The Christian Thread!

[The_Wombird]

This part of your post I found most odd. Doesn't about 99% of the human population believe in a god or gods? How can ~1% be too many?

 

I suppose what I was meaning is that many people believe in Evolution, which seems to be the way people are explaining our existence at the moment, instead of us being designed and created by a 'superior being' or God. And I haven't heard about the figure of 99% of the population believing in God or Gods.

[The_Wombird]

What happens to me after death is not my concern. It won't matter since I'll not be in existence to experience it. Once you're dead, your dead and there is no logical reason to accept anything otherwise. Therefore, it behooves the individual to live his life to the fullest potential while living. This isn't to say that I subscribe to the "eat, drink, be merry" philosophy, but rather the "live, love, learn, and leave legacy" one.

 

How do you know that death won't matter? That you will not be in existence? I don't see why life after death is illogical, actually I find the idea of us ceasing to exist less likely. Do you seriously think that somehow all this could have just come into existence, by itself? That somehow this planet just became, and life appeared, and that we just die and cease to exist?

 

I'm an atheist. My wife is an atheist. My daughter is an atheist. We have a happy family and have goals for ourselves that are worthy. We give to charity (some of them religious, believe it or not) and believe humanist values. What I do in this, my only, life matters because it may have lasting reprecutions on my descendants or others whose lives I touch or teach.

 

What if everything you valued was to just dissapear? All the earthly things you have dedicated your life to, now, where would your purpose be?

 

I also note with some measure of irony the belief that adherents have that they've "experienced" something first hand that they're unable to define, measure or describe and will typically chose the cop-out of "you wouldn't understand unless you believe/give your heart to Jesus/etc."

 

I wasn't actually talking specifically about Christianity there. How can you, for example, say that Battlefront (possibly a bad example) is a really bad game that is full of junk and is no fun to play if you've never played it yourself. Maybe you are only taking what other people have said and are using it to define this game. Same can be said about religions.

 

I say "irony" because this is the type of indoctrination that adherents are taught at a very early age, which helps prevent them from questioning their religious doctrines. The mind of the adherent is, sadly, far from open.

 

Most people, and Christians have to at some stage make up their own minds, to read the facts and to choose to believe or not. Sure, many children from Christian backgrounds are brought up being taught and living 'Christian' but eventually they do have to decide for themselves, and sometimes a parents influence can have the opposite effect, and force a person away from Christianity for the main reason that they stereotype it and want to remain independent from their parents thinking.

[logan essex]

Religion is the #1 hindrence to human spirituality.

All doctrine says 'KNOW GOD' (i prefer to not label the thing that some label as GOD) the doctrines all over the world say nothing about believing.

[logan essex]

people will believe pretty much anything, especially if it sounds like something they've heard before.

[logan essex]

I Love Nancy Allen''

[The_Wombird]

people will believe pretty much anything, especially if it sounds like something they've heard before.

 

What exactly are you trying to say?

[logan essex]

I'm trying to encourage people to understand the difference between knowledge and belief

[The_Wombird]

Through knowledge people gain belief, believing in something without any knowledge or understanding is foolish.

[Jae Onasi]

We give to charity (some of them religious, believe it or not).

I'm always interested in finding worthy charities, and was wondering which ones, if I might ask? I like my charity dollars to go to the people it would benefit, rather than to the administrivia. A worthy charity's a worthy charity, religious or not. We like to donate food to the local food bank--we know that's going to go to the people who most need it.

What I do in this, my only, life matters because it may have lasting reprecutions on my descendants or others whose lives I touch or teach.

And I wish more Christians understood that. You get one shot at life (barring discussion of reincarnation--different topic), whether or not you believe in an afterlife. It needs to get used appropriately and with reverence for what a gift life truly is.

I also note with some measure of irony the belief that adherents have that they've "experienced" something first hand that they're unable to define, measure or describe and will typically chose the cop-out of "you wouldn't understand unless you believe/give your heart to Jesus/etc."

It _is_ a cop-out. The honest answer is "I don't know why x happened to me, I just know it did. Could be pure luck, could be God, I don't know."

