What's your religion?

[WordShaker]

If I may place my two cents on the table?

Looks to me like the problem of evil has cropped up again. It's one that can be roundly argued over and over, with no appreciable resolution in sight. We can argue over whether or not [insert deities of appropriate number here] is/are benevolent or not, but eventually this runs aground of the problem of how benevolence and malevolence are defined. On the secular side of things, morality is necessarily subjective since there is no concrete moral code to point to. On the theistic side of things, since God (to be Christian-centric, as that's what we're currently arguing over and what I'm most familiar with) himself sets the moral code, we have to face whether God is subject to his own rules and the slew of rationalizations towards that along with the accompanying Euthyphro dilemma.

As a person who became anti-religious (and agnostic-atheist) partly out of disdain for the idea of a benevolent God, the problem of evil is something I've often thought about.

Regardless, I have a certain few critiques I have to put out there. I apologize in advance if it seems confrontational or offensive.

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Perhaps you don't understand what "free will" means. Free will doesn't mean that I can choose for the world to be happiness and rainbows. Free will also doesn't mean that I can choose not to die. If someone shoots me in the head, my free will can't do anything about that.

The point I was making was that free will necessitates a world of suffering. If you don't have free will, you don't have good OR evil, and if you don't have evil, you can't have good.

Why does it necessitate a world of suffering? Why does another person's free will necessitate my own suffering, something that I have no direct control over? If God were benevolent and omnipotent (under, of course, the human definition of things), I feel it'd be entirely possible for someone to make a decision and not harm another. For example, someone makes the decision to shoot me in the head; if God is benevolent, why am I not protected?

Further, the idea of free will itself is a rather touchy subject when we come into the idea that God is omniscient. If God knows your actions beforehand, then it cannot truly be free will if we also assume that the conditions that led to your actions are due to the intervention or non-intervention of God; again, things we have no direct control over.

Not at all; rather, it seems that you're missing the original point I made, or confusing terms. Death itself is not a sin. Just because a child was killed doesn't mean that a sin has occurred (suppose they were hit by lightning). The evil itself comes into play when that death wasn't the result of natural causes, as with your murder example. The sin here occurs because the murderer's actions were an improper way of fulfilling his motivations.

I'll go back to my "stealing a TV" example. If you buy a TV or you steal it, in both cases your motivations are to own the TV. However, because you chose to fulfill that desire improperly (through theft), it becomes a sin. In the murder case, the murderer has some desire he wanted realized. Why murder was the best outlet in his mind is something I'll never understand, but people don't just kill unless they think they'll get something out of it.

Wouldn't "natural causes" simply be the extension of God's will? If the murderer's actions are sinful because of the action of "ending life," then God could then be said to have taken an "improper way of fulfilling his motivations" by taking life, and is therefore sinning by this moral code? We still fall under the problem of God allowing the murder to occur, which is effectively the same as making it happen, and thus the murder is another extension of God's will.

I'm positive our consciousness doesn't even come CLOSE to whatever would make up God's being, and comparing our actions to his is a futile pursuit. That said, I'll use an example fitting to the different focal point your offered. If a parent tells their toddler to stay out of the street when they're playing, they have an excellent reason for it. The toddler doesn't know what that reason is; all they see is that this great, fantastic flat surface is being unfairly kept from them. I'm sure this seems grossly unfair to the child. "Why can you go in the street and I can't? Why can you use knives and I can't? Why can you drive the car and I can't?"

It's not until the child becomes mentally equal (or at least close) to the parent that these restrictions and unbalanced freedoms become understandable. However, since we'll NEVER be close to God's mind (as long as we're human), things like this will always seem unfair to us.

That's another dilemma. Even if we assume the existence of God, his actions (or inactions, as it were) make it debatable that he would still be an object of worship from a human understanding.

Yes; the purpose being that we as humans wouldn't be mindless automatons.

