An "All Loving God?" 20,000 or more dead in quake. Many are children.

[Cyrano]

I'm an agnostic. And I cannot comprehend how anyone can place a belief in some abstract entity called "God." -- And yes, I know I'm in a very small minority.

I've heard the "He set it in motion and then stood back," theory, but I have a problem with that.

Tell it to the people caught in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, the World Trade Center, the Indian Ocean tsunami, the Gulf Coast, the southeast Asia earthquake, and so many other man-made and natural disasters.

I know there's no way that most people will ever lose faith in what they believe. And if it helps them make it through life, fine.

But I don't believe there's anyone who could ever convince me that some "All loving" He/She/It exists. Looking back over history, I'm more likely to believe in the existence of some malevolent entity.

My intent is not to start a religious war here. I'm just one disgusted person staring off into space and wondering, "WTF?".

[all.of.me]

1. loving or not,

my belief is that whatever is happening in this moment is supposed to be happening for the simple reason that it IS happening. i don't know how that would stand up in the event i lost a child, but it helps me let go of a lot of other stuff.

to say that natural disasters come from a loving 'he' place - i can't wrap myself around that.

[clydefrand]

2. No religious war from me. I feel exactly as you do. If there is

a God (god), it didn't have anything to do with these natural disasters IF this god (God) is a loving, caring one. AND if it isn't loving and caring, then why worship something that brings so much grief to the world for thousands upon thousands of years. I just think the entire thing is explained by naturally occuring events due to the design of the planet and universe which neither we nor any supernatural entity can alter.

If anyone can give a better explanation, I would like to read it.

[bloom]

3. It's not like

people are living harmoniously with nature.

Even if people were - there would still be natural occurrences where large numbers of people die. But like with the Tsunami - the native people passed down to each other the concept that when there are earthquakes - run to higher ground.

Most of the people who died in the Pakistan earthquake were victims of the buildings that people created.

I don't see malevolence - I see that there is a world here and people choose how they live - there are pros and cons to every choice. Some things cannot be predicted - but people make choices to live in certain kinds of structures in certain places, etc. How can someone blame "God" or nature for those choices?

[clydefrand]

9. Interesting, but suppose the people who were lost in the hurricanes

lived near the shore and didn't know that the hurricane was brewing in the gulf. They had no high lands to run to. Ancient peoples were also victims of natural disasters because they had no warnings of impending dangers. So all is not man's fault from building homes near the water; unsafe homes in lands where earthquakes are liable to happen, etc. Those same victims in Pakistan would have been victims with any other structures, perhaps not so forceful as a building collapsing on them.

So what is the solution? No more buildings? We all live in quake proof caves? On highlands away from the ocean's wrath?

Probably just continue doing what we're doing and disasters will occur and not blame any one thing for them. That's just the way it is.

[bloom]

14. I think it's interesting

to think that so-called "uncivilized" or tribal types of people often built in such a way that was more suited to the environment in which they lived - that they would have had buildings that wouldn't be less likely to kill people, would be easier to rebuild - esp. people on islands, etc. There was someone lamenting on Democracy Now about all of the high rises that people had built in Pakistan - to keep up with the Americans.

The way I see it - is there has always been sickness and suffering of one kind or another. People try to avoid one kind - they create another. There is a balance in nature and we are not going to "win". People have created conditions where it is more and more possible for more and more people to live and it's unsustainable.

I think- if anything - people are tipping the balance so there will be more tragedies than there would have been if people had not been doing what they have been doing. Most people in industrialized countries are simply not trying to live in a sustainable way - for themselves or the planet. Maybe in the short term - but that's all.

I think the US is a calamity waiting to happen.

And yeah - higher ground isn't a bad idea (as long as it isn't a volcano).

[Az]

4. See if you can find Mark Twain's Letters From Earth

Here is a link to a copy of them http://skeptically.org/literary/id8.html

[LiberalEsto]

5. God (Goddess) is the good part of life

... the force behind kindness, generousity, self-sacrifice, love, bravery and other things that help us through random and man-made disasters, everyday troubles, sickness and death.

