Faith

[Hyatt07]

Faith. What is faith anymore? For years I thought it was believing in something that couldn't be seen, something larger than life. Now I realize that it isn't quite so easy. You see, it is simple for us to believe in a God if our faith has not been put to the test. Aah, but it is even easier to question our faith when life is not going the way we want it to. For the first time last year I questioned my faith in my God, something I have never done before. I would stay up at night asking God why such horrible things have to happen to people that have done nothing to deserve them. I began to lose faith.
A few months ago I had one of the greatest feelings in my life. I stopped what I was doing and looked up and smiled. I asked why am I the way I am? Why am I different than the father that bore me? Why have I made wise choices through out my life? I saw God's miracles through myself. I began to believe again, and chose to worship my God through my actions, living as a good person, doing the right things and continuing to make wise choices.
I did not write this thread to get people to believe in God. I wrote it for those that have lost faith and question their God. My advice to you is this: when it seems that there is no God out there, watching over you and guiding you, just take a step back from the current situation and reflect on who you are and what makes you different than everyone else. If you are happy with the life you have led, then it might just help you see the miracles of God through yourself like it did me.

[Orionsbelt]

How refreshing. May the God that you have found bless you abundantly. A flower is a flower and you are you. I hope you find more joy in that alone.

[Hyatt07]

Thank you Orionsbelt for your kind compliments.

[Zirkle2007]

This is amazing advice and I rejoice at your story! This is an incredible testimony God has given you. This is great advice for anyone doubting their faith. Just sit back and look back on your life, even the past few days. You will see God's presence if you are truly living a life for Him. I'm really proud of you that you realized this. I look up to you even more now than I already did. I'm thankful that I have had the chance to get to know you.

[PolarTucan]

Paul you make me smile. I know we have have this conversation before and I enjoy it every time. Although our beliefs are different I think its great that you have such dedication.
Personally I believe in a karma type faith. I believe in the moral aspects of the bible and the lessons but not necessarily the stories and “God” being the name of the higher power above. I think there definitly is a higher force than me but Im not sure if it has a specific name.
I have always wondered something though. I know acting on improper acts will result in some type of punishment but I have always wondered if thinking negative things but not acting on them results in consequences?
Any thoughts?
-Amelia

[Lote-Tree]

I know acting on improper acts will result in some type of punishment but I have always wondered if thinking negative things but not acting on them results in consequences?
-Amelia

Perhaps it does. Persistent thoughts of hating can poison one's soul?

[wrestle-135]

Your absolutely right!!! People don't understand that you will have to go through trials and tough times to make your relationship stronger with God. I'm glad to see more and more people realizing this. I'm even happier to see that people aren't afraid to discuss it and testify of what God's done in there lifes.

[wrestle-135]

Amilea this is when you really have to pray and start having faith. God has done so much for me in my life that it's hard not to talk about it. I know alot of people question wether or not there is a God or not, but when you look outside and start thinking about how everything works sooo well together. There's no way that any of this could have ever happened without God creating it this way. I'll be sure to keep you in my prayers to help you with this. If you have anymore questions or need someone to talk to you know who I am and where I sit at lunch!!!

[Zirkle2007]

Paul you make me smile. I know we have have this conversation before and I enjoy it every time. Although our beliefs are different I think its great that you have such dedication.
Personally I believe in a karma type faith. I believe in the moral aspects of the bible and the lessons but not necessarily the stories and “God” being the name of the higher power above. I think there definitly is a higher force than me but Im not sure if it has a specific name.
I have always wondered something though. I know acting on improper acts will result in some type of punishment but I have always wondered if thinking negative things but not acting on them results in consequences?
Any thoughts?
-Amelia

To answer your question as to if there are consequences from negative thoughts, I believe there are in some cases. God tells us in the Bible that if you hate someone, you have committed murder in your heart. While you may not have acted on anything, the feeling of hate towards someone is murder in God's eyes. I'll also touch on lusting. Many religious scholars and clergy believe that its not the first look that gets you into trouble, but its when you look that second time because you liked what you saw the first time.

Another thought that can run you into trouble is more for when you are married, but applies to everyone. God says that if you imagine yourself in a physical relationship with another person than whom you are wed to, that you have committed adultery in your heart. So there are consequences to impure and bad thoughts.

As for the rest of your post, pray about it. If you search out God, and really want to find the answers, He will answer you.

[Layka]

Amelia I can understand your thoughts. Mybe that's why we are best friends. I have a few thoughts and questions of my own that I don't bother to answer out of my own vain. Why can the person who created all be so cruel? I believe Paul is very ture in his dedication, but I have an undying anger against the "God Almighty" and I believe I have a reason.

[PolarTucan]

Perhaps it does. Persistent thoughts of hating can poison one's soul?

I wouldn't classify the thought I had as persistent. It was more of a one time deal. Does that change the situation in anyway? Normally my thoughts are fairly good and rather positive, but in this one instence.......
I guess Im just worried about it because it was a one time thing.... and it bothered me that I could let myself think something so bad because Im constantly so positive in my head.
Meh, <Amelia

[Lote-Tree]

I wouldn't classify the thought I had as persistent. It was more of a one time deal. Does that change the situation in anyway? Normally my thoughts are fairly good and rather positive, but in this one instence.......
I guess Im just worried about it because it was a one time thing.... and it bothered me that I could let myself think something so bad because Im constantly so positive in my head.
Meh, <Amelia

I meant in a metaphysical sense of soul being poisoned when persistent negative emotions takes over your being. But it can also have psychological consequences too in terms of your health if those those persistently negative thoughts takes over you.

But I think you should not worry about it. Horror writers frequently indulge in such negative thoughts - it is how they explore those negative aspects of humanity. Writers and Poets wallow in negative thoughts :-)

In our minds we should able be free to explore all aspects of our being - both negative and positive. But we should endevour to cultivate those positive thoughts that is conducive to our health.

So I say don't worry about it. Explore all those negativities so that you may learn from those explorations. And as long as it is not persistent - then those negative thoughts should not have any physical consequences to your health or to others that you have around you.

But a good advice would be to overcome the negative thoughts with good thoughts :-)

I hope I have not been preachy - just my own thoughts on the matter :-)

Regards,
Lote

[Rolandokun]

I belive that when things go wrong it is god testing us and our faith. Personaly I would say that god only wants us all to see us do whell in life, and those hardships we go trough make us better and stronger as people. with out the hard ships we all go trough there would be nothing to the faith, it would be hard to belive in a god i think. With out the bad our chareshed memorys of the good days would be nothing, its what binds freindships and holds people together trough even the worst of times. God is just making us all stronger better people

[Madkins]

Roland, I didn't know you had it in you man, that was awesome...and you too Paul :D Hehe, I guess it's God's way of weeding out the unbelievers? I kid of course but...I guess I don't see how you can hold a grudge against God for something...bad as it may be, it happens to everyone. There is always good to be found from the most negative of events. An example, my uncle died, he was one of the greatest guys I have ever known, I think the good that can be pulled from the bad is that we all came together as a family, making that bond that much stronger. I don't necessarily think God MAKES anything happen, I believe he is there as a guiding force...he leaves us to our own decisions and when something goes wrong he's the easiest to blame. When our ruin was brought on by ourselves. This is just a bunch of my thinking, jumbled as it may be...I thought I would contribute a little bit. =D And if I have offended anyone in anyway, I apologize, it's not how it was meant. Just my rambling.

[Hyatt07]

Paul you make me smile. I know we have have this conversation before and I enjoy it every time. Although our beliefs are different I think its great that you have such dedication.
Personally I believe in a karma type faith. I believe in the moral aspects of the bible and the lessons but not necessarily the stories and “God” being the name of the higher power above. I think there definitly is a higher force than me but Im not sure if it has a specific name.
I have always wondered something though. I know acting on improper acts will result in some type of punishment but I have always wondered if thinking negative things but not acting on them results in consequences?
Any thoughts?
-Amelia

Amelia I will tell you as I am told nearly every night I go to karate. Intent is everything. I do not think it is wrong to have thoughts, wether negative or positive. God gave us brains to use them. It is when we use our negative intentions against others that it becomes a problem.
Now, if when you have these negative thoughts and it has a profound effect on you, then it is also a problem. And like it has been said by others on this thread, the only way to balance that is to have good, warm thoughts.

[Hyatt07]

I wouldn't classify the thought I had as persistent. It was more of a one time deal. Does that change the situation in anyway? Normally my thoughts are fairly good and rather positive, but in this one instence.......
I guess Im just worried about it because it was a one time thing.... and it bothered me that I could let myself think something so bad because Im constantly so positive in my head.
Meh, <Amelia

I wouldn't let these thoughts bother you Amelia. You are truely a good person and it is good to realize these things, and question them. It is never bad to question something. I believe that it only betters our understanding of those things if we do question them.
It speaks levels about your character to realize that you do have faults. No matter how little or big they may be. I hope I have helped.

-Turambar

[Nirome]

When I read all of the interesting ideas everyone posted on the idea of faith, of negativity, of sin (those committed and those merely contemplated), It put me in mind of something Mark Twain once said, "Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in." :)

Human nature is rotten to the very core. I fight a day long battle against all the wicked thoughts and inclinations that pass through my mind each day. Often I wake up in the middle of night because I fight my inner demons while I sleep:as-sleep: .

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not bragging about how depraved an individual I am. The point is that despite having this vile nature, which we owe to Adam, if I'm not mistaken, I continue to resist the darkness within and look forward to the day when the struggle will finally come to an end. When we die, we shed this corrupted flesh and become immortal beings without spot or blemish. This is God's reward for all the hell we have endured in this life. "His mercy endureth forever.":angel:

To be honest, I get exhausted resisting sin every single day; I also hate having to deal with my guilt and shame when I yield to temptation. Therefore, when I die, I plan on staying dead for a very long time. Here's what I would like written on my tombstone.

Nirome 1969-20??
Do Not Disturb

I can't resist sharing one more Twain quote about dogs, humans, and heaven. "The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's."

[Zirkle2007]

When I read all of the interesting ideas everyone posted on the idea of faith, of negativity, of sin (those committed and those merely contemplated), It put me in mind of something Mark Twain once said, "Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in." :)

Human nature is rotten to the very core. I fight a day long battle against all the wicked thoughts and inclinations that pass through my mind each day. Often I wake up in the middle of night because I fight my inner demons while I sleep:as-sleep: .

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not bragging about how depraved an individual I am. The point is that despite having this vile nature, which we owe to Adam, if I'm not mistaken, I continue to resist the darkness within and look forward to the day when the struggle will finally come to an end. When we die, we shed this corrupted flesh and become immortal beings without spot or blemish. This is God's reward for all the hell we have endured in this life. "His mercy endureth forever.":angel:

To be honest, I get exhausted resisting sin every single day; I also hate having to deal with my guilt and shame when I yield to temptation. Therefore, when I die, I plan on staying dead for a very long time. Here's what I would like written on my tombstone.

Nirome 1969-20??
Do Not Disturb

I can't resist sharing one more Twain quote about dogs, humans, and heaven. "The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's."

I think a very important fact when dealing with your demons is that you are not alone. This is actually a common occurence! I find this topic extremely interesting. I love to discuse spiritual warfare and the such. Do you find yourself actually being attacked? Or is it just a more mental thing? There is a man in my church who is actually physically attacked by demons to the point he is paralized during an attack...

My own family has had experiences with demons...very present. To the point where you could see them. Disguised as angels. There is some really scary stuff out there, don't take that stuff lightly, its real!

[Lote-Tree]

Human nature is rotten to the very core.


My experience has been different. Our Genes may operate on "Selfishness" principle - but we as human beings have evolved to be altruistic - an altruism that is different from the apparent Altruism in the animal kingdom.



I fight a day long battle against all the wicked thoughts and inclinations that pass through my mind each day.


I suggest you allow those thoughts to pass through your mind and not supress it. Any form of repression tends to come out later in deviant forms, in form of mental illness like depression etc.



Often I wake up in the middle of night because I fight my inner demons while I sleep:as-sleep: .


That is terrible. But there are ways to overcome this.



The point is that despite having this vile nature, which we owe to Adam,


I don't think Adam had a vile nature. He was God's perfect creation. The only thing he did was to disobey His God. I have disobeyed my parents on a lot of matters - as many kids do - but they never saw me as vile.



When we die, we shed this corrupted flesh and become immortal beings without spot or blemish.


I would like to think that Flesh is not corrupt. It is just a housing for your spirit or your mind or whatever you think that defines the "immortal" in you.



To be honest, I get exhausted resisting sin every single day; I also hate having to deal with my guilt and shame when I yield to temptation.


That is terrible thing to endure. But there are ways to overcome these things- this guilt and shame. It requires a degree of dedication to knowledge, understanding and insights. There are techniques that bring under control those restless emotions, those chaotic thoughts that crowd the mind.

Regards,
Lote

[Layka]

I don't believe god weeds out the unbelievers, but what do I know?

[Wallflower01]

I belive that when things go wrong it is god testing us and our faith. Personaly I would say that god only wants us all to see us do whell in life, and those hardships we go trough make us better and stronger as people. with out the hard ships we all go trough there would be nothing to the faith, it would be hard to belive in a god i think. With out the bad our chareshed memorys of the good days would be nothing, its what binds freindships and holds people together trough even the worst of times. God is just making us all stronger better people

I personal do not believe that God test our faith. I do believe however, that we never face anything that we cannot handle, and sometimes in order to be able to face something we need to relay on God, but he doesn't test our faith. At the risk of sounding unsensative, sometimes bad things happen to good people, and just because someone is a christian it is not insurance that nothing bad is ever going to them again, it is just a guarantee that whatever you face you will not face alone.
I do however agree with you on the point that God wants us to succeed and do well in life, he also gives us freewill to be able to make our own decissions.
I also love the satement about "without the bad our chreshed memories of the good days would be nothing." I find this to be very true, and meaninful.


I don't believe god weeds out the unbelievers, but what do I know?
I completely agree, I believe God wants everyone to come to him, and every person has the chance to become a believer.