I've often questioned the motivations of a God that allows certain people to even be born. If God knows that this human or that human will eventually go against him and will therefore be sentenced to damnation (or something, depending on your theology), I find it odd that the conditions that make murder realizable are not intervened against when they are not the products of "free will." I find this particularly gaping in the case of the homicidal sociopath and other similar individuals; they were born that way, through no fault of their own, and will then be sentenced to damnation/what-have-you for it.

This is assuming that remaining alive is a beneficial thing, which is debatable if we assume the approximate truth of Christian tradition. That's another thing, though.

[j0x]

im catholic but im not religious im more of 90% science believer and 10% religion believer

imo religion just divide more humanity rather than making us all united and understand one another, religion is some sort of barrier among people in mild to extreme cases, base on what i observe

[JC...]

Why are you pretending to be a catholic then? I see that as worse.

[j0x]

Originally Posted by JC...

Why are you pretending to be a catholic then? I see that as worse.

because being catholic will not force you to be religious like going in church every week or praying every 4 hours, so its fine, its not bothering my freedom at all
and like i said im 90% science and 10% religion so the 10% is still hanging in there

and mind explaining why you think its worse? do you mean if your on a religion you should be a 100% believer/follower/devoter of it? Religion is not all their is to life though

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Perhaps you don't understand what "free will" means. Free will doesn't mean that I can choose for the world to be happiness and rainbows. Free will also doesn't mean that I can choose not to die. If someone shoots me in the head, my free will can't do anything about that.

You miss my point, which is that some babies are born doomed to a short life of suffering. Before they had any chance to go for or against God's will. Their fate never had anything to do with any choice of theirs.

The point I was making was that free will necessitates a world of suffering.

Why?

If you don't have free will, you don't have good OR evil, and if you don't have evil, you can't have good.



Not at all; rather, it seems that you're missing the original point I made, or confusing terms. Death itself is not a sin. Just because a child was killed doesn't mean that a sin has occurred (suppose they were hit by lightning). The evil itself comes into play when that death wasn't the result of natural causes, as with your murder example. The sin here occurs because the murderer's actions were an improper way of fulfilling his motivations.

I'll go back to my "stealing a TV" example. If you buy a TV or you steal it, in both cases your motivations are to own the TV. However, because you chose to fulfill that desire improperly (through theft), it becomes a sin. In the murder case, the murderer has some desire he wanted realized. Why murder was the best outlet in his mind is something I'll never understand, but people don't just kill unless they think they'll get something out of it.

My point is that you're forcing things to conform to you definition of "evil" as a "twisted version of good" by having the "good" basically be "doing what one wants". Like hammering a square peg in a round hole. Sure, you can do that, but what's the point?

Obviously one does what one, on some level, wants. Otherwise we're not "doing something". Something is happening to us. Furthermore, you're displacing the problem of good vs evil to proper vs improper. A simple word substitution. That's not definition, it's obfuscation.

That's why I say your point of view, while not necessarily wrong, is useless.

I'm positive our consciousness doesn't even come CLOSE to whatever would make up God's being, and comparing our actions to his is a futile pursuit.

So it's alright to kill babies, then? 'cause I'm pretty sure their consciousness isn't up there either, compared to ours.

That said, I'll use an example fitting to the different focal point your offered. If a parent tells their toddler to stay out of the street when they're playing, they have an excellent reason for it. The toddler doesn't know what that reason is; all they see is that this great, fantastic flat surface is being unfairly kept from them. I'm sure this seems grossly unfair to the child. "Why can you go in the street and I can't? Why can you use knives and I can't? Why can you drive the car and I can't?"

It's not until the child becomes mentally equal (or at least close) to the parent that these restrictions and unbalanced freedoms become understandable. However, since we'll NEVER be close to God's mind (as long as we're human), things like this will always seem unfair to us.

So, what you're saying, is that God is "good", for a completely unknowable value of "good", rather than one of the ones we usually mean when we use the word. Tell you what, how about you use the word "kiukjbsu" instead, to avoid misunderstandings?

Yes; the purpose being that we as humans wouldn't be mindless automatons.

