What is your Religion: Part II

[Zain]

In other words, turn or burn

Why are you so certain that your faith is the only true one? All you have is faith, so does the rest of the religous world. Logically, if it's mostly only a guess, then you have almost 0 chance of going to heaven, no matter how morally you live your life.

You don't get into Heaven by works, only faith.

What I believe is based on the Christian bible. If it's a bunch of made up stories (which I Highly doubt) then I do'nt know what will happen. I'll have to say that if God doesn't exist, then neither does Heaven. Do you agree?

[Banquo's Ghost]

PS: What really started to turn me away from my belief was my CCD teacher telling me that Catholics believe your soul stays with your body after death until Judgment Day, where the decision for each soul to go to Heaven or Hell is made. I had never heard that before and believed it to be utter crap.

Just for information, your teacher was utterly wrong, or as is often the case, antagonistic towars the Roman church. Catholics believe no such thing.

Interestingly, the Catholic faith (which has a fairly powerful internal consistency having been interpreted by some of the finest philosophical minds of the mediaeval period) includes a much more palatable idea to the afterlife - Purgatory.

Catholics believe that very few people live lives that qualify them for Heaven - only the saints go direct. Equally, very few people live lives that deserve the horrors of Hell (Southern Baptists mainly ). Almost everyone goes to Purgatory when they die, which is a place of cleansing - where the soul understands the clarity of every action they took in life and how it affected those around them. Unlike in life, the soul cannot lie to itself about its sin - every hurtful fact and its result is revealed in the light of God's truth.

Time of course, has no real meaning there, but the soul can then begin its journey of purgation, of reconciliation with God. Very serious sins take a very long 'time', whereas a decent but flawed person can achieve entry into Heaven quite quickly.

The Catholic position is that just being baptised does not guarantee Heaven. You have to earn it. Even the worst sinner can be redeemed, it just takes an awful long time. After 1500 years of this view, the Protestant churches decided on the idea of the Elect, ie believe and you are saved. One of the drawbacks of letting people read the Bible in their own language is they get all sorts of weird ideas!

Some theologians have postulated that Purgatory may be earth itself, in other words a second chance in the flawed world to do good - similar to reincarnation - and that the miseries we see are actually there to encourage us sinners to expiate our sins through good works - though this is by no means official doctrine which states that Purgatory is a separate spiritual realm.

Of course, one of the drivers for the Reformation was the Roman Catholic Church's very smart business decision that as prayer was said to help souls move through Purgatory, you could sell ready made 'indulgences' ie pre-paid tickets through the nastier bits. Kind of a first class trip through repentance.

Neat idea, very good for the patronage of the arts, but the purists decided this was ungodly and set up their own churches - and banned stuff like dancing and beer.

But as an explanation for a loving God who also metes out punishments, Purgatory seems to me very consistent. I am drawn to the idea that one can pray for one's loved ones, as well as the friendless, and speed their journey towards happiness. The more people who think kindly of you, the quicker you achieve paradise, which is rather symmetrical and worthy of an omnipotent Being.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

First of all, original sin itself is all wrong. Before adam and eve ate "the apple" they did not know the difference between good and evil. Therefore, they did not know it was evil to eat the apple. So how can God punish us for something we did not know was wrong? The "expulsion from eden" was our spiritual awakening and transformation into thinking, choosing human beings. It fits in perfectly with evolution.

Hence, no need for a messiah.



But let's assume for fun that original sin is real. How does the physical death of Jesus cancel out my "spiritual death"? So he died on the cross. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Death is an eventuallity, whether you are murdered or die peacefully. Now if Jesus went to hell for all eternity, that would be a different story. THAT would be a sacrifice.



Finally, assuming that (a) original sin is real and (b) Jesus really was God and that his physical death actually menat something, then why the heck do I need to believe it? If he made the sacrifice, then "believing" in it is pointless.


Jesus is the boogey man waiting to kill you in the closet or under the bed. He's Santa Claus in the North Pole. Superman flying throught the sky.

Worship Jesus and you are worshipping a man in the place of our one God. Christianity is pagan. The father, the son, the holy ghost = 3 gods, not one.

Granted, Christianity has done alot of good in this world, but it has also done just as much evil. And all in worship of a human being.


The teachings of Jesus show us a different path. Jesus taught us to be closer to God by simplifying everything. He told as that there are two commandments (love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.)

The beauty of Jesus was his ability to get people past all the BS bureaucracy and rules that the saducees and pharisees had attached to our worship of the Lord. His disciples, especially Paul, were brilliant in that they brought the Lord to those outside of Judaism. But they were not trying to promote Jesus as God, they were trying to bring the teachings of Jesus to a wider audience.


The sooner that we put the destructive myths of Original Sin and Jesus-as-God into the religious history books, the better off the world will be. One day, the world will all worship the one true God and this distraction from our Lord will be put to a final rest.


Oh- and one more thing. Adam is hebrew for mankind. The Torah is the old testament and was first written in hebrew. So there is no "Adam" as a single person. So "mankind" "ate" "the apple". It also says nothing about a rib bone.