I can't speak for anyone's beliefs but my own.

[papau]

6. Around 4 million die each day - we are not immortal - so God is evil in

the choice of who is in the 4 million dead today?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. If you are comfortable with your belief system,

I would be the last person to try and convince you otherwise.

My concept of God is different than the one you presented, and rather difficult to put into words. It involves co-creating reality and looking at everything that happens as being a lesson;and having God as a being that experiences everything.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. god is either not omnipotent, or is evil... take your pick

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html

[ozone_man]

23. or that he's just an underachiever.

If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever. - Woody Allen

[BlueEyedSon]

36. LOL. thx for the woodman quote nt

[Nia Zuri]

10. By your logic, people are never supposed to die

People die every day. Young peoples, old people, babies. The fact taht there is such a large number dying in a tsunami, flood, earthquake is stunning to us because of the sheer numbers. The fact is that life ends however it ends. That said, I would be devastated if one of my loved ones died. However, I am sure that there is more to our existence that what we experience here and now. I do believe the soul is eternal. Find it impossible to beliee that there is nothing else. What else there is, I don't knwo. I am agnostic in that I am unsure if there is a personal god, i.e. a benevolent father type god...maybe it is more of a force or a universal law that we are all a part of.

[clydefrand]

11. Why is impossible for people to believe that there is nothing

else? Why can't we accept the fact that death is final? What more is there after death? Where will we do whatever there is to do?

[Nia Zuri]

13. why is it impossible for people to believe that they might not

understand everything? Comments like yours assume that man has complete knowledge. I do not believe that we understand all there is to know. Not even close. People are always talk about "science" and logic and proof. Fact is we don't know everything there is to know. Think about the leaps in knowledge and technology we have seen in the past 100 year alone. We are so boxed in by the scientific method and proof by observation. What if we are unable to "observe" proof of God as yet? What if as a species, we have a long way to go before we can comprehend the true nature of what we are? Open your mind.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. But your comment wasn't a "perhaps there's something more"

which is the 'open-minded' attitude. It was "Find it impossible to belie(v)e that there is nothing else." If anything, it is you who expressed a complete knowledge. You are certain that death is not the end of our existence.

So, can you give a reason for this? Or is it just faith?

[tatertop]

15. Because no one knows for sure

[Az]

12. Hookworm

Why did god make hookworm? Think of all the diseases. Think of all the illnesses specifically vectored to humans. If God made all life then what was the purpose of creating such horrors designed only to plague (literally) humans?

Perhaps you can look away from natural disasters. But if the notion is that God intentionally made the world and all life on it then you cannot escape the notion that he made hookworms as well.

[Inland]

16. Yes, but would elminating hookworms remove the question?

Let's face it, our lives are better now than they ever have been. Disease, hunger, suffering have all been greatly ameliorated.

But all that happens is that the NO. 2 afflication becomes the horrific pain that god could, but doesn't, remove.

Do you really think that getting rid of earthquakes would remove the question? Or hookworms?

Do you really think that removing all disease or want or parasites wouldn't leave humanity wondering why a gracious god let's us grow old and die?



Unless a mortal can plan a physical world in which humans are destined for happiness, it's tough to figure out how God could prevent the question, much less provide an answer as to why he didn't do it better. I don't mean to sound panglossian, but it may be the best of all possible worlds consistent with a physical existence.

I suggest you should have seen life on the first cosmos. THEY had it tough, and gracious Providence lightened the load for this one.

[Az]

18. Suffering

There is a world of difference between growing old an dying and being set upon by parasitic worms and suffering an agnonizing death. There is a difference between gut wrenching agony and a touch of angst.

And its not really necissary for a mortal to come up with the designs of a perfect universe. We can still question the notion put forward by others of a perfect omniscient benevalent god that crams disease and parasites into his perfect creation.

