. There is a difference between literal or historical truth and spiritual truth.
I find it necessary to explain myself and since a few people are summarizing the creation story in the book of Genesis I'll use that.
Genesis was written after generations of semetic peoples (in this case the Israelites or Hebrews) shared an oral tradition of their understanding of the creation of the world. This was also created in relation to the Babylonian creation myth (which by the way has many similarities) since the Hebrews were exiled and lived among them. But where the Babylonian creation myth has order and chaos and good and evil in a battle for supremacy and pretty much in balance the Hebrew creation myth always has law and good (God) constantly winning and having supremacy. First there was amorphous chaos and darkness, pretty scary stuff because it is mysterious and unknown. Then God creates light and makes order out of chaos. While this happens is constantly repeated the phrase: "and it was good." The major theme in this creation myth is the idea that God makes order out of chaos and is always striving for good.
The seven days is actually a "3+3+1" pattern to help remember what was created when in the oral tradition.
1st Day: Light.....................................4th day: stars in the sky (thus a "concentration" of the light)
2nd Day: Air and water seperated.....5th day: air and water populated by birds and fish
3rd Day: Land......................................6th day: land populated by animals and man
7th Day: seeing everything as good, God rests, thus sanctifying creationMany people choose to ignore the history surrounding the writing of a text. Instead of looking for the literal historical accuracy one instead should look for a spiritual or moral truth when reading scripture.
Moff Rimmer wrote:
As I understand it, the same word for "Hell" can also mean "under the ground", "under the earth", "down", or even "cave".Actually, the Hebrew concept for the realm of the dead was called "She'ol." This is a grand cavern under the earth that all dead people go to. It was not considered punishment as is the Christian concept of hell - it just was.
You're right about there being misinterpretations of language. Many versions of the Bible have been misquoted and mistranslated from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. For example the King James Bible was changed to support royalty and thus more "proper." EDIT - It should be noted that many denominations have changed the translation to better fit their politics or power structure. There are current movements to go back to the earliest documents to make sense of it all.
Moff Rimmer wrote:
There is a lot of Revelations that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.From the Catholic scholar perspective the Book of Apocolypse (Greek word for "revelation" or "revealed knowledge") is actually a work of inspired political satire. John of Patmos was incarcerated for being Christian (As were many Christians of his time). And because it was illegal to be Christian the images that he shares are highly metaphorical, a code. For example: "Jesus with a sword for a tongue" is his way of showing the Word of God is a powerful tool or weapon. Or "the six-headed beast" is actually the empire of Rome because there were six Roman emperors that had persecuted Christians by the time John wrote his book. Reading the Book of Revelation through this lens we begin to see a message of hope for the persecuted Christians of his time: "Sure, we're arrested, tortured, and thrown to the lions, but what awaits our persecutors is far worse and our future is going to be great!" In fact, some say that the events of Revelation have indeed come to pass already because the empire of Rome became Christian (thus falling to the Word of God) and was a grand kingdom of peace and prosperity (until those in power became just as misguided and began persecuting non-Christians, then the eventual fall of Rome, etc.).
Hope this helps.
I know a bit of the history of the Bible, and I see that as evidence that undermines the notion of God. What you effectively say is "Large chunks of the Bible are rubbish - misunderstandings by a less advanced peoples about the nature of existence." So, ultimately, you are picking and choosing which bits you like and others that you don't. My view is that, if God exists, how come the primary text from which his teachings are derived contains a load of incorrect nonsense? Why did he mislead people? Or alternatively, why should I give any weight to the Bible at all when I know that a lot of it is wrong, and the rest subject to doubt? Is the notion of God also a misunderstanding of the nature of reality?
And as for the moral lessons, you have to be a bit choosy there too. Don't the Israelites commit genocide a few times while conquering Canaan? Does God punish them for that? Yet he says to Moses "You tapped in this rock twice when I said you only have to do it once. You showed doubt, so you are going to die before fulfilling your life's work." Pretty odd priorities, unless you are a psychopath.
Now, I know that you are a learned guy and probably have reasonable, though ultimately inconclusive answers for a lot of this. I also know that Catholics haven't been Biblical literalists for a long time, looking to other sources to explain the Biblical message as they see it (Aquinas, for example). But when you have the "core text" showing its age like this, you have to wonder how relevant any of it is.