Literal translation of Genesis 1:27 from Hebrew to English-
And created | God | the mankind | in His image, | In the image of | God | He created | him; | male | and female | He created | them

And there is a whole lot more where that came from.

this is the same old argument used against christians, you were a christian once wern't you? surely you understand the concept of the holy trinity?
as for original sin Jesus died for our sins, the sins you and i have commited and will commit not just somethign our ancestors may or may not have done
as for whether you have to believe or not i can't say who will and who won't end up in heaven so i can't give a conclusive anser, however jesus taught to ask and it will be givem to you so if you don't ask (try and believe) you may not get.

[Divinus Arma]

Haruchai, I too, like the idea of purgatory and find it more in agreement with a loving God.

However, I do not at present accept anything less than total strict monotheism, though I have the humility to admit that I have no certainty. I am certain that there is no less than one God. For me, Jesus, the whole trinity, etc, is a pagan perspective. But, again, what do I know for sure? Nothing.

this is the same old argument used against christians, you were a christian once wern't you? surely you understand the concept of the holy trinity?
as for original sin Jesus died for our sins, the sins you and i have commited and will commit not just somethign our ancestors may or may not have done
as for whether you have to believe or not i can't say who will and who won't end up in heaven so i can't give a conclusive anser, however jesus taught to ask and it will be givem to you so if you don't ask (try and believe) you may not get.

Which was the same old argument? I voiced many.

I do sin. And I do ask for forgiveness. And it is given. The messiah is each of us, within ourselves. Our savior is ourselves- to have a relationship with the Lord and continually seek to do his will. We can never be perfect, and Jesus was right when he said that all will fall short. But what differentiates one man from another is his continual individual development towards God's purpose. Man must continually strive to align his own purpose with God's purpose. This is neither action, nor thought, not attitude, not intentions alone. It is all of this, but under the recognition that one will never attain perfection, though one can certainly pursue it. And through this pursuit, one finds himself closer alligned to the will of God.

Jesus was unique because he recognized that he was his own pathway to God. It not "No one comes to the father but my me". It is "No one comes to the father but by you". He was "the way the truth and the light", but so can each of us be. We are each simultaneously our own worst enemy and own best friend. We can facilitate our realtionship with the Lord, or counter it and deny ourselves. But each is a Messiah. Our relationship with God is on an individual level, so each of us requires an indivudal saviour. Ourselves.

[Banquo's Ghost]

However, I do not at present accept anything less than total strict monotheism, though I have the humility to admit that I have no certainty. I am certain that there is no less than one God. For me, Jesus, the whole trinity, etc, is a pagan perspective. But, again, what do I know for sure? Nothing.

On St Patrick's Day, I should be limbering up the old shamrock to show you how the Trinity is actually three aspects of the same one God, just as the old fella did for the pagan Irish kings.

But I'm about to go out and get blotto, so maybe tomorrow, as penance for the sins I am undoubtedly going to commit tonight

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Haruchai, I too, like the idea of purgatory and find it more in agreement with a loving God.

However, I do not at present accept anything less than total strict monotheism, though I have the humility to admit that I have no certainty. I am certain that there is no less than one God. For me, Jesus, the whole trinity, etc, is a pagan perspective. But, again, what do I know for sure? Nothing.



Which was the same old argument? I voiced many.

I do sin. And I do ask for forgiveness. And it is given. The messiah is each of us, within ourselves. Our savior is ourselves- to have a relationship with the Lord and continually seek to do his will. We can never be perfect, and Jesus was right when he said that all will fall short. But what differentiates one man from another is his continual individual development towards God's purpose. Man must continually strive to align his own purpose with God's purpose. This is neither action, nor thought, not attitude, not intentions alone. It is all of this, but under the recognition that one will never attain perfection, though one can certainly pursue it. And through this pursuit, one finds himself closer alligned to the will of God.

Jesus was unique because he recognized that he was his own pathway to God. It not "No one comes to the father but my me". It is "No one comes to the father but by you". He was "the way the truth and the light", but so can each of us be. We are each simultaneously our own worst enemy and own best friend. We can facilitate our realtionship with the Lord, or counter it and deny ourselves. But each is a Messiah. Our relationship with God is on an individual level, so each of us requires an indivudal saviour. Ourselves.

The whole trinity = polytheism argument,

It seems that you like me, were once a christian without understanding the religion properlly. Many years of being a christian and i did not understand so much about the trinity and forgiveness but just because the teachings of some christians are faulted does not mean that the whole religion as a whole is incorrect.

Didn't you you say that you stopped being a christian because a loving god would not allow one child to suffer?

Well the problem with this and any other issue of god interveneing is you are faced with two chioces, you could have a god that controlled and protected that prevented all harmfull acts, everyone would be safe and would live a long time but as a consequance you would be being constantly audited and edited. imagine an over protective parent, it would be intollerable to force such rules on those who do not wish them even if it was for altruistic purposes (just think what has happened when the church has wrongly tried this).

God could compleately abandon us, we would have compleate free will, but at the price of not even knowing our creator or our purpose, and without the guidance that such a powerful force could provide.

In the end its probably a bit of a compramise god makes himself known but not so much that people who do not want to follow him can't, or so little that those who wish to don't know how to follow him. In a model like this Hell would merely be a life without god for all those who reject him, basicly giving them what they wanted.