Its not god skeptics have a problem with. Its the descriptions of god believers put forward that our issue is with. If someone claims that god is perfectly merciful then pointing out his/her/it's creation of hell suffices to call into question the notion of being all merciful.

If a claim is that god is all good then pointing out disease and suffering from acts of nature is a valid criticism of such a claim of god.

If someone made the claim that god was a mercurial unpredictable being who was as likely to save one person and strike down another the sketpics wouldn't have much of a claim against that god (other than the lack of evidence for the claim). But this is not the situation. The claims of god are typically of the benevalent omniscient quality. Thus skeptics have plenty of material to criticize.

[Inland]

19. There's a difference

born of our knowledge of them and ability to compare them.

After all, as agonizing deaths go, even hookworms don't make the top ten, and when was the last time someone died of hookworms? Yet, the elmination of hookworms doesn't bring the acclamation that God is good. Rather, the elimination of this sort of pain simply sets humans looking at the next thing they don't like, just as the elimination of hunger and pestilence get more yawns.

Although it's not necessary for a mortal to come up with a design of a perfect universe, they do. All the time. No pain, no death, no boredom, no hate, no strife--basically, no people, just gods. Heaven.

Therefore it is certainly within the premises of the 4/0 god to wonder if there isn't an alternative: that the plan for being human includes physical pain and suffering, because if that wasn't around, there would be something else. The believer CAN imagine a world without disease, without earthquakes, without pain, without hunger...but not with humans, too.

In any event, it gets back to the faith thing, in a 4/0 God, or not.

[Az]

20. Fallacy

You make the statement that if there were not hookworms we would just select the next thing. You seem to be suggesting that suffering is part of this mortal coil so we should just accept the current level of suffering we have.

This seems fallacious to me. If we presume a benevalent and first cause god then we can only see his inclusion of so many forms of suffering as ponderous to the claim of benevalence. Even within the context of the story provided by the Abrahamic claim of god of death being the result of Adam and Eve's actions it does not account for the inclusion of so many ways to suffer.

Death according to the story is not what god intended (although something god intended getting fumbled is another issue). It resulted from human behaviour. The existance of these other factors are entirely extraneous to our dying of old age. They do not fit the claim of a benevalent and loving god. A loving parent does not put a pack of hyenas in the crib with their baby. Not if they want to be considered loving.

[heidler1]

47. Both Atheists and believers admit that they don't know everything.

However, Atheists are real sure that the design is not all that intelligent. It seems like believers see intelligence in suffering.

Atheists are not sure that they would even want to spend eternity with this whacko that might of put the universe together, according to some believers, and then willfully destroys it one way or another at his pleasure. Is there any reason to believe that this Gods destructive nature will cease at some future time or place or will he always behave in mysterious ways?

[manic expression]

24. This is what I hate

people think that:
Judeo-Christian view of the world=all religious thought

Anyway....The hookworm does such things because that is its role. That is its place in the world. Pain is a part of life, it is simply a sensation like pleasure. It is what is beyond this that is important.

Everything does have a role in the world. We may hate spiders, but they keep the mosquito population from getting too high, for instance. Everything contributes to everything. Furthermore, everything is different, yet everything is equal and the same in the end.

on edit: Remember that death provides for life (it is proven and observable in anything). Pain provides for joy. Life could not exist without death. Death could not exist without life. However, existence itself, which is eternal and pervasive, is what is important.

[Az]

25. I assure you, you and I

Constitute at the very least two people that do not think that Judeo-Christian beliefs equal all religious thought. But as your statement itself demonstrates the complexities of your world cause our complexities of communication to often run astray. It sometimes becomes necissary not to look for what trouble of a statement can be made, but rather look for what the intent of the statement may have been. And if there is some gap between intent and wording address that in a constructive manner rather than changing the topic to one of anger at the invented intent.