Begging the question of an omnipotent being's need for such indirect endeavors. If he wanted humans that wouldn't be mindless automatons, he just had to create them. What need would he have of disease, and suffering in general?

It's called an example. If I substitute "my cousin Bob" for "me" in those two sentences, would that make you feel better?

Nope, still anecdotal. The world's way bigger than you and your cousin put together. Things turning out good for you in the end in no way justifies all the times things have turned out fatally (and so, with no way of things getting better) for countless others. Bad, final things happen to good people. Believers and unbelievers alike, and I don't know which would be worse for you. If they're unbelievers, then according to your religion, God's going to cast them into hell. If they're believers, well, why did bad things happen to them? (Then again, bad things happening only to unbelievers makes religion look too much like a protection racket...)

[Evil_Sephiroth]

I must say catholic?

from 6 to 13 years old.

After i can say:"I'm atheis, and prefere scientific argumentation".

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

God is supposedly omnipresent
Omnipresent simply means that that guy or girl is everywhere at the same time, even if you are alone in a dark room with only a single oxygen atom to cycle through your body. So is it the atom or the room?

Not to be too picky but...
You can't have an atom of oxygen, oxygen is a molecule made from atoms.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Not to be too picky but...
You can't have an atom of oxygen, oxygen is a molecule made from atoms.

Ok umm no oxygen is a base element. It just so happens that most atmospheric oxygen is in dioxide molecule form, O2. High school chem.

[CMSensei]

I guess I would say I'm a Catholic, I go to church and go to events now and then. I was raised into being Catholic and I guess I could say I am a believer, But I am not totally religious, and I am curious on other religions, and scientific theories.

Spoiler for A bit off topic:

Its kind of interesting for me to say that, since my signature kind of throws you off a bit since, its a sin for a same sex to be together in a relationship. Now for me I am okay with it. But me myself, I am straight.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The Muslims know this as well.
In Quaran 19:30 it states that Isa (Jesus) is "The Slave of God."
He is a servant of the Lord, and thus had abilities beyond normal men, but he was still just a man whose purpose was clearly to spread Torah to the world.
As did Mohammad, Moses, and all the profits before and after Jesus.

I personally don't care what it says in the Qu'ran after reading a verse that says Christians will be inhabitants of hell and a verse that says Jews will be inhabitants of hell. Sure, there are some things I can agree with in the Qu'ran, but there are things in the Qu'ran I don't believe in, such as the things I referenced in this paragraph. There are other things I read in the Qu'ran I don't like and don't agree with.

I mean...I'm not anti-Muslim; I know there is a good number of good Muslims out there, but like how some in this thread don't like Christianity, I don't care for Islam due to certain things about it. I find some good things in it, but overall it is not a religion I like all that much.

Heck, to be fair, I'm like a Christian in a lot of ways, but there are things about Christianity I don't like and/or believe in, and I don't think everything in the bible is true, so I don't just think those things about the Qu'ran only.

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Ok umm no oxygen is a base element. It just so happens that most atmospheric oxygen is in dioxide molecule form, O2. High school chem.

So therefore the breathable oxygen that he was referring to has to be paired with another, to make it dioxygen, and therefore a molecule. I understand that Oxygen is a basic element on it's own.

[Urzu 7]

He said oxygen atom in that post. Quick, edit before it's too late.


In his post, had he said oxygen molecule instead, it'd still relate the same message for the most part.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I personally don't care what it says in the Qu'ran after reading a verse that says Christians will be inhabitants of hell and a verse that says Jews will be inhabitants of hell. Sure, there are some things I can agree with in the Qu'ran, but there are things in the Qu'ran I don't believe in, such as the things I referenced in this paragraph. There are other things I read in the Qu'ran I don't like and don't agree with.

I mean...I'm not anti-Muslim; I know there is a good number of good Muslims out there, but like how some in this thread don't like Christianity, I don't care for Islam due to certain things about it. I find some good things in it, but overall it is not a religion I like all that much.