[htownsend]

well, i was very intrigued by all of this, so i think ill throw my 2 cents in.
at youth one day, we talked about the trials and tribulations that every person must face-- and why we have to. its in my opinion that God lets us walk through the valley to show that we do not control our lives. we need him in our life. if our lives were peachy keen 24/7, we would think we are sufficient without him- which is completely false. we need to rely on God and the love he has to offer. he does not want us to fail, but if we go out by ourselves, we surely will.
for whatever reason we go through the hard times in life, the most important thing to remember is that he is still there, and he loves us unconditionally.
=)

[PolarTucan]

I was talking to Paul earlier and I agree with his ideas. We both think that in the quest to find your "faith" (in what ever it is you believe wether you refer to it by that name) you must make the journey on your own. I don't believe in letting others influence my beliefs. My parents never said that I had to believe in what they did, and instead they let both of their children find there own way and I am very thankfull for that. My brother was so incredibly smart and when he had read all the books in our public library he turned to the religion section. He believes in wiccian and has exposed me to many different ideas about life. I think it is good to be able to openly listen to other peoples points of view. I am always open to new ideas and it has been very helpful thoughout life.
<Melia

[Nirome]

[QUOTE=Lote-Tree;359734]My experience has been different. Our Genes may operate on "Selfishness" principle - but we as human beings have evolved to be altruistic - an altruism that is different from the apparent Altruism in the animal kingdom.


Just curious, Lote-Tree, in what world do you come from? :confused: I would certainly prefer to live in your Utopia. You appear to have combined altruism and evolution, which is rather like combining fire and water. Evolution, as I understand it, involves natural selection, predator vs. prey, and so on.

In the animal world, try throwing choice cut meat in front of a pride of lions and watch what happens. The strongest lion will not altruistically pass the flesh to the most needy in the group. He will not take up donations of scraps to pass along to those less fortunate lions who are too small, too old, or too diseased to win the prize. Quite the contrary, he will eat to his heart's content and then take a nap. The others can starve.

Now, for the human world. In our time we witness countries fight over limited resources. The richest and strongest nations take these by either economic, diplomatic, or military means (often in this order). Why do countries around the globe maintain military forces and strategic assests, if not to either defend their interests or take those of others? Nations will continue to make war against each other a hundred years from now.

I have not noticed the altruistic evolution, you speak of, on a national level either. Open any newspaper and you will discover that human beings murder one another every day of the year. Criminals prey on the weak and powerless. Police are sent out to find these beasts and put them in a cage. One would think this growing altruism of which you speak would eventually overwhelm evil, driving it forever into the shadows. Why is it that despite our best efforts to promote public virtue and exclude evil, locking criminals away or executing them, we are unable to eliminate wickedness?

The answer, of course, is that new stream of deviants replace the old ones. Has it ever occurred to you that the sweet, innocent, young baby you see today lying in his crib may later, in the short span of 15-20 years, blow your brains out with a handgun? :sick:

For what? Perhaps you didn't hand over your wallet when he told you to (after all, you didn't want this punk taking your hard-earned cash). Perhaps he thought it would simply be amusing (humans are unique in the animal world in that they often kill simply for sport) to watch shards of bone and brain matter explode from your unlucky head. Perhaps he discovered the world was not an altruistic place after all and decided to take out his hatred on you.:flare:

Later

[PolarTucan]

I would have to agree with the latter, although I like to have a perky optimistic outlook on life, I do know the truth... as humans we are rather horrid. Plain and simple, no matter how much I wish it to not be true.
>Mel

[Zirkle2007]

I personally don't believe in this 'horrid' human idea some of you seem to share. God made us in His image. If we believe all these negative things about the human race, then aren't you saying the same about God? I for one believe humans to be a beautiful creation, that a select few have ruined the reputation of. I may have my flaws, but I'm not anywhere close to being such an evil thing!

[PolarTucan]

I personally don't believe in this 'horrid' human idea some of you seem to share. God made us in His image. If we believe all these negative things about the human race, then aren't you saying the same about God? I for one believe humans to be a beautiful creation, that a select few have ruined the reputation of. I may have my flaws, but I'm not anywhere close to being such an evil thing!

Your statement does rest upon the fact that you do believe in said "God", whereas perhaps others may not. Very good point, but invalid in my case....

Also, in my opinion it is more than a "select" few. It seems to me that the world is rampant with unruly and wayward individuals. On the other hand though in the news one only hears of the disastrous things so perhaps our perceptions are skewed by the media. Either way, one horrid human is one too many. But what can you do? I think that’s life. You have to take the good as well as the bad.

[Lote-Tree]

Hello Nirome,



In the animal world, try throwing choice cut meat in front of a pride of lions and watch what happens. The strongest lion will not altruistically pass the flesh to the most needy in the group. He will not take up donations of scraps to pass along to those less fortunate lions who are too small, too old, or too diseased to win the prize. Quite the contrary, he will eat to his heart's content and then take a nap. The others can starve.


Yes but we are not lions. Humans are exceptional species - a category on its own.

We have created Medicine, hospitals, Welfare State, Democracy etc etc so that the weak may survive, cure the ill, make infertile fertile - and the list goes on... These acts are nothing to do with "Natural Selection". Those acts are actually anti-natural selection! Our kind of atltruism is still evolving and will continue to evolve in the future.

[Zirkle2007]

Hello Nirome,



Yes but we are not lions. Humans are exceptional species - a category on its own.

We have created Medicine, hospitals, Welfare State, Democracy etc etc so that the weak may survive, cure the ill, make infertile fertile - and the list goes on... These acts are nothing to do with "Natural Selection". Those acts are actually anti-natural selection! Our kind of atltruism is still evolving and will continue to evolve in the future.

Maybe its not necessarily survival of the fittest, but with all these great technologies, its become survival of the wealthiest. Without the money, you can't have these amazing things done. Its sad but true. Even with insurance and the such, many people can just not afford the medical services we are capable of today.

[Lote-Tree]

Maybe its not necessarily survival of the fittest, but with all these great technologies, its become survival of the wealthiest. Without the money, you can't have these amazing things done. Its sad but true. Even with insurance and the such, many people can just not afford the medical services we are capable of today.


European countries provides free healthcare to all individuals.

[Madkins]

I don't believe god weeds out the unbelievers, but what do I know? I guess the "I kid of course" went unnoticed.

[Zirkle2007]

Well I don't live in a European country. I'll rephrase my statement. Many Americans are unable to afford these types of healthcare.

[Lote-Tree]

Well I don't live in a European country. I'll rephrase my statement. Many Americans are unable to afford these types of healthcare.

Sad to hear.

I suggest moving to Europe would be a wise choice :-)

Do they give out free condoms there?
If so that will be anti-natural selection :-)

[Zirkle2007]

Sad to hear.

I suggest moving to Europe would be a wise choice :-)

Do they give out free condoms there?
If so that will be anti-natural selection :-)

I am perfectly content in America. Europe has its own set of problems just as America has its own. And I would much rather have America's. Besides, since you are so pro-Europe, where are you from? Oh...didn't the U.S. basically save Europe and help rebuild it? Or is that just my imagination.

I'm not sure if they give out free condoms. I'm sure there is some place that does.

[Zirkle2007]

I personal do not believe that God test our faith. I do believe however, that we never face anything that we cannot handle, and sometimes in order to be able to face something we need to relay on God, but he doesn't test our faith. At the risk of sounding unsensative, sometimes bad things happen to good people, and just because someone is a christian it is not insurance that nothing bad is ever going to them again, it is just a guarantee that whatever you face you will not face alone.
I do however agree with you on the point that God wants us to succeed and do well in life, he also gives us freewill to be able to make our own decissions.
I also love the satement about "without the bad our chreshed memories of the good days would be nothing." I find this to be very true, and meaninful.


I completely agree, I believe God wants everyone to come to him, and every person has the chance to become a believer.

While God may not personally test our faith, he does allow our faith to be tested. Look at the world today. With all the temptation out there, a test of our faith is basically a channel away on our own television.

Look at the book of Job. God allows Satan to test Job's faith, and does nothing to even help Job in the slightest way.

So again I say, God allows our faith to be tested. Through this we prove our faith to him. If we didn't have to endure tests, being saved would be a piece of cake.

[Lote-Tree]

I am perfectly content in America.


Then I am happy for you :-)



Europe has its own set of problems just as America has its own. And I would much rather have America's.


Problems? Nay - we have challenges - where is your American Euphemisms?:-)



Besides, since you are so pro-Europe, where are you from?


UK :-)



Oh...didn't the U.S. basically save Europe and help rebuild it? Or is that just my imagination.


Yes. But idea of free health care and welfare system is entirely ours :-)



I'm not sure if they give out free condoms. I'm sure there is some place that does.

So there are some anti-natural selection going on there too :-)

[Madkins]

I didn't know this was just a personal attack on America or what have you...Correct me if I'm wrong...but it is titled Faith...for a reason. it totally defeats the purpose to just quote everything someone else says and dog them for saying it. natural selection or not...what does free condoms have to do with faith...honestly? And yay for free health care...-cough- /sarcasm <here>

[Zirkle2007]

Just curious...what do condoms have to do with natural selection? Birth control doesn't even fit in to natural selection. May I remind you that the difinition of natural selection is basically survival of the fittest. I fail to understand how a condom can fit in this.

I failed to mention that I tend to agree with your idea of atltruism. God has graced us with the many gifts and inventions needed to save the lives of the less fortunate. While this isn't available to everyone everywhere, it is becoming more wide-spread. God wants us to experience the gift of life, and thus gives us the neccessary items to do so. I'm not a believer of evolution as the creation of man, but I will not deny that it doesn't happen, on a small scale that is. I'm very intrigued by this atltruistic view though.

[Hyatt07]

Sad to hear.

I suggest moving to Europe would be a wise choice :-)

Do they give out free condoms there?
If so that will be anti-natural selection :-)

Thank you Lote Tree, for tainting my thread about my views on faith with your obscene questions to Zirkle2007.

I intended this thread to be a testament to my God. Where people could feel free to ask questions about my faith and give their own ideas.

Instead you have mocked my writing and turned it into nothing more than a place for people to bicker and argue. I do not appreciate it, but in any case I wish you the best. Next time perhaps you should think before you write.

[Scheherazade]

Threads started on here do not belong to anyone. When you post your views, you should be willing to accept that there will be those who disagree with you, as well as those who agree, and question your views.

[Logos]

....a place for people to bicker and argue.
Which is usually the case in Religious Texts forum topics, in case you haven't read any of the other topics here ;) :)

[Hyatt07]

Threads started on here do not belong to anyone. When you post your views, you should be willing to accept that there will be those who disagree with you, as well as those who agree, and question your views.

I am perfectly fine with people questioning my views. As long as it has to do with what was previously written. The post that Mr. Lote Tree made was not centered on anything that had to do with the topic. It was purely meant to be malicious tward another person. How can you sit there and stand up for him?

[Scheherazade]

I am perfectly fine with people questioning my views. As long as it has to do with what was previously written. The post that Mr. Lote Tree made was not centered on anything that had to do with the topic. It was purely meant to be malicious tward another person. How can you sit there and stand up for him?As Moderators of the Forum, we do not sit or stand for anyone but simply try to implement the Forum rules to make sure there is a welcoming atmosphere for everyone who would like to share their thoughts with us.

Lote has been replying to the entries posted earlier or in response to his posts and has not resorted to any personal attacks/insults.

If you don't like his (or anyone else's) line of discussion or humour, please feel free to ignore their posts in future.

[Dante Wodehouse]

As Moderators of the Forum, we do not sit or stand for anyone but simply try to implement the Forum rules to make sure there is a welcoming atmosphere for everyone who would like to share their thoughts with us.

How absolutely frightful!!

[Scheherazade]

How absolutely frightful!!I know.

Now, before I am tempted to show my claws and bare my fangs, please let's stay on topic and carry on with the discussion.

[Hyacinth42]

Alright, I believe that people are neither good nor evil in nature. People have free-will, thus explaining all the bad people and the bad things that happen in this world. I don't truely believe that God "tests" our faith (at least not on big things), but rather other people mess things up. Of course, there are some things that other people can't effect, and then I think it comes down to God in the form of Fate/Karma ;)

As for this 'horrid' image of humans, I totally agree with it... Because we are born neutral and have free will, we have the ability to be swayed by temptation... And temptation being what it is, many people turn out to be awful things.

And, I would like to believe in people's altruistic nature, but I don't. Heck, capitalism is driven by greed, there can be no altruism in a capitalistic society... Well, obviously there can be, but not much.


We have created Medicine, hospitals, Welfare State, Democracy etc etc so that the weak may survive

Do you know how much money drug companies make? Do you know what a problem it is to society/the country's leaders to have poor people living on the street? The definition of democracy is Majority Rule, not Minority Rule. And, people don't like being ruled by evil people... And a truely altruistic society would be pure communism... Everyone would be equal, there would be no weak... But, true communism cannot exist due to the nature of people... All the things you list as our "evolution" can be countered by many more examples of how people are not altruistic... Genocide goes on everyday, and our "advanced" race looks the other way because there is no money in it. We are ruining the Earth, destroying it for later generations, and not stopping because it would cost money.

[Zirkle2007]

Alright, I believe that people are neither good nor evil in nature. People have free-will, thus explaining all the bad people and the bad things that happen in this world. I don't truely believe that God "tests" our faith (at least not on big things), but rather other people mess things up. Of course, there are some things that other people can't effect, and then I think it comes down to God in the form of Fate/Karma ;)

As for this 'horrid' image of humans, I totally agree with it... Because we are born neutral and have free will, we have the ability to be swayed by temptation... And temptation being what it is, many people turn out to be awful things.

And, I would like to believe in people's altruistic nature, but I don't. Heck, capitalism is driven by greed, there can be no altruism in a capitalistic society... Well, obviously there can be, but not much.



Do you know how much money drug companies make? Do you know what a problem it is to society/the country's leaders to have poor people living on the street? The definition of democracy is Majority Rule, not Minority Rule. And, people don't like being ruled by evil people... And a truely altruistic society would be pure communism... Everyone would be equal, there would be no weak... But, true communism cannot exist due to the nature of people... All the things you list as our "evolution" can be countered by many more examples of how people are not altruistic... Genocide goes on everyday, and our "advanced" race looks the other way because there is no money in it. We are ruining the Earth, destroying it for later generations, and not stopping because it would cost money.