My take on the Bible as a historical document is that it is a collection of stories of varying ages, compliled by the Jews following their return to Israel after the overthrow of the Babylonian empire (which is why the Book of Daniel is at the end). It is a political statement saying "We are back, we are the true inheritors of Israel" after their rule was reimposed upon a Jewish/Samaritan population which had strayed from strict observance. (It also justifies the military failure of the exiles - if it was God's will, what could they do about it?) Most of the stuff in it is just, well, stories, a bit of commentary, a lot of it translated from the original languages and garbled*.
The God in the Bible is a reflection of the peoples that created him, not the other way round. The God of the invading Israelites is a completely vicious bastard, and he doesn't get much better in the Old Testament as he is the God of a crushed people now resurgent - vengence is mine, and it feels good.
Obviously, the Christian God in the New Testament is a totally different chap - all love, hugs and kisses. But this is not the God of the Jewish people, an exclusive religion with tricky membership rules largely based around heredity. This God is an evangelical God who wants to be liked, a God for gentiles and everyone. And he is an anti-Roman God, since they persecuted Christians (as you are doubless aware, 666 is the full name of the Emperor Nero, in numerology and assuming a 24 letter Roman alphabet).
I find much of this fascinating, as it roots the Bible in its historical context. But that also kicks away a plank for the belief of God. The "eternal" holy texts are in fact very partial documents, very much of their time (not ours) and with distinct political agendas (now irrelevant). What lessons am I supposed to draw from a two thousand year old politico-religious argument? Why should I pay attention to a document which was written for a specific audience which is now long dead. We don't pay much attention to contemporary scientific or medical texts, such as Galen or Hippocrates, to provide us with current explanations of the way things "really are" (which is zero, irrespective of their historical interest) so why does the Bible get special treatment?
And even the moral lessons in them are dubious in this context. The ten commandments, for example, were written at least 2000 years ago, and probably a lot more, for an ancient society. I don't live in an ancient society. I need something a bit more sophisticated than that. Things have moved on. I simply don't understand why weight should be given to anything in a document of this age - fascinating historically, but not much use in a contemporary society.
* I read somewhere, in a book by David Rohl (I forget which one, and it is worth noting that some of his archaeological ideas are somewhat controversial) that at least one section of the Bible is mistranslated (and I'm probably simplifying/garbling this too, but you might find it interesting nevertheless). In the section where Moses is before the burning bush, he asks who it is and God replies "I am what I am" (not exactly revealing), Rohl suggests that this is a mistranslation from an earlier text. One of the Canaanite Gods was Ea (one of the proto-Yahwehs) and in one of the early languages of the region "I am" is also "Ea" or something very similar. In the earlier text (obviously now no longer extant) he suggest it actually says "Ea Ea", or "I am Ea". Apparently, puns like this were all the rage in these texts. But when it got translated (maybe several times) the actual pun got lost or misunderstood, and got translated as "I am (what) I am". (This tickled me when I read it - it may not be true, but it is a nice theory.)
|
|
I'd say look at miracles a different way. Miracles are not simply the result of one having enough faith to make something "magic" happen, they are the physical manifestation of God intervening on this world for God's purpose. You can have as much faith as you like and pray ardently for something to occur, but if it is not in God's purpose, it's not going to happen. It is not faith that causes the miracle, but God. When we have true, deep-rooted faith, it means we are content in what God has provided, whether wealth or poverty, health or sickness (again echoing St. Ignatius).
Actually, I'd say all miracles are from God, a concept more rooted in Hebrew tradition. They are not the sole province of Christians, but may manifest anywhere to further God's purpose (as above). Satan ("one who opposes" in Hebrew) serves God's purpose just as well, whether one sees Satan as a literary construct, a physical being, or a spiritual manifestation of humanity's wickedness.
Now, rat kings and raining animals seem like either fairly natural, if unusual, events or fabrications to me--rat kings have, to my knowledge, never been substantiated as real. Raining animals would be the result of meteorological events (living in the Southeast, with tornadoes brewing even as I type, this is a fairly easy one for me to understand).
I guess for me, strange things can't just "happen." They are either scientifically explainable events or are the act of God.