Heck, to be fair, I'm like a Christian in a lot of ways, but there are things about Christianity I don't like and/or believe in, and I don't think everything in the bible is true, so I don't just think those things about the Qu'ran only.

The Quaran was relevent to what I said as it is the holy book of one of the three Abrahamic religions and it recognizes Jesus in the same fashion that many Jews do: as a prophet, not god.

I applaud your skepticism and open mindedness about all three of the major Abrahamic religions.
While I think it highly likely that Moses wrote the Torah, that the 12 Apostles wrote the New Testament, and that Mohammad (and his successors) wrote the Quaran.
I also have no doubt in my mind that there is a strong possibility those texts were altered to fit the needs of each religion by kings, priests, and warlords long after the deaths of those original authors.
That's where the genesis of my own personal quest to find the truth about God stems.

That said I will state that there is a great deal of information in those three works which is facinating to me.
The Jewish texts are especially interesting as they were written before the time of Jesus and contain some rather modern ideas.

You may find this article by Aryeh Kaplan interesting (note, this was written some time in the 1980s before Aryeh died in 1983).

http://www.torah.org/features/second...rrestrial.html

However, I don't agree with Rabbi Kaplan about the universe being made solely for mankind.

[NoemiChan]

For Islam, Jesus is a prophet just like Abraham, Muhammad, Moses,etc.
Regarding the term "slave", it's similar to servant, but using Slave of God is , in my opinion is justifiable in a since that God made us,and therefore He owns us. Jesus, for us Muslims is but a mortal man, that makes miracles and nothing more.

We are all slaves of God, in if you want you can escape it by not believing in Him but face the consequences in the end.

Think this, God is the highness and the others are all in below Him. All is made to serve Him.

Again, it's Islams belief and religions shares different beliefs and don't compare any of them because they are different.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by genjichan

We are all slaves of God, in if you want you can escape it by not believing in Him but face the consequences in the end.

Think this, God is the highness and the others are all in below Him. All is made to serve Him.

First thing quoted: Yeah, I don't like that. You'll pay for being a "non-believer". That is what Islam says, and that is what Christianity says. I hope that people who are simply put, good people, can enjoy peace in the afterlife. Whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Jewish, spiritual but not religious, etc. I hope to God that is the case. Something like karma. You reap what you sow. If you're a bad person, you get a bad afterlife. If you are an okay person, or a good person, or a great person, you get a corresponding afterlife.

I applaud your skepticism and open mindedness about all three of the major Abrahamic religions.
While I think it highly likely that Moses wrote the Torah, that the 12 Apostles wrote the New Testament, and that Mohammad (and his successors) wrote the Quaran.
I also have no doubt in my mind that there is a strong possibility those texts were altered to fit the needs of each religion's by kings, priests, and warlords long after the deaths of those original authors.
That's where the genesis of my own personal quest to find the truth about God stems.

That said I will state that there is a great deal of information in those three works which is facinating to me.
The Jewish texts are especially interesting as they were written before the time of Jesus and contain some rather modern ideas.

I bookmarked that link. I got an idea of what it is about. I do think there is life on other planets, btw. Sentient, spiritual beings.

The stuff underlined is stuff that applies to me for the most part. I believe that there is truth in the three western religions and their holy books, but I believe that in those holy books there are things that are inaccurate or wrong, and then the religions themselves diverged even further. I'm also on a personal quest to find out more about God and spirituality as I live my life. I do like Christianity very much for what it gets right. I do like Judaism, too. Islam I'm mixed about. I'm very willing to give it more chances, but I've read things in the Qu'ran that really displease me, and I think that the organized religion of Islam and how it's run by Islamic religious leaders and certain government leaders/officials (like Iran) and the problem with militant extremists and their supporters...well, as you can see, with the religion of Islam, there are many who, I think, are in the wrong. And for the good Muslims who want peace, they are trampled out of the picture by those who seek conflict, it seems. So I have some problems with the religion, but often times I remind myself that there are many good Muslims, too, and I know it is important to stay fair minded about things, even if that is a challenge sometimes.

