Peak Religion

[Miss Madam]

And of course, some religious peoples' response to that email would be to suggest that I am an agent of the devil - causing the faithful to doubt.... which is just a circular argument that makes me mad! Surely the deity has faith in his faithful to listen to both sides of the argument and make their own minds up?

If you wanna see my agent of satan side, I think its more effectively demonstrated when plying people with vodka

This classic logical construct was what made me sit back and scratch my head as a teenager: "The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?"

[mikepepler]

I did quite a bit of research into Mithras, and earlier epic cycles such as the Gilgamesh epic from Assyria (which is what the Noah's ark, and even the Adam and Eve story was based on) when I was doing my first degree and it pretty much erased the last of my christian nostalgia that had been lingering on since my Catholic childhood.

I'd recommend anyone to read the Epic of Gilgamesh, it's a great story. I found a copy here:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mes ... gilgamesh/
the Flood is on Tablet XI

The account is quite different from that in Genesis, though there are some similarities. It's an interesting example of how the same piece of evidence (or whatever) can confirm opposing views. For some people, Gilgamesh shows that Genesis was copied from it. But another view is that if there really was a global flood that wiped out all but a few people, then of course you'd expect it to turn up in the history of many different societies, and have some similarities. Then the presence of the different versions confirms the account in Genesis, rather than weakening it.

But like I said, it depends on your viewpoint. If you start from the position that the Bible is rubbish, it confirms your view as you "know" a global flood is impossible, and the account shows Genesis to be plagiarism. But if you start from the viewpoint that miraculous events do happen, and can happen on any scale, then the flood is perfectly possible, and the presence of other accounts makes perfect sense.

If people walked the walk of their religion, not just talking the talk - then we wouldn't have had Auschwitz, Guantanomo, Abu Ghraib etc

If only they would. Many Christians I know (and a few Muslims I know, for that matter) certainly try to.

[Miss Madam]

Hear hear Mike - well said. I certainly wasn't coming from the starting point of the Bible is rubbish - and apologies if it sounded like that, I'm actually coming from the POV of someone with a very close Polish / Irish Catholic upbringing, so I certainly wasn't out to try to find the cracks when I did my studies! I just think we need to be cautious about focussing too much on the words in modern versions of old books which may or may not bear any resemblence to what the original author meant, and focus instead on the bigger message - and in that sense Christianity is full of many good pearls of wisdom that regardless of your religion, make sense.

[mikepepler]

This classic logical construct was what made me sit back and scratch my head as a teenager: "The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?"

But would you want God to somehow prevent you from doing, even thinking, things that were wrong? I think I'm happier with free will, knowing that God is omnipotent, but is holding back, because if He wiped out evil, we would all be gone, or at the very least have become mindless automatons.

[mikepepler]

Hear hear Mike - well said. I certainly wasn't coming from the starting point of the Bible is rubbish - and apologies if it sounded like that, I'm actually coming from the POV of someone with a very close Polish / Irish Catholic upbringing, so I certainly wasn't out to try to find the cracks when I did my studies! I just think we need to be cautious about focussing too much on the words in modern versions of old books which may or may not bear any resemblence to what the original author meant, and focus instead on the bigger message - and in that sense Christianity is full of many good pearls of wisdom that regardless of your religion, make sense.

Cheers Cat, I see where you're coming from.

Personally, I class "religion" as something of human invention. Myself, the only thing I stick to is the Bible. OK, I also go to a church, but am not an official "member" as I think membership of churches is a man-made structure, superimposed on what God intended. The new testament "church" is worlds away from what people think of as "church" today.

[Miss Madam]

Hmmm but why create evil in the first place? I could have been quite content with heaven on earth.... an infinity of resources etc (to bring a vague semblance of PO relevance to my latest ramble!!!!). This 'learning the lessons the hard way' divine wisdom can be really sucky - Auschwitz for example! If some being with infinite wisdom created this planet, then IMHP they must have done so on a really bad day - like with the mother of all hangovers. The more I look around the more I see our that our world is a furious ball of chaos hurtling towards a collective destination, with no one at the steering wheel and the passengers fighting for the window seats. I try to look for patterns, a guiding hand - but just see instinct and animal reasoning. Maybe that is what religions were 'invented' for - to try to raise us above our natural state? But then, I'm not really keen on having a go at our natural state ie. the concept of original sin etc.... humans are humans, sometimes we're crap, a lot of the time we're crap.... but we keep trying - you've gotta give us that!

[syberberg]

A brief word about "good" and "evil".

The difference between "good" and "evil" is a matter of perspective. It just depends upon which side of the fence you're standing on.

The "forces of good" will never be able to defeat the "forces of evil", and vice versa, permanently. The pendulum swings.

Without "evil", "good" has nothing with which to compare itself to and so becomes meaningless.

Without "good", "evil" cannot be defined and ceases to exist.

[mikepepler]

Hmmm but why create evil in the first place?

