My changing views of religion

Wolverine: some of us just stick to basics. Jesus taught us we are all brothers and sisters. Could you bear to see your own brothers and sisters treated as some are now? Let's stop that, for a start. Philosophers interpret the world. The point, however, is to change it.

 

I haven't an issue with the teachings of Jesus, it is just the nitty gritty bits of any belief system that bog me down.

 

Riddle me this atheists - how is that the Problem of Evil undermines Christianity, Jesus specifically, BUT Jesus's teachings are hunky dorey?

How do these teaching, which are central to Christianity mind you, get swept aside to variously call people rapists, sexists, delusional ... etc. Where exactly do the teachings of Jesus fit into that interpretation?

How does teh Problem of Evil - which can more accurately be called the problem of men - undermine compassion? Love? Charity?

How is it that rejecting this teaching in favor of man's .... undescribable morality better? Its not God that commits murder, its men. Its God who forgives it when its geuinely repentent. Its God that succors the victim's family during the pain. And whether you reject God or not, these things happen.

I fail to see how pointing to these things and rejecting compassion, Love, selflessness ... is helpful? How is pointing to these things and saying, "This is why I am not like you and thus BETTER!" helpful?

Jesus certainly nailed one thing, we are all human, subjected to our passions and problems, and no one isimmune to the problems of humanity.

 

Riddle you what Neutral? The fact that evil exists isn't evidence that there is no god. The complete lack of evidence that there is a god is the reason for most atheists disbelief. If you believe in things on the basis of the evidence, there is no basis for belief in a god. That being said, if there is a god, and he is all powerful and all knowing in the traditional sense, the "Problem of Evil" indicates that he's not a very good one, at least from a utilitarian perspective. The deontological belief that it is good because god says so, or for unknowable reasons is untestable, and therefore not worth discussion (beyond the point where everyone is familiar with the concept, which we all are).

 

That materialist paradigm will always stop you. If the only evidence accepted is that which is tangible or materially provable, then...give up on God (He doesn't quit knocking on your door, however ~see poem by Francis Thompson (1859-1907) called "The Hound of Heaven" ).

Hence the "opportunity" to exercise our will toward faith.

Again you are basing your opinion of "best" and "most effective" way to be God on your own little point of view in time. You don't even know the full message, nor the goal and you think you know how best to convey the mysterious message toward the unknown goal! Maybe it IS the best way--you just lack some key information.

Faith is a decision, an experience, a gift, a burden, a paradox...etc...

The best way to access the thing called faith is to step out with a sincere heart and ask God--whether you believe He is real or not--to grant you faith. And then...in time it WILL blossom.

In Catholic Tradition there is a credo that states Lex orandi, lex credendi which basically means "as we pray we believe." Talk to God about your thoughts on this. It can't hurt.





Mark 9

[14]
And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd about them, and scribes arguing with them.
[15] And immediately all the crowd, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and ran up to him and greeted him.
[16] And he asked them, "What are you discussing with them?"
[17] And one of the crowd answered him, "Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a dumb spirit;
[18] and wherever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able."
[19] And he answered them, "O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me."
[20] And they brought the boy to him; and when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth.
[21] And Jesus asked his father, "How long has he had this?" And he said, "From childhood.
[22] And it has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us."
[23] And Jesus said to him, "If you can! All things are possible to him who believes."
[24] Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe; help my unbelief!"
[25] And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "You dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again."
[26] And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse; so that most of them said, "He is dead."
[27] But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.
[28] And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, "Why could we not cast it out?"
[29] And he said to them, "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer."


.

 

Meh. I simply do not know.

Faith is a means of distancing myself from logic and reason, which I am not too enthusiastic about.

 

That's a ridiculous statement.

 

If something does not make sense, and I am told to have faith, then I am abandoning logic and reason to accept X.

If the idea of 3,000 people dieing to strengthen fellowship and faith does not make sense, and I am asked to accept it in the sense of having faith in god, that is a request to abandon my own logic and reason to accept X.

 

Logic can only take you so far. After all, can your logic explain how matter and energy came into existence?

 

You presume that logic and reason are incompatible with faith. That is what is ridiculous about your statement.

Assuming God exists, then your reason--your ability to reason--is something God gave you. Why in heavens would this God make one reject reason--something that God made--to find accord with him? That's illogical! Reason is not contrary to faith. In fact, one SHOULD use the gift of reason to come to know faith better. They are different things, faith and reason, but they are not exclusive of one another.

Again--you''re making it A ==> B .