I don't know what got me out of my kitchen chair literally a fraction of a second before a 30 lb piece of wet cement board and about 5 trashbags-worth of soaked vermiculite insulation crashed down on that very spot. All I know is that I could have ended up rather dead or seriously injured a couple weeks ago because that would have fallen directly on my head, and I'm not. Your paradigm demands it be called a fortuitous event or at least something non-religious, but since I have sucky luck and am religious, I prefer 'divine intervention.' Neither of us will know til after death, and probably neither of us will care about it at that point, anyway. I think playing up miraculous happenings is a distraction from what Christianity is supposed to be about anyway, which is loving our neighbors and loving God. I adore the pithy comment by Hillel: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary."

I say "irony" because this is the type of indoctrination that adherents are taught at a very early age, which helps prevent them from questioning their religious doctrines. The mind of the adherent is, sadly, far from open.

I went through a period of questioning faith, wondering if He exists and why bad things happen, and if Christianity is really The Way or if other religions have the answers. Does that still make me close-minded because I didn't elect atheism as my belief system?

And on a tangent and just tossing this out for discussion (or at least a passing thought ), if we're both interested in bettering society and leaving a positive legacy, does it ultimately matter if we're doing it because we believe in either humanist or Christian values?

[Emperor Devon]

I don't know what got me out of my kitchen chair literally a fraction of a second before a 30 lb piece of wet cement board and about 5 trashbags-worth of soaked vermiculite insulation crashed down on that very spot.

 

Luck. I've seen a similar thing happen to an atheist.

 

If God has the power to intervene and same lives, it seems questionable at best that He'd let some live over others.

 

Besides, you yourself have said He's not doing you a favor keeping you out of the afterlife.

 

I have sucky luck and am religious, I prefer 'divine intervention.'

 

Luck is a concept even more abstract than fiath. It has no bearing in anything; I prefer to stick to the more realistic areas of the universe, thank you.

 

I went through a period of questioning faith, wondering if He exists and why bad things happen, and if Christianity is really The Way or if other religions have the answers.

 

Out of curiosity, what conclusion did you reach about why bad things happen? You've never really addressed the issue.

 

Does that still make me close-minded because I didn't elect atheism as my belief system?

 

Depends on how much thought you put into atheism and what your stance on it and its belivers (or should I say non-believers?) right now.

 

does it ultimately matter if we're doing it because we believe in either humanist or Christian values?

 

Christian values in regards to people are at their core just as humane as humanist ones. However, it's stance about God and some of the questionable acts related to it has me made me think humanist.

[Hayden Kered]

I am a Christian, but I keep my opinions and beliefs to my self unless asked.

[SkinWalker]

I'm always interested in finding worthy charities, and was wondering which ones, if I might ask? I like my charity dollars to go to the people it would benefit, rather than to the administrivia. A worthy charity's a worthy charity, religious or not. We like to donate food to the local food bank--we know that's going to go to the people who most need it.

 

I donate to the Salvation Army. They donated to me once when I had a house fire... it mattered not that I was an atheist -they gave me funds up front to pay for a hotel and then a temporary apartment until I could get my house situated. They don't proselytize, they just help. I also provide clothing donations to a local church that has a free clothing give away a couple of times a year. They set up racks in their front yard and you just come and get what you need. Another is Arc of Texas (I think that's their name), they pick up clothing donations from us twice a year. Finally we give to Shriners' and a local women's shelter, though I honestly don't know if the shelter is secular or faith-based.

 

Does that still make me close-minded because I didn't elect atheism as my belief system?

 

I think you're one of the most open-minded people I know.

 

And on a tangent and just tossing this out for discussion (or at least a passing thought ), if we're both interested in bettering society and leaving a positive legacy, does it ultimately matter if we're doing it because we believe in either humanist or Christian values?

 

Ultimately, only the results matter.

[Jae Onasi]

I donate to the Salvation Army. They donated to me once when I had a house fire... it mattered not that I was an atheist -they gave me funds up front to pay for a hotel and then a temporary apartment until I could get my house situated. They don't proselytize, they just help. I also provide clothing donations to a local church that has a free clothing give away a couple of times a year. They set up racks in their front yard and you just come and get what you need. Another is Arc of Texas (I think that's their name), they pick up clothing donations from us twice a year. Finally we give to Shriners' and a local women's shelter, though I honestly don't know if the shelter is secular or faith-based.