Very nice! I may not agree with you on some things, but great points!

[Rolandokun]

agreed, i belive that all people are good. they just make bad choices in their life.
(for those who know me personaly) At frist i may see like a heartless bumbkin but i realy do try to help people out with there problems.

[Redzeppelin]

Alright, I believe that people are neither good nor evil in nature. People have free-will, thus explaining all the bad people and the bad things that happen in this world. I don't truely believe that God "tests" our faith (at least not on big things), but rather other people mess things up. Of course, there are some things that other people can't effect, and then I think it comes down to God in the form of Fate/Karma ;)

As for this 'horrid' image of humans, I totally agree with it... Because we are born neutral and have free will, we have the ability to be swayed by temptation... And temptation being what it is, many people turn out to be awful things.

Interesting comments. Would your references be to the God of the Bible? If so, how can you say we are born "neutral," when the Bible makes it clear that we all inherited a sinful, "fallen" nature from Adam and Eve? If you're speaking of a different God, then ignore what I just wrote.

[Lote-Tree]

Hello All,

I am little surprised by some of the responses. My posts were neither "malicious" or "insulting" to anyone.

But Scheherazde thanks for the clarifications ;-)

Scheherazde wrote:



Threads started on here do not belong to anyone. When you post your views, you should be willing to accept that there will be those who disagree with you, as well as those who agree, and question your views.




Lote has been replying to the entries posted earlier or in response to his posts and has not resorted to any personal attacks/insults




If you don't like his (or anyone else's) line of discussion or humour, please feel free to ignore their posts in future.


And yes we should keep to topic. But you need to allow some room for arguments to develop.

Zirkle wrote:



Just curious...what do condoms have to do with natural selection? Birth control doesn't even fit in to natural selection.


Fittest reproduce and pass on their genes. Contraceptives thus goes against this.



While this isn't available to everyone everywhere, it is becoming more wide-spread.


Yes. Our Altruistic Evolution is continuing and will continue in the future.

[Lote-Tree]

Do you know how much money drug companies make?


Yes. And some societies make these expensive drugs available to all.



Do you know what a problem it is to society/the country's leaders to have poor people living on the street? The definition of democracy is Majority Rule, not Minority Rule.


Yes. But in this system the "weak" are allowed to prosper.



All the things you list as our "evolution" can be countered by many more examples of how people are not altruistic...


Hence my statements - our Altruistic evolution continues.

[Zirkle2007]

Zirkle wrote:




Fittest reproduce and pass on their genes. Contraceptives thus goes against this.



Yes. Our Altruistic Evolution is continuing and will continue in the future.


So I'm confused now. Are you pro-contreception? And are you saying this is a good thing? Because if it is a good thing, then why do so many religous leaders protest birth control and all these different methods of it?



Yes. Our Altruistic Evolution is continuing and will continue in the future.


I can see how we as a human race are becoming better at this, but at the same time, like Hyacinth42 said, there are many examples that can argue this. I'm just not sure if we will ever reach that point of equalness and such.

[kilted exile]

Because if it is a good thing, then why do so many religous leaders protest birth control and all these different methods of it?


They are opposed to fun & enjoyment ;)

I am reminded of a joke from the film Rob Roy:

Q: Why are Calvanists opposed to sex?

A: They fear it may lead to dancing

[Zirkle2007]

They are opposed to fun & enjoyment ;)

I am reminded of a joke from the film Rob Roy:

Q: Why are Calvanists opposed to sex?

A: They fear it may lead to dancing

They are not opposed to sex. Many religious leaders at the same time view sex as an act of worship...between a married couple that is. While they are anti-premarital sex, as am I, they aren't opposed to sex. From my experience and my view, we shouldn't use birth control because it isn't up to us if we are to reproduce. That is in God's hands, not ours.

[kilted exile]

Guy, lighten up. Its a joke.

[Zirkle2007]

Guy, lighten up. Its a joke.

I'm not bashing you or anything! ;) I'm just making my stance clear on this issue. No hard feelings. :p

[Nirome]

How many of you out there believe the gentleman at Virginia Tech was part of this "Altruistic Evolution" so subtly transforming human society over the last several decades? In our increasingly Godless society, why should anyone be surprised when such acts of senseless violence occur?

Humankind has languished in a fallen state ever since our banishment from the paradise of Eden. God first decided to wipe the world clean of man's wickedness with the Great Flood. Unfortunately, God allowed Noah and his family to get on board with the animals, which eventually nullified all of the benefits. According to the Bible, God saved Noah because he was a righteous man, comparitively speaking. However, I suspect it may have been because someone was needed to steer the boat.

After surviving a worldwide cataclysm, Noah wisely built an altar to honor God. There and then, God swore (not in the modern sense) never to destroy the world "with water." Notice the proviso "with water". God, of course, will keep His word. The next time He decides to purify His world, and that time is coming soon, it will be "with Fire". You see, humanity as defiled the earth so badly (again) that even the symbols of our eradication must be changed. Water was used for cleansing. At the second coming of Christ, fire will be used to purge this world of evil. Look at the example which follows.

Let's jump ahead to the time of Abraham. Anyone remember Sodom and Gomorrah? One of Abraham's kinsmen, Lot, tried to bargain with God in order to save this city from destruction. God, being merciful and patient, decided to play along. Through faith, Lot and his family, with the exception of his wife who had the temerity to look back, were spared the fate of the wicked Sodomites, thousands of whom were incinerated with fire and brimstone. The two cities were reduced to a fine powder all because a handful of righteous men could not be found.

A bit later, God sent His only Son to the world to bring redemption. Jesus lived among humanity, bringing forth a message of love, hope, and forgiveness. Jesus was the living Word. He was "The Word made Flesh". Perhaps we had not yet "altruistically evolved," but for whatever reason we chose to set free a convicted murderer named Barabas and instead executed Jesus, one who had committed no sin. When Pontius Pilot asked what should be done about Jesus, they cried out, "Crucify him!" To make matters worse, when Pilot informed the mob that they were condemning an innocent man, they exclaimed, "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children".

True. All of this was part of the God's redemptive plan. Through the blood of Christ and the sinner's prayer, anyone can be saved from Hell. However, the whole sad story serves to illustrate how pathetic humankind is without God's grace and mercy. Think of it, even those closest to Jesus--those who walked with him, heard his voice, and witnessed his miracles: Judas, Peter, Thomas, all betrayed, denied, or doubted him. Judas' betrayal led to the crucifixion, Thomas' doubt to faith in the resurrection, and Peter's denial to the founding of the Christian church.:angel:

P.S. Lote-Tree, I appreciate your clarification of "anti-natural selection" and how it relates to condom usage and American population growth and "evolutionary altruism". Just thinking about the disparate concepts you've raised destroys all desire one might ever have to reproduce. :D

[kilted exile]

Ok, I had been debating whether to open a new thread or not for this Q, but I think it does relate in somes ways to this thread.

Should teachers discuss their religious beliefs with there students? How would a religious high schooler react knowing there teacher is an atheist or vice-versa.
As well meaning as the teacher is, would there not be some discomfort for the student?

When I was at school the teachers did not discuss religion at all, with the exception of the mandatory world religion class and even in that class the teacher did not mention what religion they followed.

This is of course ignoring things such as catholic schools

[Hyacinth42]

Well, I think that in the event of something like the death of a class mate, it would be okay to say something religous, and some teachers may make references to their religion when they talk: My theatre teacher (I was forced to take a "fine art", and theatre was the lesser evil) is or was or something, I never had the guts to ask him it's kinda rude, Jewish, and he'll be talking and will use jewish words, which leads to an explanation of why he said it... See, he picked Godspell as the play to do a while ago... Which really made my head hurt, and then I really didn't want to ask about his religion... Now, obviously just by performing Godspell, you are teaching religion.

[PolarTucan]

Ok, I had been debating whether to open a new thread or not for this Q, but I think it does relate in somes ways to this thread.

Should teachers discuss their religious beliefs with there students? How would a religious high schooler react knowing there teacher is an atheist or vice-versa.
As well meaning as the teacher is, would there not be some discomfort for the student?

When I was at school the teachers did not discuss religion at all, with the exception of the mandatory world religion class and even in that class the teacher did not mention what religion they followed.

This is of course ignoring things such as catholic schools

In school I noticed that teachers always feel the need to put in a declaimer whenever they make a reference to the Bible/God/Jesus etc. I have heard teachers say countless times "Now, I am not teaching/preaching you (meaning students) my beliefs this is just a historical reference in which I am explaining the meaning by telling events of (insert religious text here)."
Growing up without organized religion and not having ever attended church (until recently on Christmas and my extremely Catholic boyfriend’s family) puts me behind when it comes to biblical references, so I don’t really mind the clarification because I haven’t had the exposure .

Nirome, I just noticed yesterday the "teachers prayer" hanging on the wall of the classroom in-between the door and cabinets. Is that allowed in public schools? lol, subliminally trying to convert me? Jk of coarse.

Oh…. This is a rather ironic, I was asked to do the commencement prayer for an academic banquet that is on Thursday since I’m the class’s VP. Me, the ‘karma’ girl is asked to pray for a hundred people and I have never such a thing, Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not upset about it or offended, quite the opposite. I’m rather honored and excited about it..… Any pointers or examples any of you would like to share? I would appreciate anyones thoughts on here or private msg.

[Lote-Tree]

How many of you out there believe the gentleman at Virginia Tech was part of this "Altruistic Evolution" so subtly transforming human society over the last several decades?


Evolution does not work in short a time. It works over thousands and millions of years.



In our increasingly Godless society, why should anyone be surprised when such acts of senseless violence occur?


Even in "God-full" society these acts of random violence occurs and are carried out by "God-full" individuals. This is different from Altruism of society as a whole.



P.S. Lote-Tree, I appreciate your clarification of "anti-natural selection" and how it relates to condom usage and American population growth and "evolutionary altruism". Just thinking about the disparate concepts you've raised destroys all desire one might ever have to reproduce.


Don't understand. Please elaborate.

[cuppajoe_9]

In our increasingly Godless society, why should anyone be surprised when such acts of senseless violence occur? Atheist = murderer. Nice. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Virginia Tech fellow was actually "Godless"? Or is this just the standard "atheists are responsible for everything bad that ever happened to anyone anywhere" brand of insanity?

[Redzeppelin]

Atheist = murderer. Nice. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Virginia Tech fellow was actually "Godless"? Or is this just the standard "atheists are responsible for everything bad that ever happened to anyone anywhere" brand of insanity?

From what I read, the comment was implying that we should expect such acts in a society that dismisses God as relevant; I did not see a cause-effect argument that the shooter was an atheist.

To elaborate (because I have this sneaking suspicion you'll take my first independent clause to task): random acts of violence exist whether God is the "frame" of society or not; what changes is our shock at such actions; if society says that life is due to random chance, that it's a bundle of chemicals worth a few dollars at most, that we are merely evolved animals, that there is no real moral code - well why should these things be shocking to us at all? Why should human life hold any value to anybody?

[Scheherazade]

Of course there will be random acts of violence. Even God performs those, does he not?

[Malldoll2002]

I think that it is needed for man to believe that there is something greater than himself. Without a higher reason of life for life than what other reason shall there be. If there would be noone to anwswer to than what questions would we ask? Knowing God is the first key into knowing more about what is worth living. With his love we can conquer any evil. It is to me that in times of need on things that I think his hand has untouched it was the lesson itself that was ment to touch. Hyatt 07 your story has touched many and I thank you for it on this day, for today may have been the day I needed reminded.

[cuppajoe_9]

From what I read, the comment was implying that we should expect such acts in a society that dismisses God as relevant;Oh? Let's put that little hypothesis to the test then, shall we? If that's correct, we should predict that societies will lower levels of religiosity to have higher murder rates, fair?

Exactly the opposite is true. (http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_images/fig1_2.gif)


To elaborate (because I have this sneaking suspicion you'll take my first independent clause to task):You got that right.


random acts of violence exist whether God is the "frame" of society or not; what changes is our shock at such actions; if society says that life is due to random chance, that it's a bundle of chemicals worth a few dollars at most, that we are merely evolved animals, that there is no real moral code - well why should these things be shocking to us at all? Why should human life hold any value to anybody?I'm not really going to have to explain that atheists value human life too again, am I? I think I'll let Kai Neisen do it:


It is not only happiness for ourselves that can give us something of value, but there is the need to do what we can to diminish the awful sum of human misery in the world. I have never understood those who say that they find contemporary life meaningless because they find nothing worthy of devoting their energies to. Throughout the world, there is an immense amount of human suffering, suffering that can, through a variety of human efforts, be partially alleviated. Why can we not find a meaningful life in devoting ourselves, as did Doctor Rieux in Albert Camus's The Plague, to relieving somewhat the sum total of human suffering? Why can this not give our lives point, and for that matter an overall rationale? It is childish to think that by human effort we will someday rid the world of suffering and hate, of deprivation and sadness. This is a permenant part of the human condition. But specific bits of human suffering can be alleviated. The plague is always potentially with us, but we can destroy the Nazis and we can fight for racial and social equality throughout the world. And as isolated people, as individucals in a mass societ, we find people turning to us in dire need, in suffering and in emotional deprivation, and we can as individuals respond to those people and alleviate or at least acknowledge that suffering and deprivation. A man who says, "If God is dead, nothing matters," is a spoilt child who has never looked at his fellow men with compassion.


if society says that life is due to random chance, that it's a bundle of chemicals worth a few dollars at most, that we are merely evolved animals, that there is no real moral code - well why should these things be shocking to us at all? Who do you think is saying this? Secularists? Do not ever, ever suggest, Red, that my reaction as an atheist to the slaughter of human beings is in anything other than sheer, sickening revulsion and horror.

[Redzeppelin]

Oh? Let's put that little hypothesis to the test then, shall we? If that's correct, we should predict that societies will lower levels of religiosity to have higher murder rates, fair?

Exactly the opposite is true. (http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_images/fig1_2.gif)

You got that right.