It's always a good get-out - "God's myserious purpose". That is the special pleading that ends the argument. Irrespective of the sophistication of the analysis and learning, it boils down to blind faith that someone out there cares. Why does God cure someone of cancer, who otherwise will have no appreciable impact on the world, but keeps dictators in power oppressing millions? I don't get His priorities at all. But, of course, I don't believe he exists.
It's obviously a personal choice, but I can't understand how people of such obvious sophistication and intelligence can hold on to such a medieval, even primitive concept. Sorry to sound harsh, but it boggles my mind.
|
|
Well my default answer would be that none of these ever really happened. That's a dead end and not your point though so I'll move on.
I do not want a miracle. I do not want a God that fixes anything. I don't want him smiting any firstborn either (interesting "miracle" killing innocents). I do not want a god of any sort. I just want people to stop acting like the world is an even playing field. It's like playing a game of snakes and ladders and calling it a fair game. But a lot of the players get to start halfway up the board.
Having a God that will sort things out for everyone kind of blunts this reality a little bit. Whenever I see some tragedy or death that could have been avoided I see friends and relatives saying "Well at least they're with God now." I always think to myself now? where was he before the pregnant newlywed got hit by a drunk driver?
The world is not an even playing field. It never was. I feel that anyone that truly believes that is being a fool. The Bible doesn’t teach this at all. In fact, I really feel that it shows quite the opposite. I also think that the “Well at least they’re with God now” has a whole lot more to do with psychology than religion. People (in general) seem to have this need to feel like everything will end up ok. I have never heard anyone say “Well, at least they are now in Hell”.
I also don’t feel that it is God’s “job” to save people from being mean or stupid. Doing that would really end up taking away from free will. I thought that Bruce Almighty did a rather good job demonstrating all the weird and selfish requests that people make all the time. I don’t see God as some kind of supernatural policeman/doctor that should rescue people all the time (if even at all).
This may sound a bit calloused, but I am still not sure why it is “better” to live longer. Why would it have been important for God to intervene before the pregnant newlywed got hit by a drunk driver? Why is it more important to save someone here and now?
I try to be tolerant of others faith, but it seriously annoys me that every bad thing ultimately gets sorted out by some all just being that will make sure it's all even post mortem. It just feels like a convenient way not worry about serious problems. Not to worry about why they have so much and others have so little.
The world may not be fair, but God is, it just doesn't pan out the way you would think because he want's to keep us on our toes. So why worry? Ultimately we don't need to do anything because the big guy will take care of it.
Fair – I hate that concept. I was a teacher for a time. A kid brought a game-boy to class and was playing it in class. I took it from him and told him that he could pick it up after school. At which time I told him that if I saw it in my class again, it would be mine. He immediately replied – “That’s not fair!!” What would be “fair”? I don’t know that the concept of “fair” is really demonstrated in the Bible. I feel like a lot of people are still hung up on the “make sure that the good outweighs the bad” concept. Which, again, is not a Biblical concept at all.
Also, the “we don’t need to do anything because the big guy will take care of it” goes back to the free will concept. The Bible never tells us or anyone in it to sit on our/their @$$es and God will take care of everything. In its simplest form, I think that God has instructed us to “level the playing field” as you mentioned above – but not necessarily in the way you probably think.
My grandpa was in the hospital for a serious stroke and was schedualed to be home from the hospital soon. Me and a lot of the rest of my family were trying to make the house more wheelchair accessable for when he came back. We were way behind building a few of the ramps and I was working on getting the varnish on one of them (pap was a woodsman so he appreciated the little things like that a lot) when my family gets together in the living room to pray the rosary for granpas health(I'm pretty sure the rosary is a strictly catholic thing so I'll just tell you it takes a while). It was getting dark and we couldn't take most of the ramps inside so I was wondering where everyone was going. When I finally realized what was going on I was so pissed off I broke the screen door when I opened it.
"You are praying? You've got an hour of sun left, four hours of work to do, and you're praying? I tell you what, you find that passage in the Bible that says praying will get ramps built and I'll drop to my knees right now and help. If any of you feel like actually helping grandpa I'll be out here with brush and a hammer."
I almost started a family feud right there but we got the ramps done. My family are for the most part really good people. They just are used to devoting a standard amount of time to asking god to help and not enough time fixing it themselves.