Again Imagining god as a parent, would you want to live with them your whole life? no, you would want fundamental independance even if it is only the inderpendance to get things wrong on your own. It is the same with god god does not want to force us and over protectiveness is a form of controlling.

Your right, religion is a very personal thing, as i said before the purpose of Jesus was to correct the older teachings and bring new ones, the most important of which is just how much god loves us and just how far he is willing to go to forgive us. Look at the contemporary Pagan gods they all required bribes and sacrifices for their favours. But the God Jesus teached of was one that needed no such trinkets as you would expect any truly loving and powerful being to.

I don't mean to be rude but it seems that your beliefs are very like Arianism perhaps you could say you were an Arian christian?

[Divinus Arma]

The whole trinity = polytheism argument,

It seems that you like me, were once a christian without understanding the religion properlly. Many years of being a christian and i did not understand so much about the trinity and forgiveness but just because the teachings of some christians are faulted does not mean that the whole religion as a whole is incorrect.

I felt I understood it then and I feel I understand it now. I understand that the holy trinity is, as Haruchai wrote, "three aspects of the same one God". I got it then, and I get it now.

But I still think that the Holy Trinity as a concept is in disagreement with the concept of monotheism. In fact, the lord is in everything, but that does not mean I should worship God "In the name of the holy oak tree" or "the puffy cotton cloud", as do people who pray "In the name of Jesus the Christ".

The difference is not only in worship, but in self-awareness and being. It has been explained many times that Jesus and God will sit side by side in heaven. Thus, in the "spiritual realm" Jesus and God are two distinct self-aware entities.

Didn't you you say that you stopped being a christian because a loving god would not allow one child to suffer?

No. I did not. Please read my comments for clarification, BM. I will be happy to discuss this with you.

Well the problem with this and any other issue of god interveneing is you are faced with two chioces, you could have a god that controlled and protected that prevented all harmfull acts, everyone would be safe and would live a long time but as a consequance you would be being constantly audited and edited. imagine an over protective parent, it would be intollerable to force such rules on those who do not wish them even if it was for altruistic purposes (just think what has happened when the church has wrongly tried this).

God could compleately abandon us, we would have compleate free will, but at the price of not even knowing our creator or our purpose, and without the guidance that such a powerful force could provide.

In the end its probably a bit of a compramise god makes himself known but not so much that people who do not want to follow him can't, or so little that those who wish to don't know how to follow him. In a model like this Hell would merely be a life without god for all those who reject him, basicly giving them what they wanted.

Again Imagining god as a parent, would you want to live with them your whole life? no, you would want fundamental independance even if it is only the inderpendance to get things wrong on your own. It is the same with god god does not want to force us and over protectiveness is a form of controlling.

I agree with all of this, in essence. I too believe that God grants us free will, and we have the choice to align our purpose with his, or to refuse his will and follow a selfish purpose that serves only ourselves.

Your right, religion is a very personal thing, as i said before the purpose of Jesus was to correct the older teachings and bring new ones, the most important of which is just how much god loves us and just how far he is willing to go to forgive us. Look at the contemporary Pagan gods they all required bribes and sacrifices for their favours. But the God Jesus teached of was one that needed no such trinkets as you would expect any truly loving and powerful being to.

I also agree with this. Jesus is an outstanding example of what can happen when one chooses to align their purpose with God. But then ,society could not function if we all just "walked the earth" as Jesus did.

I don't mean to be rude but it seems that your beliefs are very like Arianism perhaps you could say you were an Arian christian?

Not at all rude. I can understand your confusion. First and foremost, I am no longer a Christian. Nor do I misunderstand the holy trinity as Arianism. As Christianity teaches, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit co-exist but share the same being. This is my understanding of Christianity and it is one that I regard as polytheistic, despite the unity of these entities in one divinity. This is similar to Hinduism, which has a variety of divine beings, all of which co-exist but share divinity as a manifestation of Brahman, the Hindu concept of our Lord.

[Marcellus]

Why should God let people that don't believe in him into his "house"?

Why should he send them to eternal torture just because they didn't believe in him? Why the two extremes?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I felt I understood it then and I feel I understand it now. I understand that the holy trinity is, as Haruchai wrote, "three aspects of the same one God". I got it then, and I get it now.

But I still think that the Holy Trinity as a concept is in disagreement with the concept of monotheism. In fact, the lord is in everything, but that does not mean I should worship God "In the name of the holy oak tree" or "the puffy cotton cloud", as do people who pray "In the name of Jesus the Christ".

ok well il try and give an explanation of why i consider it not polytheistic then, basicly i see god as a force outside all reasons and boundarys that is present in everything in the form of the holy spirit. God also created the universe, that aspect of god is as a father of the universe seperate from gods actions as the holy spirit. Then the third aspect, Jesus is god made present amoung man to act as a sacrifice, god must be the sacrifice as no one else could fulfil this role he was there at the begining he his here now and he sacrificed himself for us. Perhaps like the different states of water the same thing in different forms and with different purpose but the same overall thing. A theologin could explain better.

The difference is not only in worship, but in self-awareness and being. It has been explained many times that Jesus and God will sit side by side in heaven. Thus, in the "spiritual realm" Jesus and God are two distinct self-aware entities.