Eesh--sorry about the fire. Hope everyone was OK.

I like the Salvation Army a lot. They have a thrift shop here in town and we give them our clothes (since our kids are growing like crazy, they get a lot of kids stuff ) and other items that we don't use anymore.

 

Luck. I've seen a similar thing happen to an atheist.

If God has the power to intervene and same lives, it seems questionable at best that He'd let some live over others.

I don't know why it works that way. If you consider death to be the worst thing, then it feels more capricious. I don't think it's the most horrible thing, so it doesn't seem bad to me.

Besides, you yourself have said He's not doing you a favor keeping you out of the afterlife.

He must have left me here to torment you with esoteric discussions of the nature of evil and the problem of pain.

 

Out of curiosity, what conclusion did you reach about why bad things happen? You've never really addressed the issue.

Entire books have been written on this one subject alone and can handle this in far more depth than I'm able to here. CS Lewis does a nice job in his book "The Problem of Pain".

In some cases, bad things happen because people do bad things, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For instance, if we in the US were less selfish (and I freely admit to being selfish myself at times) with our vast resources, so many more positive things would happen in this world. A little bit of our money spent on Darfour for food and shelter would go a very long way and would be a much better use of our resources than a PS3. That's not an indictment on working hard to earn nice things. It's just commentary on where, in general, the American public's attention tends to be centered.

This is all well and good until you try to explain something like a natural disaster, cancer, death, and so forth. The answer to that one is that I personally may never know why 'x' happens in my life. Why didn't He do something as mundane as keep my toilet from leaking (or at least make it so we did know it was leaking a lot sooner) so the ceiling wouldn't almost fall on my head? I don't know. There may be some greater good to it that I'm unaware of. Maybe it was because my step-brother needed the money I paid him to fix the ceiling. Jimbo and I certainly learned some things about home maintenance from my step-brother that we didn't know before (don't use plastic bolts to secure the toilet, even if they come with the toilet. Gotta use metal). I got to spend several hours talking with him and getting to know him in a way that's deeper than what we have in the Mass Insanity of Holidays--there are 9 of us kids and 17 grandkids. It's crazy at the holidays and I love every moment of it, but those settings are not great for spending more than just a short time talking with each person. This way we got one-on-one time to talk for awhile.

I also use the analogy of immunizations--to a baby, the shots are evil. They hurt. They make the baby feel bad for a day or two. The baby doesn't understand why someone wants to hurt him/her. To the parent and doctor, however, the overriding end (protection from some childhood diseases which could cause more serious problems) far outweighs the temporary pain. Sometimes I can see the reason why God moves a certain way, sometimes I can't.

 

The other issue is a little more philosophical--you cannot rid the world of evil unless you rid the world of free will. God certainly could compel us all to do good. However, we'd be nothing more than little robots. It's _possible_ that the good created by allowing free will (and thus the potential for evil) greatly outweighs even the worst atrocities, and that by eliminating the evil, it may also eliminate a lot of the good in the world. For instance, all the benefits to tens of millions of people from the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts would not have come about if King hadn't experienced some of the very negative things that happened in his life due to segregation and discrimination.

God may allow evil to occur because it maximizes the greater good in addition to maintaining free will. Until I get the opportunity to ask Him why he did X in someone's life, I won't know the answers on why some bad things happen.

 

Depends on how much thought you put into atheism and what your stance on it and its belivers (or should I say non-believers?) right now.

