Does god exist? explain cancer to a ten yr old

[SubGreen]

My 10yr old cousin was diagnosed with leukemia a week ago. She comes from a very Christian household, (church every week, etc) She has an 11yr old brother. I am not religious at all, and I can't figure out how it would be possible to tell a child who has been raised knowing that god has plans for everyone, that he chose for such a young innocent little kid to get such an awful diease.

I'm not familiar with christian beliefs and I might be really far off base, but how do you approach cancer from a religious standpoint to a child?

Thanks in advance

[DavidC]

I'd let her parents deal with this, or whoever her minister is.

But mainly I'd tell her not to think about it too much, just to love her brother and love god.

--Dave.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
My 10yr old cousin was diagnosed with leukemia a week ago. She comes from a very Christian household, (church every week, etc) She has an 11yr old brother. I am not religious at all, and I can't figure out how it would be possible to tell a child who has been raised knowing that god has plans for everyone, that he chose for such a young innocent little kid to get such an awful diease.

I'm not familiar with christian beliefs and I might be really far off base, but how do you approach cancer from a religious standpoint to a child?

Thanks in advance

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist, but I think I can give you the Christian answer:

Assure the child that her possible slow, premature death is part of God's loving plan. Explain that without the presence of pain and suffering, we could not value the good. So some people must be sacrificed by our Lord for this grand purpose. Also remind her that all men are sinful, and had Adam not eaten the forbidden fruit against God's omnipotent will, she would not be this predicament.

I'm sure it will all make perfect sense to her.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd tell her not to think about it too much

[/ QUOTE ]

And that goes for eveything else about Christianity that defies all logic and experience.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
But mainly I'd tell her not to think about it too much, just to love her brother and love god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the quality of debate on this forum can lead us to forget just how desperately most Christians choose to avoid these questions. The responses here may be questionable, but in my personal experience the typical response is much worse. I've known clergy and even monks who've given me the response, "I don't think about that kind of thing, it's morbid and depressing." Or an unelaborated "I don't know," which is actually probably the most honest and elegant response I've heard.

I once had a Mormon friend who was having a crisis of faith at one point. He had a discussion with his Bishop about it, and it came up that he was planning to major in philosophy. The Bishop told him that he shouldn't take philosophy courses because they were "dangerous" and contained deceptive and vile ideas that shouldn't be considered. He also used the reasoning, "you have all the answers you need in the scriptures, why should you look for them elsewhere?" This isn't an official position of the LDS Church, just independent advice from a representative of the Church.

I find it insulting that many Christians on this forum feel that half-baked platitudes make up for the horrors that go on in the world. But here at least they're trying. I really believe the most common response from nonbelievers encountering something that doesn't make sense about their beliefs is "pretend it does make sense, and move on." To me that's chilling (as is the bolded admonition "not to think about it too much").

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
My 10yr old cousin was diagnosed with leukemia a week ago. She comes from a very Christian household, (church every week, etc) She has an 11yr old brother. I am not religious at all, and I can't figure out how it would be possible to tell a child who has been raised knowing that god has plans for everyone, that he chose for such a young innocent little kid to get such an awful diease.

I'm not familiar with christian beliefs and I might be really far off base, but how do you approach cancer from a religious standpoint to a child?

Thanks in advance

[/ QUOTE ]
The best thing you can do for your cousins are to love on them and to pray for them. The truth is that we don't know why such horrible things happen to good, innocent people. The Bible doesn't say that Christians won't have problems. What the Bible does say, however, is that God will be there to help us through the problems, for it is in Him that we find our strength.

I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. I'll be praying for healing for her body and peace and comfort for your family. I will also pray that God would see you guys through this ordeal.

If you'd like to talk more about it or if you have any questions that you'd like to ask privately, you are more than welcome to PM me.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd tell her not to think about it too much

[/ QUOTE ]

And that goes for eveything else about Christianity that defies all logic and experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, you guys really didn't like that answer, did you? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Firstly, let me explain that this isn't coming from Christianity, rather it's coming from Ram Dass, who's a Jew that became a Hindu and has lived with/learned from Sufi Muslims, Buddhists, Christian Monks, probably Jews, and lots of Hindus.

Sure, I might be inclined to throw in the message of "It's all part of the plan," but it wouldn't be the main message. The main message is: Love everyone, Love God, be there for your friend.

That's all there is to it. I don't think an intellectual approach to this is going to help an 11 year-old.

If you want a Christian viewpoint, why not read something that an atheist/Platonist turned Christian has to offer? C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805493530/sr=1-3/qid=1152919684/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-0978158-6840714?ie=UTF8&s=books) is a good book, I hear. (Next Lewis book I read will hopefully be Pilgrim's Regress, though, and I haven't read this one either.)

Also, let me clarify that I meant I'd tell her not to think about "Why" it happened so much, not not to think about her friend so much.

In response to Madnak: "I don't know." is a perfectly reasonable response!

Personal background: Machiavelli (14) -> Rand (17) -> Plato (21) -> Lewis/Matthew (23) -> Ram Dass (25). And I still don't know wtf's going on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Personal background: Machiavelli (14) -> Rand (17) -> Plato (21) -> Lewis/Matthew (23) -> Ram Dass (25). And I still don't know wtf's going on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to respond to the post, but then this really creeped me out. I was ardently opposed to each of those philosophers at those given years. I'm now 24, and I'm going to look into Ram Dass, and from the sound of it I'll be ardently opposed to him when I'm 25.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personal background: Machiavelli (14) -> Rand (17) -> Plato (21) -> Lewis/Matthew (23) -> Ram Dass (25). And I still don't know wtf's going on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to respond to the post, but then this really creeped me out. I was ardently opposed to each of those philosophers at those given years. I'm now 24, and I'm going to look into Ram Dass, and from the sound of it I'll be ardently opposed to him when I'm 25.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL that's alright. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I suggest listening to Ram Dass lectures rather than reading them.

Also, if I had to recommend something, I'd recommend pilot episodes of his radio show, and Spiritual Awakening, and the video lecture (he's in a wheel chair now and sort of half paralyzed afaik) on http://stream.umassd.edu/videoindex.php

Edit: Start at stream #2. The first is just introductions.

[SubGreen]

I'm obviously letting the parents do the parenting here, I am just being as supportive as an older cousin ca.

I came back to Seattle for the weekend and I'm happy to say she is doing well. She can walk around and is eating more now. The doctors say she is responding very well to the chemo.

This question wasn't to actually ask for help it was more of me wondering how someone in the parents position would approach this, because from my point of view it seems like a daunting task.

Thanks to all your comments and support.

Sub

[godBoy]

There are answers. I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said - the rejection of the hard questions for faith is a tragedy.

SubGreen,
We need to understand that our view of life is so limited that if we expect to know every answer at any time in our lives we will do it vain. To us, any trouble we face seems like a tragedy because we have seen an example of anothers life that we think is much more desirable.

Last year a very close friend of mine worshipped on a Sunday with her mother both seemingly pefectly healthy. Within the space of a couple of days her mother passed away from a brain tumour that she had not known about.

Now she still loves God and she loves her mother. She leads worship out our small church and gives praise and thanks to God for how blessed she knows she is. She has found answers and chosen to love God.

In your situation the only thing that the parents can do is to love her and serve her like she is the most precious thing in the universe.

Mark,

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that we don't know why such horrible things happen to good, innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, some of us do...

It's because there are no such things as gods, fairy godmothers, or guardian angels who are in charge of everything. We are at the mercy of nature.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that we don't know why such horrible things happen to good, innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, some of us do...

It's because there are no such things as gods, fairy godmothers, or guardian angels who are in charge of everything. We are at the mercy of nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully they are no gods, angels, fairies or anything responsible for this! Just too horrible to contemplate as a possibility, to anyone who has an ounce of compassion and understanding of the human condition.

[CommanderCorm]

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that we don't know why such horrible things happen to good, innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, some of us do...

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
It's because there are no such things as gods, fairy godmothers, or guardian angels who are in charge of everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is

1. Something you don´t know

and

2. Neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the happening of horrible things in our lifes.

[ QUOTE ]
We are at the mercy of nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is hard to deny as long as our existence takes place exclusively within the bounds of nature.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Last year a very close friend of mine worshipped on a Sunday with her mother both seemingly pefectly healthy. Within the space of a couple of days her mother passed away from a brain tumour that she had not known about.

Now she still loves God and she loves her mother. She leads worship out our small church and gives praise and thanks to God for how blessed she knows she is. She has found answers and chosen to love God.

[/ QUOTE ]

God sure is in an enviable can't-lose position.

In your cousin's case, if she recovers fully the parents can thank god for answering their prayers. If she doesn't, they can thank god for listening to their prayers but choosing, in his infinite wisdom, not to answer. It's a win-win for god.

[ QUOTE ]
In your situation the only thing that the parents can do is to love her and serve her like she is the most precious thing in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and be positive and encourage her to be strong throughout the treatments. Her recovery will depend on the support of her family and her body's response to medical treatments - not on the whims of a bearded guy in the clouds.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In your situation the only thing that the parents can do is to love her and serve her like she is the most precious thing in the universe.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Agreed, and be positive and encourage her to be strong throughout the treatments. Her recovery will depend on the support of her family and her body's response to medical treatments - not on the whims of a bearded guy in the clouds.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe there's a placebo effect.

chez

[StepBangin]

[ QUOTE ]
Also remind her that all men are sinful, and had Adam not eaten the forbidden fruit against God's omnipotent will, she would not be this predicament

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?? Am I seriously the only one that has caught this?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's because there are no such things as gods, fairy godmothers, or guardian angels who are in charge of everything.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is

1. Something you don´t know
</font>

It is something I don't know, in the same way you do not know if I'm a wizard capable of using black magic to control the weather. But I'll bet you're pretty darn sure, aren't you?

<font color="blue">2. Neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the happening of horrible things in our lifes.
</font>

And God is?

No... We don't need fairies, pixies, or gods, to explain any of these things either. You are merely creating a more perplexing question to solve a question.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd let her parents deal with this, or whoever her minister is.

But mainly I'd tell her not to think about it too much, just to love her brother and love god.

--Dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Love god for what? Cancer?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully they are no gods, angels, fairies or anything responsible for this! Just too horrible to contemplate as a possibility, to anyone who has an ounce of compassion and understanding of the human condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

A purely ethical approach to religion can only take us so far. It gets us past those who hate gay people "in the name of God" and the like, but not past Abraham's sacrifice (as opposed to attempted murder) of Isaac.

I can't accept a grand plan that's grounded in the suffering of innocent children. Neither could Alyosha. But that doesn't mean it is wrong to believe. You may call it foolish to believe in God -- despite this child's suffering, without miracles, without scientific evidence -- but it is not necessarily so.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Abraham's sacrifice (as opposed to attempted murder) of Isaac

[/ QUOTE ]

Pure semantics to make one thing appear the opposite of what it is. Standard theist practice to do away with the need to explain the horror of their true position.

[madnak]

So if I do something horrible, but claim that God ordered me to do it, that means it was justified? What if I really, truly believed that God wanted me to do it? Is it justified then?

If a personal God exists, then it's likely we have a little thing called conscience for a reason. And to do things or believe in things that fly in the face of that conscience, of that innate sense of right and wrong, isn't possible without rejecting the entire significance of it in the first place. If God gave me a moral compass that shows his own actions to be evil, then either he's not so omnibenevolent or he's playing one [censored] of a practical joke.

[Schmitty 87]

Only if the ethical is the be-all-end-all of humanity. Do you think Abraham did not understand the "horror" of what he was doing? Isn't it quite the paradox that his faith rested on that "horror"? I agree with Kierkegaard: it's more than the outward appearance of Abraham's actions.

Have you read Fear and Trembling? I'd like to hear your repsonse to it.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you read Fear and Trembling? I'd like to hear your repsonse to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have read it. I found it of no consequence and unintetresting since it posits the existence of god and values faith. Both of which I find irrational, unreasonable and nefarious.

[Schmitty 87]

I am currently struggling with these issues myself, so please do not take my responses as preaching, etc. etc. I am just trying to work out my own thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]
So if I do something horrible, but claim that God ordered me to do it, that means it was justified? What if I really, truly believed that God wanted me to do it? Is it justified then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Temptation or the divine? It's a question only you yourself would be able to answer, and mistakes would certainly be possible.

If all there is is that moral compass, then there is no leap of faith required to believe in God. That moral compass certainly guides nearly all of our actions, but in that leap toward something more, must it not take the backseat momentarily?

[Schmitty 87]

Isn't that what it's about? Believing in spite of the irrationality? And do you believe the existence of God is unreasonable disregarding this type of ethical paradox, or is it this type of paradox that causes you to find the existence of God unreasonable? If it's #1 then ok, but if its #2, Fear and Trembling still has a lot to offer.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If all there is is that moral compass, then there is no leap of faith required to believe in God. That moral compass certainly guides nearly all of our actions, but in that leap toward something more, must it not take the backseat momentarily?

[/ QUOTE ]

Something more? Maybe my cynicism is where I differ from you. The only thing I'd say I value more than my moral compass is "truth." And I admit that seems like a very dangerous position. After all, the seeking after forbidden knowledge is seen as a (if not the) cardinal sin among various faiths. All the same, I think I'd sell my soul for knowledge of the "truth." Unfortunately I haven't found any devils willing to present such a contract.

Still - purpose, power, even happiness aren't enough to convince me to abandon my principles. I suppose some might say that the "great leap" of faith is a matter of "truth" in the first place, but to me it seems like the opposite if anything. To believe in something, regardless of its truth, that goes against the fabric of my being.

[Schmitty 87]

Wouldn't it be nice if God just chilled with us here on earth in plain sight? Wouldn't it have been nice if Jesus had just listened to the devil and 1) took control of all the kingdoms of the world 2) turned stones to bread and 3) jumped off a cliff and let angels catch him? Then it would be easy to believe, but there's a reason Jesus said no. That reason? ____???

I have no problem with athiests, nearly all have likely examined themselves and the possibility of God more than most Christians. But for some to say faith is for the weak, that is simply untrue. True faith takes some serious stones.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that what it's about?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not sure what it you are referring to!

[ QUOTE ]
Believing in spite of the irrationality?