No. I did not. Please read my comments for clarification, BM. I will be happy to discuss this with you.

sorry if i was wrong i thought you said it in this thread but i can't find it to quote, you said how you were a christian and had stopped beign a christian because you couldn't believe in a god that allowed one child to die maybee someone else said it.

I agree with all of this, in essence. I too believe that God grants us free will, and we have the choice to align our purpose with his, or to refuse his will and follow a selfish purpose that serves only ourselves.

I also agree with this. Jesus is an outstanding example of what can happen when one chooses to align their purpose with God. But then ,society could not function if we all just "walked the earth" as Jesus did.

Not at all rude. I can understand your confusion. First and foremost, I am no longer a Christian. Nor do I misunderstand the holy trinity as Arianism. As Christianity teaches, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit co-exist but share the same being. This is my understanding of Christianity and it is one that I regard as polytheistic, despite the unity of these entities in one divinity. This is similar to Hinduism, which has a variety of divine beings, all of which co-exist but share divinity as a manifestation of Brahman, the Hindu concept of our Lord.

no, what i meant was that if you disagree with the trinity but agree with the rest of jesus's teaching you would be of a similar belief to that of an Arian Christian (but if you do not consider yourself a christian that is clearly not so) i hold the opposite stance to you and hold Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion this is probably why i dissagree with you on the trinity.

[Divinus Arma]

ok well il try and give an explanation of why i consider it not polytheistic then, basicly i see god as a force outside all reasons and boundarys that is present in everything in the form of the holy spirit. God also created the universe, that aspect of god is as a father of the universe seperate from gods actions as the holy spirit. Then the third aspect, Jesus is god made present amoung man to act as a sacrifice, god must be the sacrifice as no one else could fulfil this role he was there at the begining he his here now and he sacrificed himself for us. Perhaps like the different states of water the same thing in different forms and with different purpose but the same overall thing. A theologin could explain better.

I know you do not consider it polytheistic. When I was a Christian I did not consider it polytheistic either. In fact, it made perfect sense.

But now I see it all as a distraction from our relationship with the Lord. We can each have an individual relationship with God and anybody who tells you otherwise is trying to control you. Furthermore, the concept of a "middle man" acting as a conduit is completely asinine. The fact that Jesus was dead 2000 years ago makes it all the more asinine. Christians worship a dead guy in the belief that the dead guy was God manifested as a human, and thus worshipping the dead guy gives you a ticket to heaven. It's nuts! The fact that Jesus is supposed to be a "group messiah" makes it all the more absurd because each one of us should be seeking out an individual duty to God. Thus, each of us have a responsibility to be our own saviours.

sorry if i was wrong i thought you said it in this thread but i can't find it to quote, you said how you were a christian and had stopped beign a christian because you couldn't believe in a god that allowed one child to die maybee someone else said it.

I told you before, I never said that. I would not never say that. You have me confused with somebody else. Of course I believe in a God that would allow one child to die- how about billions? If God were to jump in and rescue everybody on a daily basis, it would destroy our free choice.

no, what i meant was that if you disagree with the trinity but agree with the rest of jesus's teaching you would be of a similar belief to that of an Arian Christian (but if you do not consider yourself a christian that is clearly not so) i hold the opposite stance to you and hold Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion this is probably why i dissagree with you on the trinity.

Well, in a way Hinduism and Christianity are very similar in that respect. The difference is that Hinudism does not threaten people with eternal damnation for "not believing the way we want you to".

I see the good in Christianity, but I do not agree with the portion that warps it. I can take the best from each religion and work with it.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I know you do not consider it polytheistic. When I was a Christian I did not consider it polytheistic either. In fact, it made perfect sense.

But now I see it all as a distraction from our relationship with the Lord. We can each have an individual relationship with God and anybody who tells you otherwise is trying to control you. Furthermore, the concept of a "middle man" acting as a conduit is completely asinine. The fact that Jesus was dead 2000 years ago makes it all the more asinine. Christians worship a dead guy in the belief that the dead guy was God manifested as a human, and thus worshipping the dead guy gives you a ticket to heaven. It's nuts! The fact that Jesus is supposed to be a "group messiah" makes it all the more absurd because each one of us should be seeking out an individual duty to God. Thus, each of us have a responsibility to be our own saviours.

of course we each can have a direct relationship with god this is entirely what i believe but jesus came and died so that our sins could be forgiven by god and by ourselves otherwise how could anyone possibly atone for all the millions os sins that they perform during their lives?

I told you before, I never said that. I would not never say that. You have me confused with somebody else. Of course I believe in a God that would allow one child to die- how about billions? If God were to jump in and rescue everybody on a daily basis, it would destroy our free choice.

sorry i thought you did, i remember you talking about how you were a christian and couldn't accept the concept of hell and then saying that you couldn't believe in a god that let children suffer or something i can't find the comments (why can't you search the backroom like the other forums? its very annoying! )

Well, in a way Hinduism and Christianity are very similar in that respect. The difference is that Hinudism does not threaten people with eternal damnation for "not believing the way we want you to".

well i don't remember threatening anyone with damnation, don't hold me or the christian faith as a whole, responsible for the unchristian (im sure you know that we are forbidden to judge) attutudes of others.