I had my own doubts during the college years and had to do some research over several years (in between other studies) to sort things out in my own mind. My friends and I have also had some very spirited debates on atheism/agnosticism/Christianity/other religions over the years. I've had to learn a lot just to keep up with them. You can't debate some of the defenses for theism/Christianity without knowing a number of the arguments against them. Since I listen to/read Zacharias a bit, I've learned far more philosophy than I ever wanted to just to keep up with him--whether or not you agree with him, he's a fascinating speaker and thinker. His radio programs are archived and can be d/l'd at this site. The 22 and 29 Jan 06 programs on 'Why I'm not an atheist' (to answer Russell) are interesting, well, to me anyway, but my perspective is a little skewed. The programs from Jan/Feb 05 on 'Is there meaning in evil and suffering' may answer some of these questions better than I can. The programs from July/Aug '03 on 'The top 5 questions from students' I believe is drawn from the questions he's asked by students on various campuses where he goes to debate with people who follow other religions/agnosticism/atheism. Somewhere on the site is likely a copy of a memorable debate with Dawkins--both brought up some fascinating arguments and both did a terrific job in the debates, and I dearly wish I could find/remember which one it was called. I want to say it was the Harvard Veritas forum but I can't recall for sure.

 

As for my stance on non-believers--it's someone's personal choice to believe or not believe. I think it's the height of arrogance for someone to declare that someone else must not be a believer because of 'x' behavior--none of us knows what's in another person's mind and heart. While I may not agree with atheism, I've had a number of atheists/agnostics that I've been honored to call friends.

 

Christian values in regards to people are at their core just as humane as humanist ones. However, it's stance about God and some of the questionable acts related to it has me made me think humanist.

What stance and questionable acts are you referring to? I'll agree Christians have been far from perfect, including me. We have and will screw up and do bad things. Sometimes we're spectacularly bad, just like any other non-Christian human. Being Christian doesn't make us somehow immune to committing sin, though I wish it were that easy sometimes, but it does give us the example of Christ to follow. And like many other non-Christians, sometimes we can be spectacularly good.

 

A number of just plain bad acts done in the _name_ of Christianity turned out not to be very Christian acts at all when you look at what the Bible says to do vs. what they're using it for. It's not quite fair to hold Christianity as a religion accountable for something that someone does because s/he's using Christianity incorrectly as justification for a bad act.

 

Some of the things done in the name of Christianity, or as an outgrowth of the Christian faith, have been very good. Abolition of slavery was driven in part by Christians who thought the treatment of slaves was evil. King himself was a Baptist preacher and the example of Christ's love drove his non-violence approach against discrimination.

 

I have a feeling I've raised more questions than I've answered, however.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

I'm a Christian and proud of it. I was certainly not brainwashed or "scared" into getting saved. I chose it. True, others feel like they have a purpose, but I felt empty without Jesus. I wasn't given any proof, I didn't ask God to move a piece of furniture in the room so I could know that He's real. Go ahead and criticize all you want (you referring to anyone who disagrees with me), because no amount of "proof that God isn't real" that anyone gives me will change my beliefs, because I was not saved by some miraculous act that God did to show me that He's real. I believe in Him because of faith, which is what my entire religion is based on.

 

I believe that there is no such thing as luck. I think that everything happens along God's plan, and I'm sure some will not believe me, but today is the last day I could've voted on this poll since it closes on the 1st. This is also the first time I have ever been to this area of this site and the first time I have seen this thread. Who knows? Maybe God wanted me to vote here and post my beliefs. I'm just not willing to accept that it was luck.

 

Now first I'd like to talk about this Jesus Camp. I had heard of it before, but when I watched that video and the trailer for the movie, I was blown out of my mind. Those people have taken Christianity and completely twisted it. I mean, worshipping a picture of George Bush? Saying "I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag"?That is the most insane thing I've ever seen. There is no way that those people could be Christian. Americans act like this country is annointed. As John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world.....". God sent Jesus here to save the world, not America. I find all the "Jesus Camp" stuff to be blasphemous and insane.

 

Second, the whole idea of Heaven has also been taken and twisted. Heaven is not some place in the sky full of fluffy clouds and angels playing harps. The Bible says that after 7 years of the Tribulation, God will send Satan back into Hell and establish His Kingdom on Earth. Then after some 1000 years, He will vanquish Satan forever and He will take His followers to Paradise, where they will spend eternity in peace. As I imagine, it will be like Earth, only no war, no death, no suffering.

 

This doesn't really have to do with being a Christian, but I would just like to stat that I am very against George Bush. With all the right-wing evangelical fanaticism nowadays, that seems like a contradiction.

 

I assure you, I and many others have PLENTY reason to live without any religious delusion clouding my mind.