Now Moff you Erian and the others have your personal beliefs but none of you strike me as the type to forgo reason because of them. So long as people did that I wouldn't care what they believed in. But as it stands I see plenty of backs ruined bending over bedsides and pews that could have been ruined rebuilding New Orleans or sending crap to Goodwill. Yeah it kind of bugs me a little.
I'd like to think that if god was out of the picture then everyone might take a little more responsibility for the way the world is and might start trying to make it better. (Yeah naive pipe dream but what can I say I'm all sappy tonight).
I think that if God was truly out of the picture, the world would end up being a much more selfish place.
I used to pray that god would bring my dog back to life. A few years later I felt selfish and immature for that so I prayed to end world hunger. A week after that I started praying that my mom would get better then I stopped. I started thinking, the dog is still dead, people still starve, praying will not make mom better. So I got off my knees and made her some soup. Never prayed again. Still don't see any point to it.
I know a lot of the kind of people you are talking about. There are a LOT of people out in the world that don’t want to think for themselves. They don’t want to take responsibility for things. They want to be told what to think, what to say, what to believe, how to act, and so on. This kind of attitude and behavior annoys me more than I can express. People who give canned answers without thinking about it themselves and what that really means.
Why did you pray for your dog to come back? What would that have accomplished? Why pray to end world hunger? Maybe because it is the right thing to do? How does that help God and his goals? People turn to God when they need something. People are turning to God by the thousands because they are hungry. I know of many Christian organizations that are actually doing something about alleviating world hunger. If people weren’t hungry would they still turn to God?
My son is now in kindergarten. His best friend didn’t get to be in his class at the beginning of the year. He prayed every day for two months that his best friend would be in his class again. One person moved away leaving an opening in the class and of all the people in the waiting list, his best friend managed to get in. Is it a miracle? My son believes so. So if it is a miracle, why this one and not others? He still hasn’t forgotten. He still tells people about what God did for him. My 5 year old son has probably done more to show people that God exists than most adults I know.
Why did you pray for your dog to come back?
I was seven.
This may sound a bit calloused, but I am still not sure why it is “better” to live longer. Why would it have been important for God to intervene before the pregnant newlywed got hit by a drunk driver?
Well her family probably would have appreciated it. Either way, If you are right we go to live with god, if I'm right its the equivalent to never existing when we die. Even so I feel the need to preserve and protect my life and the lives of those I care about. Strangers too in fact. It is built into who we are as a species. It's actually something I like about myself so I'm not about to stop. I do not neccessarily think that living longer is better. I think that living better is better. More time just gives you better chances I suppose.
But if you are of a mind that the only important thing to existance is ending it, then why not euthanize infants right out of the womb. They go straight to their final reward without ever knowing suffering or pain. Hell, that sounds like a pretty good deal come to think of it. What greater good could a parent do for their child then an eternity with God?
I think that if God was truly out of the picture, the world would end up being a much more selfish place.
This is obviously the most basic level of our disagreement. I know far more selfish christians than I do atheists or agnostics.
I also don’t feel that it is God’s “job” to save people from being mean or stupid.
What is gods job? What does he actually do?
Why do we feel that God has to have a job at all?
Because if he doesn't do anything then he might as well not exist. Which in turn would imply that he doesn't.
Because he made us. He made EVERYTHING. There's a purpose to life, right? Some meaning to existance? If there isn't, if God doesn't really do anything specific aside from require stuff of people or else puts them in torment for eternity, but doesn't really have any particular function aside from this--well that's seems like the religious argument has shrunk even more than I had thought. If there's no force of active good or caring in the world, if in fact the creator of everything has no specific ends in mind--then the entire argument comes down entirely to issues that don't have any bearing until you're dead.
For the record, the idea that God keeps people hungry and desparate so they will turn to him is pretty harsh. There's warlords in Africa who deny food shipments to those outside their clan for pretty much the same reason.
|
|
Why do we feel that God has to have a job at all?Because if he doesn't do anything then he might as well not exist. Which in turn would imply that he doesn't.
I did not mean to imply that he doesn't do anything. I just think that the idea of God having a 9-5 job where he has to clock in and have us as supervisors is a bit silly.