I see the good in Christianity, but I do not agree with the portion that warps it. I can take the best from each religion and work with it.

every group has an eliment that ruins it for the rest

[Divinus Arma]

of course we each can have a direct relationship with god this is entirely what i believe but jesus came and died so that our sins could be forgiven by god and by ourselves otherwise how could anyone possibly atone for all the millions os sins that they perform during their lives?

Well this is really the only portion of your comments in the discussion that actually matters at this point. The rest is pretty much moot.

How do we atone for our sins? Simple. By recognizing them and asking for forgiveness. We know when we do wrong. Some are bigger sins (like checking out naked hotties on the web. ), and some are almost forgetable, like cutting someone off on the freeway then flipping 'em the bird. And some are just downright evil- murder, rape, molesting alter boys, etc.

How God forgives us and what we feel in that forgiveness is a little different depending on the sin. Do evil and you will know how long it stays with you, no matter how much you ask for forgiveness. Do a minor sin and you will be forgiven with relatively little difficulty.


More importantly tha even forgiveness, is life allignment. Namely, setting a course in your life that is alligned to the will of the Lord. Plan your day knowing that you will be challenged throughout. Seek strength, comfort, wisdom, and tenacity from the Lord. When you begin to falter, ask for assistance. When you still fail, ask for forgiveness. It is not a matter of "doing good deeds", it is a matter of living a life alligned with God's will. When this done, one no longer needs to think about doind good deeds for their own sake. It becomes automatic and ingrained within your spiritual self. And in this way, we pre-emptively act to prepare ourselves against sin and to do the will of God. The best "atonement" for sins is to not commit them in the first place. Through right allignment, we can actively pursue perfection, while planning for oursleves to evetual fail in some measures.

Then the Lord will know we are his servants. And when we ask forgiveness of him individually, he will not hesitate to forgive and continue his love for us.

[Banquo's Ghost]

sorry i thought you did, i remember you talking about how you were a christian and couldn't accept the concept of hell and then saying that you couldn't believe in a god that let children suffer or something i can't find the comments (why can't you search the backroom like the other forums? its very annoying! )

BM, it was me who quoted Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'. The book is about organized religion, in 19th century Russia (the Orthodox Church) and about the challenges it provides to faith. At one point Alyosha (IIRC, long time since I read it last) objects to the teachings of the Church by saying - "I cannot believe in a God that would permit the suffering of a single child."

This goes to the root of belief in a loving God who actively intervenes in our lives. If He could send His son to die for us, and, as most Christians seem to believe, He listens to prayers and acts upon them, why does He permit any suffering at all, let alone the unfathomable awfulness of a suffering child?

If He does not so act, out of respect for the free will we took in the Garden of Eden, then he is a remote God lacking in the one essential component of love - compassion. This unengaged God is closer to the pagan pantheon, than the Christian diety. The Bible is all about God intervening, so why then and not now? The fundamentalists love to quote the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah where He stomped on lots of bad people - this is after the Fall, so why not now? Jesus was said to heal the sick and raise the dead - why not now, and why them? (Yes, I know the hardcore will pop up and quote so-called miracles of today, but I've never read of any of them being properly substantiated, and I have known some really kind people of immense faith die miserably when they should have been first on the saved list. Consistency is a good thing).

Alyosha was asking the question that challenges all faith - Why, God, why?

It is a question that affected my own faith, and to which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I don't accept unquestioning blind stupidity of thought from humanity, I certainly won't accept it from someone who wishes to be my God.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

BM, it was me who quoted Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'. The book is about organized religion, in 19th century Russia (the Orthodox Church) and about the challenges it provides to faith. At one point Alyosha (IIRC, long time since I read it last) objects to the teachings of the Church by saying - "I cannot believe in a God that would permit the suffering of a single child."

This goes to the root of belief in a loving God who actively intervenes in our lives. If He could send His son to die for us, and, as most Christians seem to believe, He listens to prayers and acts upon them, why does He permit any suffering at all, let alone the unfathomable awfulness of a suffering child?

If He does not so act, out of respect for the free will we took in the Garden of Eden, then he is a remote God lacking in the one essential component of love - compassion. This unengaged God is closer to the pagan pantheon, than the Christian diety. The Bible is all about God intervening, so why then and not now? The fundamentalists love to quote the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah where He stomped on lots of bad people - this is after the Fall, so why not now? Jesus was said to heal the sick and raise the dead - why not now, and why them? (Yes, I know the hardcore will pop up and quote so-called miracles of today, but I've never read of any of them being properly substantiated, and I have known some really kind people of immense faith die miserably when they should have been first on the saved list. Consistency is a good thing).

Alyosha was asking the question that challenges all faith - Why, God, why?

It is a question that affected my own faith, and to which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I don't accept unquestioning blind stupidity of thought from humanity, I certainly won't accept it from someone who wishes to be my God.

It is a good question that is often asked of religious people in the end it all comes down to freedom imagine you had a body guard escorting you everywhere and stopping anything that they dissaproved of even when you didn't understand why, there is so much in the world that god does not like more then we could ever know they are all taken seriously if god were to interfere with one then god would have to interfere with the rest too.