I'm not really going to have to explain that atheists value human life too again, am I? I think I'll let Kai Neisen do it:



Who do you think is saying this? Secularists? Do not ever, ever suggest, Red, that my reaction as an atheist to the slaughter of human beings is in anything other than sheer, sickening revulsion and horror.

Relax, joe. I've made no supposition that atheists do anything wrong - you're putting things on my post that it won't support. I simply corroborated the idea that once God is dismissed from a society, that violent actions - senseless violent actions - should not surprise us. That doesn't mean that atheists = murderers. That's you bending the argument to advance your position. I'm talking about philosophical "frames" and you're talking about individuals. I do not suggest that Christians are better or more moral - I never have and you know that. I am asserting that the foundational principles of a society influence the values of those within the society. You don't have to agree with my position - and I'm not implying any of what you accuse me of.

Second, you've thrown out these statistics before - but statistics are prone to manipulation - and, as well, there may be other mitigating factors that explain the numbers that seem to support your position besides the difference in religious orientation.

AND - even if homocide rates are lower, what do these other countries allow? And are all the things they allow moral, beneficial, appropriate?

[cuppajoe_9]

I simply corroborated the idea that once God is dismissed from a society, that violent actions - senseless violent actions - should not surprise us.Yes, lovely. No God = Violence. Wonderful. I am absolutely no less angry than I was before.


Second, you've thrown out these statistics before - but statistics are prone to manipulation - and, as well, there may be other mitigating factors that explain the numbers that seem to support your position besides the difference in religious orientation.The numbers can be independantly confirmed, by you if you'd like: www.nationmaster.com. Yes it is possible to manipulate statistics, but you need to show how these specific statistics actually were manipulated if you'd like the point to hold.

I'd be interested to know what mitigating factors could possibly exist that would make real-life secular societies behave in exactly the opposite way your position predicts that they should.


AND - even if homocide rates are lower, what do these other countries allow? And are all the things they allow moral, beneficial, appropriate?What, exactly, do you think the French and the Norwegians are allowing that's so horrible?

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, lovely. No God = Violence. Wonderful. I am absolutely no less angry than I was before.

Once again, you are drastically oversimplifiying and restating the argument in terms I have not implied. Why you're so intent on pinning on me things I haven't implied is beyond me. If you're angry at me, that's because you have projected onto me a position I'm not claiming. Your simplification looks like a straw man to me, because I made no such equation. I said that senseless violence should not be a surprise in a God-less society; I did not say that lack of God equals a more violent society or even a violent society at all.


The numbers can be independantly confirmed, by you if you'd like: www.nationmaster.com. Yes it is possible to manipulate statistics, but you need to show how these specific statistics actually were manipulated if you'd like the point to hold.

Perhaps I'll check that out if I have time. Either way, when it comes to matters pertaining to God, do you really think you're going to change my mind with statistics? Your numbers prove something - they may or may not prove what you think they prove. I know that your philosophical position relies upon your insistent refutation that God has any positive effect. My position is based on the idea that the measure of sanity and morality in the world is correlative to God's presence in society and the hearts of its believers; as such, I firmly believe that once God is excised from a society that society will begin to degrade in some way - generally in terms of its moral integrity.


I'd be interested to know what mitigating factors could possibly exist that would make real-life secular societies behave in exactly the opposite way your position predicts that they should.

I'm not predicting that they would function in any way - I'm suggesting that there are effects that would manifest themselves in a society that abandons God.


What, exactly, do you think the French and the Norwegians are allowing that's so horrible?

I'd have to go do some research. As a student, I'm sure you know what "busy" means - well, as a father, husband and full-time teacher, "busy" is a pretty large word in my life. I'll see if I can find out - though I think Europe in general is showing signs of its secular humanism.

[Hyatt07]

I think that it is needed for man to believe that there is something greater than himself. Without a higher reason of life for life than what other reason shall there be. If there would be noone to anwswer to than what questions would we ask? Knowing God is the first key into knowing more about what is worth living. With his love we can conquer any evil. It is to me that in times of need on things that I think his hand has untouched it was the lesson itself that was ment to touch. Hyatt 07 your story has touched many and I thank you for it on this day, for today may have been the day I needed reminded.

Thank you for your kind remarks Malldoll2002.

[cuppajoe_9]

I said that senseless violence should not be a surprise in a God-less society; I did not say that lack of God equals a more violent society or even a violent society at all.Well now your statement is senseless. Why would we not be surprised with violence in a God-less society if such a society is not violent? Isn't violence surprising in a society that isn't violent, by definition?


Either way, when it comes to matters pertaining to God, do you really think you're going to change my mind with statistics?I'm holding out some hope, yes. I would rather not have people going around saying that secularism is in any way related to murderous rampages.


I know that your philosophical position relies upon your insistent refutation that God has any positive effect.What??


My position is based on the idea that the measure of sanity and morality in the world is correlative to God's presence in society and the hearts of its believers; as such, I firmly believe that once God is excised from a society that society will begin to degrade in some way - generally in terms of its moral integrity.That's not a question of belief, it's an empirical question. What you firmly believe has absolutely no effect on the degredation of secular societies.


I'm not predicting that they would function in any way - I'm suggesting that there are effects that would manifest themselves in a society that abandons God.You are, in fact, making very specific predictions about whether violence should be common (or "surprising", whatever that means) in secular societies, and those predictions do not appear to be lining up with reality.


I simply corroborated the idea that once God is dismissed from a society, that violent actions - senseless violent actions - should not surprise us.
From what I read, the comment was implying that we should expect such acts in a society that dismisses God as relevantSee?


I'd have to go do some research.That would be wise.


As a student, I'm sure you know what "busy" means - well, as a father, husband and full-time teacher, "busy" is a pretty large word in my life. I'll see if I can find out - though I think Europe in general is showing signs of its secular humanism.Like what?

[Hyatt07]

Of course there will be random acts of violence. Even God performs those, does he not?

Nay, I don't believe that God has ever performed RANDOM acts of violence.

[Zirkle2007]

Of course there will be random acts of violence. Even God performs those, does he not?

God is violent. Plain and simple. There is no hiding it. Look at how many times he sends his people to conquer land and other people. God has given man this aspect too. Sometimes, it just seems that people get a little carried away with it.

[cuppajoe_9]

God is violent. Plain and simple. There is no hiding it. Look at how many times he sends his people to conquer land and other people. God has given man this aspect too. Sometimes, it just seems that people get a little carried away with it.???

What constitutes not getting carried away with it?

[Zirkle2007]

Well, look to the Bible for that answer. God waged wars with his people. Even in medieval times, the Crusades and all those were spiritual wars. Mainly faught for religious purposes. To me getting carried away with it, that would be like the guy that shot all the people at Virginia Tech, and all the other mass murders.

I'm not going to lie, I don't really know a solid answer for that. There is a place for violence though. Its part of God and part of man. I'm just not far enought along in my journey nor my education to fully answer your question. Maybe someone else could help...

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm not going to lie, I don't really know a solid answer for that. There is a place for violence though. Its part of God and part of man. I'm just not far enought along in my journey nor my education to fully answer your question. Maybe someone else could help...Oh I have my answer: I'm a pacifist. I was just curious as to what your answer was.

[Nirome]

Atheist = er. Nice. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Virginia Tech fellow was actually "Godless"? Or is this just the standard "atheists are responsible for everything bad that ever happened to anyone anywhere" brand of insanity?

Joe,

I don't know the shooter's religious affiliation, nor do I think that is necessarily relevant. My statement was a commentary upon American society, which has dramatically shifted away from Christianity over the last several decades.

The word "Godless" was never intended to be a criticism of atheism. I admire atheists because they demonstrate an unshakable faith in nothing. Atheists are willing to wager an eternity in hell based on the supposition that no greater power than human knowledge exists.

As a Christian, I feel rather guilty in this regard: supposing that I am mistaken and God merely wishful thinking, I will no longer exist. End of story. . . However, I will never have to admit my error (and you can't say, "I told you so"), and pay a price for my ignorance, willful defiance of science and humanism. Thankfully, there will only be the dark oblivion of the grave-- no menacing Bunsen burner to purge the impurities or punish my rebellion.

[cuppajoe_9]

Sorry, Joe, I didn't mean to attack your religion.It isn't a religion, but I accept the apology.


My statement was a commentary upon American society, which has dramatically shifted away from Christianity over the last several decades.The population of the United States is 83&#37; Christian. The horror.


Atheists are willing to wager an eternity in hell based on the supposition no greater power than human knowledge exists. Only in the sense that Christians are wagering an eternity in hell on the supposition that the ancient Egyptians have it wrong.

[Zirkle2007]

The population of the United States is 83% Christian. The horror.


Those are statistics. 83% may claim to be Christian, but how many are actaully demonstrating their belief and living the Christian life as the Bible lays out for us believers. I know tons and tons of people who 'say' they are Christians, but they don't live their life for God a bit. I believe Nirome is saying that our culture has slipped from a God-centered culture like what we started out as. The Constitution has no mention of God because the Framers didn't even begin to think of America without God. I'm sure they would be shocked by how what this country has become if they were alive today.

He hits the nail on the head when he says America has shifted from Christianity.

[Redzeppelin]

Well now your statement is senseless. Why would we not be surprised with violence in a God-less society if such a society is not violent? Isn't violence surprising in a society that isn't violent, by definition?

You are still twisting things around into straw man arguments. I expect better out of you than what's going on right now. An earlier post made the comment that the Virginia Tech shootings were not surprising within the context of a "God-less" culture. I agreed. Suddenly, you're bent out of shape as if someone has made the argument that a "God-less" society is an atheist society - that is not the supposition ANYBODY here (most of all me) is making. "God-less" doesn't mean atheistic - it means that God as a meaningful frame is missing from society - and I would contend that America (which still claims a Christian basis) is becoming more and more "God-less" culture-wise, despite the remnants of Christian belief that appear to be prominent within it. It is not the violence that is un-surprising, it is the senseless and shocking nature of it. The absolute elimination of value that human life holds inherent in the Virginia Tech shooting corroborates the Christian view that - without God as the stabilizing frame of society - society should expect to become more and more immoral in terms of the kinds of behavior that people begin to engage in. I am in no way trying to implicate atheists, and I wish you'd quit trying to make it sound like I am.

A society that abandons God will begin to deteriorate; I don't care how many websites you hunt up, how many statistics you find, how many dismissals you give; from the Christian POV, God is the only source of right, of good, of compassion, of sanity in the universe; once you get rid of Him, things will go downhill. I do not care if you agree, and your appeals to "empiricism" to the mind of a person who knows God is real are ineffectual, largely because I know that you are arguing from a position of incomplete understanding - Naturalism is a crippled world-view because it cannot - nay, it will not - recognize the possibility of a spiritual realm and the existence of God.


I'm holding out some hope, yes. I would rather not have people going around saying that secularism is in any way related to murderous rampages.

No one has made this explicit comparison - only you seem to be harping on it. Human nature will do what it will do - the Virginia Tech shooting is an example of unfettered human nature in action. The Christian contention is that a society that has God as its frame has more reason to resist such behaviors because the prohibition comes from a Divine source. It is not secularism that is the problem - it is human nature guided only by secularism. Secularism interacts with human nature - it tells humans that 1) they have no intrinsic worth in the galaxy; 2) life has no real meaning because we came from chemicals; 3) human life is not special, but merely an accident; 4) morality is relative and up to the individual to decide what is right and/or wrong.


What??

You're going to make me repeat myself? Your philosophical position (naturalism-humanism) virtually requires you to refute the statement "we should not be shocked by such events in a godless society" because your position requires that life be defined by human beings as the sole arbiter of what is real, what is right, what is moral. To let our statement stand would be to give credence to the idea that the presence of God in a society mitigates its madness.


That's not a question of belief, it's an empirical question. What you firmly believe has absolutely no effect on the degredation of secular societies.

I do not understand how this comment was even slightly relevant to mine. Perhaps I'm up past my bedtime.


You are, in fact, making very specific predictions about whether violence should be common (or "surprising", whatever that means) in secular societies, and those predictions do not appear to be lining up with reality.

Maybe, maybe not.


The population of the United States is 83% Christian. The horror.

Oh wait - let me get this straight: at the first mention that someone might say something negative about an atheist, you're up and swinging, and then you write this stuff? Please. Please.


Only in the sense that Christians are wagering an eternity in hell on the supposition that the ancient Egyptians have it wrong.

The Egyptians are fully wrong. I'm not worried in the least.

[Nightshade]

Well, look to the Bible for that answer. God waged wars with his people. Even in medieval times, the Crusades and all those were spiritual wars. Mainly faught for religious purposes. To me getting carried away with it, that would be like the guy that shot all the people at Virginia Tech, and all the other mass murders.


The crusdades being my current longest running obsessions I want to put a few words in yes up to a point they were waged for 'religious purposes' which in itself was stupid on both sides but never mind that another big aspect that comes into it was the trade routes and the increasing power and stretch of the Fatimy empire. because why else would they (the crusaders esp thinking the seventh crusade here end of the resulte in the end of the Ayuby reign over Egypt and the increase of the mamluki strong hold) move into Egypt? Plus Im sorry but mass slaughter of anyone who isnt of your religion IS going too far.

Now about the 83% statistic it reminds me of somthing I read bbc page about how although people do put themselves down as of christian there is a massive space between those who practise and those who keep the ame. I guess thats pretty much a rule for most religions Ive met.

But I dont think a God centric society is going to help matters Faith is somthing you have to have, it cant be forced on you and to attempt it is just asking for trouble IMO ( think the burning of the christians in anciet rome did it stop them from converting of course not because its what they had faith in, same stands for other religions.) Youll end up with alot of angry citezens and that usually ends up leading to some kind of massive upheavel.

I also think this is getting a bit nasty or will do so any minute so I am opting out now And I suggest everyone breathes before they post next :D:D

[Zirkle2007]

Would someone who is a strong Athiest please explain to me why?? I really don't understand how anyone could go through life and not believe in God...I just don't understand the whole concept.

[Lote-Tree]

Would someone who is a strong Athiest please explain to me why?? I really don't understand how anyone could go through life and not believe in God...I just don't understand the whole concept.

Do you believe in Fairies and Goblins?