[/ QUOTE ]
If that is your position, you are welcome to it. There are an infinite number of candidate beliefs. Take a pick. Be weary that many will rightly confine you to a mental institution.

[ QUOTE ]
do you believe the existence of God is unreasonable disregarding this type of ethical paradox, or is it this type of paradox that causes you to find the existence of God unreasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason to posit the existence of a god. There are many reasons to disbelieve the existence of an omni-3 type of god.

[madnak]

I suppose I agree that faith isn't a weakness. However, the specific content of the Abrahamic faiths seems dubious at best.

[Schmitty 87]

My bad: "it"=Fear and Trembling

So, before sincerely reading Christian theological works, you have to be proved the existence of God? Why?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

So, before sincerely reading Christian theological works, you have to be proved the existence of God? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems a bit pointless otherwise. Why would I read huge speculations about fairies (works which I am sure do exist - just go to a new age bokshop) and how they live, their social structures etc...?

Having said that, I have read many christian works as I have a special interest is in the psychological aspects of religion, beliefs, irrationality and the negative impacts of it on the human condition

[Peter666]

Jesus suffered greatly and Christians will too if they follow in his footsteps. From the Catholic perspective, suffering is seen as a way to atone for the your sins, or the sins of others if you don't have any. It is also a way to gain merit and a higher reward in Heaven. The good news is that suffering is not meaningless. If it were, than you might as well blow your brains out when having an uncontrollable migraine.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
From the Catholic perspective, suffering is seen as a way to atone for the your sins, or the sins of others if you don't have any. It is also a way to gain merit and a higher reward in Heaven. The good news is that suffering is not meaningless. If it were, than you might as well blow your brains out when having an uncontrollable migraine.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the suffering of a bear caught in a trap, or a deer bleeding to death after being shot by a hunter, etc.?

The idea that suffering leads to some sort of extra perks in heaven is just another invention by man, who in his inflated self-importance needs to believe his sufferings are somehow more important than all the others in the animal kingdom.

The idea that a 10-year old gets cancer to atone for some other person's sins is ridiculous.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems a bit pointless otherwise. Why would I read huge speculations about fairies (works which I am sure do exist - just go to a new age bokshop) and how they live, their social structures etc...?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) What exactly is the human condition?
2) Considering you denounce certain Christian beliefs as "pure semantics", "unsensitive to the human conditon", "horrible", etc., I'd think there is a point in reading the works, that is, unless you are only concerned with your own point of view, which clearly isn't the case if you are posting on this forum.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
1) What exactly is the human condition?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, and see if you don't agree that the mass delusion known as religion has potentially catastrophic results for human beings.

[Schmitty 87]

1) That doesn't answer my question. I would like to know MidGe's personal definition of the human condition.
2) Obviously religion has potentially catastrophic results for human beings.

[CommanderCorm]

[ QUOTE ]
The mass delusion known as religion has potentially catastrophic results for human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

That´s a really bad argument against religion.

Ask yourself if research on general relativity has the potential to lead to considerably more destructive results for humanity than religion, or not.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
That´s a really bad argument against religion.

Ask yourself if research on general relativity has the potential to lead to considerably more destructive results for humanity than religion, or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never made the argument that religion was the only thing that had possible catastrophic consequences.

[CommanderCorm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That´s a really bad argument against religion.

Ask yourself if research on general relativity has the potential to lead to considerably more destructive results for humanity than religion, or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never made the argument that religion was the only thing that had possible catastrophic consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but you made the implication that religion is a bad thing because of it´s dangerous potential.

The same can be said about almost anything with moral or epistemological implications, though, like scientific research, atheism, positivism, darwinism, patriotism, capitalism, communism etc., to a degree that it´s hardly an argument against religion at all.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus suffered greatly and Christians will too if they follow in his footsteps. From the Catholic perspective, suffering is seen as a way to atone for the your sins, or the sins of others if you don't have any. It is also a way to gain merit and a higher reward in Heaven. The good news is that suffering is not meaningless. If it were, than you might as well blow your brains out when having an uncontrollable migraine.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about a crib death?

also, what does giving a 10 year old kid cancer have to do with atoning for your sins? your telling me that if you were omnipotent god, you couldn't figure out a better way to teach lesson? why is suffering in of itself a lesson?
you're also saying we must suffer in order to earn god brownie points? how benevolent of him...

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the Catholic perspective, suffering is seen as a way to atone for the your sins, or the sins of others if you don't have any. It is also a way to gain merit and a higher reward in Heaven. The good news is that suffering is not meaningless. If it were, than you might as well blow your brains out when having an uncontrollable migraine.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the suffering of a bear caught in a trap, or a deer bleeding to death after being shot by a hunter, etc.?

The idea that suffering leads to some sort of extra perks in heaven is just another invention by man, who in his inflated self-importance needs to believe his sufferings are somehow more important than all the others in the animal kingdom.

The idea that a 10-year old gets cancer to atone for some other person's sins is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

animals have no souls. their suffering is merely an illusion.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you made the implication that religion is a bad thing because of it´s dangerous potential.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, religion is a bad thing because people are making life and death decisions based on myths and stories scribbled in a desert thousands of years ago. The other examples you cite have some basis in science, or at least reason. Religion does not, and I think the ease with which millions of people willingly ignore reason, is a dangerous thing. People in a state of delusion are capable of horrible atrocities in service to that delusion.

[Schmitty 87]

So we judge something as good/bad on it's basis in science and reason? Science can do bad things too.

[CommanderCorm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you made the implication that religion is a bad thing because of it´s dangerous potential.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, religion is a bad thing because people are making life and death decisions based on myths and stories scribbled in a desert thousands of years ago. The other examples you cite have some basis in science, or at least reason. Religion does not, and I think the ease with which millions of people willingly ignore reason, is a dangerous thing. People in a state of delusion are capable of horrible atrocities in service to that delusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you´re missing my point again and again.

Just because a certain belief may be based in science, it´s not guaranteed that people will act reasonable in the name of that belief, and people are capable of horrible atrocities in service of pretty much anything.

In order to successfully discredit religion in favor of any other prevalent interpretation of the world, you need therefore other criteria than it´s supposedly negative moral impact.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
In order to successfully discredit religion in favor of any other prevalent interpretation of the world, you need therefore other criteria than it´s supposedly negative moral impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies if I am misinterpreting your meaning. As I understand it, you are arguing that, because atrocities can be committed in the name of things other than religion, that discounts that as an argument against religion. I disagree.

We agree that bad things are done in the name of many things, not just religion.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
So we judge something as good/bad on it's basis in science and reason? Science can do bad things too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but the fact that rational thought is absent from religion makes it more difficult for sanity to prevail.

For instance, what do you think would be easier? To convince a scientist why he shouldn't build a weapon of mass destruction, or to convince a fanatical muslim why his god does not want him to fly a plane into a building?

Both might likely be difficult, I agree - but with no ability to appeal to reason, it is impossible with the muslim terrorist, because he is convinced beyond all doubt that he is acting on god's orders. That delusion makes him dangerous.

And I am not singling out fanatics or terrorists. It is just as impossible to convince a Catholic that Jesus could not possibly have been born to a virgin, in spite of all appeals to logic and reason. This is a more harmless belief, but it illustrates the inability for religion and rational thought to coexist.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
And I am not singling out fanatics or terrorists. It is just as impossible to convince a Catholic that Jesus could not possibly have been born to a virgin, in spite of all appeals to logic and reason. This is a more harmless belief, but it illustrates the inability for religion and rational thought to coexist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Religion and rational thought can coexist.

[Peter666]

I don't understand your question about a crib death.

As for suffering teaching a lesson, we suffer all the time striving for something better. If you want to learn or earn something, you have to work at it with effort. That's a form of suffering.

Also, if there was a better way to teach a lesson, I'm sure it would be available. But suffering seems to be the best way to humble the proud. Better on Earth than in the afterlife.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your question about a crib death.

As for suffering teaching a lesson, we suffer all the time striving for something better. If you want to learn or earn something, you have to work at it with effort. That's a form of suffering.

Also, if there was a better way to teach a lesson, I'm sure it would be available. But suffering seems to be the best way to humble the proud. Better on Earth than in the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make people who are born already knowing the lesson? Or is that too hard for God?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
But suffering seems to be the best way to humble the proud. Better on Earth than in the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who is the proud being humbled in the OP's post? A 10-year old girl?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion and rational thought can coexist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies if that came off harsher than I intended. But, isn't religious faith inherently irrational, since it requires belief in something that cannot be explained or proven? Can you share some examples of how the 2 can coexist?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But suffering seems to be the best way to humble the proud. Better on Earth than in the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who is the proud being humbled in the OP's post? A 10-year old girl?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody is born with pride. Generally, people who suffer, especially when they are younger, grow up to be much better people than the spoiled brats surrounding many of us.

I travel extensively and am always impressed by the maturity and better characters of people who come from poor countries compared to rich countries. Life in some places can be very difficult, but it makes one stronger.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But suffering seems to be the best way to humble the proud. Better on Earth than in the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who is the proud being humbled in the OP's post? A 10-year old girl?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody is born with pride. Generally, people who suffer, especially when they are younger, grow up to be much better people than the spoiled brats surrounding many of us.

I travel extensively and am always impressed by the maturity and better characters of people who come from poor countries compared to rich countries. Life in some places can be very difficult, but it makes one stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]

I share with you the optimism that this little kid with terminal cancer grows up to me a much better person than most of her peers.



Oh wait, did I say grows up? Oops.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Generally, people who suffer, especially when they are younger, grow up to be much better people than the spoiled brats surrounding many of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. make them suffer heaps! Ideal to get a better society! ???

[Peter666]

"Oh wait, did I say grows up? Oops."

If you go to heaven, what does it matter when you die?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Generally, people who suffer, especially when they are younger, grow up to be much better people than the spoiled brats surrounding many of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. make them suffer heaps! Ideal to get a better society! ???

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody should have spanked you as a child.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you share some examples of how the 2 can coexist?

[/ QUOTE ]

For one, God doesn't have to be a fatherly figure with white hair chilling on a throne in the sky. God does not "exist", rather he is the power/essence of existence, with no finite qualities whatsoever (which would explain why there's no proof of God). And the afterlife can simply be going back to that infinite source from which we all originally came.

Jesus presents a problem though. Abraham too. IMO, there has to be that leap of faith which does include a momentary abandonment of rationality.

Edit: Coexist is the wrong word. They can coexist as entirely different answers to the same problem, but that is not this point. It's more like: Religion can be rationally satisfactory (which still sounds terrible).

[gwhiz_612]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd tell her not to think about it too much

[/ QUOTE ]

And that goes for eveything else about Christianity that defies all logic and experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, you guys really didn't like that answer, did you? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Firstly, let me explain that this isn't coming from Christianity, rather it's coming from Ram Dass, who's a Jew that became a Hindu and has lived with/learned from Sufi Muslims, Buddhists, Christian Monks, probably Jews, and lots of Hindus.

Sure, I might be inclined to throw in the message of "It's all part of the plan," but it wouldn't be the main message. The main message is: Love everyone, Love God, be there for your friend.

That's all there is to it. I don't think an intellectual approach to this is going to help an 11 year-old.

If you want a Christian viewpoint, why not read something that an atheist/Platonist turned Christian has to offer? C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805493530/sr=1-3/qid=1152919684/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-0978158-6840714?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books) is a good book, I hear. (Next Lewis book I read will hopefully be Pilgrim's Regress, though, and I haven't read this one either.)

Also, let me clarify that I meant I'd tell her not to think about "Why" it happened so much, not not to think about her friend so much.

In response to Madnak: "I don't know." is a perfectly reasonable response!

Personal background: Machiavelli (14) -&gt; Rand (17) -&gt; Plato (21) -&gt; Lewis/Matthew (23) -&gt; Ram Dass (25). And I still don't know wtf's going on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ] LMAO at this. People who attack christianity are always talking about how christians are always judging and yet your original statement was judged to be a christian view. So how can someone tell a christian not to judge but immediately judge themselves = hippocrate.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
People who attack christianity are always talking about how christians are always judging and yet your original statement was judged to be a christian view.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, christians have not the exclusive hold on wrong views. Not that anyone ever said that, afaik.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
LMAO at this. People who attack christianity are always talking about how christians are always judging and yet your original statement was judged to be a christian view. So how can someone tell a christian not to judge but immediately judge themselves = hippocrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall any atheists claiming it's a bad thing to judge.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religion and rational thought can coexist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies if that came off harsher than I intended. But, isn't religious faith inherently irrational, since it requires belief in something that cannot be explained or proven? Can you share some examples of how the 2 can coexist?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it is irrational to believe something which cant be proven, I think it is irrational to believe in something which is proven incorrect.

I believe I am a rational theist because I have a tiny bit of evidence that god exists and havent found any better explanation for my experience than god. I will be guilty of irrationality if someone proves there is an inconsistency in my beliefs (this has happened a few times here and has caused my beliefs to shift somewhat).

[MidGe]

You are cool, bunny. Truly. I have no issue with your particular brand of christianity. In fact, in a way, I find it admirable.

I hope, however, you realise the dangers inherent in faith, when you read some of the "christian" replies on this forum.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe I am a rational theist because I have a tiny bit of evidence that god exists and havent found any better explanation for my experience than god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is my problem with this... it is an attempt to know, or define, the unknowable. The lack of better evidence is not really an argument FOR something. People believed the earth was flat for lack of better evidence, or that illness was caused by evil spirits. These seemed like reasonable assumptions at the time. In ancient times people did not know why the sun rose every day, so they prayed to the sun god to give them light. They had no better evidence, so believing in a sun god seemed reasonable to them.

You will never have any more evidence for god than you have now (while living anyway). The evidence you have now, is not enough to prove anything with even close to certainty. So is it not better to accept that it is unknowable, admit that pondering the question 24/7 for your entire life will never make it knowable, and get on with life?

Bunny I think your personal brand of faith is a much more genuine search for truth than the dogmatic Catholicism I was brought up in. I respect you greatly and enjoy reading your posts.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I travel extensively and am always impressed by the maturity and better characters of people who come from poor countries compared to rich countries. Life in some places can be very difficult, but it makes one stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that hardships can make a person stronger. What does this have to do with god?