[manic expression]

27. The complexities needed to be voiced

At any rate, I provided my frustrations in the first part of my message, and then addressed the topic at hand. The intent of my post was to further dialogue on the original question, as well as provide another perspective to both assertions (one of Judeo-Christian mindsets, as it was part of the post and one of religion/divinity itself). There's nothing wrong with this, and I think it was something that needed to be said.

To stay on topic, why don't you reply to the part of my post about the original question (if you haven't already)?

[Az]

29. Certainly

As a nonbeliever in any particular gods or intent for this universe the question of why do bad things happen does not create a philosophical problem. And rather than believing that things have roles in life the conclusion is that things find roles to fill.

Do not confuse the point of this thread. It is not nonbelievers shaking their fists at the heavens and demanding an answer from god as to how he/she/it could do this. Nonbelief clearly indicates this. Instead it is asking those that believe how they can reconcile their particular claims of a benevalent god who is all seeing and watching over them, to allow such things to happen.

Your particular belief may not include such difficult philosophical conundrums. Thus the criticisms are not directed towards your claims. There are a world of beliefs out there. We only have each other to talk to in order to make sense of them. And it is only by such conversation and critical examination of these ideas that we can learn more about ourselves and our world.

[manic expression]

31. I recognize that

but it seems that whenever there is a discussion on "faith" itself, it seems that people assume the Judeo-Christian philosophy is the one that will always be represented. That bothers me somewhat.

I know that the OP is agnostic, as s/he stated it.

My response to the OP was responding to such a question, no?

[Az]

33. People speak to what affects them

Our society is not under siege by zealous Buddhists. There is not a contingent of fundamentalist Shintoists attempting to force their beliefs on our schools. The Taoists seem particularlly reticent to do anything except let the world be what it is. The Scientific Pantheists are still working on getting an actual group together. The Hindues don't seem to be attempting to get Vishnus put in our courtrooms.

It is Judeo-Christians that are making themself known in our public. They have a direct impact on our society as a result of their efforts. The family struggle that is the Abrahamic faiths has entangled us all and has cost many of us dearly. They are necissarily going to be the target of most people's objections to religion.

[manic expression]

35. I see that

and I understand that (the image of firebrand, fundamentalist Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists and Shintoists cracked me up).

However, sometimes I think people, when rejecting Judeo-Christian dogma, reject religion itself. This is a natural reaction, and it may be best for some people, but it may mean that they are missing out on something they might agree with. I'll just be content with coming from a different perspective altogether.

Very concise explanation, by the way.

[jackthesprat]

44. The concept of "faith" or "belief" is a Christian invention.

As has been stated, no one in our country debates religion without it being understood that it is the christian religion: otherwise there would virtually be nothing to debate.

[manic expression]

45. Then I suggest you tell

the considerable population of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Shamanists and any other non-Christian religious people that they are simply inconsequential in America. Tell them that, and I will tell you that you are wrong.

Even if this country was 100% Christian or Atheist, other religions exist, and therefore a discussion of religion COULD AND SHOULD not only recognize these religion but also consider them. "Religion" does not equal the immediate environment.

on edit: And where in the world did you get the idea that belief and faith is exclusively Christian? What did you mean by that?

[jackthesprat]

46. Never said a thing about "inconsequential."

Please read what I said.
Faith and belief? Ask a Buddhist how essential the idea of "belief" is.

P.S. If you are looking for a flame war, I am out.

[manic expression]

50. No flame war here

How do you define belief?

If you define it as the holding certain views, than every religious person, as well as every person, has beliefs.

Please clarify what you meant by that.

[jackthesprat]

51. For example,

"I believe I'll have the ham sandwich." What religion is that? Follow? Really Christianity that makes belief a central tenant.

[manic expression]

52. No...

Everyone has beliefs, even Atheists.

How would you define other religions? Would you say that they have no beliefs?

One difference between Christianity and other religions is that Christianity tries to make belief uniform in a given institution (that's my opinion).

[jackthesprat]

53. what does the word "belief" mean?

Weak knowledge? I suspect you have not investigated other religions as closely as you have asserted.