If not then you have just lived your life without belief in these things.

Just like an atheist can do the same with God(s)

[kilted exile]

What is there not to understand? we see no evidence of the existence of a god/supreme being - not just referring to scientific evidence here. To me (wont presume to speak for all) it is the same reason I dont believe in ghosts and faeries.

[cuppajoe_9]

Those are statistics. 83&#37; may claim to be Christian, but how many are actaully demonstrating their belief and living the Christian life as the Bible lays out for us believers.I never said that they were good Christians, I just said they consider themselves Christian. Even if they are not, if such decline is a product of removal from God, one would expect the societies that are explecitly removed from God to be further in decline. This is not the case.


The Constitution has no mention of God because the Framers didn't even begin to think of America without God.*mind boggles*

No, that's not why. Many of the framers were, in fact, deists. I'm sure they could imagine America without God.


"God-less" doesn't mean atheistic - it means that God as a meaningful frame is missing from societyI'm begining to see where the confusion is coming from, but I'm still confused.

If everybody is an atheist, that would make God as a meaningful frame is missing from society, no?


A society that abandons God will begin to deteriorate; I don't care how many websites you hunt up, how many statistics you find, how many dismissals you give; from the Christian POV, God is the only source of right, of good, of compassion, of sanity in the universe; once you get rid of Him, things will go downhill.So, even if the evidence clearly shows that what you are saying about secular societies is wrong, you will continue to say it? Lovely.


Human nature will do what it will do - the Virginia Tech shooting is an example of unfettered human nature in action.Well, I've oficially gone from being offended as an atheist to being offended as a human.


Secularism interacts with human nature - it tells humans that 1) they have no intrinsic worth in the galaxy; 2) life has no real meaning because we came from chemicals; 3) human life is not special, but merely an accident; 4) morality is relative and up to the individual to decide what is right and/or wrong.All completely false. Atheism does not make life meaningless, it simply states that you have to create your own meaning. The statement that "life has no real meaning because we came from chemicals" is absolutely and completely absurd. All people have a need to be happy, socialize, be relatively free from suffering and the threat of danger, be loved, &c. What we are made of does not make the slightest difference to any of that. Furthermore, there is no reason that human beings cannot be speical despite being evolved creatures like everything else. The ability to communicate in the abstract is unique, as far as can be determined, in the universe. I would say that that's pretty special. Also, atheism/secularism does not entail moral relativism in any way. There are plenty of ways to form an objective basis for morality outside of the God of theology, one of the better ones being appeal to the common human needs that I list above.


Your philosophical position (naturalism-humanism) virtually requires you to refute the statement "we should not be shocked by such events in a godless society" because your position requires that life be defined by human beings as the sole arbiter of what is real, what is right, what is moral.I did not understand your original statement. That clears it up. Thank you, I agree.


Oh wait - let me get this straight: at the first mention that someone might say something negative about an atheist, you're up and swinging, and then you write this stuff? Please. Please.My statement was intended only as a slightly sarcastic rebuke of the contention that American society is turning away from Christianity, and was not in any way intended as a comment on Christianity as a religion or Christians as people. My humblest apologies for any ambivalence.


The Egyptians are fully wrong. I'm not worried in the least.Well now you know how I feel.

[Nirome]

Are you certain Atheism is not a religion? The Jacobins, if you recall, established something called the "Church of Reason" during the French Revolution, a church certainly founded upon atheistic principles.

At any rate, take a look at the dictionary definintion of religion below, and you will agree that atheism, as a belief system, shares many of the characteristics of organized religion.

Religion. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Please allow me to modify (see underlined portions) this definition slightly for the purpose of my argument.

Atheism. a set of irrefutable scientific facts concerning the cause and nature [delete the concept of purpose] of the universe, esp. when considered as the wholly random concentration of matter and molecules, usually involving devotion to human wisdom, independence, and self-sufficiency and ritual observances of statistics, logic, and research data and often containing a scientific/humanistic code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Let me know what you think.

[cuppajoe_9]

The Jacobins, if you recall, established something called the "Church of Reason" during the French Revolution, a church certainly founded upon atheistic principles.That would be the Cult of the Supreme Being – not in any way atheistic. You may possibly be thinking of the Church of Reality, which is a modern atheistic religion, but being an atheist does not make one a member.


At any rate, take a look at the dictionary definintion of religion below, and you will agree that atheism, as a belief system, shares many of the characteristics of organized religion.

Religion. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. [Emphasis added]There's your problem. Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is a description of the lack of one, single, solitary point of belief. Calling atheism of religion is something akin to calling the act of failing to collect stamps a hobby. Where your section below describes something that many atheists think, it is not the generally accepted definition of atheism. Buddhsts, for example, do not believe in gods – and are therefore atheists – but do not fit very nicely into the definition that you give. Where most atheists no doubt have a religion by your definition, atheism itself is not that religion.

Anton LaVey, the Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine and the Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatzo are all atheists. Were atheism a religion, all of those men would belong to the same religion, but it isn't and they don't.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm begining to see where the confusion is coming from, but I'm still confused. If everybody is an atheist, that would make God as a meaningful frame is missing from society, no?


Not necessarily. I think the US is becoming more and more "God-less" as time goes on - but I wouldn't define the US as an "atheist" culture. I think secular society is dismissing God as being meaningful without taking an overtly atheistic stance.


So, even if the evidence clearly shows that what you are saying about secular societies is wrong, you will continue to say it? Lovely.

My experience in these debates is that the philosophic presuppositions that you and I stand on (being diametric opposites as they are) will pretty much dictate how you and I evaluate the validity of the evidence offered. To accept your evidence as confirmation that atheism leads to a better society contradicts what I believe to be true about God - that He is the sole platform from which sanity, good, morality, etc come. I suspect that there are mitigating factors present that might actually prove my position correct (or at least somewhat valid) but that you might clevely argue against said mitigations because the sample was not representative, the statistics were skewed, the statistics were compiled by a Christian - the objections you could come up with are endless.


Well, I've oficially gone from being offended as an atheist to being offended as a human.

Well, luckily you're not God - otherwise I'd have to ask your forgiveness. You should know enough about Christian theology to not be surprised by the statement that human nature is inherently evil and depraved.


All completely false. Atheism does not make life meaningless, it simply states that you have to create your own meaning. The statement that "life has no real meaning because we came from chemicals" is absolutely and completely absurd. All people have a need to be happy, socialize, be relatively free from suffering and the threat of danger, be loved, &c. What we are made of does not make the slightest difference to any of that. Furthermore, there is no reason that human beings cannot be speical despite being evolved creatures like everything else. The ability to communicate in the abstract is unique, as far as can be determined, in the universe. I would say that that's pretty special. Also, atheism/secularism does not entail moral relativism in any way. There are plenty of ways to form an objective basis for morality outside of the God of theology, one of the better ones being appeal to the common human needs that I list above.

Christianity doubts humanity's ability to create its own meaning because without God there is no meaning; humans may think they have a "meaningful" life, but what's the basis of that meaning? Don't tell me that it doesn't make a difference what we came from. Try to allow that if God did exist, that being created by Him would make human beings pretty valuable - certainly more than the idea that were chance events - perhaps even "mistakes."

Why don't you tell me how "objective morality" can exist without God.


I did not understand your original statement. That clears it up. Thank you, I agree.

I had hoped you might.


My statement was intended only as a slightly sarcastic rebuke of the contention that American society is turning away from Christianity, and was not in any way intended as a comment on Christianity as a religion or Christians as people. My humblest apologies for any ambivalence.

That a percentage of the country claims Christianity does not mean that the country embraces it in a clearly demonstrable way - look at American media, TV shows, magazines; God is a token figure - not a meaningful entity. The morality touted by TV and movies generally does not reflect Christian values; school textbooks and magazine articles routinely assume the truth of evolution, the genetic origin of homosexuality; religion is uniformly mocked by network TV, movies, secular publications. You haven't seen that?


Well now you know how I feel.

Absolutely.

[cuppajoe_9]

My experience in these debates is that the philosophic presuppositions that you and I stand on (being diametric opposites as they are) will pretty much dictate how you and I evaluate the validity of the evidence offered.That argument will not stand in this case, I'm afraid. The degree to which a society is secular can be measured, and the degree to which violence happens in such societies can be measured, which means that your statement can be found to be either objectively correct or incorrect.


To accept your evidence as confirmation that atheism leads to a better society contradicts what I believe to be true about God - that He is the sole platform from which sanity, good, morality, etc come.But I never did say that atheism leads to a better society; I said that it doesn't lead to a worse one. This is again an empirical question: we can determine whether people who do not feel the need to include gods in their life can be sane, good and moral, provided that we come to some agreement as to what those terms mean.


I suspect that there are mitigating factors present that might actually prove my position correct (or at least somewhat valid) but that you might clevely argue against said mitigations because the sample was not representative, the statistics were skewed, the statistics were compiled by a Christian - the objections you could come up with are endless.Yes, but I could not use the position that the statistics may have been skewed as an argument in itself. If I wanted to make that argument, I would have to read the methodology of the study and point so some actual reasons why the study is invalid. If you wish to do so with the study that I site, you may review their methodology here (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html). Saying "oh, statistics can be manipulated and therefore your evidence cannot possibly be valid" is a silly and nihilistic argument.


Well, luckily you're not God - otherwise I'd have to ask your forgiveness.But I'm not, and therefore what I think can be ignored, eh?


You should know enough about Christian theology to not be surprised by the statement that human nature is inherently evil and depraved.Oh yes, I've heard the 'we're all sinners' bit before, but to compare all human beings to insane, disturbed spree killers is a level of misanthropy that I have not previously encountered, and I'm quite horrified by it.


Christianity doubts humanity's ability to create its own meaning because without God there is no meaning; humans may think they have a "meaningful" life, but what's the basis of that meaning?To be happy? To make others happy? To do one's part to alleviate human suffering? To fufill one's needs for accomplishment, for socialization and for love? If you think that you, personally, would lose all sense of purpose and meaning in life without God, then by all means continue to believe in him; but don't think that others can't lead perfectly meaningful lives without deities.


Don't tell me that it doesn't make a difference what we came from. Try to allow that if God did exist, that being created by Him would make human beings pretty valuable - certainly more than the idea that were chance events - perhaps even "mistakes."Perhaps, but we can be valuable for reasons independant of our origins.


Why don't you tell me how "objective morality" can exist without God.I believe I already did, but ok. All human beings, objectively, have certain needs, ranging from basic surivial to creative expression and love. Objectively, therefore, the best moral system can be said to be the one that best affords all humans the opportunity to fulfill those needs.


That a percentage of the country claims Christianity does not mean that the country embraces it in a clearly demonstrable way - look at American media, TV shows, magazines; God is a token figure - not a meaningful entity.Granted, but taking the number of people who claim to be members of a religion is the only possible objectively valid way to evaluate how secular a society is.


The morality touted by TV and movies generally does not reflect Christian values...When has it? As far as I can tell, American TV and film has always touted nationalism over religion.


...school textbooks and magazine articles routinely assume the truth of evolution, the genetic origin of homosexuality...Those things are perfectly synchronous with the beliefs of many Christian sects, just not the one that you apparently belong to. If you consider the beliefs of these sects "un-Christian", I suggest you take it up with them and not me, as I have little patience for the claims of any religious group to be the "one true faith".


religion is uniformly mocked by network TV, movies, secular publications. You haven't seen that? No, but then I don't watch American TV. I'll take your word it.

[Redzeppelin]

That argument will not stand in this case, I'm afraid. The degree to which a society is secular can be measured, and the degree to which violence happens in such societies can be measured, which means that your statement can be found to be either objectively correct or incorrect.

I do not think that measurable things are the sole indicator of what something is or is not. I honestly am not sure I can find "evidence" that a "God-less" society fairs worse except to do the very risky move of suggesting that the overall degradation of morality world-wide suggests the problem with abandoning God as the meaningful frame of culture. You can flood me with statistics if you want, but I do not believe they can be relied upon to reflect the full effect of abandoning God. As well, there is more to the decline of culture than simply violence levels - the level of violence in a culture is not the only indicator of a culture's moral decline.



But I never did say that atheism leads to a better society; I said that it doesn't lead to a worse one. This is again an empirical question: we can determine whether people who do not feel the need to include gods in their life can be sane, good and moral, provided that we come to some agreement as to what those terms mean.

I did not indicate that atheism per se makes society worse; I suggested that the loss of God leads to a softening of the moral boundaries of society.



Yes, but I could not use the position that the statistics may have been skewed as an argument in itself. If I wanted to make that argument, I would have to read the methodology of the study and point so some actual reasons why the study is invalid. If you wish to do so with the study that I site, you may review their methodology here (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html). Saying "oh, statistics can be manipulated and therefore your evidence cannot possibly be valid" is a silly and nihilistic argument.

Fine - you're the one balanced and fair opponent I have encountered then - because most of the people I run into accept evidence that conforms to the world-view they have already chosen (and I think you do to, but I won't pursue that line because I know how vociferously you will argue against it). But again, you're ignoring what I've told you many times: for the Christian, the Naturalistic demand for "evidence" is not authoritative; for the most part, I cannot and will not sit here and bandy evidence back and forth with you because I do not believe that factual "evidence" carries final and ultimate authority; if God is real, then you must understand that there is no amount of human verification of certain things that I will give more credence and authority to than God's own pronouncements. I do not care how incredulous that makes you - I'm equally incredulous at many of your statements because - from the Christian position - they are nothing short of insanity.


But I'm not, and therefore what I think can be ignored, eh?

I'm sorry - did you really want to be apologized to for a general statement about all of humanity?


Oh yes, I've heard the 'we're all sinners' bit before, but to compare all human beings to insane, disturbed spree killers is a level of misanthropy that I have not previously encountered, and I'm quite horrified by it.

I've done nothing of the sort. I do not believe the absence of God in one's life makes him a killer; what I do believe is that - at minimum - the lack of God will lead to a distorted view of reality; once that happens, then all kinds of things can come into being which may or may not be helpful.