Now I don't know if you directed that at Christianity or religion in general (you were speaking to someone who is Christian so I only assumed you were talking about Cristianity) but please do not call my religion a "delusion." Criticize it all you want, reject it all you want, talk about how you don't believe in it all you want, just don't call it a delusion. That is a very disrespectful and childish thing to do. I respect your beliefs, I completely disagree with them, but I do respect them. You're a human and you have the right to choose what you believe. You have a wife and a daughter and, as you said, you fell like you have a purpose. Well some of us who are still teenagers don't have that, and we don't feel that way, so we need something to believe in. And 7 years ago, when I was 8, I decided what I wanted to believe in, and I believe I made the right choice.

[Emperor Devon]

I don't know why it works that way.

 

Not to sound obtrusive, but how can you have a solid faith in something that uses unlimited power in a haphazardous manner?

 

He must have left me here to torment you with esoteric discussions of the nature of evil and the problem of pain.

 

I think that alone is enough to justify divine (or should I say infernal? ) intervention in the world.

 

Entire books have been written on this one subject alone and can handle this in far more depth than I'm able to here. CS Lewis does a nice job in his book "The Problem of Pain".

 

I'm busy with more earthly books at the moment.

 

Heh, if you had a copy of the one I'm reading, you'd probably burn it. The author considers people who believe in God delusional, hates even somewhat centralized government, thinks women should be regarded as their husband's possessions, is probably okay with child labor, praises selfishness as the ultimate virtue, hates charities and anything money is donated to, despises people who give without expecting anything in return, and even portrays redheads in a negative manner.

 

Why didn't He do something as mundane as keep my toilet from leaking (or at least make it so we did know it was leaking a lot sooner) so the ceiling wouldn't almost fall on my head?

 

Because it would be a small matter in the face of world hunger, proverty, and all those other bad things.

 

I don't know. There may be some greater good to it that I'm unaware of. Maybe it was because my step-brother needed the money I paid him to fix the ceiling. {snip}

 

It's great that you got to do those things with your step-brother, but because of the reasons I previously listed, I doubt it was divine intervention

 

I also use the analogy of immunizations--to a baby, the shots are evil. They hurt. They make the baby feel bad for a day or two. The baby doesn't understand why someone wants to hurt him/her. {snip}

 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see allowing innocent people to suffer will be good for anything in the long run.

 

The other issue is a little more philosophical--you cannot rid the world of evil unless you rid the world of free will. God certainly could compel us all to do good. However, we'd be nothing more than little robots.

 

The idea of free will seems far too vague to me. If God gave us free will, why are some people forced to submit to the power of others? What exactly defines free will? Would anything have been wrong with giving just a tad less so people couldn't act unethical (as it would save lives), or what about giving just a tad more, to the point people can't easily be swayed in their opinions?

 

The idea that God gave free will to people in order to give them freedom seems dubious. Why did he limit such freedom to the mind? Or why are there people with much greater wills and intellect than others?

 

Removing evil would not have people act like little robots. Martin Luther King, for instance, was a good person, though did that make him a robot? Of course not. Besides, saying there's only good or evil is as black and white a statement as you can get. Why not just remove evil, and limit people to being neutral or good? Or why not remove the far end of it, so there couldn't be people evil to the point that they kill other ones? That would only save lives.

 

Until I get the opportunity to ask Him why he did X in someone's life, I won't know the answers on why some bad things happen.

 

Speaking of talking to God, you mentioned at one point that you think people are offered a final chance to accept Him once they die. Doesn't that render the entire point of faith obsolete if you're given proof and a choice once you die? You'd lose absolutely nothing in this life if you burned Bibles for fun.

 

And if that person refuses and is cast into Hell, what happens if they come to love Him after several years of burning in agony?

 

I had my own doubts during the college years and had to do some research over several years (in between other studies) to sort things out in my own mind.

 

[Ayn Rand] Reserhch? You haf not dun enuf reserhch if you stihl beleef in Got! [/Ayn Rand]

 

I'll get to the other half of your post later.