My lack of response has more to do with that the answer that exists isn't one that you believe or want to hear. At its most basic level, God keeps things going. You don't believe that, so I didn't mention it before. What do you think he should do? Maybe he should come down here and eliminate all criminals. Maybe he should come down here and eliminate all weapons. Maybe he should cure cancer. Maybe he should bring all of our lost pets back to life. You are looking for something physical and tangible that you can grab hold of with both hands that says "God did this". Where would faith be if we all had that?
Do you believe that God eliminated Saddam? No. Do you believe that God is feeding millions of starving people? No. God works through people and other means -- but when that happens, you say that it is really from other people and not from God. It sounds to me that you are looking for a Holy Grail experience where God lists his itinerary for the next century. It just seems strange to me and I am not sure how to answer it.
|
|
Because he made us. He made EVERYTHING. There's a purpose to life, right? Some meaning to existance? If there isn't, if God doesn't really do anything specific aside from require stuff of people or else puts them in torment for eternity, but doesn't really have any particular function aside from this--well that's seems like the religious argument has shrunk even more than I had thought. If there's no force of active good or caring in the world, if in fact the creator of everything has no specific ends in mind--then the entire argument comes down entirely to issues that don't have any bearing until you're dead.
There are answers to the question, but unfortunately the answers tend to be religious in nature. And I hate defining a circle as a circular figure.
For the record, the idea that God keeps people hungry and desparate so they will turn to him is pretty harsh. There's warlords in Africa who deny food shipments to those outside their clan for pretty much the same reason.
I never said that God "keeps people hungry and desperate..." People do that. It has been shown that there is plenty of food to feed the entire planet. Many people are doing their best to get that food to the people who need it. God has provided -- you tell me why people are starving. I think that it is because there are too many people who are selfish and self-centered.
Sorry if that came across a little scalding. I just got the vibe from your earlier posts that God was under no requirement to make people's lives easier, what with more life not necessarily being better, and that people with needs, who are hungry and cold, tend to turn back to God. That sounded like God engineering desparation in order to get people to need him. Yarg. It also felt like you were going after the idea that God doesn't need to DO anything and how dare we ask what his job is in things.
After the clarification it seems there's a bit more nuance to your argument and I appologize if my response was a little cutting. Apparently it was aimed at points of view you aren't advocating.
I'm actually formerly a fairly hardcore Mormon. I served a mission, the whole gig. I still go when I can, they even had me in a position teaching Sunday School classes--though that's getting to be a bit hard on me. I love talking religion, and think I have a pretty good grasp on it. Were I the kind of person turned off by religious argument I wouldn't be posting on a board like this.
Truth be told, I want to be a loyalist. I just can't believe it. It feels fake. A good friend once told me that there are two things needed to be "religious" (he didn't say religious, but it's really a better word). On one hand you have to have the burning faith to know it's true. On the other hand you have to have the loyalty to throw down your pride and your convictions and conform to the truth at the expense of self. His problem was he had the first, but not the second.
My problem is I have the second, but not the first. I'm an old tired crusader without a CO.
|
|
Not a problem...
There is really two sides to me. I tend to play "devil's advocate" no matter what side I am arguing. This will, at times, seem like I agree with the side I am arguing for which isn't always the case. I just want people to do their best to see both sides.
The second thing is that even though I am a Christian, I have always hated canned Christian answers. Something along the lines of God's job is that "He fills us with his 'goodness'" or something similar. As a result, I usually do my best to come up with as good a "real" answer I can, but the deeper the religious discussion gets, it can make it a bit more difficult to accomplish.
I am going on the premise that Sexi doesn't believe in the Bible (or at least as most Christians claim to). Therefore, using the Bible to justify or validate God's existence seems like a waste of time to me. I don't necessarily feel that I am succeeding, but it is at least a good mental exercise for me. If someone genuinely has a fair and reasonable question, I feel that it is only fair that someone does their best to answer it.
Yeah, I get that. It's hard to use "evidence" from a source that is itself in dispute.
I guess my biggest problem has been that the world as it is does not seem to reflect the divinity of its origins. You asked before what I would like to see God do, what kinds of miracles I would like to see.
The first thing I would say is the same thing I would offer for any company or endeavor--clear mission statement, clear purpose of intent. Then I would challenge the product, in this case the universe, to follow that original mandate.