To be happy? To make others happy? To do one's part to alleviate human suffering? To fufill one's needs for accomplishment, for socialization and for love? If you think that you, personally, would lose all sense of purpose and meaning in life without God, then by all means continue to believe in him; but don't think that others can't lead perfectly meaningful lives without deities.

I'm well aware that we can attempt to construct individual "meanings" to our own personal lives - that relationships, jobs, hobbies, etc can provide a sense of personal meaning; however, when it comes to a more cosmic sense of meaning, naturalistic evolution denies that because there is no good reason that we exist.


Perhaps, but we can be valuable for reasons independant of our origins.

I am well aware of this. I'm speaking philosophically - all human beings are valuable (especially in the eyes of God); but I'm suggesting that the only true value in life comes from God.


I believe I already did, but ok. All human beings, objectively, have certain needs, ranging from basic surivial to creative expression and love. Objectively, therefore, the best moral system can be said to be the one that best affords all humans the opportunity to fulfill those needs.

But there is no objective morality in what you've described; there's collective agreement, there's "might makes right," there's "greatest good" but none of those are fully objective because human beings agreed upon them; they can all be invalidated by the same society that creates them; therefore, they are still subjective because they are subject to human bias, revision and elimination.


Granted, but taking the number of people who claim to be members of a religion is the only possible objectively valid way to evaluate how secular a society is.

Not necessarily - people can claim an affiliation but not really embrace it. Policy is made by media and politics - and these two forces are rapidly being drained of Christianity.


When has it? As far as I can tell, American TV and film has always touted nationalism over religion.

I think in decades past that Christian values more more evident.


Those things are perfectly synchronous with the beliefs of many Christian sects, just not the one that you apparently belong to. If you consider the beliefs of these sects "un-Christian", I suggest you take it up with them and not me, as I have little patience for the claims of any religious group to be the "one true faith".

Any religion that claims that other religions possess "the way" as well aren't really in possession of the truth - because religions all make exclusive claims to truth. You're not required to like it or be patient with it; the idea that "all is equal" is due to postmodernistic thought - not necessarily is it a hallmark of actual reality.



No, but then I don't watch American TV. I'll take your word it.

It's pretty bad.

[cuppajoe_9]

I honestly am not sure I can find "evidence" that a "God-less" society fairs worse except to do the very risky move of suggesting that the overall degradation of morality world-wide suggests the problem with abandoning God as the meaningful frame of culture.Again, a claim that requires evidence.


You can flood me with statistics if you want, but I do not believe they can be relied upon to reflect the full effect of abandoning God.Why not?


As well, there is more to the decline of culture than simply violence levels - the level of violence in a culture is not the only indicator of a culture's moral decline.You can pick any indicator you like and test it and I'll accept the results.


if God is real, then you must understand that there is no amount of human verification of certain things that I will give more credence and authority to than God's own pronouncements.Fine, just don't expect me to give them any credence, especially when they fail the independant verification test.


I've done nothing of the sort. I do not believe the absence of God in one's life makes him a killer; what I do believe is that - at minimum - the lack of God will lead to a distorted view of reality; once that happens, then all kinds of things can come into being which may or may not be helpful.What you did was call an insane, pointless, stupid murderous rampage the product of "unfettered human nature". I'm having trouble interpreting that as anything but high misanthropy.


I'm well aware that we can attempt to construct individual "meanings" to our own personal lives - that relationships, jobs, hobbies, etc can provide a sense of personal meaning; however, when it comes to a more cosmic sense of meaning, naturalistic evolution denies that because there is no good reason that we exist.Who cares? Who has an ego so large that their happiness depends on being of great cosmic signifigance? No, nothing we do will matter in a trillion years. So what?


I am well aware of this. I'm speaking philosophically - all human beings are valuable (especially in the eyes of God); but I'm suggesting that the only true value in life comes from God.I consider my life and the lives of others plenty valuable without believing in God.


But there is no objective morality in what you've described; there's collective agreement, there's "might makes right," there's "greatest good" but none of those are fully objective because human beings agreed upon them; they can all be invalidated by the same society that creates them; therefore, they are still subjective because they are subject to human bias, revision and elimination.No they aren't. That humans have the needs I suggest is objectively true. That one system can facilitate the meeting of those needs better than another is objectively true. That one action may contribute to or hamper the development of such a system is objectively true. I define the former kind of action as 'moral' and the latter as 'immoral'. We can argue about what those actions are, but I haven't said anything that depends on cultural context or subjective experience.

Edit: what part of that did you interpret as "might makes right"?


Any religion that claims that other religions possess "the way" as well aren't really in possession of the truth - because religions all make exclusive claims to truth. You're not required to like it or be patient with it; the idea that "all is equal" is due to postmodernistic thought - not necessarily is it a hallmark of actual reality.I was anticipating a claim that sects that accept evolution and homosexuality are "not really Christian". That one sect is right and annother wrong is possible, but both sects are still made up of Christians.

[Redzeppelin]

Again, a claim that requires evidence.

Figured you'd say that. Haven't got any at this point, so I'll have to be content appearing as if I've lost this point. No worries.


Why not?

Because I believe a life lived without God involves changes at a spiritual level; as well, God is a supernatural being, and the prescribed beliefs of naturalism dictate that only what is measurable/observable may be considered in terms of determining truth/reality. Haven't I said this plenty of times already?


You can pick any indicator you like and test it and I'll accept the results.

Fine - since you're obviously more plugged in than I am, here:

Compare numbers of divorces pre-1950 and now;
Compare numbers of teen pregnancy pre-1950 and now;
Compare numbers of domestic violence pre-1950 and now;
Compare numbers of suicide pre-1950 and now;
Do the same specifically with teenagers;
Compare number of crimes committed by teenagers pre-1950 and now;
Compare number of single-parent families pre-1950 and now;
Compare number of teens incarcerated pre-1950 and now (either prison or juvenile hall);
Compare number of acts of violence on TV pre-1970 and now;
Do the same with sexual situations on TV;
Compare crime statistics pre-TV and post TV in culture;
Compare number of violent crimes committed by teens younger than age 16 pre-1950 and now;
Compare the level of profanity/obscentiy on FM radio pre-1980 and now;
Compare number of child-molestation cases pre-1950 and now;


Let me know what you come up with - these need only be in US culture if you wish.



Fine, just don't expect me to give them any credence, especially when they fail the independant verification test.

I don't expect you to - because I am fully aware that my "evidence" holds no water with you; my goal is simply to get you to admit the shortcomings of your philosophic position.


What you did was call an insane, pointless, stupid murderous rampage the product of "unfettered human nature". I'm having trouble interpreting that as anything but high misanthropy.

Human nature runs all of us; depending upon the "prohibitors" inside us, our behaviors will vary; the Virginia Tech shooter was demonstrating "unfettered human nature" with damaged/nonexistent "prohibitors" ("prohibitors" being religious belief, a sense of social responsibility, etc).


Who cares? Who has an ego so large that their happiness depends on being of great cosmic signifigance? No, nothing we do will matter in a trillion years. So what?

I will dare to play the age card here: I think it is easier for the young to be cavalier about such things (I know I was, and since I work with high school students, I see this attitude all the time). Age and its attendant sufferings, missteps and sorrows often force us to re-evaluate what we think life "means." Please do not take my comments as criticism of your youth - you know I have tremendous respect for you - but there are certain things that only age can give a person; you may be smarter than me, but you'll never be older than me.


I consider my life and the lives of others plenty valuable without believing in God.

That's what I said. People are valuable because they exist - period. But life itself - which is what I'm talking about - that takes its ultimate value from being a God-created creature.


No they aren't. That humans have the needs I suggest is objectively true. That one system can facilitate the meeting of those needs better than another is objectively true. That one action may contribute to or hamper the development of such a system is objectively true. I define the former kind of action as 'moral' and the latter as 'immoral'. We can argue about what those actions are, but I haven't said anything that depends on cultural context or subjective experience

Edit: what part of that did you interpret as "might makes right"?

Humans cannot make "objective morality" because they cannot be fully objective. Period.

I didn't "interpret" anything - I supplied possibilities for the basis of human morality; I was not suggesting that all listed possibilities were made by you.


I was anticipating a claim that sects that accept evolution and homosexuality are "not really Christian". That one sect is right and annother wrong is possible, but both sects are still made up of Christians.

There are many beliefs that can be different, but not the core ones: God is a transcendant being, the creator of the universe; Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was crucified for our sins and rose form the dead; we can all inherit heaven through the sacrifice of Christ. We are justified by faith,not works. Those things (among others) cannot be varied.

[cuppajoe_9]

Because I believe a life lived without God involves changes at a spiritual level; as well, God is a supernatural being, and the prescribed beliefs of naturalism dictate that only what is measurable/observable may be considered in terms of determining truth/reality. Haven't I said this plenty of times already?Ok, but you're predicting certain effects of that deficiency in spirituality that are certainly empirically testable.


ine - since you're obviously more plugged in than I am, here:

1. Compare numbers of divorces pre-1950 and now;
2. Compare numbers of teen pregnancy pre-1950 and now;
3. Compare numbers of domestic violence pre-1950 and now;
4. Compare numbers of suicide pre-1950 and now;
5. Do the same specifically with teenagers;
6. Compare number of crimes committed by teenagers pre-1950 and now;
7. Compare number of single-parent families pre-1950 and now;
8. Compare number of teens incarcerated pre-1950 and now (either prison or juvenile hall);
9. Compare number of acts of violence on TV pre-1970 and now;
10. Do the same with sexual situations on TV;
11. Compare crime statistics pre-TV and post TV in culture;
12. Compare number of violent crimes committed by teens younger than age 16 pre-1950 and now;
13. Compare the level of profanity/obscentiy on FM radio pre-1980 and now;
14. Compare number of child-molestation cases pre-1950 and now;


Let me know what you come up with - these need only be in US culture if you wish.That's a pretty freakin' tall order, especially since I would also need to have accurate numbers indicating secularity for various regions across all those time periods in order to make a valid statement about the effects of religion. I don't think it's possible to get all those numbers without a budget much larger than my current one of zero. I can give you, off of the top of my head, a fairly confident apraisment of 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 not being signifigantly related with secularism at the present moment, and I would have to challenge sexual situations on TV as an indicator of immorality.


I will dare to play the age card here: I think it is easier for the young to be cavalier about such things (I know I was, and since I work with high school students, I see this attitude all the time). Age and its attendant sufferings, missteps and sorrows often force us to re-evaluate what we think life "means." Please do not take my comments as criticism of your youth - you know I have tremendous respect for you - but there are certain things that only age can give a person; you may be smarter than me, but you'll never be older than me.I fail to see what your age has to do with it, I'm afraid. Yes, you're older than me, but in 100 years we'll both be dead. It's not much less meaningless for me than for you, given no afterlife.


That's what I said. People are valuable because they exist - period. But life itself - which is what I'm talking about - that takes its ultimate value from being a God-created creature.Ok, but your first sentence makes it fairly clear that a secular person should not be expected to value human life any less than a religious person.


Humans cannot make "objective morality" because they cannot be fully objective. Period.Well then they can't be objective about scripture either. You're being a bit nihilistic about this, aren't you?


I didn't "interpret" anything - I supplied possibilities for the basis of human morality; I was not suggesting that all listed possibilities were made by you.Umm. Ok. You still haven't adressed the possibilities made by me (or, more acurately, parroted by me).


There are many beliefs that can be different, but not the core ones: God is a transcendant being, the creator of the universe; Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was crucified for our sins and rose form the dead; we can all inherit heaven through the sacrifice of Christ. We are justified by faith,not works. Those things (among others) cannot be varied.Right I agree. Neither of those require the rejection of evolution or the genetic/environmental causes of homosexuality, therefore a Christian sect could easily accept evolution and/or homosexuality and still deserve the name, therefore prevalence of evolutionary acceptance and origins of homosexuality outside of the person's control is not necesarily indicative of the United States' turning away from Christianity.

[Redzeppelin]

Ok, but you're predicting certain effects of that deficiency in spirituality that are certainly empirically testable.

Yes and no; God Himself cannot be empirically proven, "evidencially" tested; however, since all is created by Him, a turning away and rejection of Him should, logically - according to Christian theology - result in the degradation of the creature. Christian theology posits that the fall of humanity resulted in the degradation of the human body - it now dies; it gets sick, it gets tired, we have diseases. These things would not exist in an unfallen world. As well, as I suggest below, the gradual disappearance of God as a meaningful figure in culture has resulted in a degradation of morality in a number of ways.


That's a pretty freakin' tall order, especially since I would also need to have accurate numbers indicating secularity for various regions across all those time periods in order to make a valid statement about the effects of religion. I don't think it's possible to get all those numbers without a budget much larger than my current one of zero. I can give you, off of the top of my head, a fairly confident apraisment of 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 not being signifigantly related with secularism at the present moment, and I would have to challenge sexual situations on TV as an indicator of immorality.

I posted these requests not so much to prove secularism is bad as to point out that American culture (one that probably claims the highest percentage of Christianity in the Western world) is demonstrating signs of its gradual secularization; surely you won't deny that the influence of religion in the Western world has significantly been decreasing since the time of the Enlightenment (I remember learning that one in school). You need not know all the "secularity numbers" for every region - just compare the statistics from the time periods indicated and you should see an increase in all areas. I contend that those represent evidence of the moral degradation of our society - a society that has clearly shifted from its more Christian underpinnings evident from any perusal of US history.


I fail to see what your age has to do with it, I'm afraid. Yes, you're older than me, but in 100 years we'll both be dead. It's not much less meaningless for me than for you, given no afterlife.

The age comment is not an argument; it is an explanation (as far as I'm concerned) as to why you may feel as you do; it is also an acknowledgement of why I feel the way I do (and how many people I've grown up with who once felt like you and now see life differently); don't act like age has zero effect on our views; it does. I'm suggesting that a few decades of life might alter your "so what?" view about the meaning of life; think about adopted children - the knowledge of their origins (despite having very loving adoptive parents) very often haunts them - they want to know where they came from; as well, learning that your father was a serial killer - don't you think that that would register in some meaningful way, a way that might suggest (whether validly or not) something about you?


Ok, but your first sentence makes it fairly clear that a secular person should not be expected to value human life any less than a religious person.