Edit: Read the link. Interesting read. I still really think that God has made a vast universe not solely for humans, but for spiritual beings across the universe, who have free will and so forth.

I read up on eastern religion, too. I like many things about it. I don't know if I really believe in reincarnation or rebirth, but if either were real, that'd make for a fascinating reality.

[GundamFan0083]

I'm happy you enjoyed the article.

And I agree with you about the universe being made for all life, not just mankind.

Kaplan was an interesting fellow IMHO, and the mentor who lead me to question everything organized religion teaches (even though that was not necessarily his intention).

Another of his findings that led me to question the status quo of traditional Judeo-Christian dogma was this article he wrote on the age of the universe:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fai...aryeh_kap.html

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I'm happy you enjoyed the article.

And I agree with you about the universe being made for all life, not just mankind.

Kaplan was an interesting fellow IMHO, and the mentor who lead me to question everything organized religion teaches (even though that was not necessarily his intention).

Another of his findings that led me to question the status quo of traditional Judeo-Christian dogma was this article he wrote on the age of the universe:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fai...aryeh_kap.html

That is also interesting.

*sigh* Reality has so many mysteries. That is sometimes a part of the awe and wonder of being a human being. That is also a source of frustration, especially if one struggles with some dogmatic beliefs of western religions, as they basically tell us "if you believe in the wrong things/don't believe in certain things, you face severe consequences". Really, it bugs me when Islam and Christianity teach that "non-believers" will suffer for an eternity. For not believing in certain things many people will get that punishment? Really? So very harsh for a loving God that is the most compassionate. Especially when we are finite beings with very finite perspectives. Our beliefs depend so much on subjective experience/s and psychology. To think many would (if either of those religions claims on the ill consequences of being a non-believer are to be true) suffer for an eternity for believing the wrong things or simply not believing in the "right things". Phooey. : (

/rant

I really do like the eastern religions take on Heaven and the afterlife. Buddhism and Hinduism do teach that there is rebirth and reincarnation (respectively), but both religions believe that there are Heaven realms and hell realms (they just believe that escape from samsara [the realm of death and rebirth] and to merge with God [Hinduism] or dwell in Nirvana [Buddhism] are the ultimate spiritual destinations of beings). Anyways, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism all don't stress the importance of believing in the "right things" or not. And Buddhism has, in a nutshell, a pretty straight forward plan for one to get to Heaven (if one has to go even further to Nirvana or not is a bit irrelevant with what I'm talking about now; just simply talking about Heaven): Be an exceptionally good person who excels in loving kindess and compassion, one who treats others well and regards others well. As in, be a good person. Specific beliefs are secondary to these things.

Really, I hope that that is what is most important for salvation, that those things are what help get people to Heaven the most, with beliefs just being a means to form a good moral compass. Some beliefs aid you in being a great person, some aid you to be good, and so forth, and sometimes beliefs don't serve you well and cause you to go astray, and that is when beliefs matter; when they are not good beliefs that only drive you away from being a good person.

[GundamFan0083]

Here's a book that gives the Hebrew/Judaic mystical view of reincarnation and other metaphysical ideas.

Good book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=M1W...0bahir&f=false

[RandySyler]

I agree with Urzu 7. It is important to remember that eastern religions are more "free" and straightforward because they are not politicized . Hell is a fear tactic to gain more followers, then more power.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

I agree with Urzu 7. It is important to remember that eastern religions are more "free" and straightforward because they are not politicized . Hell is a fear tactic to gain more followers, then more power.

Well, even eastern religions have politics involved. Heck, in India, Hinduism has tainted beliefs used to construct elements of Indian society (caste system).

Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Buddhism and Hinduism believe in Heaven realms and hell realms, so it isn't just western religions that believe in hell. I really do believe there are Heaven realms and hell realms. Morality matters, especially how we treat and regard others, and your afterlife experience will be dictated by your life, who you were as a person, and your actions. Being a good person is to the benefit of many you interact with and oneself, as well.