The canned wisdom is, I look around me and the evidence for God's existance is all around me in the beauty of the forest, in the tranquility of the rushing river, in the awe of the mountains. That hasn't ever washed for me. Maybe I look too deep. When I see wildlife, I see creatures struggling in neverending fear and hunger, facing the possibility of brutal death at any moment, the grizzly bear pesking a salmon out of the stream and ripping it's skin off paying no nevermind to the tremendous pain this inflicts on its victim as it eats it alive. Yikes. I don't see God in nature. I see something very visceral and scary that we've done whatever we could to get as far away from as possible...and rightfully so!
So then what's the purpose? How is it that the way things are presently constitutes the ideal method for bringing this purpose about?
Those are the two fat questions I would throw on the barbe.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Did someone post how Natural Law can lead to a belief in Jesus, particularly without the bible? And if not, can you keep it under a paragraph. This stuff is interesting and all, but my attention span is short.
P.S. If god does perform these various minor miracles saving people and what not, shouldn't the stats bear it out? E.g., shouldn't Christian communities have lower accident and/or death rates? If not, wouldn't that suggest that these are not miracles at all, but rather belief applied to the typical pattern of human experience visitied upon one and all? Or is it that God performs miracles on the just and unjust alike? And if so, what does that say about the effectiveness of religion in obtaining his favor?
|
|
So then what's the purpose? How is it that the way things are presently constitutes the ideal method for bringing this purpose about?
What's the purpose of 'what'?
As for "ideal" -- I think that we are far from "ideal". If you believe in the Bible, Adam screwed up "ideal". Now, I feel like we are just trying to make the best of a bad situation -- and probably losing the battle.
If god does perform these various minor miracles saving people and what not, shouldn't the stats bear it out? E.g., shouldn't Christian communities have lower accident and/or death rates? If not, wouldn't that suggest that these are not miracles at all, but rather belief applied to the typical pattern of human experience visitied upon one and all?
That is about the most clearly and reasonably stated challenge of this that I've ever seen. Very nicely put...
|
|
Did someone post how Natural Law can lead to a belief in Jesus, particularly without the bible? And if not, can you keep it under a paragraph. This stuff is interesting and all, but my attention span is short.
I am working on getting a straightforward, "real" answer. I think that, at some point, it boils down to Steven Hawkings' conclusion -- that the odds are better that there is a divine creator than all of this happening by chance.
I am still not satisfied with that answer though, and so I will continue to look.
What's the purpose of 'what'?As for "ideal" -- I think that we are far from "ideal". If you believe in the Bible, Adam screwed up "ideal". Now, I feel like we are just trying to make the best of a bad situation -- and probably losing the battle.
Okay...sorry. Let me step back a bit. You asked what I would expect from God for me to believe in him. My answer was that I would expect the universe to conform to some great purpose, that God has an endeavor to perform and He seems competant enough to make his endeavors come out well.
It's been stated that even the activities of Satan contribute to fulfil the will of God--so Adam and Eve, the whole shebang, should be part of some great purpose.
That's the purpose I'm asking about. What was God's purpose in creating the universe, and how well does that conform to what we observe?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I am working on getting a straightforward, "real" answer. I think that, at some point, it boils down to Steven Hawkings' conclusion -- that the odds are better that there is a divine creator than all of this happening by chance.I am still not satisfied with that answer though, and so I will continue to look.
I find that an acceptable answer in terms of believing in a diety generally, but in terms of believing in the bible specifically, how does that occur. How does one differentiate one flavor of diety from another? Why this holy book and not some other? Why not the Book of Morman, the Koran (too lazy to spell check that), or even the latest L. Ron Hubbard inspired text?
The question I find most perplexing is not "is there a god" but rather "which god is the right god?"
|
|
If god does perform these various minor miracles saving people and what not, shouldn't the stats bear it out? E.g., shouldn't Christian communities have lower accident and/or death rates? If not, wouldn't that suggest that these are not miracles at all, but rather belief applied to the typical pattern of human experience visitied upon one and all? Or is it that God performs miracles on the just and unjust alike? And if so, what does that say about the effectiveness of religion in obtaining his favor?
Interesting questions. Again, it feels like "miracle" is being defined as "living longer". I still don't understand why that is.
I am not sure what statistics you are looking for. There is at least something that I found that is related --> here. Not sure that it constitutes as a "miracle", but still interesting.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Interesting questions. Again, it feels like "miracle" is being defined as "living longer". I still don't understand why that is.