Not in an obvious way that would result in a cause-effect situation of "Now I'll kill people." But - if human life is random, it is inherently of less worth than if a Divine Being creates you. Accidents cannot be of the same value as intentional creation.


Well then they can't be objective about scripture either. You're being a bit nihilistic about this, aren't you?

I do not think it nihilistic to admit the limits of objectivity. Although interpretation does come into the picture in terms of understanding scripture, we do have the words - and those can only be twisted so far before they become meaningless. The human ability to be objective in terms of deciding what people should/should not do is very subject to whomever is making the rules. If God makes them, there's little to argue over.


Umm. Ok. You still haven't adressed the possibilities made by me (or, more acurately, parroted by me).

Any possibility considered as a moral base outside of God is subject to bias, human manipulation and revision according to changing times, fashions and attitudes.


Right I agree. Neither of those require the rejection of evolution or the genetic/environmental causes of homosexuality, therefore a Christian sect could easily accept evolution and/or homosexuality and still deserve the name, therefore prevalence of evolutionary acceptance and origins of homosexuality outside of the person's control is not necesarily indicative of the United States' turning away from Christianity.

With only the minor inconvenience of what the Bible says in reference to those issues. That certain denominations decide to ignore what the Bible says places their status as "Christianity" into question as far as I'm concerned.

[kilted exile]

Compare numbers of divorces pre-1950 and now;
Compare numbers of teen pregnancy pre-1950 and now;
Compare numbers of domestic violence pre-1950 and now;
Compare numbers of suicide pre-1950 and now;
Do the same specifically with teenagers;
Compare number of crimes committed by teenagers pre-1950 and now;
Compare number of single-parent families pre-1950 and now;
Compare number of teens incarcerated pre-1950 and now (either prison or juvenile hall);
Compare number of acts of violence on TV pre-1970 and now;
Do the same with sexual situations on TV;
Compare crime statistics pre-TV and post TV in culture;
Compare number of violent crimes committed by teens younger than age 16 pre-1950 and now;
Compare the level of profanity/obscentiy on FM radio pre-1980 and now;
Compare number of child-molestation cases pre-1950 and now;


I think that the figures of some of these would be misleading, due to societal pressure not to mention some of them & the stigma attached to others. Thinking specifically of divorce, teen pregnancy, domestic violence, single parent families & child molestation.

For others regarding TV/radio it also needs to be taken into account the dramatic increase in number of channels. Also for these things there are still taboo subjects, however what these subjects are have changed

[Redzeppelin]

I think that the figures of some of these would be misleading, due to societal pressure not to mention some of them & the stigma attached to others. Thinking specifically of divorce, teen pregnancy, domestic violence, single parent families & child molestation.

For others regarding TV/radio it also needs to be taken into account the dramatic increase in number of channels. Also for these things there are still taboo subjects, however what these subjects are have changed

Despite all the mitigating factors that can be thrown at these suggested statistical comparisons, I still think that the numbers reveal what I think they do. Are you telling me that the numbers of incidents in these topics have (overall) lessened or improved in the last 50 years? Really?

[kilted exile]

Despite all the mitigating factors that can be thrown at these suggested statistical comparisons, I still think that the numbers reveal what I think they do. Are you telling me that the numbers of incidents in these topics have (overall) lessened or improved in the last 50 years? Really?

No, I'm not saying they have improved (tho' I might be tempted to in the case of spousal abuse) I am just saying that the figures may give a misleading picture of how things really were 50 years ago or the true difference between than and now.

[Redzeppelin]

No, I'm not saying they have improved (tho' I might be tempted to in the case of spousal abuse) I am just saying that the figures may give a misleading picture of how things really were 50 years ago or the true difference between than and now.

Maybe so. But the numbers are there. Ask anybody who's been alive for 50 years or more - they will tell you that there is a clear lessening of morality in culture - a lessening that has coincided with the gradual rejection of Biblical principles.

[cuppajoe_9]

Yes and no; God Himself cannot be empirically proven, "evidencially" tested; however, since all is created by Him, a turning away and rejection of Him should, logically - according to Christian theology - result in the degradation of the creature.While the first cannot be tested, the second can.


As well, as I suggest below, the gradual disappearance of God as a meaningful figure in culture has resulted in a degradation of morality in a number of ways.Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Even if the things you suggest have lessened over the years, it would not prove your point. Prevalence of religious belief is not the only thing that has changed in American society in the past sixty years, and there are other factors that would have to be taken into account as well, notably the fact that the population freaking exploded. That's why we would need a comparison to other societies that have secularized in order to draw a valid conclusion.


I posted these requests not so much to prove secularism is bad as to point out that American culture (one that probably claims the highest percentage of Christianity in the Western world) is demonstrating signs of its gradual secularization; surely you won't deny that the influence of religion in the Western world has significantly been decreasing since the time of the Enlightenment (I remember learning that one in school).I never disagreed with the assesment that the United States has become more secular (the old "number of people calling themselves atheists and agnostics" test proves that much more simply), I simply reject your conclusion that this is why society has become morally degenerate (and, in fact, I'm unconvinced that this has happened at all).

In any case, you're changing the subject. The question was should we be surprised if horrifically violent acts occur in increasingly secular societies? The answer is yes; we should be surprised, because in societies that have become more secular than the United States, such violence occurs less frequently, not more.


The age comment is not an argument; it is an explanation (as far as I'm concerned) as to why you may feel as you do; it is also an acknowledgement of why I feel the way I do (and how many people I've grown up with who once felt like you and now see life differently)Ok, I can accept that.


don't act like age has zero effect on our views; it does.I know.


think about adopted children - the knowledge of their origins (despite having very loving adoptive parents) very often haunts them - they want to know where they came from; as well, learning that your father was a serial killer - don't you think that that would register in some meaningful way, a way that might suggest (whether validly or not) something about you?I realize that the question of our origins is an important one, but how is learning that your father was a serial killer in any way analogous to secularism?


Not in an obvious way that would result in a cause-effect situation of "Now I'll kill people." But - if human life is random, it is inherently of less worth than if a Divine Being creates you. Accidents cannot be of the same value as intentional creation.I don't see why not.


I do not think it nihilistic to admit the limits of objectivity.You aren't admitting the limits of objectivity, you're saying that it doesn't exist: "Humans cannot make 'objective morality' because they cannot be fully objective. Period."


Although interpretation does come into the picture in terms of understanding scripture, we do have the words - and those can only be twisted so far before they become meaningless. The human ability to be objective in terms of deciding what people should/should not do is very subject to whomever is making the rules. If God makes them, there's little to argue over.You have got to be kidding me. There are probably a few hundred thousand different sects in the Judeo-Christian tradition and you think that there is "very little to argue over"? You may recall that pretty much all of Europe was at war for four or five centuries following the Protestant Reformation, people certainly found a few things to argue over.


Any possibility considered as a moral base outside of God is subject to bias, human manipulation and revision according to changing times, fashions and attitudes.Any possibility considered as a moral base inside of God is also subject to bias, human manipulation and revision according to changing times, fasions and attitude; and don't pretend that it isn't. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Christian conception of morality has not changed in 2000 years.

Anyway, you still haven't said anything concerning why what I said is wrong.


With only the minor inconvenience of what the Bible says in reference to those issues.I'm willing to bet that you're perfectly content to ignore large sections of Leviticus too. I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that that's a good thing.

[kilted exile]

Maybe so. But the numbers are there. Ask anybody who's been alive for 50 years or more - they will tell you that there is a clear lessening of morality in culture - a lessening that has coincided with the gradual rejection of Biblical principles.

You'll probably find this thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16757) deals with a lot of points regarding this discussion, it is kind of old and a number of the posters no longer post here.

[Dante Wodehouse]

I think that the figures of some of these would be misleading, due to societal pressure not to mention some of them & the stigma attached to others. Thinking specifically of divorce, teen pregnancy, domestic violence, single parent families & child molestation.

It is very easy to measure single parent families at any time period.

[kilted exile]

It is very easy to measure single parent families at any time period.

Whether or not it can be measured is not in question, whether it gives a true reflection of the situation is. I'm sure you are familiar with Disraeli's "lies, damn lies & statistics"

[Dante Wodehouse]

While the first cannot be tested, the second can.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Even if the things you suggest have lessened over the years, it would not prove your point. Prevalence of religious belief is not the only thing that has changed in American society in the past sixty years, and there are other factors that would have to be taken into account as well, notably the fact that the population freaking exploded. That's why we would need a comparison to other societies that have secularized in order to draw a valid conclusion.

I never disagreed with the assesment that the United States has become more secular (the old "number of people calling themselves atheists and agnostics" test proves that much more simply), I simply reject your conclusion that this is why society has become morally degenerate (and, in fact, I'm unconvinced that this has happened at all).

What proof would you accept? You have rejected the influence of the most important change in America since the Civil War.


In any case, you're changing the subject. The question was should we be surprised if horrifically violent acts occur in increasingly secular societies? The answer is yes; we should be surprised, because in societies that have become more secular than the United States, such violence occurs less frequently, not more.

That could be because America's legal system is, frankly, stupid.


I don't see why not.

The Mona Lisa is more valuable than a fingerpainting done by an infant.


Any possibility considered as a moral base inside of God is also subject to bias, human manipulation and revision according to changing times, fasions and attitude; and don't pretend that it isn't. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Christian conception of morality has not changed in 2000 years.

The Human concept of morality has changed. Humans used fragments of Christianity to justify their moral conceptions. Christianity hasn't changed; the words of Jesus are still recorded, albeit translated, as they were.


I'm willing to bet that you're perfectly content to ignore large sections of Leviticus too. I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that that's a good thing.

Genesis and Leviticus were both written by Moses, who seems to have abused his apparent position as God's secretary to push propaganda.

[Matrim Cuathon]

erm, nice job ignoring things that dont fit with your beliefs...

[Dante Wodehouse]

I miswrote. I was thinking Leviticus was Deuteronomy, which is propaganda. To Cuppajoe: What do you mean about ignoring Leviticus? That was before the Messiah, and we are not supposed to make sacrifices anymore, now that the perfect sacrifice has been made. To Matrim: Genesis could have happened, or it could have not happened. It doesn't make much difference. I accept that God made the world either way.

[Rinas_Jaded]

I can honestly say i've always questioned my faith. God didn't help us when my father was doing things he shouldn't. God didn't help us when we were living in homeless shelter. Or when I almost died, he wasn't the doctors who saved me or the ride to the hospital. My mother helped me. She helped us my siblings and me, but (this is a big reason I don't give up on god) My mother never gave up her beliefs in spirit and in God. My mother felt that god gave her the strength to work our family out of a shelter. Also to deal with my father and divorce him. To give her the strengh when I was in the hospital. Even when I question God, I see my mother never losing faith. It almost makes me feel ashamed.

[cuppajoe_9]

What proof would you accept?An analysis of secular and religious societies which – accounting for other factors – shows that the former is more prone to violence and other agreed-upon signs of immorality than the latter.


That could be because America's legal system is, frankly, stupid.I've seen worse.


The Human concept of morality has changed. Humans used fragments of Christianity to justify their moral conceptions. Christianity hasn't changed; the words of Jesus are still recorded, albeit translated, as they were.Christianity has changed, Dante. Remember the Protestant Reformation?


What do you mean about ignoring Leviticus? That was before the Messiah, and we are not supposed to make sacrifices anymore, now that the perfect sacrifice has been made.Yes, and also we don't stone people to death for wearing poly-cotton blend anymore (Leviticus 19:19), so can we forget about that one passage condemning homosexuals as well, please?

[Hyatt07]

I can honestly say i've always questioned my faith. God didn't help us when my father was doing things he shouldn't. God didn't help us when we were living in homeless shelter. Or when I almost died, he wasn't the doctors who saved me or the ride to the hospital. My mother helped me. She helped us my siblings and me, but (this is a big reason I don't give up on god) My mother never gave up her beliefs in spirit and in God. My mother felt that god gave her the strength to work our family out of a shelter. Also to deal with my father and divorce him. To give her the strengh when I was in the hospital. Even when I question God, I see my mother never losing faith. It almost makes me feel ashamed.

We have a similar life story Rina. It is nice to hear that you too haven't lost faith. May God be with you and your family.

[Rinas_Jaded]

We have a similar life story Rina. It is nice to hear that you too haven't lost faith. May God be with you and your family.

Thank-you. Also with you.:thumbs_up

[Zirkle2007]

Christianity has changed, Dante. Remember the Protestant Reformation?


The basic fundamentals of Christianity have not changed. The Bible has remained unchanged all through these years. The reformations of the churches occur because of how they interpret the Bible, for customs and other such things.



Yes, and also we don't stone people to death for wearing poly-cotton blend anymore (Leviticus 19:19), so can we forget about that one passage condemning homosexuals as well, please?


Thats the Old Testament, so you do have a point. We don't live by those laws much anymore because of what Christ did for us. We are living the New Testament. The fact remains though, homosexuality is still a sin.

[kilted exile]

The basic fundamentals of Christianity have not changed. The Bible has remained unchanged all through these years.

I would think the ability of priests to be able to absolve sins would be to many people a fundamental change (not to mention the infallability of the papacy)

And in relation to the bible remaining unchanged - what about the apocrypha?

[Layka]

I really don't believe in this. Why must God be violent...Does he control us? Or just create us?

[dan020350]

Aren't we not gods? Why are we worshiping an image that was created by us?

the end

[Zirkle2007]

Aren't we not gods? Why are we worshiping an image that was created by us?

the end

What??? That makes no sense at all...

[Layka]

There is only one God... I know that, and I don't even believe in him.

[Moira]

There is only one God... I know that, and I don't even believe in him.

I am just curious and i would like you to explain if you care to .....
You believe there is a God but you just don't believe in him? Because usually people who don't believe in him they do not believe in his existence....

[Lote-Tree]

There is only one God... I know that...

How do you know? Can this "knowing" be verified? If not how do you validate it as being authentic and not some mere delusion of the brain?