[SkinWalker]

Now I don't know if you directed that at Christianity or religion in general (you were speaking to someone who is Christian so I only assumed you were talking about Cristianity) but please do not call my religion a "delusion." Criticize it all you want, reject it all you want, talk about how you don't believe in it all you want, just don't call it a delusion. That is a very disrespectful and childish thing to do.

 

Sorry, kid. But delusion it is. Delusion is defined: "an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary." The evidence is weighted heavily against religion, including Christianity. If you find criticism of your religion offensive or disrespectful, then there isn't much I can tell you but avoid reading any post of mine that is on the topic of religion. I would also say that if your faith was solid, it wouldn't matter to you what I said about your religion. I don't subscribe to the notion that we should pussy-foot around religion when it comes to questioning and criticizing it's validity, and delusion is a word that fits from my perspective.

 

If you feel otherwise, I'm more than happy to debate it with you.

[Samnmax221]

Sorry, kid. But delusion it is. Delusion is defined: "an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary."

Been reading some Dawkins?

[SkinWalker]

Been reading some Dawkins?

 

I've read a lot of Dawkins. And Dennett and Harris as well as Shermer and Boyer . Among many others.

 

I haven't read Dawkins' latest, The God Delusion , yet.

[Samnmax221]

I've a lot of Dawkins. And Dennett and Harris as well as Shermer and Boyer . Among many others.

 

I haven't read Dawkins' latest, The God Delusion , yet.

I was going to go look for some after I saw part of a special that featured him, unfortunately I'm nearly broke and a fiction book is required for my upcoming book report.

[SkinWalker]

Library cards are free

 

Most of my reading is from the library's stacks and the Inter Library Loan.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

Sorry, kid. But delusion it is. Delusion is defined: "an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary."

Hmm...another definition of delusion: "A false belief or opinion." Erroneous: "Containing or based on error; mistaken; wrong." Until the day you kill God (uuhh...I doubt it), then you cannot "prove" that my beliefs are "false" or in "error."

[SkinWalker]

Hmm...another definition of delusion: "A false belief or opinion." Erroneous: "Containing or based on error; mistaken; wrong." Until the day you kill God (uuhh...I doubt it), then you cannot "prove" that my beliefs are "false" or in "error."

 

I have no interest in "proving" your beliefs are false. Indeed, the onus of proof is upon the claimant, in this case you, to prove your beliefs are factual. In general, I don't have any problem with what people believe and how they go about their day. If believing in a god, be it Yawheh, Zeus, Atun, Quetzecoatl, or Thor, gets you through your day and helps you deal with stress, life, etc., then more power to you.

 

But the problem I have is that believers are using their superstitions to influence public policy and to dictate how I live *MY* life. At that point, I feel the need to be openly critical. I can't kill your god anymore than I can kill an invisible pink unicorn.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

Fair enough. And I do agree that most "Christians" especially in the news today do take it a little too far, with the whole pushing their beliefs on others. I put Christian in quotes because I don't believe that any Christian can say "I think we should kill them all in the Lord's name" (Jerry Faldwell referring to the Iraqis). That kinda stuff really puts out false information on what Cristians are all about.

[Ray Jones]

I can't kill your god anymore than I can kill an invisible pink unicorn.

Aim at the green spots on their behind. If you hit the 3rd spot from the top, 2nd from the left, but not if it's the 7th from the right at the same time, then it has to be the 5th from the bottom, ca. at lunch time, it will grow another horn and magically turn into an fully functional Airwolf model helicopter. It'll probably shoot at you, but clever as you are, you have your protective mimicry set, invisible pink edition, at hand, aight? However, from that point on, just wait until the batteries are empty.

[Jae Onasi]

Aim at the green spots on their behind. If you hit the 3rd spot from the top, 2nd from the left, but not if it's the 7th from the right at the same time, then it has to be the 5th from the bottom, ca. at lunch time, it will grow another horn and magically turn into an fully functional Airwolf model helicopter. It'll probably shoot at you, but clever as you are, you have your protective mimicry set, invisible pink edition, at hand, aight? However, from that point on, just wait until the batteries are empty.