Freedom would be almost nonexistant and many would find existance intorerable. So, say a child dies, you blame god for not stopping this in so doing you don't have to worry about the real cause of this childs death but the fact is that the child died for a reason i.e. there was a factor that caused it to happen there are two groups of such factors the man made and the natural, a natural cause is part of the very reason we are here and so the suffering caused by it is a bi product of the way the universe works and so should be balanced out if not outweighed by the good that comes of the natural world (there is probably more of this then we will ever know too) or the event was caused directly or indirectly by man, in which case god did intervene but instead of giving mankind a fish he taught him to fish (i.e. he taught us how to live best without harming others) so he has in fact intervened.

Do you wan't to be controlled? any intervention is control and im sure you yourself know that by helping one person another can be indirectly harmed, (e.g. letting a man in line in front of you at a sandwhich shop, i kind act, untill, because you intervened he leaves the shop earlyer just as Franz Ferdinand goes by!)

This is the best explanation i can give at two in the morning!

[Mongoose]

You don't get into Heaven by works, only faith.

What I believe is based on the Christian bible. If it's a bunch of made up stories (which I Highly doubt) then I do'nt know what will happen. I'll have to say that if God doesn't exist, then neither does Heaven. Do you agree?

What I'm saying is that if there are 100s of different stories, and all of them are obviuosly metaphor, then there's an equal chance of one being right VS anyother. Can you see why it's foolish to assume that you've found the true one and that everyone else is going to hell?

It would make the most sense to just ive as morally as you can and just hope that the real God will respect that.

I find it likely that if God exists, he's neither the God Christian nor any other of the the versions that humans have pulled out of the air.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

What I'm saying is that if there are 100s of different stories, and all of them are obviuosly metaphor, then there's an equal chance of one being right VS anyother. Can you see why it's foolish to assume that you've found the true one and that everyone else is going to hell?

i agree that no one can say who is going to heaven, Jesus himself said none but god knows, and remember that Jews, Muslims and Christian all worship the god of the old testament

[Divinus Arma]

It is a good question that is often asked of religious people in the end it all comes down to freedom imagine you had a body guard escorting you everywhere and stopping anything that they dissaproved of even when you didn't understand why, there is so much in the world that god does not like more then we could ever know they are all taken seriously if god were to interfere with one then god would have to interfere with the rest too.

Freedom would be almost nonexistant and many would find existance intorerable. So, say a child dies, you blame god for not stopping this in so doing you don't have to worry about the real cause of this childs death but the fact is that the child died for a reason i.e. there was a factor that caused it to happen there are two groups of such factors the man made and the natural, a natural cause is part of the very reason we are here and so the suffering caused by it is a bi product of the way the universe works and so should be balanced out if not outweighed by the good that comes of the natural world (there is probably more of this then we will ever know too) or the event was caused directly or indirectly by man, in which case god did intervene but instead of giving mankind a fish he taught him to fish (i.e. he taught us how to live best without harming others) so he has in fact intervened.

Do you wan't to be controlled? any intervention is control and im sure you yourself know that by helping one person another can be indirectly harmed, (e.g. letting a man in line in front of you at a sandwhich shop, i kind act, untill, because you intervened he leaves the shop earlyer just as Franz Ferdinand goes by!)

This is the best explanation i can give at two in the morning!

EXCELLENT!!! This was the best argument for non-intervention I have read yet. You have completely articulated my understanding of suffering in this world.

NOW, try this on for size: Buddhism teaches that all suffering is the result of desire and ignorance. Essentially, our ongoing want is the cause of suffering. We want many things: happiness, life without pain, comfort, food, etc.

Only by recognizing the impermanence of all things can we alleviate suffering. We must, as Christians say, Let go and Let God.

This does not mean that we should not work towards peace and prosperity, instead it means that we should recognize that everything is temporary. When we realize this, everything comes into perspective.

This works well with an ecletic religious perspective, because it recognizes the freedoms that God has given us (as explain by BM) while providing a way to cope with the pain that we experience in our short lives.

Our attempts to be eternal instead of worship, gratitude, and humility is the source of human pain. We should continually strive for perfection in right action while simultaneously recognizing the futility of all.

[mystic brew]

interesting, and, BM, the most convincing arguement for non-intervention. It's certainly the best argument i can see.

Do you also subscribe to the view that this non-intervention applies to prayer as well?

otherwise, IMO the non-intervention theory falls flat on it's arse. as you say, the moment a decision is made to intervene it instantly results in all inaction being made a decision, and an intervention also.

[Divinus Arma]

interesting, and, BM, the most convincing arguement for non-intervention. It's certainly the best argument i can see.

Do you also subscribe to the view that this non-intervention applies to prayer as well?

otherwise, IMO the non-intervention theory falls flat on it's arse. as you say, the moment a decision is made to intervene it instantly results in all inaction being made a decision, and an intervention also.

Hopefully I can answer this. Because we are the Lord's agents and it is our purpose to freely choose to do His will, the Lord answers prayers through the actions of people.

What do people ask for when they pray? Money? Power? Health?

They should be praying for strength, for understanding, for patience, and for humility. Our prayers are ALWAYS answered, when our prayers are unselfishly motivated and fall within the Lord's design.