Especially when (by most Christian's views), a starving Muslim in a 3rd-world country has no chance to get into heaven anyway. So what was the point of his suffering? Maybe god makes exceptions for non-believers who suffered more on earth?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe god makes exceptions for non-believers who suffered more on earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or anyone who suffers really. It just doesn't make sense though. Then those "lucky" enough to suffer horribly would be infinitely rewarded while others would be unfairly eternally damned. I think that mainstream Christian images of heaven/hell are very skewed in that they are human projections. If there is an afterlife, I think it consists of simply going back to the eternal source of our being ie God, which wouldn't be given to the separated individual, only man as a whole.

[Peter666]

God, who is just, will give everybody exactly what's coming to them in the next life. The problem for us is that it is in the next life, and not in this life.

Everybody has a chance to get into heaven, including the Muslim from a third world country who suffers greatly. All things are taken into consideration by God who sees and knows everything. Because the most dreadful thing for us is suffering, it will obviouslly have a huge impact on the judgement of those who go through it.

No one can tell with absolute certainty the state of a person's soul except God.

[Emmitt2222]

This is going to be long and I don't expect many to read it, but if you do and it helps thats all that matters. This was an email I wrote to those who were close to me a few months ago. I have since recovered, but I find it helpful to reread and reflect. Its obviously slanted to Catholicism, but I try and not be preachy so hopefully it could answer some questions.


I hold a lot inside, especially about my recent pain, aside from small talk that doesn't amount to much. I felt guided now to finally spit it out. This is what I have been feeling and I hope that someone can gain something useful from this so that it is not in vain. I am trying to be Catholic. I will use this time to say what I have discovered about Catholicism. But for you who are about the quit on me, let me just say this first. I'm not talking about that sugar coated candy crap to make you feel all good inside where Jesus is my personal Lord and savior so we are all going to Heaven and have a party there. I'm not talking about following a bunch of rules to make someone else happy "go to mass on Sunday", "follow the Ten Commandments" ect. No, because even though there are some elements of Catholicism in that, for the most part Catholicism is about what I have been going through for the past 8 months, suffering and sacrifice.

I tried for the past 8 years to learn more about God, about my faith, but I never gave it the real place of honor it was suppose to hold in my life so God decided to drop it on me instead. I am so thankful that he did. Yah, that's right, I'm thankful for the suffering that I endured for the past 8 months. I'm thankful for the fact that I have had to take 5 showers in a day before just to get some relief. That sometimes it hurt so much to shuffle my feet along the ground I would have tears rolling down my cheek. That after several nights with only a few hours of sleep I stood once again in the middle of my room in agony, unable to sit or lie down or even think because nothing made it go away except waiting. That I threw up on a nightly basis from the referred pain in my abdomen because my stomach was made nauseous from the stabbing pain. Now this is not a list to complain, merely to give people a glimpse into what it's like. It has not made me a saint and I am still far from perfect, but it has led me to some insights which have helped me greatly deal with all of this.

While many people find it easy to ask where God goes when the pain starts, asking when there is any suffering in our lives is human nature. We feel alone and afraid, but we have to turn our thinking around. Whereas this pain could have not only destroyed my body completely if I just gave up, it could have also easily destroyed my spirit, it has not. I became desperate on many occasions when it seemed as if no end were ever in sight because they didn't even know what it was. But despite all that God still gave me the grace to persevere. He told us in the Scriptures that he would only give us a cross as heavy as we could bear so if he thought I could, who was I to tell him otherwise. Jesus died for our sins, that's that line we have all already heard, yet how many times have we actually sat and internalized that. He went to a pillar and got hit flesh ripped from his bone, he had thorns shoved into his head and he had nails driven straight through his hands and feet. Then when he asks us to suffer, to offer up our hardships for others, how do we then turn and tell God he has abandoned us? Do we honestly believe that Christ Jesus died so that no one would ever have to suffer again? No, he died so that we could earn heaven ourselves and that takes work, the work of offering sacrifice. What higher thing is there to offer than immense physical and emotional suffering? We see it as a burden, while He sees it as the greatest gift that can possibly be given. The person with the easy life can pray all day and those prayers are good, but think how much more redemptive those prayers are of the one who is wholeheartedly offering up the pain that keeps them from moving everyday. We have the eyes of humans, but we need to look through the eyes of God. We need to see that suffering isn't about gloom and despair, but about gaining a gift which can bring us and those around us to everlasting life. I try and think about this Truth everyday, but of course I fail miserably and often. But we must keep trying because there is so much hope, so much joy to be found in suffering. No one really wants to stand up and offer to go through agonizing pain daily, and often in the midst of pain it's hard to see your way to anything positive, however we don't need to ask for more pain. We just need to ask God to give us the strength to endure when the pain comes.

He has promised us that he will help us carry our yokes so we must turn to him in constant prayer to receive that grace. With the help of the Lord we can take our pain and make it into a one way ticket to heaven. God loves the poor and lowly, yet how often we forget that. We would rather take the easy way, the more pleasurable way. If you are having a hard time, think about those around you who have it even worse, think of me, most importantly think of Jesus on that cross. Everyone was laughing and spitting at him. Nobody is doing that to me. I have friends and family who love me and are helping me through this. There is always one who has suffered more than you and understands all of the pain that you will ever go through, Jesus crucified. Look to his Sacred bleeding heart and understand that at the heart of true love, true Catholicism, lies suffering and the sacrifice. This is why I go to mass and why everyone should; it's not some ritual we plow through so that we don't get smitten, it's to experience the sacrifice that takes place daily around the world of Christ Jesus offering his body, blood, soul and divinity for now and all time.

I will end with a quote from one of my favorite TV show, Veronica Mars, and quote, "life's a bitch, and then you die". And this is the way the world will always see it. Good thing we are called to live in the world and not of the world because that sure is depressing. Life is difficult for sure, but that shouldn't get us down. We need to channel those difficulties of everyday life and make them bear fruit by offering them up to God, for ourselves and for those around us in most need of prayer. Then we can say that life's a bitch and then we rise to everlasting life.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But suffering seems to be the best way to humble the proud. Better on Earth than in the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who is the proud being humbled in the OP's post? A 10-year old girl?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody is born with pride. Generally, people who suffer, especially when they are younger, grow up to be much better people than the spoiled brats surrounding many of us.

I travel extensively and am always impressed by the maturity and better characters of people who come from poor countries compared to rich countries. Life in some places can be very difficult, but it makes one stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]


Should we throw away our money and give cancer by means of radiation to all our kids? We should all end up better people by God's logic.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if there was a better way to teach a lesson, I'm sure it would be available. But suffering seems to be the best way to humble the proud. Better on Earth than in the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

you dont think god could make a point more directly? Why must it be tied to something so indirectly correlated to the lesson?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if there was a better way to teach a lesson, I'm sure it would be available. But suffering seems to be the best way to humble the proud. Better on Earth than in the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

you dont think god could make a point more directly? Why must it be tied to something so indirectly correlated to the lesson?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is looking at it from the limited human perspective we have. We can only make the final judgement when all the evidence is in.

As children, we may not like to eat vegetables, but we're forced to do so by our parents for our health. Of course, when we are older, we understand this and appreciate what our parents did.

The consequences of suffering will likewise be shown in the next life. It is not how we want it, but it seems to follow the natural progression of things.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]


This is looking at it from the limited human perspective we have.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you label something that is inefficient and unintelligible, by any meaning of the words, a mystery of brilliance?

[ QUOTE ]
We can only make the final judgement when all the evidence is in.

[/ QUOTE ]

right. but with imperfect knowledge there are optimal inference methods that should be used. Otherwise someone could defend the flying spaghetti monster god by the same tactics.

[ QUOTE ]
As children, we may not like to eat vegetables, but we're forced to do so by our parents for our health. Of course, when we are older, we understand this and appreciate what our parents did.

The consequences of suffering will likewise be shown in the next life. It is not how we want it, but it seems to follow the natural progression of things.


[/ QUOTE ]

again, the problem is why do you automatically think that the things you are choosing are right? Why are you so certain your interpretation of the suffering is right? Perhaps pleasure is really suffering. Perhaps Hitler is the only one of the century whose earned a place in heaven for his "good" deeds.

Tell me how you would respond to this scenario:

person a: I believe that murdering, torturing and molesting little children is the right way to get to heaven and we should spread this ideology so heaven will be further populated.

rational critic: Your idea is obviously ridiculous and there is no reason to think such actions will make the most people the best off. we can make tons of ideas about heavens and so forth and work through many combinations of examples of how things could turn out and tie philosophies to them, but that doesn't mean adhering to the ones with little evidence or that are unnecessarily overcomplicated is the right path. Why do you advocate inferring the specific model you've chosen?

person a: obviously this idea is beyond your limited logic. dont you know how sometimes you must do things that dont make sense to you right now because the benefits will be reaped later? Just like when our parents teach us lessons, god is trying to teach us to do good by molesting and torturing children, but any questioning of why we should it need not be addressed because we cannot understand everything until all the evidence is in.

--
so basically, how do you know molesting children isn't really the right path? what helps you decipher such things? Do you believe you've proven your point more so than the molester in my example?

[gwhiz_612]

[ QUOTE ]
Emitts post

[/ QUOTE ] Very touching. Your post is as if we were in an outer space forum and everyone was talking about how it is or would be and then Neil armstrong signed on and told us what it really was like. I hope that since you have recovered you have kept close to your heart the intimacy that you had with the Lord.

[bunny]

Thanks for the respect - I know I defend a being you find a) imaginary and b) immoral!
[ QUOTE ]
I hope, however, you realise the dangers inherent in faith, when you read some of the "christian" replies on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is more the dangers inherent in believing you are infallible, rather than faith itself. I think the reason religious extremists scare me is not that they believe something with no objective evidence, but that they allow no possibility they are wrong (so they will fly a plane into a building or otherwise affect thousands of lives).

I think there are faithless people who scare me in similar ways (scientists with no regard for ethics, people who will get rich regardless of the cost to others, etc).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe I am a rational theist because I have a tiny bit of evidence that god exists and havent found any better explanation for my experience than god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is my problem with this... it is an attempt to know, or define, the unknowable. The lack of better evidence is not really an argument FOR something. People believed the earth was flat for lack of better evidence, or that illness was caused by evil spirits. These seemed like reasonable assumptions at the time. In ancient times people did not know why the sun rose every day, so they prayed to the sun god to give them light. They had no better evidence, so believing in a sun god seemed reasonable to them.

You will never have any more evidence for god than you have now (while living anyway). The evidence you have now, is not enough to prove anything with even close to certainty. So is it not better to accept that it is unknowable, admit that pondering the question 24/7 for your entire life will never make it knowable, and get on with life?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's true that my "evidence" wouldnt be enough to change my mind if I was an atheist (it wasnt immediately anyhow) - I lived for many years as an atheist thinking that there was a non-religious explanation (psychological was my best guess, rather than cultural). However, I eventually came to realise that I was now a believer, I didnt make a conscious choice to believe, but it nonetheless happened. I then find myself in an awkward position of believing something with very little evidence (and certainly no objective evidence) which is hard to test (I think unknowable is too strong, but certainly I accept it is unlikely I will ever know). I think a key position I adopt is that we dont choose our beliefs we just choose whether to test them and critically evaluate them or not.

It may be impossible to know if god exists - I would claim it is also impossible to know if the laws of physics we have discovered are correct. I think it is valuable to think about both of these topics, even if I wont ever reach "the end". The upside in both cases is that I may be wrong and if I ponder my beliefs and critically examine them then I will be able to correct previous misconceptions about the world.

Edit: I should mention that I hold the (probably strange) view that my theism is rational but that my christianity is irrational. I cant think of a rational way to "choose" between religions but, given a belief in god, I have to do something...christianity "seemed" right to me but not on rational grounds.

[Peter666]

"so basically, how do you know molesting children isn't really the right path? what helps you decipher such things? Do you believe you've proven your point more so than the molester in my example?"

The distinction here is free will. Nobody wants or chooses the cancer. It is beyond human control. Unfortunately, we have to accept it as part of uncontrollable reality and make the best of it. It is an evil that we can't do much to avoid.

The child molestor on the other hand is obviously an evil that can and should be avoided or stopped. To purposely commit an irrational act is unethical. Our reason helps us to determine such things.

[Peter666]

"Should we throw away our money and give cancer by means of radiation to all our kids? We should all end up better people by God's logic."

We don't know God's "logic", we only know human logic and must follow human logic to the best of our abilities come what may.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't know God's "logic", we only know human logic and must follow human logic to the best of our abilities come what may.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, even when it directly contradicts the purported word of god.

[elessar]

Only thing i can think of is a sentence from an Astrid Lindgren (swedish writer, probably not well known in the US) book (freely translated from the german title: "Lionheart Brethren"): The people God loves most He summons early. I know this may just be a silly phrase to explain an untimely death to a rather naive person and it definitely is no deeply theologic explanation. but maybe it can also offer some comfort, especially in the situation you described. all the best

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Should we throw away our money and give cancer by means of radiation to all our kids? We should all end up better people by God's logic."

We don't know God's "logic", we only know human logic and must follow human logic to the best of our abilities come what may.

[/ QUOTE ]
abandoning that faith stuff then?

chez

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

The distinction here is free will. Nobody wants or chooses the cancer. It is beyond human control. Unfortunately, we have to accept it as part of uncontrollable reality and make the best of it. It is an evil that we can't do much to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

according to your views throughout the rest of this thread, i'm suprised you consider a child getting cancer an evil.

[ QUOTE ]
The child molestor on the other hand is obviously an evil that can and should be avoided or stopped. To purposely commit an irrational act is unethical. Our reason helps us to determine such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't determine what is rational. you're a human with a limited mind. a god much greater than you ensures that if you molest children everyone will be better off. may seem werid to you, but that is only a product of your shortsightedness.

[Schmitty 87]

Peter666: If God is just, as you say, then Hell would have a population of 0. What could someone possibly do in 80 odd years to deserve an eternity of pain greater than anyone can possibly imagine? Either that, or Hell isn't all it's cracked up to be (possibly just the absence of God and absence of conciousness-- you just die).