I wouldn't say God created evil, but he gave the angels free will too, and the most powerful one decided to rebel. Why God didn't destroy Satan on the spot isn't made clear in the Bible, but it might have something to do with not scaring the rest of Creation into submission, which would remove their free will. Instead we got to see the choice and the consequences. But that's just my musings, not biblical, and could be completely wrong.

humans are humans, sometimes we're crap, a lot of the time we're crap.... but we keep trying - you've gotta give us that!

Indeed - we all have our own moral code of what is right, even if we don't subscribe to an absolute moral standard, and we try to keep to it, yet we don't manage it 100% of the time. I believe this (basically the existence of conscience) is because of the way God made us - we know what is right, and usually feel bad to some degree when we don't keep to it. This is to give us a kick up the backside, not to make us try harder, but to look to a higher power for help.

[EmptyBee]

This classic logical construct was what made me sit back and scratch my head as a teenager: "The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?"

Well I think suffering is something inherent to experience of temporality: you can't exist in time without experiencing loss; pleasure is transient and pain is inevitable. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
That doesn't explain why a purportedly benevolent creator might have decided on this particular scheme of things, rather than keeping us in paradise. I would have to say that for suffering to make sense there must be some sense in which it can be considered to have value.

Lucy: Adversity builds character. Without adversity a person could never mature and face up to all of the things in life!
Charlie Brown: What things?
Lucy: More adversity!

?We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit.? (Romans 5. 3 - 5)

The Christian mythos focuses on redemption through suffering - this of course requires that the world is fallen, cursed or tainted by our fall from grace and the consequences of original sin. So the purpose of suffering is integral to our regaining of divine grace.

Similarly in Hinduism and Buddhist doctrine there is the idea of karma, in which the cause of our suffering is attributed to actions past, present or future. In Buddhist doctrine it is the twin forces of fear and desire that keep the wheel of life in motion.

Of course it's human nature to ascribe meaning to arbritrary phenomena and to imagine that there is some divinely ordained plan directing the course of the universe in which everything ultimately makes sense. I'm not sure the human mind is cut out for dealing with a meaningless world. Even arbitrarily ascribing values to pain and pleasure (pain bad, pleasure good, life good, death bad) as in utilitarianism strikes me as facile. If all experience is merely the senseless chatter of neural networks then I don't see any reason to ascribe values to anything. Even putting a bullet through someone's brain can be shrugged off as merely shattering an essentially ephemeral illusion.

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[RevdTess]

Aye, EmptyBee, curious that even without an overt good/evil dichotomy, Buddhism still manages to generate meaningfulness in the desire for the ending-of-suffering. The universe is always exactly as it must be... including my apparent desire to make improvements.

[mikepepler]

?We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit.? (Romans 5. 3 - 5)

The Christian mythos focuses on redemption through suffering - this of course requires that the world is fallen, cursed or tainted by our fall from grace and the consequences of original sin. So the purpose of suffering is integral to our regaining of divine grace.

Not at all, Christians believe that redemption is through God's grace alone, and nothing we do on our part, other than faith. That means redemption is not based on good works, or on suffering. Both will probably feature in Christian's life, but they have nothing to do with how they were redeemed.

Perhaps if you had quoted the above text from Romans in its full context, starting at verse 1 of Chapter 5, then this misunderstanding wouldn't arise:

Romans 5:1-11
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

The meaning is that we can rejoice despite our sufferings, because of what God has done for us, and because he will use even our suffering to help us:

Romans 8:28
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

[sentiententity]

On the Old Testament god's "justness":

Job was tortured by Satan, though only within limits set by God

Well that's ok then. Oh, hang on a minute, no it isn't. Just because George Bush and Dick Cheney aren't actually wielding the reel of gaffer tape and bucket of water themselves, doesn't mean they aren't guilty of torture.

Job was rewarded with more than he'd lost in the first place

Well, I guess that was a consolation to his first family, killed to make a point to someone else.

It's quite a while since I read this stuff (hence slip of the keyboard WRT "Moses' army"), but even so, the god's expansiveness with punishment isn't just. Even if the Midianites deserved a kicking (and there was no invasion of their lands by the Israelites "on god's orders", say), surely a just punishment would only be visited on those who had actually offended, rather than exterminating the entire people? Especially if it was to be administered at the behest of an omniscient , just and benevolent deity? It seems particularly hard on the young girls, who were merely related to members of the "oppressing" army...

f we didn't have the choice to do wrong, we would be unable to do anything but follow God - no free will. Likewise, if God were to force people to believe in Him, there would be no free choice either.

He goes with a third option: eternal torture (seems a bit sick for a relatively minor transgression) unless you believe without (deja vu all over again in this thread) any evidence! My biblical hero is Doubting Thomas, for exactly the reason that he is portrayed as not up to snuff in the NT: he has the temerity to ask for evidence.

On harm from other causes, the thing to remember is that when humans brought sin into the world, the whole of creation became "tainted", and nothing works the way it would have done. For example, before sin there was no pain in childbirth and no need for farmers to battle weeds to produce food.

Er...you do know we're talking about the myths of a desert tribe several thousand years ago, right?