For example, let us assume you have a sick child. Do you pray for his health? Instead pray that your child will be filled with understanding and courage. Pray that you, too, will be understanding and accept our impermanence in this world. Of course you want your child to be well! But this is the cause of your suffering- desire for more than our fragile mortality offers. Thank the Lord that you were able to know your child and be grateful that he had a life to live at all.


When we pray for the external, our wishes will not be fullfilled. When we pray for the internal, our prayers are always answered. And because of this, we can do the good work of God and become agents of change. Through us, God will do external work and make our human experience a better one.

[Kanamori]

To answer the original question: I believe in a God's existence, and I believe that the existence of an objective reality is dependent on the existence of some version of God. However, I don't look to any texts as they were all written by other men and suseptible to many and various errors, if God -- whatever it may be -- would ever talk to us, IMO.

[mystic brew]

Divinus Arma...

thank you. that was damn near poetry! rather beautiful. I don't happen to agree with it, but there we go.

I would still maintain that was intervention, but that's a pov issue.
This is why i love discussing these things. every now and again someone says something you've not heard before!

cheers

[Divinus Arma]

Divinus Arma...

thank you. that was damn near poetry! rather beautiful. I don't happen to agree with it, but there we go.

I would still maintain that was intervention, but that's a pov issue.
This is why i love discussing these things. every now and again someone says something you've not heard before!

cheers

Thanks.

On the matter of intervention, just to clarify. First of all, the Lord is a living God, one who dwells on our level of existence. He is all things and all things are in Him. He does not "live" on a cloud in a bodily form sitting atop a throne, presiding over the dead. He is here. In our time and with us.

God does not intervene by causing us to be remotely controlled robots doing his bidding. Animals do this. Existence is God's "purpose"; He simply exists and was not created, He has chosen to enjoy that existence with His creation. Our purpose is to choose freely to align our will with that of God's will. This is morality. We know what is God's will through prayer. Human experience can contribute towards guiding that prayer ever closer to the Lord. This is a collective experience of humanity, and we are drawing ever nearer to Him.

God operates "externally" (to us) through science. He has created existence using defined limitations on energy which act to make chaos predictable and consequently useful to Him in its ability to interact with itself. It is this order that provides proof of the Lord's existence. The alternative is based on chance, which is unpredictable chaos. The problem with unpredictable or total chaos, is that rules of order are unable to form because chaos itself counteracts against itself. Thus when a trend begins to form, chaos destroys the trend.

A simple proof that shows that chaos is not unpredicatble is this simple rule:
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter its form. This is important because unpredictable chaos allows matter, or energy, to do anything, including double itself or cease existence without another force acting upon it.

How does predictable chaos prove God? Another way to frame this question is, can predictable chaos self-purpose? Or in other words, can chaos designate for itself how it is predictable? The answer is no. Chaos requires a will to shape its limitations, no matter how small. The opposite would be unpredictable chaos, because the energy decides action for itself, to include chaoticide and self-perpetuation.

Thus, predictable chaos proves the existence of a will that defines the limitations of chaotic energy in order to make that energy interact usefully with itself towards some end. This will is what we call God.

The question than becomes whether this will is self-directed or externally directed. Or in other words, is this will self-aware or not. This is the difference between a personal God like that of Judeo-Christian belief systems or an inpersonal God like that of Eastern perspectives.

More to come...

[Divinus Arma]

Mystic Brew, I promise this isn't complete rambling. It does come back around to the arguments surrounding divine intervention, or lack thereof.

So, the question was whether God is personal or inpersonal. Is he self-aware or is he simply a "will"? Is this "will" purposefully self-directed or does it act without purpose.

The question, my friend, is one of purpose. We must ask: what is God's purpose and is that purpose one chosen by God? A self-aware "will" designates its own purpose. A "will" without self-awareness does not assign its own purpose. What is God's purpose, if God Himself did not designate it? There is only one answer. God is chaos. He is a self-directed "will" without purpose. This is an impossibility, because, as was discussed early, chaos is self-defeating. Chaotic will could be self-destructive or self-replicating. Deicide. Or similarly, multiple and competing wills without purpose. Order would not exist because time is outside of this. A second is infinity and infinity is in a second.

That means that God is self-aware. A singular self-aware will that designates its own purpose in shaping the predictability of chaos, and thus of order. Consequently, It or He, may design.

[Divinus Arma]

Mystic Brew, Last portion.

Design and purpose are interrelated and a component of the discussion on intervention. From what I wrote, I believe it is difficult to refute the existence of God when debating within this frame work of chaos logic. I believe it is also difficult to refute that god is self-aware when using this logic.

But what about us? Why would God care about us?

It comes back to purpose. God's self-decided purpose is his design. His creation. To determine our own purpose within that design, we need to understand the purpose of everything within the design. This could get quite complex, but humanity has categorized and classified much of everything within our small sphere of influence. We know how our environment interacts withitself to remain self-sustaining. Our earth, this self-sustaining object acts in complete harmony with the will of God. It does everything it is "told" according to predictable chaos, exactly as God has designed. That's where we come in. We are unique in known existence in that we are the only being similar to God in a way that we can relate. We fullfill God's purpose by choosing to do his will. This validates his purpose for existence. We complete the circle.

