Religion Discussion Thread

Postby **CBear3** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:56 pm

Does the fact that there is no answer make you (not you nobody, you any believer) doubt at all the power, empathy, compassion, that He has?

Does the fact that science hasn't been able to explain the creation of the universe make redwill doubt its power?

It's never comfortable not having all the answers. redwill has faith science will answer the creation of the universe, I have faith that God will explain the things I cannot grasp.

Postby **redwill** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:01 pm

Does the fact that there is no answer make you (not you nobody, you any believer) doubt at all the power, empathy, compassion, that He has?
Does the fact that science hasn't been able to explain the creation of the universe make redwill doubt its power?

It's never comfortable not having all the answers. redwill has faith science will answer the creation of the universe, I have faith that God will explain the things I cannot grasp.

If you lived two hundred years ago when science couldn't explain microbes, evolution, heavier-than-air flight, DNA, or a thousand other things, would you attribute it to God and let it go at that?

Postby **columbia** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:02 pm

Many did.

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:04 pm

Does the fact that there is no answer make you (not you nobody, you any believer) doubt at all the power, empathy, compassion, that He has?
Does the fact that science hasn't been able to explain the creation of the universe make redwill doubt its power?

It's never comfortable not having all the answers. redwill has faith science will answer the creation of the universe, I have faith that God will explain the things I cannot grasp.
If you lived two hundred years ago when science couldn't explain microbes, evolution, heavier-than-air flight, DNA, or a thousand other things, would you attribute it to God and let it go at that?

Catholic priests didn't.

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:17 pm

There's a school of thought that Adam & Eve's original sin brought about evil in the world, and that we're all just paying for that original sin.

Original sin..... Tree Of Knowledge...... Temptation......... Sex. Which is why god's punishment was to banish them from Eden and commanded them to reproduce.

Postby **CBear3** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:22 pm

Does the fact that there is no answer make you (not you nobody, you any believer) doubt at all the power, empathy, compassion, that He has?
Does the fact that science hasn't been able to explain the creation of the universe make redwill doubt its power?

It's never comfortable not having all the answers. redwill has faith science will answer the creation of the universe, I have faith that God will explain the things I cannot grasp.
If you lived two hundred years ago when science couldn't explain microbes, evolution, heavier-than-air flight, DNA, or a thousand other things, would you attribute it to God and let it go at that?

I didn't (that I know of), so it's hard to say. Maybe I was a horse, or maybe a buffalo back then

As an engineer and lover of science I'd try to discover the world around me, the one God created and gave to his children.
A better understanding of the world around does not damage the belief in a God. If God created this world for us, learning more and trying to understand it seems like the best possible use of the gift. I don't shout down Evolution because it's not the story the earliest Hebrews passed down, I do not look at scientific evidence as a test of belief. I adore it, I value it. I'm open to changing my belief of what the world is based on it. Call it a byproduct of the Apple.

None of us are going to discover the secret of life, some great universal truth, or convert each other on a message board. The tone should be a lot more casual than it's been the last page and a half. I don't necessarily think it's purposeful, but what was a light discussion I was enjoying reading had started to become interrogation. It feels like we turned it into a gameshow of "Trap a Christian."

Postby **shmenguin** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:27 pm

They're important questions. I guess, since they're challenging, they feel like interrogation?

Postby **count2infinity** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:34 pm

If it's feeling too much like attacks or interrogations toward your religion or beliefs feel free to step away from the thread. I think these questions are coming from general interest in understanding your beliefs and not some sort of "gotcha!" questions that some seem to think they are.

Postby **redwill** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:47 pm

Original sin..... Tree Of Knowledge...... Temptation......... Sex. Which is why god's punishment was to banish them from Eden and commanded them to reproduce.

That's another question I find interesting.

Given the concept of Original Sin ... which is to say that evil in the world is a result of a bad choice of one or two people some years ago ... why are we still suffering? Did one of us eat the forbidden fruit?

No.

So why do tornadoes drop the roofs of churches onto praying children? Why are there diseases which take the lives of fervent believers? Why do good people die of cancer, yet nasty, horrible people survive?

OK. So it's Original Sin.

Does that seem fair? That because a couple of folks made a bad choice at least six thousand years ago, we are now bound to suffer?

If someone asked you about reparations for slavery you might be tempted to say ... "WHA??? I didn't enslave those people!! Why should I pay for it??"

So why do we pay now for what two kids allegedly did a very long time ago?

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:54 pm

I'm also relatively queasy about the incestuous foundation of the human race, as revealed in the bible, but that's just me.

Postby **CBear3** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 5:56 pm

They're important questions. I guess, since they're challenging, they feel like interrogation?

It's the framing, more than anything, and as you can tell its not just me.
Why do bad things happen? versus Why does a perfect little angel die of SIDS? How the heck do you answer that. How do I know that somebody here posting, or lurking, hasn't suffered a terrible personal loss. That's a trap question, all day long. "Why did your God kill my child?" Crap, people who've gone through seminary have a tough time with that let alone some dope feeling his way through it. Few of these questions are things I haven't heard of or thought about before, but whew the way they got asked the past couple pages give you no choice but to be defensive.