[Az]

54. Belief

The balance of experience, learning, and consideration within the mind. It is the recognition of what a person considers to be true or likely true. It can change over time but we cannot choose what we believe.

[jackthesprat]

55. Not what Christian theology means by it.

Quite an explicit dogma. Belief means "I believe Christ died for my sins." something like that.

[Az]

56. That would be a speific belief

And the definition still applies. It is what their learning, experience, and consideration has lead them to understand as true.

[jackthesprat]

57. No. Not exactly.

As Martin Luther said, "Man is justified by belief." Whole other thing.

[manic expression]

58. From a dictionary:

"3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief

That is a part of every religion, including Atheism.

[jackthesprat]

60. Ok, maybe we are done here.

Buddhists do not believe. Otherwise, we are in the dark of night where all cows are black.

[manic expression]

62. What about Muslims?

Hindus? Shintoists? Pagans?

Do they believe?

[jackthesprat]

63. I think we finished.

You are asking rhetorical questions.

[manic expression]

64. Rhetorical questions are not allowed?

Seriously, Muslims believe the same way Christians do. Atheists believe, and Pagans, Hindus and other religious people believe as well.

[jackthesprat]

66. As Hegel said,

In the dark of night, all cows are black.

[manic expression]

67. As the dictionary said,

" 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief

....

[jackthesprat]

69. I'd stay out of the dictionary.

and start reading up on comparative religion.

[manic expression]

70. So the English language doesn't matter to you?

You have yet to explain to me how Hindus and Pagans and Muslims do not have beliefs. The idea is a preposterous one.

You have shown absolutely zero understanding of any religion.

There are differences IN beliefs, not differences OF belief itself.

[jackthesprat]

72. sorry.

obvious you have not mastered even elements of comparative religion. I don't say that to offend you, but don't feel it is my obligation to explain the basics of comparative religion to you; that should be the basis for debate to take off.

Otherwise, "I believe I'll have a ham sandwich" would have the same use of "belief" as "I belive Jesus died for my sins." Different.

[manic expression]

75. a big "and"...

Look at these statements. "Believe" has the same meaning.

Muslims: "I believe that Mohammad is the prophet of Allah"
Atheist1: "I do not believe in any gods"
Atheist2: "I do not believe there are any gods"
Pagan: "I believe there are many gods"
Hindu: "I believe in reincarnation"
Buddhist: "I believe in the teachings of Buddha"

It goes on and on....

[trotsky]

65. What is the tenet accepted by all atheists?

"I believe there are no gods" is not the same thing as "I do not believe in gods." Do you understand the difference?

If you say the tenet of atheism is "There is no god," then you are wrong.

About the best you can do is claim that atheists believe in rationality and demand evidence before making a judgment on something. But then, that's not exclusive to atheists, is it?

[manic expression]

68. Sure...

Someone who believes there are no gods does not believe in gods. That is a common "tenet", if you prefer the term.

[trotsky]

71. There's a difference between those two statements.

You don't understand that, so there's no point in continuing. Feel free to continue telling atheists what they believe rather than letting them speak for themselves.

[manic expression]

73. However,

those two statements you told me had one common aspect. I highlighted that. I simply analyzed the statements you gave me.

[trotsky]

74. One common aspect?

"The grass is green."

"He was green with envy."

Those two statements have one common aspect (the word "green"), but do they even come close to meaning the same?

[manic expression]

76. Sorry, but that is not a good comparison

"There is no grass"

"I do not believe the grass is green"

Both views believe that there is no green grass.

[trotsky]

77. You're starting to realize something, but you don't know it yet.

How about:

"There are no gods."

"I don't believe in the Christian god."

Are those the same?

[manic expression]

78. They are different beliefs

but beliefs nonetheless. That is what this conversation is (was?) about.

[trotsky]

79. Good, glad you can see that.

Now how about:

"There are no gods."