Emmitt: Thank you for your story. But, in the words of Ivan, "If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please?" You may thank God for your suffering, and that is fine. But, in the words of Ivan again, "And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth was no worth such a price. I don't want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him!" That's whats so difficult about suffering. We've all eaten the apple. Countless of suffering children, however, have not.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But mainly I'd tell her not to think about it too much, just to love her brother and love god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the quality of debate on this forum can lead us to forget just how desperately most Christians choose to avoid these questions. The responses here may be questionable, but in my personal experience the typical response is much worse. I've known clergy and even monks who've given me the response, "I don't think about that kind of thing, it's morbid and depressing." Or an unelaborated "I don't know," which is actually probably the most honest and elegant response I've heard.

I once had a Mormon friend who was having a crisis of faith at one point. He had a discussion with his Bishop about it, and it came up that he was planning to major in philosophy. The Bishop told him that he shouldn't take philosophy courses because they were "dangerous" and contained deceptive and vile ideas that shouldn't be considered. He also used the reasoning, "you have all the answers you need in the scriptures, why should you look for them elsewhere?" This isn't an official position of the LDS Church, just independent advice from a representative of the Church.

I find it insulting that many Christians on this forum feel that half-baked platitudes make up for the horrors that go on in the world. But here at least they're trying. I really believe the most common response from nonbelievers encountering something that doesn't make sense about their beliefs is "pretend it does make sense, and move on." To me that's chilling (as is the bolded admonition "not to think about it too much").

[/ QUOTE ]

Read "Disappointment With God" by Phillip Yancey -

RB

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The people God loves most He summons early.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, only the good die young? Doubtful. Another coping mechanism to try and explain the harsh randomness of nature.

[ QUOTE ]
The distinction here is free will. Nobody wants or chooses the cancer. It is beyond human control. Unfortunately, we have to accept it as part of uncontrollable reality and make the best of it. It is an evil that we can't do much to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who will we praise when a cancer vaccine is invented? God I suppose. But what about all that good Christian suffering we won't have anymore?

We'd better tell scientists to stop working on cures for disease - the road to heaven's getting tougher by the day.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The distinction here is free will. Nobody wants or chooses the cancer. It is beyond human control. Unfortunately, we have to accept it as part of uncontrollable reality and make the best of it. It is an evil that we can't do much to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

according to your views throughout the rest of this thread, i'm suprised you consider a child getting cancer an evil.

[ QUOTE ]
The child molestor on the other hand is obviously an evil that can and should be avoided or stopped. To purposely commit an irrational act is unethical. Our reason helps us to determine such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't determine what is rational. you're a human with a limited mind. a god much greater than you ensures that if you molest children everyone will be better off. may seem werid to you, but that is only a product of your shortsightedness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course we can determine what is rational. That is how our minds are designed. Unfortunately rationality is not always enough to answer the mysteries of life.

[Peter666]

Eternity is an absence of time, so the suffering done is not like 1 million years of burning for 1 sin that took a minute. It is proportional to the gravity of the crime committed.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Should we throw away our money and give cancer by means of radiation to all our kids? We should all end up better people by God's logic."

We don't know God's "logic", we only know human logic and must follow human logic to the best of our abilities come what may.

[/ QUOTE ]
abandoning that faith stuff then?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith does not contradict reason as has been discussed in this forum previously.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Should we throw away our money and give cancer by means of radiation to all our kids? We should all end up better people by God's logic."

We don't know God's "logic", we only know human logic and must follow human logic to the best of our abilities come what may.

[/ QUOTE ]
abandoning that faith stuff then?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith does not contradict reason as has been discussed in this forum previously.

[/ QUOTE ]
so if logic doesn't take us where we want to go we can follow something else?

chez

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Should we throw away our money and give cancer by means of radiation to all our kids? We should all end up better people by God's logic."

We don't know God's "logic", we only know human logic and must follow human logic to the best of our abilities come what may.

[/ QUOTE ]
abandoning that faith stuff then?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith does not contradict reason as has been discussed in this forum previously.

[/ QUOTE ]
so if logic doesn't take us where we want to go we can follow something else?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we follow logic to the best of our abilities. But sometimes it does not suffice.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Should we throw away our money and give cancer by means of radiation to all our kids? We should all end up better people by God's logic."

We don't know God's "logic", we only know human logic and must follow human logic to the best of our abilities come what may.

[/ QUOTE ]
abandoning that faith stuff then?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith does not contradict reason as has been discussed in this forum previously.

[/ QUOTE ]
so if logic doesn't take us where we want to go we can follow something else?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we follow logic to the best of our abilities. But sometimes it does not suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]
and when it doesn't suffice?

chez

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Should we throw away our money and give cancer by means of radiation to all our kids? We should all end up better people by God's logic."

We don't know God's "logic", we only know human logic and must follow human logic to the best of our abilities come what may.

[/ QUOTE ]
abandoning that faith stuff then?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith does not contradict reason as has been discussed in this forum previously.

[/ QUOTE ]
so if logic doesn't take us where we want to go we can follow something else?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we follow logic to the best of our abilities. But sometimes it does not suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]
and when it doesn't suffice?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have to explain cancer to a ten year old.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Eternity is an absence of time, so the suffering done is not like 1 million years of burning for 1 sin that took a minute. It is proportional to the gravity of the crime committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You state this as if it is fact. I think even you realize that your theories of eternal punishment/its proportionality to earthly sin/time's essence after death, are just that - theories. Unless you have some sort of inside info the rest of us aren't privy to?

Besides which... the idea that earthly suffering is rewarded in heaven implies different "levels" of heavenly bliss. Isn't heaven supposed to be perfect happiness? How can you have different levels of perfect?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The distinction here is free will. Nobody wants or chooses the cancer. It is beyond human control. Unfortunately, we have to accept it as part of uncontrollable reality and make the best of it. It is an evil that we can't do much to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

according to your views throughout the rest of this thread, i'm suprised you consider a child getting cancer an evil.

[ QUOTE ]
The child molestor on the other hand is obviously an evil that can and should be avoided or stopped. To purposely commit an irrational act is unethical. Our reason helps us to determine such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't determine what is rational. you're a human with a limited mind. a god much greater than you ensures that if you molest children everyone will be better off. may seem werid to you, but that is only a product of your shortsightedness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course we can determine what is rational. That is how our minds are designed. Unfortunately rationality is not always enough to answer the mysteries of life.

[/ QUOTE ]


is irrationality enough to answer the mysteries of life?
If not then you should be agnostic and not christian....

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Should we throw away our money and give cancer by means of radiation to all our kids? We should all end up better people by God's logic."

We don't know God's "logic", we only know human logic and must follow human logic to the best of our abilities come what may.

[/ QUOTE ]
abandoning that faith stuff then?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith does not contradict reason as has been discussed in this forum previously.

[/ QUOTE ]
so if logic doesn't take us where we want to go we can follow something else?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we follow logic to the best of our abilities. But sometimes it does not suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]
and when it doesn't suffice?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have to explain cancer to a ten year old.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean what do you believe when logic doesn't suffice (not when doesn't it suffice).

chez

[Quanah Parker]

Since you aren't Christian use an analogy to something you're familiar with like poker and texas hold 'em.

Before we're born Gawd chooses two out of 52 possible cards for us to play. Your cousin has been dealt a 72o. After that, Gawd acts an dealer, randomly dispersing the flop, turn, and river.

Explain to her that she needs to hit an awesome flop, and that'll she'll probably miss, but you can only play the cards Gawd deals you.

Spend the rest of your time with her playing cards.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eternity is an absence of time, so the suffering done is not like 1 million years of burning for 1 sin that took a minute. It is proportional to the gravity of the crime committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You state this as if it is fact. I think even you realize that your theories of eternal punishment/its proportionality to earthly sin/time's essence after death, are just that - theories. Unless you have some sort of inside info the rest of us aren't privy to?

Besides which... the idea that earthly suffering is rewarded in heaven implies different "levels" of heavenly bliss. Isn't heaven supposed to be perfect happiness? How can you have different levels of perfect?

[/ QUOTE ]

The big "secret" is the Catholic faith.

Heaven has always been taught as a hierarchy of bliss. The more good one does, the more one is rewarded. Yet all are perfectly happy in heaven, just as when a cup is filled with water to the brim and a bucket is filled to the brim, both are perfectly full. The bucket has a greater capacity, but we can say both are perfectly full (happy). So essentially, what we are doing on earth is trying to increase our capacity for Heaven.

[Peter666]

"I mean what do you believe when logic doesn't suffice (not when doesn't it suffice)."

Cerain matters of faith, and certain matters of human psychology, especially when dealing with issues of loss and bereavement. No amount of science will quench the desire of the emotional human soul.

[Peter666]

"is irrationality enough to answer the mysteries of life?
If not then you should be agnostic and not christian...."

But Christianity does give answers to the mysteries of life, like all religions attempt to do. It is the raison d'etre of religion.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
"is irrationality enough to answer the mysteries of life?
If not then you should be agnostic and not christian...."

But Christianity does give answers to the mysteries of life, like all religions attempt to do. It is the raison d'etre of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand it gives answers, but does it give the right answers? If you can't know through rationality, according to you, and you can't know the irrationality, then why do you believe in christianity?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"is irrationality enough to answer the mysteries of life?
If not then you should be agnostic and not christian...."

But Christianity does give answers to the mysteries of life, like all religions attempt to do. It is the raison d'etre of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand it gives answers, but does it give the right answers? If you can't know through rationality, according to you, and you can't know the irrationality, then why do you believe in christianity?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have argued in the past that faith is an arbitrary grace given directly by God out of His own volition. Everybody has the chance to get it at some point in their life if they don't resist (and have not received Baptism in which case you got it automatically). Supernatural faith is not a natural occurence, although a philosophical theistic belief in a supreme power is.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith does not contradict reason as has been discussed in this forum previously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not in day to day life, but how can faith not ever contradict reason? Explain Abraham.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain Abraham.

[/ QUOTE ]

The story of Abraham and Isaac is a legend designed to teach a lesson about unquestioning obedience to god. My interpretation was always that god would never have actually let any harm come to Isaac. It was just a test, and Abraham passed.

So while it is not reasonable in the real world for a father to even consider butchering his own son in the name of faith - in the context of the story it makes sense. A sacrifice of this tremendous magnitude is needed, in order to illustrate the level of obedience god expects from his subjects.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So while it is not reasonable in the real world for a father to even consider butchering his own son in the name of faith - in the context of the story it makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you see it as not reasonable in the real world. I fail to see the sense in the context of the story also. Sounds like gross madness and cruelty to me, both to the son and to the father. Ah well, if god has an element of madness, being god, he is the epitomy of it. Lets not forget that he as easily sacrificed his own son, as the story goes, instead of using his omnipotence to redeem. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Exotic beliefs are really weird sometimes. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Schmitty 87]

I agree it is highly contradictory/confusing/unreasonable in context as well. What a horrible sin to be willing to sacrifice one's own son!

Most people reading the story just say "he was willing to give the best thing he had for God," forgetting the fact that "give"=murder and "the best thing"=his own son. So what makes Abraham a great man as opposed to a killer? Faith! But what makes Abraham different from a modern day father who one day decides to sacrifice his son "for God"? A typical response is that "Abraham was special" -- "he was chosen by God." So Abraham is a man of great faith while anyone else performing the same deed (with the same motivation) is an awful sinner? Doesn't make sense.

In the story of Abraham and Isaac, faith makes it ok -- holy even -- for Abraham to kill his son. And if that's not a contradiction between faith and reason, then I don't know what is.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it is highly contradictory/confusing/unreasonable in context as well. What a horrible sin to be willing to sacrifice one's own son!

Most people reading the story just say "he was willing to give the best thing he had for God," forgetting the fact that "give"=murder and "the best thing"=his own son. So what makes Abraham a great man as opposed to a killer? Faith! But what makes Abraham different from a modern day father who one day decides to sacrifice his son "for God"? A typical response is that "Abraham was special" -- "he was chosen by God." So Abraham is a man of great faith while anyone else performing the same deed (with the same motivation) is an awful sinner? Doesn't make sense.

In the story of Abraham and Isaac, faith makes it ok -- holy even -- for Abraham to kill his son. And if that's not a contradiction between faith and reason, then I don't know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's not as if people aren't killing family members (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385509510/sr=1-2/qid=1153556823/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-4930288-0023842?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books) today on "direct orders" from god...

Of course, if you hear god telling you to kill your child or your wife, then you are obviously deranged and need to be institutionalized. But, why? People supposedly are having magic telepathic conversations with god every day - how do we know what he's saying? And who are we puny humans to judge, if god's will is to order someone to go murder a few women or children? God's ways are mysterious.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personal background: Machiavelli (14) -&gt; Rand (17) -&gt; Plato (21) -&gt; Lewis/Matthew (23) -&gt; Ram Dass (25). And I still don't know wtf's going on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to respond to the post, but then this really creeped me out. I was ardently opposed to each of those philosophers at those given years. I'm now 24, and I'm going to look into Ram Dass, and from the sound of it I'll be ardently opposed to him when I'm 25.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL that's alright. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I suggest listening to Ram Dass lectures rather than reading them.

Also, if I had to recommend something, I'd recommend pilot episodes of his radio show, and Spiritual Awakening, and the video lecture (he's in a wheel chair now and sort of half paralyzed afaik) on http://stream.umassd.edu/videoindex.php

Edit: Start at stream #2. The first is just introductions.

[/ QUOTE ]
'
Are there any lectures about contacting Timothy Leary from beyond? Ram Dass, lmao.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain Abraham.

[/ QUOTE ]

The story of Abraham and Isaac is a legend designed to teach a lesson about unquestioning obedience to god. My interpretation was always that god would never have actually let any harm come to Isaac. It was just a test, and Abraham passed.

So while it is not reasonable in the real world for a father to even consider butchering his own son in the name of faith - in the context of the story it makes sense. A sacrifice of this tremendous magnitude is needed, in order to illustrate the level of obedience god expects from his subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think God wouldn't let any harm come to Isaac?

Also, assuming God was going to prevent the butchering, isn't god being dishonest when he issues the order to butcher.

[Schmitty 87]

revots: How is Abraham any different? Shouldn't he also be institutionalized?


Sure God was being dishonest, but how could Abraham be so tested if God had said "go sacrifice Abraham but I actually won't make you do it"? IMO, Abraham believed that God would not take Isaac, otherwise, he would have offered himself in place of Isaac, or at least doubted what he was doing.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
revots: How is Abraham any different? Shouldn't he also be institutionalized?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he should, if he wasn't a fictonal character.