Redwill for instance was just asking "why do people believe?" But in the paragraphs leading up to it laid the smack pretty well.
The sentiments/subjects aren't threatening, it's a lot of the presentation that has me

I'm just saying, something to think about if you don't want us theists to crawl into our shell.

Postby **redwill** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:02 pm

For the record, that's still my primary question: WHY do people believe?

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:03 pm

I'm also relatively queasy about the incestuous foundation of the human race, as revealed in the bible, but that's just me.

Interestingly a study came out for a supposed one common ancestor.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... cestor.htm

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:05 pm

For the record, that's still my primary question: WHY do people believe?

Why don't you?

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:08 pm

I'm also relatively queasy about the incestuous foundation of the human race, as revealed in the bible, but that's just me.

Interestingly a study came out for a supposed one common ancestor.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... cestor.htm

The study's lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues' and her choice to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," and pointed out that the study wasn't implying that the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew.

Having a single common ancestor is not the same thing as all human life on earth coming from one M-F pair, whose children married each other and had their own babies, who married each other and had their own babies, etc.

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:12 pm

I'm also relatively queasy about the incestuous foundation of the human race, as revealed in the bible, but that's just me.

Interestingly a study came out for a supposed one common ancestor.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... cestor.htm

The study's lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues' and her choice to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," and pointed out that the study wasn't implying that the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew.
Having a single common ancestor is not the same thing as all human life on earth coming from one M-F pair, whose children married each other and had their own babies, who married each other and had their own babies, etc.

I never said that. I was only linking an interesting article that I thought was cool. Loosen up...

Postby **count2infinity** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:13 pm

I don't believe in a first human pair... I think just like with most things in evolution and common ancestry, it's very difficult to pin point a "start" of a species. It's much like picking below, where does red end and where does blue start?

Postby **redwill** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:21 pm

For the record, that's still my primary question: WHY do people believe?
Why don't you?

Because I see no reason to believe. Please give me one.

If I told you that lightning came from Zeus, you would chuckle and dismiss the idea and laugh at me.

Rightly so.

If i told you that when you flip a light switch a tiny, invisible, super-fast human man (a real, physical being) ran up from the switch and did a little dance in the bulb which created light, you would think I'm crazy.

Rightly so.

Now tell me why I should believe in those two things.

In my mind, that's equivalent to believing in God.

Please tell me why I'm wrong.

Postby **Avyran** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:23 pm

Due to this answer being very long, I've spoiled it. TL;DR - no real answer.

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:27 pm

For the record, that's still my primary question: WHY do people believe?
Why don't you?
Because I see no reason to believe. Please give me one.

If I told you that lightning came from Zeus, you would chuckle and dismiss the idea and laugh at me.

Rightly so.

If i told you that when you flip a light switch a tiny, invisible, super-fast human man (a real, physical being) ran up from the switch and did a little dance in the bulb which created light, you would think I'm crazy.

Rightly so.

Now tell me why I should believe in those two things.

In my mind, that's equivalent to believing in God.

Please tell me why I'm wrong.

Nothing anyone tells you will make you believe. You have to find it out for yourself.

Also it doesn't offend me that you are openly comparing religion to those examples above, I wouldn't suggest doing it in front of others.

Postby **Avyran** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:35 pm

None of us are going to discover the secret of life, some great universal truth, or convert each other on a message board. The tone should be a lot more casual than it's been the last page and a half. I don't necessarily think it's purposeful, but what was a light discussion I was enjoying reading had started to become interrogation. It feels like we turned it into a gameshow of "Trap a Christian."

I think that, with the nature of this topic & how easy it is to be insulted in it, it needs to stay light & respectful (not saying it has or hasn't, just noting). That's why I included the gifs in that really long post of mine. I'm not intending to post a frickin' sermon; I'm just adding to the discussion and want to keep it light-hearted. I don't want to ever give off the implication that I think anyone else's opinions are lower / less worthy than mine (again, not saying I have or anyone else has).

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:38 pm

Due to this answer being very long, I've spoiled it. TL;DR - no real answer.
I'm not done with my reading or work yet (it's about the importance of recognizing Christianity is no longer a western religion, but instead largely found in Latin America, Africa, & Asia, and what changes that causes in Christian academic work)... but I'll try & do a quick answer to the theodicy stuff.

In Genesis, during the 2nd creation story, an enemy is introduced with no background. Instead, it's just "the serpent was more crafty" (3:1). He eventually causes the downfall of the two humans, but not without a pronunciation of his impending doom (3:14-15... "he [the seed of Adam] will bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel"). Later on, it is introduced that Satan was actually a fallen angel, who chose to love himself over God and thus rebel against Him.

(Edit: Satan is introduced in the same way, actually. He is suddenly just included into the story of Job as an accuser. That's it. No explanation as to how he got that position, or why he's there.)

Note that there is no explanation as to why the serpent (and then Satan) exists. It / he / whatever just is.

In John 9, there is a discussion between the apostles & Jesus (who is the seed of Adam mentioned in Genesis, according to Christianity - Judaism would disagree). They approach a blind man, and the apostles ask him the question based on wisdom of the day: "And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."