If you start from the position that the Bible is rubbish, it confirms your view as you "know" a global flood is impossible, and the account shows Genesis to be plagiarism

Not rubbish - mythology.

We do know that the global flood is a myth. There is a lot of evidence out there inconsistent with the myth being true, and none consistent with it.

Not plagiarism - merely the inheritance and transfer of myths between peoples and generations.

Your Campbell quote is a good one, but I find it very odd coming from a (I'm guessing) fundamentalist/creationist theist. Can I ask why you think Peak Oil is real?

One general observation I'd like to make as well: in a discussion like this, why is Christianity the focus, rather than Islam or some other religion? Is it just because we have no Muslims here standing up for their beliefs?

Probably. I'm a completely ecumenical atheist . Any god needs to provide evidence of its existence. Oh - and so does Satan.

s.

[syberberg]

Sitting on the fence, throwing stones into a pond:

"I The Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my Commandments."

Strange, I always thought jealousy was one of the Seven Deadly Sins. So it's perfectly alright for Yweh to proclaim that he is a jealous god, but his followers cannot be? Smacks of: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Also we get an implication that Yweh isn't the only god, that there are gods who aren't jealous.

"...how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath..." There's that fear meme again.

[EmptyBee]

?We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit.? (Romans 5. 3 - 5)

The Christian mythos focuses on redemption through suffering - this of course requires that the world is fallen, cursed or tainted by our fall from grace and the consequences of original sin. So the purpose of suffering is integral to our regaining of divine grace.

Not at all, Christians believe that redemption is through God's grace alone, and nothing we do on our part, other than faith. That means redemption is not based on good works, or on suffering. Both will probably feature in Christian's life, but they have nothing to do with how they were redeemed.

Not at all? Well this is perhaps one of those doctrinal issues that separate denominations. There is certainly a long tradition of the salvific effects of suffering within Catholicism, primarily in the context of the Passion but also in a wider sense as complementary to the redemption granted by the Crucifixion (but not substituting for it).

The following quotes serve as scriptural justification for the idea of the sanctity of suffering in the believer rather than only in Christ. So that to follow Christ's example in suffering can itself be edifying and an arguably necessary precondition of spiritual maturity.

(Luke 9:23) And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it."

(Colossians 1:24) Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my physical body ? for the sake of his body, the church ? what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.

(Galatians 5:13) "For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, ?You must love your neighbour as yourself.? However, if you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another. But I say, live by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh. For the flesh has desires that are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires that are opposed to the flesh, for these are in opposition to each other, so that you cannot do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder,drunkenness, carousing,and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit.Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, being jealous of one another."

This idea of redemptive suffering is evidently significant at least in Catholic apologetics. See C.S. Lewis: The Problem of Pain and Pope John Paul II's letter on the Christian meaning of human suffering.

Now I suppose there should be a distinction made between voluntary suffering for one's faith and suffering endured involuntarily or accidentally or as a consequence of sin (but in a sense all suffering is seen as a consequence of sin, original sin or otherwise). On the latter subject there's an interesting verse in Romans:

(Romans 11:32) "For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all."

This goes back to the problem of God "entrapping" humanity in the fall - God knows full well (being omniscient) that having granted them free will, Adam & Eve will eat of the tree of knowledge and so fall from grace. In other words, in a paradoxical sense God requires that humanity be sinful, prodigal children in order for His love to have meaning.

[mikepepler]

I think we're beginning to go round in circles here, and I also feel a bit bad for monopolising this thread - it might look like I'm only in PowerSwitch to evangelise!
(OK, well I might be hoping some people will read and believe, but I'm also sick of people bashing Christianity and God, taking things out of context and not having a proper understanding, and not enough Christians explaining their beliefs to these people. Very few people do this to Muslims, perhaps because they fear the consequences?)

In brief then:
Justness - I don't believe humans are in a position to challenge whether God is just or not. We don't have the full knowledge of any situation in the way that He does. If a person doesn't believe He is just, they are welcome to plead or get angry with Him - there's many examples of this in the old testament - but that's not a sensible basis for choosing whether to believe or not. You might think a speed camera you never saw but caught you is unjust, but you wouldn't try arguing it didn't exist.

Punishment for "minor" transgressions - the point is not the physical transgression, which could be murder or calling someone a fool, but the transgression against God. Any sin, no matter how large or small a human might think it is, is a transgression against God, and that's what prevents us going to be with Him after we die, and why we need redeeming.

Myths and Mythology - if you think miracles and supernatural events are impossible, then of course it looks like a myth. If you think they are possible, then there's no problem with any of it.

"Deal with reality or reality will deal with you" (Dr Colin Campbell) - no problem with this quote - the reality I see includes God, so I could use the same quote to warn someone of the consequences of not believing in God, as well as not believing in PO.

Jealous God - see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jealous You're thinking of definition 1 "feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages" I expect. The definition for God as Jealous is number 6: "intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry"

Suffering - There may well be a tradition in several Christian denominations of suffering bringing Salvation, but it is not Biblical. See the comment I made earlier about "religion" being a man-made invention superimposed on what God intended. My earlier post on suffering explains what is biblical.