"I don't believe in the Christian god, the Jewish god, the Muslim god, or any other god that has been written about or postulated by human beings throughout recorded history."

Are those the same?

[manic expression]

80. One thing:

Does the second person believe in ANY form of divinity? If so, it is postulated...by the person who said it.

To answer your question: No, they are not the same. But they do share a common aspect yet again: they both do not believe in any of those gods that have been written about or postulated by human beings.

[trotsky]

81. You're still not getting it.

On the one hand, you claim that statements having a "common aspect" are necessarily the same, but then on the other you admit that sentences having a "common aspect" aren't always the same.

Perhaps if you grant a little bit of respect for atheists and allow them to define themselves rather than you forcing a definition on them?

Suppose Person A states a proposition. Person B responds, "That is false." Person C says, "I don't think that is true." Those are very similar statements, both of which express doubt in the proposition suggested by Person A. But are they expressing the same kind of doubt? No. Person B is essentially saying, "I have knowledge which directly contradicts your statement, so I know your statement is false." Person C is saying, "I do not see any evidence to support your statement, so I cannot accept it as true."

NOW do you see?

[manic expression]

82. Things can be different

while sharing common elements.

How different are snowflakes? VERY different, but it is still snow.

Both Person B and C doubt the statement of person A, only in a different way.

Ironically, I think it is the same thing between us.

[trotsky]

83. So what's the problem?

You admit that Persons B and C doubt in different ways. This is the difference between active disbelief and not believing something is true. Which is exactly what atheists have been trying to explain to you is the difference between what you claim atheists believe, versus what they are telling you.

[manic expression]

84. I can't really think of one

to be honest.

Persons B and C still doubt, and that is a common aspect. That is all I'm saying, that Atheists have beliefs, and those beliefs are similar.

At any rate, thanks for clarifying it from your perspective.

[trotsky]

85. Sorry I couldn't help you see it more respectfully.

It would be nice if you could allow atheists to state what they think, rather than forcing your own definitions on them.

[manic expression]

86. I do

I analyzed the statements you gave me. I never forced anything down on anyone.

[PsychoDad]

17. No flames from me, The questions you ask are valid.

Just perhaps another perspective.

Death comes for us all in one form or another, our life is but a journey to that one place we shall all share, the grave. We know not when, but we are assured of the event.

I can understand where if one does not belive in the imortality of the human soul that the entire concept of life and death becomes meaningless. Why indeed? All we strive for and acheive will turn to dust and fade with our memories when or soon after we pass into dust ourselves. The only thing that matters is what we can do for ourselves and others around us here and now, but even that is pretty meaningless in the scheme of things, isn't it?

On the other hand, if one considers that the human soul may be immortal, and existance beyond physical death is assured, then death itself is but a transition, not an end. Even 70 some years of human suffering fades compared with eternity in paradise. Imagine, we may have existed as souls for 15 billion years before this life, and we will exist after 15 billion more. Indeed in this comparison, our life, the here and now which we consider so "real" will seem only as an illusion.

As a muslim, I must acknowledge that this is the will of the One, I cannot deny it for all things operate according to this will. Things that I may perceive as either good or bad from my limited viewpoint are all by the allowence and will of the One, Allah. I greve not for the dead, but for the living who shall miss their loved ones. Those who have died have simply gone on ahead of me to a place I and you must also one day go.

For in the end we all come from The One and return to The One.

And we have the hope and knowledge that we shall oneday be reunited with those we love. Where is the sting of death when we understand this? It becomes only the pain of awaiting the return to a loved one, and no-longer an absolute good bye.

The children snatched by death have been reunited with their guardian sustainer, the most mercyful, most compassionate, and now await the return of their parents to the same.

A return to the place we shall all be reunited.

Anyway, just my perspective. You're free to discard or ruminate over it as you will my friend.

Peace.

[Jimmy Bob]

39. Yes.

Beautifully put, PsychoDad.