My point was to show the absurdity of praising the fictional Abraham's obedience, when any father in his right mind would give a royal "f**k you" to god. And, anyone today claiming to be acting on god's orders is rightly considered crazy, though in the Bible people got direct orders from god on a regular basis.

[smittymatt]

If we had all the answers, we wouldn't need God, eh?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course he should, if he wasn't a fictonal character.

My point was to show the absurdity of praising the fictional Abraham's obedience, when any father in his right mind would give a royal "f**k you" to god. And, anyone today claiming to be acting on god's orders is rightly considered crazy, though in the Bible people got direct orders from god on a regular basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make whether he was a real person or not? I do praise Abraham, though I praise him for his faith (belief in the absurd ironically) not his "obedience". Faith is what made it ok for Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his son. Yes, I realize what I'm saying, and, of course, the effects of such a belief are potentially dangerous/tragic to those who do not truly understand it (like a father committing a similar act today).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I realize what I'm saying, and, of course, the effects of such a belief are potentially dangerous/tragic to those who do not truly understand it (like a father committing a similar act today).

[/ QUOTE ]

Or for those that misunderstand or are following the wrong religion... LOL

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
In the story of Abraham and Isaac, faith makes it ok -- holy even -- for Abraham to kill his son. And if that's not a contradiction between faith and reason, then I don't know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing a huge point in the story here, God never desired Abraham to kill his son.. Neither, revots33 - did God desire Jesus' death. What was the outcome of Abrahams faith here? that's the point of the story.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
God never desired Abraham to kill his son..

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! I get it... God was lying to Abraham! Of all his infinite qualities, lying probably makes him a good poker player too.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
You're missing a huge point in the story here, God never desired Abraham to kill his son.. Neither, revots33 - did God desire Jesus' death. What was the outcome of Abrahams faith here? that's the point of the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the point of the story, and I think I stated earlier that god didn't really want Abraham to kill his son.

But Abraham's story proves my point as to why faith and reason cannot coexist. Imagine this scenario: god comes to you in your dreams tonight, and orders you to kill your family... what would you do? Since I assume you are a reasonable person, you'd probably ignore god, threats of hell or not. But would you not, then, be failing your test of faith? After all, god can never be wrong. So you should trust and do whatever he asks.

Now you might say, god will never ask me to do this so the point is moot. But how do you know, if anything is possible with god? Especially since he supposedly ordered a lot of people around (icluding Abraham) in the O.T.?

The idea that Abraham should be praised for his unquestioning faith only illustrates how irrational you are supposed to act to be a "good" Christian - to the point of murdering your own son if god tells you to. Personally, this seems more like a master-slave relationship to me. Or maybe brainwashed cult member.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
or are following the wrong religion... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand.


[ QUOTE ]
You're missing a huge point in the story here, God never desired Abraham to kill his son.. Neither, revots33 - did God desire Jesus' death. What was the outcome of Abrahams faith here? that's the point of the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. The point of the story is Abraham's faith, which is confirmed by the outcome. If the outcome is the point of the story, then Abraham's intentions, anguish, and faith are insignificant. If the outcome is the point of the story, then Abraham could have actually intended to kill Isaac and lose him forever. If the outcome is the point of the story, then Abraham could have believed that God's promise to him was being revoked.


[ QUOTE ]
God was lying to Abraham!

[/ QUOTE ]

God was testing Abraham. I hope you can see the difference instead of proclaiming it "PURE SEMANTICS".


[ QUOTE ]
But Abraham's story proves my point as to why faith and reason cannot coexist. Imagine this scenario: god comes to you in your dreams tonight, and orders you to kill your family... what would you do? Since I assume you are a reasonable person, you'd probably ignore god, threats of hell or not. But would you not, then, be failing your test of faith? After all, god can never be wrong. So you should trust and do whatever he asks.

Now you might say, god will never ask me to do this so the point is moot. But how do you know, if anything is possible with god? Especially since he supposedly ordered a lot of people around (icluding Abraham) in the O.T.?

The idea that Abraham should be praised for his unquestioning faith only illustrates how irrational you are supposed to act to be a "good" Christian - to the point of murdering your own son if god tells you to. Personally, this seems more like a master-slave relationship to me. Or maybe brainwashed cult member.

[/ QUOTE ]

If God can never be wrong, then the only things that are possible with God are things that are "right". God would not test just anyone this way. Praising Abraham for his faith doesn't mean I have to kill my (eventual, hopefully) children if "asked by God". As for the master-slave relationship, enter Jesus. Obviously any relationship between an infinite creator and his finite creations is inherently inequal, but, rather than allowing this inequality to stand, God made the ultimate sacrifice in becoming human, and on top of that, sacrificed himself (innocently) as a human to create a new reality in which we can be "saved".

[MidGe]

This examplifies the terrifying aspect or religion, faith or any other irrational motive for behaviour.

That a christian would accept obedience to an immoral demand from god, and indeed praise it, shows, that those type of christians are but a minuscule step away from jihadist and suicide-bombers mentality. It shows religion for what it is a source of immorality and and evil that should be expunged from the face of the earth if humanity has to have a chance to survive.

No amount of mental or semantics acrobatics can take away from that fact. For those that claim to be spoken to by, or in some communication with, god, don't listen to the little voice inside your head, it is the very deception of the devil, to tries to get you to ignore your god gift of reason, and it leaves you wide open to perpetrate horrors.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
This examplifies the terrifying aspect or religion, faith or any other irrational motive for behaviour.

That a christian would accept obedience to an immoral demand from god, and indeed praise it, shows, that those type of christians are but a minuscule step away from jihadist and suicide-bombers mentality. It shows religion for what it is a source of immorality and and evil that should be expunged from the face of the earth if humanity has to have a chance to survive.

No amount of mental or semantics acrobatics can take away from that fact. For those that claim to be spoken to by, or in some communication with, god, don't listen to the little voice inside your head, it is the very deception of the devil, to tries to get you to ignore your god gift of reason, and it leaves you wide open to perpetrate horrors.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is "this"? And I don't understand what you mean by "those type of Christians". ALL Christians acknowledge Abraham as a man of great faith, so your judgment falls equally on fundamentalist Bible-thumpers and existentialist, modern Christians alike.

And do you really think I don't understand that Abraham's actions were ethically wrong? In this very specific situation under these very specific circumstances I believe that Abraham's actions are not only defendable, but admirable. And I will not be bombing any abortion clinics or butchering any gay people.

[MidGe]

Indeed it touches all three Abrahamic religions!

To make it clear, lets change the scenario. God now asks Abraham to sexually interfere with a infant girl, or sodomise his 7 y-o nephew, or "any othetr transgressive act". Does that make you squirm, or at least makes you a bit uncomfortable? Experience a bit of dissonance? If not, there is little hope. If it does, then it should make you realise that you have been de-sensitized (read "brainwashed") to the story as told in the bible, by the mantraic repetition of how a magnificient act of faith and obedience it is and by the sharing of a collective illusion that your god is loving and benevolent. Whichever way you look at it the story is immoral from the view point of Abraham and the view point of god who sets a test in such a transgressive manner.

Thw question then remains why should you be so brainwashed but so that at some time, if and when needed or decided, by whoever, you may be made to undertake such absolute moral transgression without hesitation.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If God can never be wrong, then the only things that are possible with God are things that are "right".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the conclusion of Christianity, not the premise. We're supposed to believe God's infallible based on the Bible, but we're supposed to believe the Bible's infallible based on God. Slight problem, maybe?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
And I will not be bombing any abortion clinics or butchering any gay people.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one said you would. But there are people who do both of these things, and think they are doing it on god's orders. Do you know for a fact they are not? Isn't it possible that god is really telling them to bomb the abortion clinics?

If you believe Abraham should be praised for listening to god's order to sacrifice his son, then you should also praise the abortion clinic bombers for listening to god as well.

The only other option, is to rely on your own reason and ethics to know right from wrong. But why do that, when you can just follow the orders of an invisible man in the sky?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed it touches all three Abrahamic religions!

To make it clear, lets change the scenario. God now asks Abraham to sexually interfere with a infant girl, or sodomise his 7 y-o nephew, or "any othetr transgressive act". Does that make you squirm, or at least makes you a bit uncomfortable? Experience a bit of dissonance? If not, there is little hope. If it does, then it should make you realise that you have been de-sensitized (read "brainwashed") to the story as told in the bible, by the mantraic repetition of how a magnificient act of faith and obedience it is and by the sharing of a collective illusion that your god is loving and benevolent. Whichever way you look at it the story is immoral from the view point of Abraham and the view point of god who sets a test in such a transgressive manner.

Thw question then remains why should you be so brainwashed but so that at some time, if and when needed or decided, by whoever, you may be made to undertake such absolute moral transgression without hesitation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it makes me uncomfortable. Of course Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son makes me uncomfortable. But I think that, in the end, faith makes Abraham's actions holy-- beyond the ethical expression of those actions. Quite the paradox, but that's part of religion, believing when it doesn't "make sense" to believe-- on the power of the absurd. "Brainwashed", no. I've actually left the Catholic Church and find many of its practices awful, not that that's important, but in case you care.


[ QUOTE ]
We're supposed to believe God's infallible based on the Bible, but we're supposed to believe the Bible's infallible based on God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said that? I surely didn't. God is infallible because he is God (assuming God can even be described by such words, as they could be interpreted to limit "him" as infinite). The Bible is a guide to faith, not the source of faith, or a be-all-end-all answer to all of life's questions.


[ QUOTE ]
If you believe Abraham should be praised for listening to god's order to sacrifice his son, then you should also praise the abortion clinic bombers for listening to god as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just ridiculous. It shows either that 1) You've ignored every post I've made in this thread 2) You read what you want to read or 3) You are of rather limited intelligence. In that very specific situation under those very specific circumstances... Abraham's faith in the story is remarkable (the ultimate story of faith). It helps Christians understand the leap of faith needed to believe in God. It is not a license to kill children. It is not a license to commit immoral acts whatsoever. And I never said "Christians" couldn't misunderstand: surely they do, and unfortunately, atheists, etc. often have troubles (apparently) distinguishing the good from the bad.

[ckboddic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd tell her not to think about it too much

[/ QUOTE ]

And that goes for eveything else about Christianity that defies all logic and experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...Quite the paradox, but that's part of religion, believing when it doesn't "make sense" to believe-- on the power of the absurd. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Power of the absurd may be fine as long as it is not an affront to morality, a justification for immoral actions, which it is, in this and other cases in the bible.

Christians, and others, ought to be confronted with the evil underlying their faith lest, before you know it, they become suicide bombers and the like. There is no difference in position!

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
That's just ridiculous. It shows either that 1) You've ignored every post I've made in this thread 2) You read what you want to read or 3) You are of rather limited intelligence. In that very specific situation under those very specific circumstances... Abraham's faith in the story is remarkable (the ultimate story of faith). It helps Christians understand the leap of faith needed to believe in God. It is not a license to kill children. It is not a license to commit immoral acts whatsoever. And I never said "Christians" couldn't misunderstand: surely they do, and unfortunately, atheists, etc. often have troubles (apparently) distinguishing the good from the bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read all your posts, and I am not of limited intelligence. And I maintain that there is zero difference between Abraham agreeing to kill his son, and someone today obeying god's order to bomb an abortion clinic.

I understand (and have already stated) that the story of Abraham is just a myth, designed to show the unquestioning faith and obedience required by believers. And I still maintain that this same level of faith and obedience would require a believer to kill his own family, today, if god ordered it. God's sense of right and wrong is beyond our knowledge (hence innocent children dying of cancer or drowning in tsunamis). So how could you be a believer, and then say you would not sacrifice your family if god ordered it? If you refuse, you are putting your own sense of right and wrong above god's, which is the exact opposite of the moral in the story of Abraham.

All of which points out the absurdity of thinking that our inner sense of morality, and right and wrong, comes from some floating entity somewhere past Pluto.

That is my whole point. Do you not realize that every single day, people are being killed because believers think they have been ORDERED to kill by god? Just like that hero Abraham? Unfortunately, in the real world there is no voice from the heavens to stop the slaughter before it happens.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said that? I surely didn't. God is infallible because he is God (assuming God can even be described by such words, as they could be interpreted to limit "him" as infinite). The Bible is a guide to faith, not the source of faith, or a be-all-end-all answer to all of life's questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the Bible's only supplemental? Then what's the real "source" of faith? Can someone be a Christian if they've never heard of Christ?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Quite the paradox, but that's part of religion, believing when it doesn't "make sense" to believe-- on the power of the absurd. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Power of the absurd may be fine as long as it is not an affront to morality, a justification for immoral actions, which it is, in this and other cases in the bible.

Christians, and others, ought to be confronted with the evil underlying their faith lest, before you know it, they become suicide bombers and the like. There is no difference in position!

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me break in here with two quick points:

#1 The story of Abraham is not a myth. If we are to believe it didn't happen, how can we be so sure that other parts of the Bible (most notably the resurrection) didn't happen as well?

#2 There are differences between Abraham agreeing to sacrifice his son and the nuts out there bombing abortion clinics in the name of christianity. Abraham and God conversed directly (and I believe audibly). Although murder had already occurred with Cain and Abel, God had not yet given Moses the Law (which of course included "Thou shall not murder"), and sacrificing animals to the Lord was commonplace (for it produced an aroma pleasing to God).

Now look at the abortion clinic bombers. Actually, let's look at worse. From 1095 a.d. until the 14th century, the Roman Catholic church had leadership that believed that God was telling them to kill nonbelievers in His name. Please understand, THIS WAS NOT CHRISTIANITY! Despite what they called themselves, the abortion clinic bombers are not true christians! Unlike Abraham, we have the Bible through which God speaks against doing things like those I have mentioned. We know God didn't tell them to do those things because it contradicts the Bible.

It's like some people who leave their wives and say it's because "God told me to." Um, hello?!? THAT'S NOT GOD!!!

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like some people who leave their wives and say it's because "God told me to." Um, hello?!? THAT'S NOT GOD!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, how do you know? I'd say it's just as likely that god tells a man to leave his wife, as it was really god telling Abraham to sacrifice his own son. Maybe god knows the wife is evil and will lead the man into hell, so he said "I'd better tell this guy to bail before he ends up roasting in eternal flames along with the Mrs." Who knows?