[quasimodo1]

...i can resist anything but temptation...Oscar Wilde? Allways loved that line. Perhaps the lure of forbidden fruit. Very good Layka, but actually I've had to resist permanantly some temptations, to wit, alchohol, as it almost killed me and a twelve stepper I remain. How about..."work is the curse of the drinking class" old hat, yes? quasimodo1

[cuppajoe_9]

The reformations of the churches occur because of how they interpret the Bible, for customs and other such things.If you think that 'customs' are the only difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, you are in for a sharp learning curve.


Thats the Old Testament, so you do have a point. We don't live by those laws much anymore because of what Christ did for us. We are living the New Testament. The fact remains though, homosexuality is still a sin.\Why have we thrown out every part of Leviticus except that one? Just because?

[Zirkle2007]

Why have we thrown out every part of Leviticus except that one? Just because?


The verse actually states that people are to put homosexuals to death. Do we do this in todays society? No, we don't. Your arguement holds no ground. Most people tolerate homosexuals. While I don't agree with it, I don't put them down and condem them. Its a sin, and its the same in God's eyes as the sin I commit.

Though I do know people who are homosexual, yet the resist it because they know it is a sin. They live their life for God, not for sin.

[cuppajoe_9]

The verse actually states that people are to put homosexuals to death. Do we do this in todays society? No, we don't.You sure? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard)


Your arguement holds no ground.I haven't made one. It was a question. You still haven't answered it.


Most people tolerate homosexuals. While I don't agree with it, I don't put them down and condem them. Its a sin, and its the same in God's eyes as the sin I commit.Hypocrisy much?


Though I do know people who are homosexual, yet the resist it because they know it is a sin. They live their life for God, not for sin.Yeah, I know a guy like that too. Know what? He's absolutely miserable. Funny, that.

[Istolethisname]

The Constitution has no mention of God because the Framers didn't even begin to think of America without God. I'm sure they would be shocked by how what this country has become if they were alive today.

He hits the nail on the head when he says America has shifted from Christianity.


I doubt they would be shocked. Considering very few of the founding fathers of America were part of the Christian faith. A majority of them were actually Deists and/or part of the Free Mason society.
indluding: Goerge Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin etc etc.. none of them were christian.

In the words of Jefferson himself:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

[Redzeppelin]

Hypocrisy much?

There is nothing "hypocritical" about saying "I don't condemn someone for 'x' behavior" and "The behavior of 'x' is a sin." Identifying a behavior God forbids as "sin" is the equivalent of identifying something like herion as a "dangerous drug."


Yeah, I know a guy like that too. Know what? He's absolutely miserable. Funny, that.

Your statement implies that his misery is due to his attempt to obey God's laws. There are a number of factors that may be contributing to his misery, one of which might be his struggle to free himself from a behavior he knows and believes to be wrong, but that his willpower is compromised in its resisting ability (a consequence of habitually indulged sin). That is also an option. Satan does not easily give up ground; like any tenacious enemy, he is resistant to retreat. There are spiritual reasons for misery in such a situation, besides the reasons your remark clearly implies.

[Nirome]

There is only one God... I know that, and I don't even believe in him.

How can you believe but not believe in God at the same moment? You apparently don't doubt his existence. Perhaps you cannot understand that the one God you've read about and worshiped in church is the same one that allowed terrible things to happen to you. In other words, God is real and God is negligent or possibly even cruel.

There are many things about God that cannot be explained. Why does he allow bad things to happen to good people? Why do wicked people prosper and the morally upright suffer? From our limited perspective, it must appear that God is asleep at the wheel. And it is damn tempting to begin hating him for his seeming indifference. However, we must understand that God's ways are not our ways. God's thoughts are not our thoughts. The Bible says that we peer at the world around us through a darkened glass, which distorts and limits our vision.

Have you considered reading the book of Job, Lakya? Interestingly enough, Satan is given permission by God to take everything away from Job except his life. Satan happily performs this duty by off Job's entire family (wife, children, and close relatives), destroying him financially (he loses his entire herd of livestock), and finally by afflicting him with sores so painful that his only means of relief was to have dogs lick the pus from the wounds. Given all of the suffering Job had to endure, Job's remaining friends advised him to "curse God and die."

With God's sanction, Satan was testing Job's loyality. Satan argued persuasively that Job only worshipped God because of the blessings he had received. Take away the blessings and Job would curse God. Job naturally asked God why he was allowing all of these horrors to continue.

Read the end of Job to find out how God answered Job's question. Be prepared for this, however, God has a habit of answering a question with a question. :brickwall

[Zirkle2007]

There is only one God... I know that, and I don't even believe in him.

I believe we all could use more explination on this statement. I fail to understand how you know there is only one God, yet you don't believe in Him??? Is there maybe a better word for believe? Like perhaps you don't worship Him? Or maybe you don't follow Him? I'm just trying to figure out what you mean so we can comment accordingly, since no one else has tried to seek out what you truly mean.

[Lote-Tree]

Why does he allow bad things to happen to good people?


Why does bad thing happen to bad people?

[Rolandokun]

There is only one God... I know that, and I don't even believe in him.

I think i understand what your saying. You know that he is there but you dont trust him to do the deeds you feel are right. So you know that he is there and you know that he has that power, but you think he dosnt use it in a proper way.

[Redzeppelin]

I think i understand what your saying. You know that he is there but you dont trust him to do the deeds you feel are right. So you know that he is there and you know that he has that power, but you think he dosnt use it in a proper way.

To believe this way is to not really believe in God at all, but some vague "super human" - an enlarged and more powerful version of us. If that is all God is - then no, nobody should believe in Him or serve Him because He's no better than us; but, if He is different (and as the Bible describes Him to be - all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, eternal, etc) then these statements are illogical: how can a limited human being take the prerogative to decide the value of God's choices? If God isn't who He says He is, then there's no point in believing in Him at all.

[Layka]

I am just curious and i would like you to explain if you care to .....
You believe there is a God but you just don't believe in him? Because usually people who don't believe in him they do not believe in his existence....


Well, I know my mom is with him, but I refuse tothink that he is a merciful God because, he took her away from me.

[cuppajoe_9]

There is nothing "hypocritical" about saying "I don't condemn someone for 'x' behavior" and "The behavior of 'x' is a sin." Identifying a behavior God forbids as "sin" is the equivalent of identifying something like herion as a "dangerous drug."No it isn't. "Sin" implies, and in fact means, immorality. Calling somebody's behavior immoral is condemning it.


Your statement implies that his misery is due to his attempt to obey God's laws. There are a number of factors that may be contributing to his misery, one of which might be his struggle to free himself from a behavior he knows and believes to be wrong, but that his willpower is compromised in its resisting ability (a consequence of habitually indulged sin)."Habitually indulged"? You don't know this guy, Red, don't make assumptions. He has never "indulged" in it at all.

I have yet to hear why this particular behavior is wrong, aside from a statement in Leviticus alongside a statement forbidding wearing two different types of fabric at a time. I'm curious as to why one commandment has been thrown out and the other hasn't (although I've got a pretty good idea already).

[Redzeppelin]

No it isn't. "Sin" implies, and in fact means, immorality. Calling somebody's behavior immoral is condemning it.

Right - the behavior is being condemned - not the person. People are not what they do.


"Habitually indulged"? You don't know this guy, Red, don't make assumptions. He has never "indulged" in it at all.

Fair enough - I did make an assumption (but I'm in good company on these forums :D ). Shall I assume also that he is completely honest about a struggle that causes many people tremendous embarrassment and shame?

Let me revise my statement a bit: according to Christian theology, sin begins in the heart and/or mind (cf. James 1:13-15 - "Each [of us] is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has concieved, it gives birth fo sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death"). As such, according to Christian theology, since homosexual behavior is a sin (there are references in both the OT and NT), it must be indulged at least mentally before it is indulged in physically. That's why I said what I said.


I have yet to hear why this particular behavior is wrong, aside from a statement in Leviticus alongside a statement forbidding wearing two different types of fabric at a time. I'm curious as to why one commandment has been thrown out and the other hasn't (although I've got a pretty good idea already).

First off, the prohibition against homosexual behavior is not "alongside" the fabric restriction; it is embedded within a whole list of aberrant sexual behaviors (Ch.18). That the fabric restriction is out and homosexuality is still valid is because the fabric restriction is not a moral issue. Sexual behavior clearly is.

[cuppajoe_9]

Right - the behavior is being condemned - not the person. People are not what they do. I'm sure he feels much better now.


That the fabric restriction is out and homosexuality is still valid is because the fabric restriction is not a moral issue. Sexual behavior clearly is.Then why did God even mention it, if it isn't a moral issue? Was he just kidding in 19:19 and dead serious about the rest?

The only reason, repeat, the only reason why sexual orientation is a moral issue is because the Church makes it one.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm sure he feels much better now.

I'm sorry - I do not equate someone's feelings as more important than the condition of his soul and eternal destiny. Sorry. One gets over hurt feelings; one does not get over eternal death.


Then why did God even mention it, if it isn't a moral issue? Was he just kidding in 19:19 and dead serious about the rest?

To answer this properly would require a lengthy post. In short: God's people had been in Egyptian culture for about 400 years when Moses led them out. Leviticus consists of God's standards by which to distinguish His people from other people, as well as establish the moral law that they more than likely had lost sight of during their centuries of captivity. Christ's substitutionary death eliminates many of the more "petty" restrictions of Jewish orthodoxy in terms of all the tiny rules about food, fabric, etc. What didn't get changed is moral law: the commandments are still valid; Christ affirmed this. As well, homosexuality was included in the catch-all term "sexual immorality" - so when this term is used by Christ, his listeners understood that this term incorporated all of these terms: prostitution, bestiality, incest, adultery, fornication - all of which were (and still are) prohibited behaviors. There are no positive or sanctioned homosexual relationships presented in the Bible; design and Genesis argue for heterosexuality.


The only reason, repeat, the only reason why sexual orientation is a moral issue is because the Church makes it one.

A claim made by what authority? The Bible says it - the church merely points out that that is what the Bible says. How do you choose to get around that fact?

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm sorry - I do not equate someone's feelings as more important than the condition of his soul and eternal destiny. Sorry. One gets over hurt feelings; one does not get over eternal death.Bearing in mind, of course, that this is what you believe, not anything demonstrable. What you believe about God does not give you license to insult and threaten whomever you want, Red. Similarly, what I believe about God does not give me license to loudly procliam that theists are a bunch of raving nutters (I do not, by the way, think that). If this is what you think, implying that there is something degenerate and sinful is, I might suggest, not the best way to bring them around.


hrist's substitutionary death eliminates many of the more "petty" restrictions of Jewish orthodoxy in terms of all the tiny rules about food, fabric, etc. What didn't get changed is moral law: the commandments are still valid; Christ affirmed this.And what, exactly, makes one petty and the other moral law?


The Bible says it - the church merely points out that that is what the Bible says. How do you choose to get around that fact?The church (any chruch) places greater emphasis on some parts of the Bible, and lesser emphasis on others. I would think that this would be made obvious by comparing any two Christian sects.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Bearing in mind, of course, that this is what you believe, not anything demonstrable. What you believe about God does not give you license to insult and threaten whomever you want, Red. Similarly, what I believe about God does not give me license to loudly procliam that theists are a bunch of raving nutters (I do not, by the way, think that). If this is what you think, implying that there is something degenerate and sinful is, I might suggest, not the best way to bring them around.

You believe that what you observe is true. Couldn't this be a hallucination, couldn't we be the imagination of some higher being? You have faith in reality; can you prove that this is reality? Cogni ergo sum is eloquent and melodious, but it fails to answer the question.

[cuppajoe_9]

You believe that what you observe is true. Couldn't this be a hallucination, couldn't we be the imagination of some higher being? You have faith in reality; can you prove that this is reality? Cogni ergo sum is eloquent and melodious, but it fails to answer the question.

I can't help noticing that this has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.

[Dante Wodehouse]

It was somewhat off your entire post, but you were saying that he doesn't have the right to insult people with religion in mind (he doesn't have the right to insult people with religion in mind, but you don't have the right to insult people with science in mind). Can you prove that your basis is any better than his?

[cuppajoe_9]

Can you prove that your basis is any better than his?

That isn't my point. I don't need or want to prove that my basis is better than his, I'm just asking that threats of hell and insinuations that being homosexual is inherently immoral be toned down a bit.

[Redzeppelin]

Bearing in mind, of course, that this is what you believe, not anything demonstrable. What you believe about God does not give you license to insult and threaten whomever you want, Red. Similarly, what I believe about God does not give me license to loudly procliam that theists are a bunch of raving nutters (I do not, by the way, think that). If this is what you think, implying that there is something degenerate and sinful is, I might suggest, not the best way to bring them around.

I've insulted and threatened nobody - you are exaggerating. I do not walk around pronouncing judgment on people for their behaviors. You and I are in an intellectual/philosophical discussion on the topic of homosexuality and sin. If the gentleman you mentioned were talking to me instead of you, I would be approaching my discussion with him in an entirely different way. Philosophical debate is not the same thing as witnessing to a hurting individual.


And what, exactly, makes one petty and the other moral law?

You really need that explained to you? You don't see the difference between sexual expression and the mixing of different types of fabric? Really?


The church (any chruch) places greater emphasis on some parts of the Bible, and lesser emphasis on others. I would think that this would be made obvious by comparing any two Christian sects.

You can't place "greater emphasis" on what God says is right/wrong - you can only obey it, mimimize it, or ignore it. Only the first option is acceptable to God.

[cuppajoe_9]

I've insulted and threatened nobody - you are exaggerating.Callling homosexuality a sin is insulting to the people involved, whether you intend it to be so or not. And frankly, if vague comments about the condition of one's soul and eternal death are not a threat, I've never heard one.


You really need that explained to you? You don't see the difference between sexual expression and the mixing of different types of fabric? Really?I think it's preposterous to call the mixing of different types of fabrics a moral issue. Sexual orientation, equally so.


You can't place "greater emphasis" on what God says is right/wrong - you can only obey it, mimimize it, or ignore it.Of course you can. There are 70+ books in the Bible. You can certainly place greater emphasis on a few and lesser emphasis on the rest, and most – scratch that, all – Christian sects do.

[Logos]

*sigh* like most other topics in Religious Texts, this one too has wandered away from the OP....

"What is faith anymore?".

Start new ones if you want :)