Where is the sting of death when we understand this? - PsychoDad

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" 1 Corinthians 15:55

While no one should want to die sooner than necessary, death is not to be feared. And, as you suggest, whatever suffering may occur in the finite years we live on this planet is infinitessimal compared to the eternity that awaits.

I am not afraid of death. However, I do not want to end up on my deathbed wishing that I had lived a more virtuous life. Even after this life, I would not want to have to regret wasting my time on Earth, or worse yet, causing unnecessary suffering.

As another poster stated above, some 4 million people die every day. If it were not so, the earth would be overpopulated very quickly, with catastrophic results. Death is literally essential to life on Earth. But no such limitations apply to our life as spirits. The bodies that we inhabit wear out, get crushed, burned, drowned, broken, etc. But we are more than just bodies.

[trotsky]

41. You again?

At least choose a different name next time, to make it harder to recognize you.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Wow.

You read my mind.

[arwalden]

59. Indeed...

... what a moran!

[Az]

43. It was thinking like that

that enabled the inquisition.

The thinking works like this. The soul is immortal. The body mortal. Thus the things done in the body that endanger the immortal soul are perilous beyond measure. Therefor anything done to the body to save the immortal soul is justified.

It may be true that we are more than just our bodies. That is our minds do seem to arise from our bodies. But we don't really have anything to suggest that we are anything without our bodies. Lots or proclomations but no real evidence.

[PsychoDad]

49. It was a desire for power and control that enabled the inquisition..

If the inquisitors had believed the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and in the existence of the final day when they would have to answer for their actions, then perhaps they would have practiced a little more love and compassion to their neighbors and sought less worldly power and influence as Jesus taught.

Many of these past and present religious wrongs are not motivated by any religious ecstasy, but by old fashioned political ambition fueled by nothing more spiritual than materialistic greed. What spiritual end did Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao have behind their atrocities? What religion did they follow? None, and yet they did and achieved the same ends for the same reasons. Only difference was they did so without cloaking what they did in the deception of religion.

Your soul and mine may be immortal, and any harm we inflect on each other may seem only as a passing illusion after we awake in the next life. But I believe I will still have to answer for any wrong or injustice no matter how minor I may have dode to you or any fellow creature on this earth.

As far as I recall, their religion taught the same thing as voiced by the words of Jesus.

Peace :)

[Az]

61. Belief changes over time

You may have particular beliefs about God and Jesus but they may not resonate with beleifs of the past. You live in a society is the result of a crisis within the more orthodox positions. Around 500 years ago a revolution took place that infused humanist philosophy. People rose up and removed the Church from the center of power.

Religious thinking took several different paths. Some embraced the humanist ideals and melded them with their own. Others maintained the old doctrines and faded away.

But throughout history it is undeniable that believers have committed atrocities all while believing in the god of the bible. Whether their beliefs were oriented around the right god or not is another question. But it is undeniable that they acted out of a conviction of doing the right thing.


The layman must not argue with the unbeliever, but thrust his sword into the man's belly as far as it will go.
-- Bernard Gui Christian inquisitor

[manic expression]

22. Earthquakes are a part of life

death is inevitable when there is life. Life is inevitable when there is death.

Do not be saddened by winter, as it only leads to a new beginning.

[Az]

26. They cerntainly are

I am not saddened by winter for I know it to be a season brought about by the tilt of our earth. I further have come to understand that life on our planet is adapted to this particular season and takes it in stride.

Incidently death is not inevitable where there is life. Death by aging at least is not required. Aging seems to be an adaption of natural selection to ensure that evolution works more efficiently.

You see the aging process comes about by means of a sort of cropping of our chromosomes. Seems each time our cells replicate themself a little bit gets chopped off the end. This seems to be an adapted response. Were it not in place our cells would be able to rejuvinate themself infinitely barring an external forces. Death is not inevitable. Not to life anyway. To our species perhaps for now.

See the problem illustrated here is that particular claims may run afoul of new learning. If a claim or belief is fixed an incapable of change... well there lies the problem. One had best hope it is true or the advance of time and understanding may lead to a change in how one views such matters. And if it cannot bend in the wind it shall surely snap.