My assumption is that god is busy telling our politicians to outlaw online poker these days. Don't listen right-wing politicians - that's not really god! God's a poker buff himself - in fact he told me that Sklansky stole that whole fundamental theorem of poker thing off him.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like some people who leave their wives and say it's because "God told me to." Um, hello?!? THAT'S NOT GOD!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you be so sure? Maybe this is just how God rolls?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read all your posts, and I am not of limited intelligence. And I maintain that there is zero difference between Abraham agreeing to kill his son, and someone today obeying god's order to bomb an abortion clinic.

I understand (and have already stated) that the story of Abraham is just a myth, designed to show the unquestioning faith and obedience required by believers. And I still maintain that this same level of faith and obedience would require a believer to kill his own family, today, if god ordered it. God's sense of right and wrong is beyond our knowledge (hence innocent children dying of cancer or drowning in tsunamis). So how could you be a believer, and then say you would not sacrifice your family if god ordered it? If you refuse, you are putting your own sense of right and wrong above god's, which is the exact opposite of the moral in the story of Abraham.

All of which points out the absurdity of thinking that our inner sense of morality, and right and wrong, comes from some floating entity somewhere past Pluto.

That is my whole point. Do you not realize that every single day, people are being killed because believers think they have been ORDERED to kill by god? Just like that hero Abraham? Unfortunately, in the real world there is no voice from the heavens to stop the slaughter before it happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still refuse to acknowledge any other possible God besides the mainstream Christian one with human characteristics who intervenes directly in our day to day lives (a very skewed image imo). I personally don't believe God can order anyone, and I agree that the story of Abraham is a myth. I also believe God has no power to stop cancer or tsunamis.

I repeat -- in this very specific situation under these very specific circumstances. Suicide bombers are not "just like" Abraham. Abraham is not Cain.

Even if God is capable of ordering people to do things, he would never ask me to kill my family. But how do I know? Anything is possible with God, right? NO! That's where you are getting stuck, again and again.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
So the Bible's only supplemental? Then what's the real "source" of faith? Can someone be a Christian if they've never heard of Christ?

[/ QUOTE ]

For many people, yes. The Christian Church and the Bible are the bearers of Christianity, not "it" itself. And it doesn't even matter, because in no way did I ever claim that the Bible was infallible or that it proves God to be infallible.

[madnak]

Great. So it's unnecessary, it's fallible, it's often metaphorical, it contradicts reason...

I'm failing to see how it's divine scripture, or how it's remotely necessary.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Great. So it's unnecessary, it's fallible, it's often metaphorical, it contradicts reason...

I'm failing to see how it's divine scripture, or how it's remotely necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I can tell, most Christians on this board seem to be making it up as they go along.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's like some people who leave their wives and say it's because "God told me to." Um, hello?!? THAT'S NOT GOD!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, how do you know? I'd say it's just as likely that god tells a man to leave his wife, as it was really god telling Abraham to sacrifice his own son. Maybe god knows the wife is evil and will lead the man into hell, so he said "I'd better tell this guy to bail before he ends up roasting in eternal flames along with the Mrs." Who knows?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is how I know:

Malachi 2:13-16
13 Another thing you do: You flood the LORD's altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

Matthew 19:1-9
1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

1 Corinthians 7:10-16
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't believe God can order anyone,

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also believe God has no power to stop cancer or tsunamis.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible with God, right? NO!

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, certainly believing in a non-omnipotent god helps answer some of the problems of suffering. But you must realize that the overwhelming majority of believers believe in god's omnipotence. And how can you believe in jesus' resurrection and not god's omnipotence? Isn't the ability to rise from the dead the ultimate power over the laws of nature? How can someone who can do that, not stop cancer or tsunamis?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have read all your posts, and I am not of limited intelligence. And I maintain that there is zero difference between Abraham agreeing to kill his son, and someone today obeying god's order to bomb an abortion clinic.

I understand (and have already stated) that the story of Abraham is just a myth, designed to show the unquestioning faith and obedience required by believers. And I still maintain that this same level of faith and obedience would require a believer to kill his own family, today, if god ordered it. God's sense of right and wrong is beyond our knowledge (hence innocent children dying of cancer or drowning in tsunamis). So how could you be a believer, and then say you would not sacrifice your family if god ordered it? If you refuse, you are putting your own sense of right and wrong above god's, which is the exact opposite of the moral in the story of Abraham.

All of which points out the absurdity of thinking that our inner sense of morality, and right and wrong, comes from some floating entity somewhere past Pluto.

That is my whole point. Do you not realize that every single day, people are being killed because believers think they have been ORDERED to kill by god? Just like that hero Abraham? Unfortunately, in the real world there is no voice from the heavens to stop the slaughter before it happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still refuse to acknowledge any other possible God besides the mainstream Christian one with human characteristics who intervenes directly in our day to day lives (a very skewed image imo). I personally don't believe God can order anyone, and I agree that the story of Abraham is a myth. I also believe God has no power to stop cancer or tsunamis.

I repeat -- in this very specific situation under these very specific circumstances. Suicide bombers are not "just like" Abraham. Abraham is not Cain.

Even if God is capable of ordering people to do things, he would never ask me to kill my family. But how do I know? Anything is possible with God, right? NO! That's where you are getting stuck, again and again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you have to understand, you claimed to take a Christian viewpoint in this argument. So, people on this board have an idea of a few basic, consistent things that make up a Christian, and so they were arguing with you assuming you hold those beliefs. That you don't think the Bible infallible or God omnipotent makes some of your points much more consistent. But it refutes your claim that you are a Christian, no? Or did you not say you were? I thought you were but perhaps I was wrong. I don't see what branch of Christianity could possibly believe that God was not omniscient and the Bible is just a normal, made-up book of interesting fables.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Great. So it's unnecessary, it's fallible, it's often metaphorical, it contradicts reason...

I'm failing to see how it's divine scripture, or how it's remotely necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bible is something a christian has to form a view on, imo - especially if you are going to cite it as the basis for christianity (not my view, as it happens).

To mildly contradict you - I think the bible can be fallible and metaphorical (I dont think it contradicts reason if you dont take a literal interpretation) without being unneccessary and while still being divine scripture. I personally believe God visited a bunch of prophets and showed them "spiritual truths" or somesuch. They then woke up/whatever and wrote down, spoke about, talked about what they had experienced. The result collated in the bible (no doubt with some missing and some non-prophetic material included) is still of value and still (at least partly)divinely inspired. I think this is true even though there are some mistakes (and people are clearly able to misinterpret what is there).

I think the source of christianity is not the bible but God and jesus's teachings about him and how we should relate to him. I do think the bible is supplementary, if you like, but dont see this as a problem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those believe the bible is the literal word of god, you have a number of questions to ask yourself I think. Things like:

"How do I know that the process which decided which books were in and which were out got it right?" This is especially tricky given there are at least two very devout, knowledgeable and thoughtful authorities on the subject (the catholics and protestants) who disagree.

"If it is the literal word of god - why does it contain passages which contradict each other and the findings of science?" eg - genesis says man was made on the fourth day in one part and on the sixth day in another part.

"How do I know the interpretation of my religious sect is correct?" There are any number of ardent believers in all kinds of bizarre things - they could be right.

There are also other puzzling questions (though perhaps not essential) like why there were so many prophets and so much scripture produced but there is none any more. Our lives are so much different now than in biblical times, it seems strange that we dont need an update after all this time.

The only answers I can think of to these questions are either to believe that god has appointed an infallible arbiter (a la peter666's belief in the catholic church's authority). Or to believe (as I do) that it is a moral duty to study and interpret the bible as well as you can - to live christianity in your heart and to do your best.

The first has the advantage of certainty, the second is easier to reconcile with a sense of morality.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
To mildly contradict you - I think the bible can be fallible and metaphorical (I dont think it contradicts reason if you dont take a literal interpretation) without being unneccessary and while still being divine scripture. I personally believe God visited a bunch of prophets and showed them "spiritual truths" or somesuch. They then woke up/whatever and wrote down, spoke about, talked about what they had experienced. The result collated in the bible (no doubt with some missing and some non-prophetic material included) is still of value and still (at least partly)divinely inspired. I think this is true even though there are some mistakes (and people are clearly able to misinterpret what is there).

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the reason to ascribe the bible divine inspiration, when you pretty much admit it is a bunch of metaphorical stories meant to teach lessons. The same could be said of Aesop's fables or Greek mythology. There should be some evidence required, before something is assigned such an extraordinary claim as divine inspiration. I don't think guessing that the writers dreamed the stories, and that those dreams maybe came from god, counts as sufficient evidence.

As for people who honestly think the old testament is a factual historical record... I don't mean this as an insult, but those people honestly scare me.

[Schmitty 87]

This is going to be one of my last posts of the thread (have to get off the computer and do other stuff!) so hopefully I can cover all the issues. If not, ask a question and I'll try to answer as best I can.

First, madnak, how else could the Bible be? Is it possible for God, the infinite source of matter, time, life, etc. etc. to be explained by anything but metaphor?


Now, to the Abraham thing.

About revots' assertion that those praising Abraham must also praise suicide bombers, etc. who proclaim that they are acting on God's orders. Lets actually widen the people I should praise, because, since Abraham never told anyone that God ordered Isaac's death (decent evidence that the story is a myth, but that's unimportant), any killer -- any criminal -- any sinner -- could have been acting on God's orders. How do we know that they weren't? That's why it's so difficult to reply to many of your posts revots, because your argument expands to essentially saying that if we praise Abraham then we must praise all criminals! Now, to limit the group of people we are comparing to Abraham, we'll eliminate everyone who:

1) Didn't believe what they were doing was right before and/or after they did it, and 2) Didn't love their "victim"

What are we left with? All I can think of is parents who have killed their children (and we'll just assume that they truly loved them, though in my opinion that is highly unlikely). How do we know that God didn't order them to murder their children? Contrary to my previous post, I guess we don't. I can make an extended argument about how the one thing God can't do is limit our free will**, and how omniscent is too ambiguous of a term, but that is for another day. For now, I'll assume that God CAN order people to do things. So must I praise both Abraham and these other parents? The answer is still no. With Abraham, we know that God told him to sacrifice Isaac. With the other parents, we don't. They should be tried for murder (as Abraham should have been) and convicted (as Abraham should have been). God will be their judge. But what if God did order them to do it? Then isn't it wrong for Christians (I know others don't have any problem with it) to imprison them? The parents' aims weren't for this human life, so it is not sinful or wrong to punish them in the here and now-- that earthly punishment is part of their deed and one that they must accept.


Why is Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac holy?

I am apparently incapable of even shedding the smallest light on why this is possible, so I'll just refer any interested parties to Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. It's only like 150 pages, and I think it'll be good for all readers Christian and non-Christian alike.


** I believe that either 1) God CAN'T limit our free will or 2) God chooses not to limit our free will. I'm not one of those people who essentially thinks that God intervenes in rich, white, and healthy families but not in any part of the world where there is suffering. The problem with #2 is that God's choice means that X (whatever X is, some unknown) is greater than the total sum of all the suffering in the world (a big [censored] sum), and that's just seriously unappealing. And #1 of course throws God's supposed omniscence into question. The existence and resurrection of Jesus is really troublesome to #1 however. I don't know what to think, I've been mulling it over for a few weeks now and probably have a few decades at minimum left to go.

[revots33]

Thanks for the reply. I do get where you are coming from (even if is may seem like I don't).

My overall point was not with Abraham's story (as we both agree it's just a myth that teaches the lesson of faith). God never really ordered anyone to kill their child, and I think we can both agree that if a murderer claims that as their defense today, they are lying or crazy.

My issue is with people (and there are many, just in these forums) who constantly do mental gymnastics to try and make the bible conform to their own ideas of right and wrong. Example: God says you shalt not kill, but he orders Abraham to kill his son. Response: "Oh, this was before god outlawed murder, so it was ok then!" Example 2: God is all loving, yet sentences people to eternal torture for not believing in him or never having heard of him. Response: "Hell is just an absence of god, not eternal torture." Sorry, but that's not what the bible says. We don't get to make up our own versions of the bible to suit our personal beliefs.

And my example of the clinic bombers acting on god's orders, was really more a question of logic. IF you believe God can communicate with humans directly, and IF you believe we can never comprehend god's version of right and wrong... you have now opened the door for absolutely any horror to be committed in god's name. And worse, you are abandoning your own precious human ideas of right and wrong. A young child dying of cancer is WRONG. It is not "god's will". It's wrong, and we should be outraged. Passing it off as god's will cheapens the tragedy of it, IMO.

It does sound, as someone pointed out earlier, that a lot of Christians are making it up as they go along. And to me that is not Christianity, no matter what you call it. It is a personal religion of your own invention, molded to fit your own inner values of right and wrong. And if that is so, you might as well just throw out the bible and invent a new religion from scratch.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see the reason to ascribe the bible divine inspiration, when you pretty much admit it is a bunch of metaphorical stories meant to teach lessons. The same could be said of Aesop's fables or Greek mythology. There should be some evidence required, before something is assigned such an extraordinary claim as divine inspiration. I don't think guessing that the writers dreamed the stories, and that those dreams maybe came from god, counts as sufficient evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Certainly not sufficient evidence. To restate my position - I dont think there is a rational way to choose between religions and the corollary here is that there is no way to deduce that the bible is divine in any sense. As a rational theist though, I have to do something - christianity seems right to me, and the bible is the best guide to what christianity entails. Being a christian it is still important to me that my position is internally consistent. This means my answer to "What is the bible?" has to fit the findings of science, my moral sense of what's right and wrong and has to pass the test of internal consistency.