 

Don't forget that you can only do this on the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year, at the 7th minute of the 7th hour (some of us have lunch really early in the day), but only on days where the sunrise was a mauvey shade of pinky-russet and you have 3 virgins (male or female, we don't discriminate here) in the party with you.

 

Airwolf? I loved that show.

 

And on a theoretically slightly more serious note...

 

 

Not to sound obtrusive, but how can you have a solid faith in something that uses unlimited power in a haphazardous manner?

Your assumption is that it's haphazard, based on what you can experience in a very finite space and time. Since He has experience outside my little blip on the radar, it may well not be haphazard. Don't get me wrong--He could put his unlimited power into someone and make them supremely happy the rest of their lives. But what if that meant others would experience a much worse life as a result?

 

I'm busy with more earthly books at the moment.

How much more earthly can you get than humanity and suffering?

 

Heh, if you had a copy of the one I'm reading, you'd probably burn it. The author considers people who believe in God delusional, hates even somewhat centralized government, thinks women should be regarded as their husband's possessions, is probably okay with child labor, praises selfishness as the ultimate virtue, hates charities and anything money is donated to, despises people who give without expecting anything in return, and even portrays redheads in a negative manner.

Well, thank God I'm not married to _him_.

 

 

Because it would be a small matter in the face of world hunger, proverty, and all those other bad things.

Reminds me of the line in MST3K's version of High School Big Shot.

High School kid has a perfectly timed heist planned. But he didn't plan on getting stuck behind a train. As the train goes by on the tracks, blocking his way to the place where he's going to steal a million bucks, he looks all depressed and says, "God help us"

Crow (or maybe Tom Servo) quips, "Oh, yeah, like with wars, famine, and poverty, God really cares about your little heist."

 

I howled laughing and was hooked on the show after that.

Actually, from a Christian viewpoint, He does care about the little things. There's a verse that says he knows the number of hairs on our heads. I don't even know how many hairs I have on my head.

 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see allowing innocent people to suffer will be good for anything in the long run.

What if a minimal suffering now means not experiencing greater suffering down the road? Do I say a strongly worded "NO!" to my daughter, or do I allow her to go ahead and touch the hot stove? Neither is, in and of itself, a pleasant experience for my daughter. In fact, she'd probably view both as negative experiences. But the "NO!" prevents her from seriously injuring herself.

This is also an assumption based on the idea that in order for God to be Good, God must make us all happy. I can do good things with or without happiness. I do a lot of good things for patients without making them necessarily happy. Making them take eye drops does not make them happy. But it does them good because it fixes the problem (or at least keeps it from getting worse).

 

If God gave us free will, why are some people forced to submit to the power of others?

Different kind of free will. I'm talking about the free will to make the decision to do right or wrong, to make the decision to accept or reject faith/God, the ethical/spiritual free will.

 

Would anything have been wrong with giving just a tad less so people couldn't act unethical (as it would save lives),

Well, making someone a tad less free is kind of like making a woman a tad less pregnant. You're either free or not.

 

Removing evil would not have people act like little robots. Martin Luther King, for instance, was a good person, though did that make him a robot? Of course not.

Removing evil means removing all _choice_ to do evil as well. It means that love would then be compelled--those who would ordinarily choose evil (which all of us do to some degree or another--you should have seen my sisters and me flame each other when we were little--whew!) are now _required_ to do good and to love. You cannot compel someone to love. You have to allow love to be given freely, or it's not genuine love.

King had the choice to set KKK houses on fire or kill white supremacists, for instance. He chose instead to conduct peaceful protests.

 

Besides, saying there's only good or evil is as black and white a statement as you can get.Why not just remove evil, and limit people to being neutral or good? Or why not remove the far end of it, so there couldn't be people evil to the point that they kill other ones? That would only save lives.

Which far end of evil would you like to remove? Just murders? Murders + involuntary manslaughter? Thefts, because stealing from someone could put them out on the street and they die of exposure? Evil is evil, though there may be different degrees of it, just like there can be of good.

Let's say I have a barrel of fresh drinking water. I contaminate it with a gallon of raw sewage. What have I just made? A barrel of raw sewage. Let's take that same barrel of fresh water and contaminate it with a small drop of raw sewage. What have I got? Raw sewage, again. The first barrel is more contaminated, but both are still raw sewage just the same.