That's usually the context in which the minor miracles are presented. E.g., we should've died but we didn't, someone recovered from cancer, etc.
I am not sure what statistics you are looking for. There is at least something that I found that is related --> here. Not sure that it constitutes as a "miracle", but still interesting.
That article appears to be more about the benefits of social services provided by an organization rather than actual religion. You can probably also dig up an article about longer life spans based on mediation/prayer reducing stress, but that's not really the thing I am looking for either. Those are changes in lifestyle, similar to a change in diet. I'm looking for a reduction in those freakish accidents that do not occur to the faithful due to miracles.
|
|
That's usually the context in which the minor miracles are presented. E.g., we should've died but we didn't, someone recovered from cancer, etc.
I understand that. I just think that it is rather limiting to think that the only miracles to be done are to extend one's life.
I'm looking for a reduction in those freakish accidents that do not occur to the faithful due to miracles.
I don't know of any studies of that nature that either "prove" or "dis-prove" that miracles happen more often to the "faithful". But, if anyone can find one, I would be interested in seeing it.
Truth be told, I want to be a loyalist. I just can't believe it. It feels fake. A good friend once told me that there are two things needed to be "religious" (he didn't say religious, but it's really a better word). On one hand you have to have the burning faith to know it's true. On the other hand you have to have the loyalty to throw down your pride and your convictions and conform to the truth at the expense of self. His problem was he had the first, but not the second.
Hi Grimcleaver, judging from what you just wrote I have a friend who's experience you might find interesting. I certinly think it's interesting anyway. He is a Roman Catholic from a devout Polish family, but he doesn't believe in God. He goes to church every week, prays, and obeys all (well, most of...) the catholic laws but tells me quite candidly that he is an atheist. He thinks being a catholic is an important part of his cultural identity and that behaving according to Christian rules, as if God is real, leads to being a better person. He just thinks the big guy is not actually there at all.
This makes me wonder, what is a Christian? If god IS real, will my friend go to heaven? He does everything required of someone to go to heaven, he just secretly has no faith. Would god care? I think it's quite a pickle, but my friend feels fine. He sees is as a great solution to the problem of wanting to be religious but finding the whole thing unbelievable. And if he acts exactly like someone who believes god is literally real, what's the difference?
I did not mean to imply that he doesn't do anything. I just think that the idea of God having a 9-5 job where he has to clock in and have us as supervisors is a bit silly.
Good, I was never asking for a company mission statement. I just want to know what he does in any capacity at all.
My lack of response has more to do with that the answer that exists isn't one that you believe or want to hear.
Hit me with your best shot. I haven't been pulling many punches so far.
At its most basic level, God keeps things going. You don't believe that, so I didn't mention it before. What do you think he should do? Maybe he should come down here and eliminate all criminals. Maybe he should come down here and eliminate all weapons. Maybe he should cure cancer. Maybe he should bring all of our lost pets back to life.
Putting words into my mouth does not seem like you Moff so I assume you misread some peice of my argument. I do not want God to do anything. I want people to stop assuming everything amazingly fortunate is a blessing but when tragedy strikes no one bothers to ask god why he cures cancer but not step in to avoid train wrecks. Anyone who does gets hit with "mysterious ways" ect.
God works through people and other means -- but when that happens, you say that it is really from other people and not from God.
---------
God has provided -- you tell me why people are starving. I think that it is because there are too many people who are selfish and self-centered.
See what I'm getting at here. I am supposed to see God in all the good and human nature in all the bad. I just see human nature. Human nature is a two sided coin and explains why the way the world works the way it does. God fails to make sense to me. If an all powerful just being were running the show then I have some issues with both his workmanship and his title.
You are looking for something physical and tangible that you can grab hold of with both hands that says "God did this". Where would faith be if we all had that?
Not at all. I cannot hold the big bang, M theory, or evolution in my hand. I have plenty of faith in them because I can understand and see evidence of their involvement in the world. I accept them as a likely possibility because they attempt to give answers to many of lifes questions, but more importantly they also list explainations as to [i]why[i/] their explaination is a good one. Something I find lacking in Christianity and many other faiths.
I do not want God to hop down and say "Here I am stop whining and let me work". I just want some of the principles of his existance to be implimented.