None of this is evidence that should persuade anybody else (or even carry any weight) but it is an exercise that I have to go through. My conception of the bible is possibly wrong (probably even) but this is true of most of my understandings of things in the world. All of my knowledge is incomplete, all of my beliefs are constantly changing and being revised, edited, refined, etc. Nonetheless, I have beliefs and some of them are knowledge. The only thing I can do is test that they make sense.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
And worse, you are abandoning your own precious human ideas of right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially when many of those human ideas of right and wrong are based in religious traditions! Religion contradicting not only reason but also itself.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the responses (and yes they are common, I've heard both) to your examples are sickening. I have -- well, had -- some friends who were very rich and very Presbyterian: the kind that believes in predestination. I wanted to tell one girl so badly, "bitch, do you realize what you're saying?!?!" The vast majority of the world's population will spend an eternity in hell for doing nothing but being born while you and your cronies get free passes to heaven? Not to mention all the gay bashing. When your religion causes you to HATE people for expressing their natural desires, then there's probably a problem. "But it's not natural!!!!!" Oh yeah buddy? Then stop getting dome from your girlfriend and taking advil when you get a headache!

Phew.

Like I said, my personal belief is that God can do nothing to limit suffering, even with the most innocent of children. My problem is that God's "plan", the end result of the entirety of human history, now rests on those suffering children. Their cries do not go away, and I wonder if it's worth the price; if free will is worth the price. But in this doubt there's also what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of Christianity. Jesus sacrificed himself, innocently, to forgive all this suffering. We can't do it ourselves -- we should be outraged -- but he can.

PS I still think Abraham is the man. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Abraham and God conversed directly (and I believe audibly). Although murder had already occurred with Cain and Abel, God had not yet given Moses the Law (which of course included "Thou shall not murder"),


[/ QUOTE ]

So murder was ok prior to Moses’s law?

[ QUOTE ]
and sacrificing animals to the Lord was commonplace (for it produced an aroma pleasing to God).


[/ QUOTE ]

So had Abraham sacrificed his son, the aroma would have been pleasing to God?

Any God that dictates that you kill your son is an evil God.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Abraham and God conversed directly (and I believe audibly). Although murder had already occurred with Cain and Abel, God had not yet given Moses the Law (which of course included "Thou shall not murder"),


[/ QUOTE ]

So murder was ok prior to Moses’s law?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that. We can see from the story of Cain and Abel that it obviously was not. If you read my post in context you will see that I was refuting the claim that Abraham was "the same" as the people today who bomb abortion clinics in the name of christianity. We know that God did not tell them kill doctors because that directly contradicts the Bible. Abraham spoke directly with God and knew it was God who was instructing him.

[ QUOTE ]
and sacrificing animals to the Lord was commonplace (for it produced an aroma pleasing to God).

So had Abraham sacrificed his son, the aroma would have been pleasing to God?

Any God that dictates that you kill your son is an evil God.

[/ QUOTE ]
An important part of the story is that God DID NOT ALLOW Abraham to kill his son. He just wanted to see if Abraham would raise the knife. Have you forgotten how the story ends?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
An important part of the story is that God DID NOT ALLOW Abraham to kill his son. He just wanted to see if Abraham would raise the knife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realise that god did allow his son to be crucified! If he was omnipotent a better outcome would have been no problem at all! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly not sufficient evidence. To restate my position - I dont think there is a rational way to choose between religions and the corollary here is that there is no way to deduce that the bible is divine in any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny you are obviously very reasonable, and I respect your positions. But still, I cannot understand your willingness to assume god in some way authored the bible when you yourself admit there is no way to deduce this.

To believe a book was in some way written by god, while admitting that that belief is both irrational and likely false, makes no sense to me. I'm sorry if I'm missing something.

I think the argument of Occam's Razor applies here. What is the bible, most likely? What is the Quran, most likely? What are the Greco-Roman myths, most likely? The human desire to believe makes these questions much more complicated than they really are.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An important part of the story is that God DID NOT ALLOW Abraham to kill his son. He just wanted to see if Abraham would raise the knife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realise that god did allow his son to be crucified! If he was omnipotent a better outcome would have been no problem at all! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you realize God cannot do things that contradict his nature? By doing so, by definition he would cease to be God. By his nature, God is the essence of good. He is HOLY! Those tainted with sin cannot enter his presence, and therefore without the sacrifice of Jesus we could not be saved.

Omnipotent
1 often capitalized : ALMIGHTY
2 having virtually unlimited authority or influence &lt;an omnipotent ruler&gt;

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
First, madnak, how else could the Bible be? Is it possible for God, the infinite source of matter, time, life, etc. etc. to be explained by anything but metaphor?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say by that reasoning God can't be explained or understood at all. Metaphor is very dangerous. It ascribes attributes to the things being compared that don't actually exist. It's designed to show that the relationships between the metaphorical references are similar to the relationships between the things actually being described. But often the relevant elements of the relationships aren't identical, and even when they are certain elements of the relationship always fail to apply. For example, the metaphor of God as a parent doesn't imply that he changes diapers (although I'm sure someone could stretch the metaphor to fit).

As a result of all this, metaphor is inherently open to interpretation. Very much so. Which means metaphor is open to misinterpretation. It's impossible to say what a metaphor "actually" means. You can't justify your particular interpretation of Abraham if it's a metaphor. Is it a story of faith? Or obedience? The futility of trying to understand God's motives? The nature of God as including darkness as well as light? The worthlessness of humans? The mercy of the Lord? And there are some more creative interpretations as well. How are we supposed to choose the "right" one? Pick a number out of a hat?

You might say that we should gain what wisdom we can from the stories of the Bible, rather than interpreting it as the literal word of God. You might say that it's divine because we can learn so much from it, not because it includes rigid dictates from "the big man." But you'd be treading a dangerous line. Wisdom can be gleaned from many things. In terms of books, everything from Goethe to Nietzsche to Lao Tzu to the Marquis de Sade has lessons worth learning. If the Bible is open to interpretation, what differentiates it from other literature? That the original inspiration was arguably more divine? Is that the only thing the Bible has going for it?

It's easy to establish that the Bible is a great work of literature, and one of the most important ever written. This is true regardless of what you believe. But the claim that it's holy scripture, to me that implies much more.

[ QUOTE ]
we'll eliminate everyone who:

1) Didn't believe what they were doing was right before and/or after they did it, and 2) Didn't love their "victim"

What are we left with?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that Hitler or Ted Bundy didn't feel this way? How can you know the heart of any man? By this reasoning, it seems unjustifiable to judge anyone for anything. And it seems that Jesus had a similar view.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Especially when many of those human ideas of right and wrong are based in religious traditions! Religion contradicting not only reason but also itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is hard to swallow. Ideas of right and wrong exist independently from religious traditions. If anything I'd say you have it backwards. But you're talking about faith - doesn't faith come from within? Does a person need traditions of any kind to have faith?

I think it's a valid point that religion contradicts itself. But how can you believe what you do, unless we have internal moral compasses?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
To restate my position - I dont think there is a rational way to choose between religions

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you feel the need to choose.

[ QUOTE ]
As a rational theist though, I have to do something

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you have to do? I fail to see how theism necessitates any kind of religion. In any case, since you're a theist for personal reasons a personal faith or a universal faith seem to make the most sense.

By what process did you actually choose Christianity? How many faiths did you study beforehand? How many alternatives did you try out? What made you feel the question was resolved and you were ready to make a firm decision?

These are questions that, for me, have no satisfactory answers. Which is possibly the main reason I'll remain an agnostic. If there's no way to tell which religion is the "right" one, or even if there's a "right" one, then I'd think the logical solution is to avoid dogmatic beliefs entirely.

[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, I have beliefs and some of them are knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? I don't want to go too far into epistemology, but I see no reason to believe in "justified true belief." It seems like an extremely naive conception of knowledge to me.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith does not contradict reason as has been discussed in this forum previously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not in day to day life, but how can faith not ever contradict reason? Explain Abraham.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or Andrea Yates. She was pretty convinced that God was speaking to her too.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know that Hitler or Ted Bundy didn't feel this way? How can you know the heart of any man? By this reasoning, it seems unjustifiable to judge anyone for anything. And it seems that Jesus had a similar view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, are you serious? How am I supposed to answer that? Ok, fine, I don't KNOW the heart of Hitler, though I'm hard-pressed to find evidence that he loved the Jews with all his heart. And I can't think Hitler was a bad person for killing 10 million people because "thou shalt not judge"? There's nothing wrong with disapproving with the actions of others, as long as you judge yourself by the same standards. And it seems that Jesus had a similar view.

Nice punch line too, especially considering you think the Bible is entirely unreliable and that Christians are dumb for reading/following it.

[madnak]

Very good points. The slight thing is, God has done more killing and genocide than Hitler ever did. So, while you refuse to give Hitler the benefit of the doubt, you expect us to not only give it to a God guilty of much worse, but to actually stand behind him as being representative as good.

That logic doesn't add up.

If God works in mysterious ways, there's no reason they might not include Hitler's actions. Perhaps without Hitler, and without his cautionary example, we would have been more willing to use nuclear weapons when they were developed and the world would be much worse today. If Hitler were acting on God's orders, he could hardly have given any indication of such; Hitler's drive and charisma were critical to his efforts, and he couldn't afford to appear uncertain even if he hated what he was doing.

Certainly it's better than any explanation I've heard of the plagues and genocides orchestrated by God. Or was that not meant to be taken literally either? When God says to slaughter everyone, is that, uh, just a metaphor?

[revots33]

The bottom line is that many people you'd define as evil, were in fact doing what they thought was right at the time (Hitler, islamic hijackers, abortion clinic bombers, etc.)

It seems most Christians take a simple approach. If the person does something they personally consider "good", they must have been acting out god's will. (For example, if I personally believe bombing an abortion clinic is justified, I'd think the bomber was acting on god's will.) However, if the person does something they personally consider "bad" (as in Hitler's extermination of the Jews), then they must have NOT been acting on god's behalf.

This line of thinking is not religion, although people call it that. It is simply personal ideas of right and wrong, transferred onto this invisible being called "god".

Take a less violent example: the embryonic stem cell funding veto. Those who agree with Bush probably ascribe some sort of virtue (or even holiness) to his veto. Are they right? Maybe god really wants us to USE those cells to help others, rather than discard them? You don't know, and neither do I. So we make the judgement based on our own moral values. God becomes just an invented, non-negotiable source of authority, to prove our opinion is the correct one.

Are not both sides of every holy war equally convinced that god is on their side? Did not Hitler think the same thing?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Very good points. The slight thing is, God has done more killing and genocide than Hitler ever did. So, while you refuse to give Hitler the benefit of the doubt, you expect us to not only give it to a God guilty of much worse, but to actually stand behind him as being representative as good.

That logic doesn't add up.

If God works in mysterious ways, there's no reason they might not include Hitler's actions. Perhaps without Hitler, and without his cautionary example, we would have been more willing to use nuclear weapons when they were developed and the world would be much worse today. If Hitler were acting on God's orders, he could hardly have given any indication of such; Hitler's drive and charisma were critical to his efforts, and he couldn't afford to appear uncertain even if he hated what he was doing.

Certainly it's better than any explanation I've heard of the plagues and genocides orchestrated by God. Or was that not meant to be taken literally either? When God says to slaughter everyone, is that, uh, just a metaphor?

[/ QUOTE ]

If God is God, there's no reason to believe he didn't command me to eat cereal for breakfast this morning. I really don't understand how I'm supposed to answer your questions. Even is God is incapable of talking to humans or intervening in our world (my personal belief), then we can still blame it all on him for giving us free will. To use your example, even if God didn't directly order Hitler to do what he did and/or decide not to stop him, God is still partially to blame for giving Hitler free-will. He had to know the potential consequences of giving us free-will, right? (I'm unsure about this). So, God, knowing those consequences, still gave us free-will? For what? Better be something pretty damn important, huh?

In the Old Testament, God is a warrior God (and I'm surprised you don't point out such a blatant contradiction between the new and old testaments in your criticism of the Bible). The understanding of god(s) at the time was that in battles the fighters on each side were simply pawns, and that the real war was going on between the gods. I just so happen to believe that our "understanding" of God has advanced since that time. I personally don't believe certain aspects of the Bible apply at all to our time, including those written with the image of a fierce warrior God in mind as well as passages that say it's a sin to wear clothing made of more than one material. So throw out the Bible? It's impossible to decipher to good from the bad, and who am I to decide which is which? That's fine if you want to believe that, but I trust my God-given reason (that I supposedly ignore) and my faith to be able to distinguish the useful (like Abraham, the temptation of Jesus, Paul thinking about Sin) from the ineffectual.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems most Christians take a simple approach. If the person does something they personally consider "good", they must have been acting out god's will. (For example, if I personally believe bombing an abortion clinic is justified, I'd think the bomber was acting on god's will.) However, if the person does something they personally consider "bad" (as in Hitler's extermination of the Jews), then they must have NOT been acting on god's behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]

People don't have to be acting on God's will to do good or bad things. And how do you suggest we determine what's right and what's wrong if we can't rely on what we personally believe? Like I said in my other reply, you can blame everything bad that's ever happened in the world on God for giving us free-will if you so desire.

I agree many Christians take the wrong approach and apply God to issues God has no business in (are we really supposed to believe God gives a flying [censored] about violence in movies?), cheapening Him and corrupting his image (if you don't believe you will go to Hell!!!) in every way imaginable. But I never said that people couldn't make mistakes. I don't blame Islam for terrorists. I don't blame Christianity for gay-bashing. The responsibility is on the people.

PS This is not replying directly to you, just that some posters on this forum tend to use bad Christians as evidence that God is a prick.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Certainly not sufficient evidence. To restate my position - I dont think there is a rational way to choose between religions and the corollary here is that there is no way to deduce that the bible is divine in any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny you are obviously very reasonable, and I respect your positions. But still, I cannot understand your willingness to assume god in some way authored the bible when you yourself admit there is no way to deduce this.

To believe a book was in some way written by god, while admitting that that belief is both irrational and likely false, makes no sense to me. I'm sorry if I'm missing something.

I think the argument of Occam's Razor applies here. What is the bible, most likely? What is the Quran, most likely? What are the Greco-Roman myths, most likely? The human desire to believe makes these questions much more complicated than they really are.