[manic expression]

28. Nothing lasts forever,

except the eternal (which everything is), the deepest level of existence.

It is a simple fact that physical (not to mention other forms) manifestations of anything, be it an individual, a solar system or even an idea, cannot last forever. Everything must end, but everything is eternal. What lasts beyond the death is what truly matters.

Think of it. If cells did not reproduce, we could not live, and so the deterioration is just another facet of this cycle. The simple fact that the act of dying is what powers adaptation proves my point: nothing could survive without death. These same truths are observable everywhere. Without night, how could we have day? Without death, what could living beings eat to survive? Even if we were able to not die from aging, the solar system would still expire, and then that end would simply come later. The end is inevitable in everything, just as the beginning is as well.

You must understand that these belief systems are centered upon what is more than the fleeting forms: the eternal. Of course it changes, as I can tell you that I worship deities completely different from the deities people in the same religion worshiped in the past. A religion can change over time or even adapt to a new culture, but the truth remains the same. This is the same for existence as well: the (exterior) form changes, while the truth is eternal.

[Az]

30. I suspect

That we have more that we agree upon than we disagree upon.

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. - Andre Gide

[manic expression]

34. I suspect the same thing

It is easy to find the truth. Simply look outside, or in the mirror. Connect on a deeper level with someone or something. Fight for what is right. Experience or dwell upon what is deeper. That is truth. That is what is within us and around us.

Here's a quote I just found, hope you like it:

"It is the Self by which we see, hear, smell and taste...

(...)These are but paths to the Self, who is
Pure consciousness.
This Self is all in all.
He is all the gods, the five elements(...)
All beings that walk, all beings that fly,
And all that neither walk nor fly. Prajna
Is pure consciousness, guiding all. The world
Rests on prajna, and prajna is Brahman.

Those who realize Brahman live in joy
And go beyond death. Indeed
They go beyond death.

OM shanti shanti shanti"

-Aitareya Upanishad

(Brahman=culmination of all existence, of everything)
(Prajna=the highest form of something; transcendent consciousness; also used as wisdom)

By the way, the direct translation I have is "...These are but servants of the Self". I changed it to "...but paths to the Self". Sorry if it was lengthy.

Again, we probably agree more than we disagree. Keep searching!

[nemo137]

32. Whatever happened to Stunster?

He posted an essay just after the tsunami last year that addressed this issue, which i thought was interesting.

[beam me up scottie]

37. .

[Zhade]

40. I think he went off to a mental health clinic.

All that "god talks to me directly" stuff.

Seriously, though, he was banned. No loss.

[FM Arouet666]

38. I agree the whole God thing just makes no sense.......

Why believe in a supernatural world? Gods, spirits, ghosts and goblins. I have never witnessed anything which would convince me that a supernatural realm exists. Thousands of years ago, those less learned than ourselves, pondered the origin of man, the reasons for existence, the result being religion. A failed attempt at understanding the natural world, failed in efficacy compared to science. Resilient in the minds of those too fearful or too ignorant to reject religion.

Yes, the consequences of a materialistic world can be frightening. Human life, thought, morals, actions are as irrelevant to the universe as two dust particles floating in deep space. But life does matter, the global community of human beings is concerned. We have a shared experience of life with all other humans on the planet, and my view is that we must do what we can to make the collective experience as pleasant as possible. Do un to others......

As for the disasters, these things happen. No prayers to God for forgiveness, no devil to curse for the suffering.

:evilfrown:

[NAO]

48. What did God know and when did he know it? LIHOP or MIHOP?

OK, if God is omniscient, he KNEW it was going to happen. If he is all powerful, he COULD have acted to prevent it. Therefore, at the very least, we have LIHOP.

Now if He is in control of the universe, and if all things and events are an expression of His Will, then we have a clear case of MIHOP.

I don't think there is any way out of this one.