He is just. But no one starts on equal footing. Everyones path through life is different and in many cases it is obvious that some paths are much harder than others.
He is good, people are wicked. Yet their is a lot of bad shit that happens on a regular basis that is random and not a result of people at all. Bad things happen to good people despite the fact that god has the power to prevent it. That does not make sense to me.
He gives us minds that are analytical. Our species has risen to the undisputed masters of the earth because we have the ability to form ideas and make the distinction between good ones and bullshit. Yet he forces us to deny reason and accept him. (unless god never decided to reveal himself to your culture, in which case you will accept him by accident or in your subconcious or whatever). He even conflicts himself. Puts scientific observations down here on earth for us to find that contradict many of the writings god chose to spread his message. The Bible could have been written to accomidate for all of those tricky issues and, if it was actually a mandate from an all knowing being, it does not seem unreasonible that it should. That all of the bible should be relevent, useable, and understandable by the masses it was intended to help.
You mentioned the assumption I do not believe in the bible. That would be correct. I equate the Bible and its usefulness to Green Eggs and Ham by Dr Seuss.
Both have important life lessons in them. Both of them have authors that are beyond consultation (now that the good Doctor has passed on). And both of them have a convaluted, non-sensical, way of getting to the point. Filled to the brim with statements and characters with no purpose and many concepts that are not seemingly understood.
The differences is that Green Eggs and Ham is aiming to be entertaining with its unnecessary complexity. The Bible is difficult because...... well hell, you tell me.
Another important diffrence is that 99% of children can come to the same conclusion about Dr Seuss' work. It is important to try new things, you might like them. Grown intellectual adults, proffessors and respected leaders all read the Bible with always different, sometimes wildly uncomparable ideas about what it means.
So no, I do not believe in the Bible as any form of heavenly mandate. What books in it I have read have failed to answer even the most basic of my questions and problems. The important stuff "altruism and such" Was already apparent to me through simple observation. I enjoy the feeling I get when I help others, and I would want others to help me. Jesus didn't say much that I hadn't figured out on that front. That and if an all just God intended the bible to be important at all then he should have made it available to the world. He should have been fair handing out his teachings. But he was not. This tells me one of two things.
1. The Bible is not impotant to living the life God would want for us. Therefore why put so much stock in it?
2. It is impotant and God just decided 90% of the world was out of luck and they don't get the rules of the game explained to them (even though they have to play). And any god that would do that and still claim to be a nice guy can take his book somewhere else.
He is a Roman Catholic from a devout Polish family, but he doesn't believe in God. He goes to church every week, prays, and obeys all (well, most of...) the catholic laws but tells me quite candidly that he is an atheist. He thinks being a catholic is an important part of his cultural identity and that behaving according to Christian rules, as if God is real, leads to being a better person. He just thinks the big guy is not actually there at all.
This makes me wonder, what is a Christian? If god IS real, will my friend go to heaven? He does everything required of someone to go to heaven, he just secretly has no faith. Would god care? I think it's quite a pickle, but my friend feels fine. He sees is as a great solution to the problem of wanting to be religious but finding the whole thing unbelievable. And if he acts exactly like someone who believes god is literally real, what's the difference?
Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at. I mean, granted if I were able to believe I would in a heartbeat--there's just too much stuff that falls apart under examination that it makes it impossible for me to buy it. I still live most of the Mormon code. Some of the stuff just naturally falls by the wayside, but in most cultural respects I'm a fairly typical Mormon.
I sometimes wonder what my fate would be if it turned out it was all true in fact, that the problem was just me putting the pieces together wrong and not getting it. I'm not super optimistic. I do think it's important that I have a deep essential loyalty, but would it count for much? Enough to excuse my current faithlessness? Probably not. Certainly I'm better off than if Protestants are right...well maybe, I mean I did at one point "accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior" and apparently at that point you can't lose your salvation once you've made that decision. Then again, Protestants would probably be quick to note that, being Mormon, I clearly accepted the WRONG Jesus--whatever that means.
Oh well, at least there's no real "hell" in Mormonism...
I'm in no way qualified to talk about the universe before the big bang, so I can't rule out the possibility of a demiurge.
Well, Stephen Hawkins believes in God. As did Eintsein. In fact a lot of our greatest minds come to believe in God from their study of the macro or the micro of our universe.