 

Speaking of talking to God, you mentioned at one point that you think people are offered a final chance to accept Him once they die. Doesn't that render the entire point of faith obsolete if you're given proof and a choice once you die? You'd lose absolutely nothing in this life if you burned Bibles for fun.

I don't know for certain that they get that option, but I'd like to think that they do. There are always going to be people who are, at the last moment going to have a heart-to-heart with God, who have lived an entire life of nastiness. However, they've missed out on a lot in life because of the lifestyle. They may have become sons and daughters in the faith, but they haven't had the full benefit of the relationship with God during life like someone who came to faith at a younger age. They may have shortened their lives by living in a way counter to what God intends. They _may_ have hurt others more (and I'm specifically talking about those who have done evil during life and repented at the final moment) than they might have if they were in a relationship God. Maybe they missed out on some of the comfort that God could have provided during the difficult times in their lives.

 

When I lived at home, I had a close relationship with my grandma. When I went away to school and was away from her presence most of the time, the relationship was there, but it was not as satisfying--we didn't talk as often, and we couldn't see each other often because I was 12 hours away. We missed each other's presence, and I didn't have the benefit of her wisdom. Or her naughty jokes, but that's another story.

 

In any case, the relationship was not the same when I was far away as when I was close, and I think those who 'burn Bibles' all their lives and then develop that relationship at the very end of life have missed out on much of the relational aspects that _could_ have made their lives better/more fulfilling/less evil/more productive. Note I am _not_ trying to say those without a faith are somehow living less fulfilling lives or are more evil, because I know any number of happy and fulfilled non-Christians (my aunt/uncle being a couple examples--fabulous people), and I know any number of unhappy, unfulfilled Christians. However, those who've gone around doing nasty things all their lives are not terribly happy people as a rule, and they're the ones who've missed out the most on the loving relationship.

 

And if that person refuses and is cast into Hell, what happens if they come to love Him after several years of burning in agony?

That's a great question that I don't have an answer for. I don't believe that case is ever addressed in the Bible, though the implication seems to be that after the final judgment, we're done, for good or ill. Since the Bible is about our relationship with God in the present life, it may not be mentioned because it's not salient to what we need during our lives.

 

 

[Ayn Rand] Reserhch? You haf not dun enuf reserhch if you stihl beleef in Got! [/Ayn Rand]

Oh, Lordy.

 

The evidence is weighted heavily against religion, including Christianity.

In your copious spare time , you'll have to tell me what specific evidence you feel weighs against theism, or at least direct me to which of the posts/threads you've delineated those thoughts in, because there's approximately a gazillion posts on religion in the Senate. Not like I'm counting or anything.

 

But the problem I have is that believers are using their superstitions to influence public policy and to dictate how I live *MY* life.

The majority of people in the US are at least nominally Christian, and those numbers are certainly significantly higher than those who claim atheism/agnosticisim as their belief system. Since proving God does not exist is an impossibility, and the majority believe, I have no issue with majority rule in the determination of public policy. Regardless of whether we are believers or not, I have just as much right to pursue policies that support, or at least are not diametrically opposed, to my belief. An atheist's delusion that God does not exist does not cede him/her the right to curtail my freedom of religion and freedom to affect policy based on my belief system. The US is founded on freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. That being said, I watch carefully any legislation that attempts to limit religious freedoms, ostensibly in favor of Christianity, in this country. Those laws can come back to bite Christians in the butt. If an entire community has been Christian and has set up laws so that Christianity has special favor, then Christians might be thrilled by that. However, if the Church of Raniskran moves in and becomes the majority, and the Raniskranites enact laws attempting to limit any religion/non-religion in favor of Raniskranism, that's a problem. So I'm not a fan of any legislation on religion other than 'we have the right to worship as we choose', even those that would theoretically support Christianity.

 

I make no bones about being active in voting and expressing my thoughts to my Congressman/Senators on various issues, including those issues that non-Christians may not be too thrilled about. There are not that many things about which we'd end up on completely opposite sides of the fence, however, because there are very few things that fall exclusively into the realm of Christians or atheists/agnostics alone.