[/ QUOTE ]
The reason I reluctantly adopt an irrational view here is that I have no choice. I am a theist - I believe in God (and this is a rational belief). Unfortunately, my reasons for believing do not extend to saying whether christianity, islam, thor-worship or spaghetti-monsterism for that matter is "correct". I could adopt the "I'm not going to follow any religion" line but that is an equally irrational choice. There is no way for me to decide which religion to follow rationally so I have made a reluctantly irrational choice.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To restate my position - I dont think there is a rational way to choose between religions

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you feel the need to choose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arent I forced to? It seems to me that the "I dont know which is right so I'll wait and see" approach is also a choice.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a rational theist though, I have to do something

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you have to do? I fail to see how theism necessitates any kind of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you believe in a personal, loving god you have to adopt some kind of relationship with him (one possibility is to ignore him, another to try lots of different faiths until you are sure, etc etc).

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, since you're a theist for personal reasons a personal faith or a universal faith seem to make the most sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you mean here.

[ QUOTE ]
By what process did you actually choose Christianity? How many faiths did you study beforehand? How many alternatives did you try out? What made you feel the question was resolved and you were ready to make a firm decision?

[/ QUOTE ]
I read reasonably widely, western and eastern but didnt study the subject in depth (although spirituality is important to me - there are other things in life as well). Christianity seemed the rightest to me although I wouldnt say it was resolved or that I have made a firm decision - I am still critcising my position in the hopes of improving it and getting closer to the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
These are questions that, for me, have no satisfactory answers. Which is possibly the main reason I'll remain an agnostic. If there's no way to tell which religion is the "right" one, or even if there's a "right" one, then I'd think the logical solution is to avoid dogmatic beliefs entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess, deep down, I would like the world to be like this too. The fact remains that it isnt (at least it doesnt seem like that to me).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, I have beliefs and some of them are knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? I don't want to go too far into epistemology, but I see no reason to believe in "justified true belief." It seems like an extremely naive conception of knowledge to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most of my philosophy is naive. I like true, justified belief (with some complicated adjustment to what "justified" means to avoid gettier problems) but perhaps there is something better - I just havent heard anything yet.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If God is God, there's no reason to believe he didn't command me to eat cereal for breakfast this morning. I really don't understand how I'm supposed to answer your questions. Even is God is incapable of talking to humans or intervening in our world (my personal belief), then we can still blame it all on him for giving us free will. To use your example, even if God didn't directly order Hitler to do what he did and/or decide not to stop him, God is still partially to blame for giving Hitler free-will. He had to know the potential consequences of giving us free-will, right? (I'm unsure about this). So, God, knowing those consequences, still gave us free-will? For what? Better be something pretty damn important, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's more tenuous. When God directly destroys people or causes plagues or gives specific orders he's more clearly responsible. I think an omniscient God would be responsible regardless, but that issue is muddy.

[ QUOTE ]
In the Old Testament, God is a warrior God (and I'm surprised you don't point out such a blatant contradiction between the new and old testaments in your criticism of the Bible). The understanding of god(s) at the time was that in battles the fighters on each side were simply pawns, and that the real war was going on between the gods. I just so happen to believe that our "understanding" of God has advanced since that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what of the reality? How is the cruelty and caprice of the OT God remotely compatible with the NT? If we're talking about human understanding, can they even be called the same God?

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't believe certain aspects of the Bible apply at all to our time, including those written with the image of a fierce warrior God in mind as well as passages that say it's a sin to wear clothing made of more than one material. So throw out the Bible? It's impossible to decipher to good from the bad, and who am I to decide which is which? That's fine if you want to believe that, but I trust my God-given reason (that I supposedly ignore) and my faith to be able to distinguish the useful (like Abraham, the temptation of Jesus, Paul thinking about Sin) from the ineffectual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you can distinguish the useful from thje ineffectual in any literature, and particularly in religious literature. The Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Vita, even the Satanic Bible. What makes the Christian Bible different?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
So throw out the Bible? It's impossible to decipher to good from the bad, and who am I to decide which is which? That's fine if you want to believe that, but I trust my God-given reason (that I supposedly ignore) and my faith to be able to distinguish the useful (like Abraham, the temptation of Jesus, Paul thinking about Sin) from the ineffectual.


[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand, then, why people ascribe divinity to the bible (and maybe you're not one of them, but certainly most Christians do).

Let's see: You pick and choose the parts you feel have merit, and ignore those that don't. You admit some of the parts have no relevance in today's times. You agree that the OT stories such as Abraham are just tales invented to teach a lesson.

And in spite of all this, most Christians still think god "wrote" the bible? Why? Why do they so firmly believe this? What is the rational reason? Maybe god wrote the Quran instead. If Christians themselves can't explain why, then how can they base their entire lives upon the book? This idea of abandoning all critical thought, and then praising it as faith, is medieval and backwards IMO.

As a lifelong Catholic, I am convinced that most Christians believe the bible was divinely inspired for the same reason I did: it was drilled into their heads since they were children. Brainwashing is a strong word but I truly believe it fits. If a stranger from another planet landed on earth, and listened to Christians try to explain why they knew the bible was the work of god - the alien would probably fall over laughing at our silly superstitions.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet you feel the need to choose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arent I forced to? It seems to me that the "I dont know which is right so I'll wait and see" approach is also a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely a choice. But it's a different choice. It's not a choice of dogma.

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe in a personal, loving god you have to adopt some kind of relationship with him

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to understand how this is a complicated issue. It seems to me that if you believe in a personal, loving God then it would only make sense to have a personal, loving relationship with him. The idea of a personal and loving God seems inherently incompatible with "sacred texts," dogmatic strictures, social traditions, and historical movements. Such things could only serve to obfuscate. I fail to understand why any method would be more effective than personal prayer or meditation.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe in a personal, loving god you have to adopt some kind of relationship with him (one possibility is to ignore him, another to try lots of different faiths until you are sure, etc etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think those are the only 2 options.

You sound as if you are in a religion supermarket, and since you have to buy SOMETHING, you just pick the one off the shelf that looks best. But - you don't have to buy something.

It sounds as though your beliefs are pretty personal anyway, and there's nothing wrong with that. You can have a relationship with god without hitching yourself to some dogma. And judging from your posts, it sounds like you disagree with a large portion of Christian dogma anyway. I don't think you can really be called a Christian if you choose to ignore/reinterpret many of the church rules/teachings, to fit better with your own worldview. (Again, there's nothing wrong with that, in fact I think it's better than mindlessly following the rules like most.)

[bunny]

It is possible I am not a christian - I have been wondering that for some time now. Perhaps it is best I call myself a "theist who also believes in jesus".

However, I dont know that I actually reject christian dogma - as many of us have been saying, there are so many interpretations - mine is just another in the religion supermarket.

Suffice it to say, it feels to me that I have to pick something, even if it is just a starting point I can then diverge from. Before I did that, my spirituality was a little odd and very unfulfilling. By adopting some dogma I felt like I could move forward (even if I immediately rejected some fundamental tenets of most christian churches - eg hell).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet you feel the need to choose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arent I forced to? It seems to me that the "I dont know which is right so I'll wait and see" approach is also a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely a choice. But it's a different choice. It's not a choice of dogma.

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe in a personal, loving god you have to adopt some kind of relationship with him

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to understand how this is a complicated issue. It seems to me that if you believe in a personal, loving God then it would only make sense to have a personal, loving relationship with him. The idea of a personal and loving God seems inherently incompatible with "sacred texts," dogmatic strictures, social traditions, and historical movements. Such things could only serve to obfuscate. I fail to understand why any method would be more effective than personal prayer or meditation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you are right. Perhaps when I reached the end of rationality and made my irrational choice, it would have been just as good to stay as a kind of agnostic theist - convinced there's something out there but with very little clue as to what.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My 10yr old cousin was diagnosed with leukemia a week ago. She comes from a very Christian household, (church every week, etc) She has an 11yr old brother. I am not religious at all, and I can't figure out how it would be possible to tell a child who has been raised knowing that god has plans for everyone, that he chose for such a young innocent little kid to get such an awful diease.

I'm not familiar with christian beliefs and I might be really far off base, but how do you approach cancer from a religious standpoint to a child?

Thanks in advance

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist, but I think I can give you the Christian answer:

Assure the child that her possible slow, premature death is part of God's loving plan. Explain that without the presence of pain and suffering, we could not value the good. So some people must be sacrificed by our Lord for this grand purpose. Also remind her that all men are sinful, and had Adam not eaten the forbidden fruit against God's omnipotent will, she would not be this predicament.

I'm sure it will all make perfect sense to her.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not tell the child that she is a random permutation in a world that is itself a contingency and her pain and life have no meaning? Is that not an atheistic position?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see: You pick and choose the parts you feel have merit, and ignore those that don't. You admit some of the parts have no relevance in today's times. You agree that the OT stories such as Abraham are just tales invented to teach a lesson.

And in spite of all this, most Christians still think god "wrote" the bible? Why? Why do they so firmly believe this? What is the rational reason? Maybe god wrote the Quran instead. If Christians themselves can't explain why, then how can they base their entire lives upon the book? This idea of abandoning all critical thought, and then praising it as faith, is medieval and backwards IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

I must not have made this clear. IMO, Abraham is not simply a story designed to "teach a lesson". It seems to me like that phrase implies that the authors of the Old Testament just wanted Abraham to obey the most ridiculous demand that God could ever make as an example of the obedience expected of early believers. I think the story is much more complex.

Well obviously no Christian could prove that God had a hand in the writing of the Bible, but it's not something that can be proven. Again, it's an issue of faith. I think "abandoning all critical thought" is bit strong. You see, I recognize the impossibility of it all, but I still believe. There are many Christians who treat God as if he was as clear day, but that's not faith.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You see, I recognize the impossibility of it all, but I still believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? I cant imagine believing in something I thought was impossible.

[Schmitty 87]

Ya I was trying to think of a better word but couldn't come up with one so I decided to just go with it. Not impossibility, more like I recognize how crazy a lot of it sounds (but there's no eloquent word for that that I'm aware of).

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Ya I was trying to think of a better word but couldn't come up with one so I decided to just go with it. Not impossibility,

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're talking about a virgin giving birth to a man-god, who walks out of his sealed tomb 3 days after being murdered, hangs out with his friends for a bit, and then floats up to heaven... if that's not impossible, I don't know what is.

Seriously, I don't think you can possibly be a Christian, unless you are able to believe that there is a god, and he can do the impossible.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not tell the child that she is a random permutation in a world that is itself a contingency and her pain and life have no meaning? Is that not an atheistic position?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize that if you don't believe in life after death, your life therefore has no meaning. Bummer.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
...most Christians still think god "wrote" the bible? Why? Why do they so firmly believe this? What is the rational reason? Maybe god wrote the Quran instead. If Christians themselves can't explain why, then how can they base their entire lives upon the book? This idea of abandoning all critical thought, and then praising it as faith, is medieval and backwards IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you brought it up, let's compare the Bible and the Qur'an for a second. The Bible was written by men (inspired by God), and each book was written separately many years (sometimes centuries) apart. Yet, put together it fits perfectly. (Yes, I know many opponents of Christianity have questions. Most are answered rather easily with a deeper look into the context and original language of the scriptures.)

Now about the Qur'an. It was written by one guy (Muhammad) many centuries (six) after the death of Christ based upon visions he claims to have received from Allah.

Which one is more likely to have been inspired by God?

Even still the Qur'an still contains descriptions of Jesus that I find amazing:

He was born of a virgin (Sura 19:20). He is the only prophet that the Qur'an claims to have had a virgin birth.

He performed miracles (Sura 3:49, Sura 5:11)

He brought the "message of the Gospel", and he committed no sin. (Sura 3:46)

The Qur'an calls Jesus: the statement of truth (Sura 17:24), the Word (Sura 10:19), the Apostle (Sura 19:31), and the servant or slave of God (Sura 4:172 and 19:31).

The Qur'an also refers eleven times to Christ as the Messiah. (for example Sura 3:45, 4:71, 5:19, 9:30).

Interesting?

Of course, the answer to your question about why Christians so firmly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God has more to do with that fact that once we become a believer in Christ and invite him into our heart, we are changed! "The old is gone, the new has come!" The Holy Spirit actually comes down and dwells inside us, and we are sanctified! We know the Bible is the word of God because we know God personally!

Have a great day!

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

Why not tell the child that she is a random permutation in a world that is itself a contingency and her pain and life have no meaning? Is that not an atheistic position?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since atheism is just lack of a belief in god, there is no particular "atheistic position," just as there is no consistent position among those who don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster.

Nevertheless, I'm an atheist, and what you wrote does not characterize my position. Hint: The second part of the compound sentence ("her life [has] no meaning") does not follow from the first part ("she is a random permutation").

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible was written by men (inspired by God), and each book was written separately many years (sometimes centuries) apart. Yet, put together it fits perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't at all. That is the most interesting characteristic. Each book is stamped by the style of its author with no homogeneity whatsoever.

[ QUOTE ]
Which one is more likely to have been inspired by God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh? The koran, if god existed and had a hand in it!

[ QUOTE ]
The Qur'an also refers eleven times to Christ as the Messiah. (for example Sura 3:45, 4:71, 5:19, 9:30).

Interesting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is interesting... It means that god, if he existed at all, was trying to correct misinterpretations. I mean that, according to you, there is historical evidence of god dictating! Why would he not want to correct?

By the way, to me, the koran or the bible have no different claims to authenticity... Mish-mash all and evil both, at that!

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible was written by men (inspired by God), and each book was written separately many years (sometimes centuries) apart. Yet, put together it fits perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't at all. That is the most interesting characteristic. Each book is stamped by the style of its author with no homogeneity whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]
The content is what fits together. Of course the styles don't fit. The Bible was inspired by God, not dictated.

[ QUOTE ]
Which one is more likely to have been inspired by God?

Uh? The koran, if god existed and had a hand in it!

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone was going to start a false religion and pass it off as the truth, which book would he more likely create? Wouldn't a book that appears to have no homogeneity be a little too obvious?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why not tell the child that she is a random permutation in a world that is itself a contingency and her pain and life have no meaning? Is that not an atheistic position?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since atheism is just lack of a belief in god, there is no particular "atheistic position," just as there is no consistent position among those who don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster.

Nevertheless, I'm an atheist, and what you wrote does not characterize my position. Hint: The second part of the compound sentence ("her life [has] no meaning") does not follow from the first part ("she is a random permutation").

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to have produced a non-sequitor.

Yes, it does not follow that her life has no meaning.

So, tell me, what meaning does it have if she was not put her on earth by a divine maker? We are all born to die but she is born to die rather more quickly than most of us.