Its more like


or



or



What "A" leads to really depends upon the individual considering the event decides to do with it--either directed toward "good" or that which leads away from good. The result varies and morphs related to the interaction of all these choices of individuals through time. IMHO, it leads very gradually toward the good--the SUPREME GOOD which I believe is God. Of course there are ebbs and flows--progression and regression--but it is a constant evolution toward what is right. And, we can't see the whole picture--that's where faith comes in. --AND reason.

I look at history and see movement forward toward justice. Yes, one has to take a looooong view, but we are better off and better people than we were 2000-3000-4,5,10000 years ago. Ebbs and flows, two steps forward one step back...BETTER than we were--moving toward Good.

No--it's not. Maybe it's asking you to use your reason in a new way. What's wrong with that?


.

 

I don't understand what you're saying faith is. My understanding of faith is that it's a belief in something absent of, or in contradiction to reason. What am I missing?

 

BFSmith, that's true, reason hasn't given us all the answers, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to fill in the gaps with an arbitrary explanation. It is more reasonable to say we don't know, or in some cases it is untestable.

 

Nothing.

What;s interesting is that the 'logical' people on this forum are asking you to accept that perfectly normal and innocent people are rapists, murderers, terrorists, racists, sexists, and genocidal maniacs when they are clearly and observably not.

What is logical about that? Seems to me that anyone who eschews the concept of faith and arrives at that conclusion has embraced straight up delusion instead.

 

You may not know but it does not change the fact that it was made by some intelligent being that exist outside of our universe, since things don't create themselves out of nothing.

 

What? Who said that rapists and murderers are "perfectly normal," or innocent? What has this got to do with faith, reason, or religion?

 

It's true that things don't create themselves out of nothing, as far as we know. In what way is that evidence that the universe was created by an intelligent being?

 

If you believe it’s possible you would believe it by faith and which is something atheist has ridicule us for when we speak about God's existance.

Have you ever seen intelligent design (buildings, cars, computer, architect, pyramids and so on) without a designer? Can a computer create itself? Can a house build itself or a boat? How complex are all those things in comparison to living things? If it's impossible for non living things to create itself, then how much more impossible something that is without life to produce life?

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/

You are describing "a" while I am describing "d" and in some respects "c".

does that help?

 

It can to the limits of classical physics and quantum mechanics.

 

Pay no attention, there is a reason why that particular poster is on my ignore list.

The rabid strawmen get old. You see, I object to any doctrine that condones violence against other people, our intellectually bankrupt friend believes that objection means that I believe the followers of that particular religion are rapists, murders, and eat babies. Which isn't the case, as I have explained (very slowly) on more than one occasion.

So thats it in a nut shell.

 

Well Jason, that would be the poster above who rather routinely calls posters mentally deranged, rapists, and genocidal maniacs. When confronted he simply explodes in rage and after whining to moderators for not kicking me off the forum for disagreeing with that statement he is pretending to ignore me. Still reads my stuff, but has nothing but vitriol and evasion.

He has a new found respect for his chic freind, but of course, is still calling every other Christian on teh forum delusional and unbound by logic.

ANd of course, when YOU disagree with his behavior? Well, its best to avoid even acknowledging that it happens routinely. That just a few days ago he was agreeing with Freedom that we are are racist, sexist murderers.

But you are not allowed to disagree with those statements? Well Jason, as you can see, even when you confront him he simply denies it - but wants to be treated as some kind of reformed religious moderate?

Typical atheism. Every Christian who stood up for him and now disagrees get to taste teh circular logic, denial, and accusation.

Eventually, he'll learn he can control only himself, and when you make assine comments routinely, people aren't just going to stop disagreeing because a bully has deluded himself into thinking he's taking the higher ground by pretending that all disagreement is teh result of delusion rather than extremely poor manners and simple anger.

Pretty simple. You asked, there is your answer Jason.

Comvinced that there is no God by Quantum Mechanics, even though plenty of physicists are religious - the science in and of itself, just by claiming it, though it understood by plenty of religious people, means there is no God - no explanation required.

Now add the, "I can treat people like crap, but if you disagree with me I am a mewling victim," mentality ...

Pretty much defines arrogance doesn't it?

Do you see him extrapolating on his new found moderation? Or is he continuing the old carand of science equals stupid religious people? Where is the moderation? Where is the new insight?

 

I'm seeing your point.

 

Oh, you reject a doctrine that condones violence? YOUR doctrine?

Nice grudge.

 

I think you're just an angry person. That must be a hard burden to carry.

BTW--I thought you put me on ignore. You're not very good at that.

 

Alright, I do not believe I have a legitimate argument against this post.

Explained well.