Note that Jesus does not answer why the man was blind. All He does is cure the blindness. The blindness just was.

Christianity does not seek to answer all the questions (one of the reasons why I got so mad at redwill's assumption that this was the reason for the religion, along with his really arrogant tone at the time). It simply seeks to introduce God. It does not explain why evil exists, but only that God & Jesus will fix it. Jesus, according to Christian history, is the apex of the curve. All things before Him (in terms of salvation) were working towards Him; all things after must now deal with the effects of that event. Again, Christianity does not try to explain why the frog exists, or how the planets orbit the sun, or what exists in the galaxy of Andromeda. It simply introduces God.

IMO, then, the question needs to be reduced if you want to look at theodicy in terms of Christianity. Do you trust this God? With all of the evil in the world - the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge, the death of innocent babies, etc - do you still trust that this God of Christian Scripture exists & is capable? It is understandable to say no, and thus it is why theodicy is such a major deal. Christians would likely point to the events of the Bible (Jesus' death & resurrection, the power of the Holy Spirit in the new church, the salvation of Israel from Egypt, etc) as to why one should trust God despite this lack of understanding.

As an FYI, shmenguin, the idea of an unbaptized baby not being saved is an archaic Roman Catholic idea (I am not sure if they would still say that). Protestants would not worry about this, most likely.

People did not understand Jesus at the time of His (supposed) coming. The Jews demanded he be the messiah they expected, saving Israel from Rome. The apostles were part of this. The Jews did not understand God's actions when Jerusalem was destroyed & Israel (God's chosen nation) was defeated by a pagan nation - the book of Lamentations discusses this. The Apocryphal books discuss the struggles of Israel under their new kings (and thus question why God is allowing this treatment). Much of Christian Scriptural writing deals with God's people(s) not understanding what God is doing.

Christianity does not try to explain theodicy. It simply tries to introduce its answer - God & Jesus. Again, this is why I got so frustrated at redwill trying to turn religion into an "explain the gaps" BS, as if that's an obvious understanding. Obviously, a lot of theologians have attempted to tackle the theodicy question, but that's beyond my ability to discuss.

Now, going back to reducing the question. It is not the question of theodicy - it is the question of if you trust this god of Christianity. If you don't, then there's no answer sufficient for you for theodicy. If you do, then you'll believe despite the lack of answer, knowing that God somehow has a plan through all of this. Hence nobody's response, saying it doesn't bother him. Again, there has been many attempts by theologians to tackle it, but I'm not really convinced by any of them. I'm also not overly distraught by theodicy.

There has been discussion of love being impossible without free will. I'd imagine that's part of it. It's likely why Satan was allowed to fall - God was not going to force people to accept Him & love Him. That's not love; that's slavery. Does that account for the existence of AIDS? The reason for famine & death? I mean, original sin is an attempt to explain it, but that's not really satisfactory for people outside of the faith who don't really give a damn about it. There isn't really a satisfactory answer for all, even after years of studying it. But the faith does not disintegrate because it doesn't answer it; as I said, the point isn't to answer all the questions. I trust in God's ultimate plan, and I see bad things creating better situations all the time.

I say this as a person who's suffered through depression, divorce, suicide of friends & loved ones, death that comes too early for others (such as grandparents), and so on. I study Asian history, where massacres & such are much more common - 1 million people dying due to something is commonplace. It's a discussion I need to consistently think about.

It's not an adequate answer, and frankly, I don't care. It is an attempt to explain a worldview. I don't expect it to suffice redwill or shmenguin or anyone else. I expect it not to, to be honest. But, that's okay! As I've said many times, I'm not here to convert you guys. I'm just trying to answer a question & spread more understanding. This whole post is my own opinion - others will think differently.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm only halfway done with my work. Stop distracting me.

Postby **MWB** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:38 pm

They're important questions. I guess, since they're challenging, they feel like interrogation?

Yeah, I don't know how you can have a conversation like this and have it be "light." It's not a light topic, and people's core beliefs are being questioned.

Postby **redwill** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:43 pm

OK, Avyran.

Be at peace in your personal belief system which you believe because you believe.

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 6:48 pm

This is where it gets delicate. I know there are atheists out there who get all huffy when challenged; as an atheist, I would personally like to throw the first brick at Bill Maher. But by and large, there is a vast difference between the way the religious (especially deeply religious) see their beliefs and how an atheist sees their beliefs. The pious use terms like 'glory', and capitalize Him and God, and their belief is very strongly tied to how they live their lives. Many/most would say it's integral to their existence. An atheist is more like, "Meh, it's Monday". I don't have that same kind of emotional connection to my belief system..... largely because it isn't really a belief system. I am no more ingrained in how I see the world, from a spiritual perspective, than I am in how I see the garlic noodles with shrimp I had for lunch today.

In other words, it makes sense to me that people of faith can be quite offended when questions are posed of them. And it's why I waited for a dozen pages before chiming in on this discussion; things had been progressing quite nicely, and I didn't want to be the one to muck that up by being (or appearing) flippant.