"Divine Intervention" as you may call it, would be when we have a direct relationship with the Lord and our will is alligned with his. We pray for an internal embrace of him, nothing more. We are not asking for anything that is not naturally there. We reconnect the link and become a conduit for his will. Thus he acts through us, by our choice, and can directly influence his creation.

[GoreBag]

For example, let us assume you have a sick child. Do you pray for his health? Instead pray that your child will be filled with understanding and courage. Pray that you, too, will be understanding and accept our impermanence in this world. Of course you want your child to be well! But this is the cause of your suffering- desire for more than our fragile mortality offers. Thank the Lord that you were able to know your child and be grateful that he had a life to live at all.

Yes, take your lumps and smile about it. This makes no sense to me; of course I want my child to be insightful and strong, but for now, it's more important for me that he is well. If he does not survive, then he does not live; that much is obvious. If I were to find the silver lining, fine, if that's what I need to do to cope, but no god is responsible for my forced perception or for the health of my child.

[Divinus Arma]

Yes, take your lumps and smile about it. This makes no sense to me; of course I want my child to be insightful and strong, but for now, it's more important for me that he is well. If he does not survive, then he does not live; that much is obvious. If I were to find the silver lining, fine, if that's what I need to do to cope, but no god is responsible for my forced perception or for the health of my child.

I agree. We want our children to be healthy. But God does not externally intervene just as BM so eloquently explained. He only intervenes internally as I explained.

[Kralizec]

"Chaos" and "order" are all in the eyes of the beholder- quite literally. We designate something as chaos because from our perspective, it is uncontrolled. However I hold a very deterministic and mechanical view of the world. Concepts like "chaos" and "chance that [event] will happen" hold meaning to us, because we are ignorant. But everything that has happened was always meant to happen. The Punic wars, the renaissance, etc were at the start of the universe BOUND to happen. If a hugely powerful entity would know all the current conditions and directions of matter and energy, he could both perfectly reconstruct what has happened before and also predict everything that is yet to be, reasoning by causality.
In the eyes of (the hypothetical) God, the being that knows all conditions, there is no chaos (or order, as both terms are meaningless). Just a bunch of matter and energy that flows logically from one point to another, the consequense of the conditions before, the prelude to the conditions thereafter. This, and no less, is omniscience.
Christianity teaches that God is all knowing. Satan rebelled against his creator. So did humanity. How did this get pass him? Or did he mean that to happen? Do we have the "power", the fundamental characteristic to do things God can't predict? In other words, do we have Free Will? Or is God omniscient? I think the two are mutually exclusive.

[mystic brew]

Divinus Arma,

*chuckles*
wasn't expecting this!
I will read and digest, but don't have the time right now!

[Byzantine Mercenary]

interesting, and, BM, the most convincing arguement for non-intervention. It's certainly the best argument i can see.

Do you also subscribe to the view that this non-intervention applies to prayer as well?

otherwise, IMO the non-intervention theory falls flat on it's arse. as you say, the moment a decision is made to intervene it instantly results in all inaction being made a decision, and an intervention also.

Good Question

well, Jesus said when healing people that it was their faith that had healed them now, the placebo effect is a resonably accepted theory and would supply some of the method by which prayer can directly help (i believe that there must be a use to it as Jesus said to do it).

God is of course omnipotent and so knows what we want before we ask for it and so praying is not realy to inform god what you want him to do, as much as to clarify your thoughts, spend time thinking of others and hopefully get strength from the holy spirit. I am of the mind that god has given us the cures to our problems, we just need to look for them, use the gifts that we and others were given and sources like the bible and other christians for guidance, prayer is also to show support, many people even atheists apreciate it when people pray for them, it is a good way to show that you care about whats going on in their lives.

Essentially god intervened once, when he made the universe, in that intervention everything else was layed out in gods mind so for him the future would be pre-determined there is free wil its just he knows all the desisions that we will make!, so in a sence there is intervention, at the beggining that has decided the whole history of the world, and must have if god is omnipotent after all ''god does not play dice'' .

[Byzantine Mercenary]

"Chaos" and "order" are all in the eyes of the beholder- quite literally. We designate something as chaos because from our perspective, it is uncontrolled. However I hold a very deterministic and mechanical view of the world. Concepts like "chaos" and "chance that [event] will happen" hold meaning to us, because we are ignorant. But everything that has happened was always meant to happen. The Punic wars, the renaissance, etc were at the start of the universe BOUND to happen. If a hugely powerful entity would know all the current conditions and directions of matter and energy, he could both perfectly reconstruct what has happened before and also predict everything that is yet to be, reasoning by causality.
In the eyes of (the hypothetical) God, the being that knows all conditions, there is no chaos (or order, as both terms are meaningless). Just a bunch of matter and energy that flows logically from one point to another, the consequense of the conditions before, the prelude to the conditions thereafter. This, and no less, is omniscience.
Christianity teaches that God is all knowing. Satan rebelled against his creator. So did humanity. How did this get pass him? Or did he mean that to happen? Do we have the "power", the fundamental characteristic to do things God can't predict? In other words, do we have Free Will? Or is God omniscient? I think the two are mutually exclusive.

no they are not, god knows what we will do, but gives us the freedom to do it, he gave Satan the freedom to rebel and he gave humans the freedom to rebel he knew it would happen but he allowed them the free will to rebel anyway.