Doubt: The Perfect Gift

Sorry about the duplication. I got impatient and double-clicked.

"your God uses the Seven Deadly Sins as a barometer"

Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy, or anything, but it's only fair to point out that the seven deadly sins weren't invented by God. They were invented by the poet Edmund Spenser (c.1552–1599). He was going to make twelve, but petered out after 7 for some reason I forget.

"your God uses the Seven Deadly Sins as a barometer"

Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy, or anything, but it's only fair to point out that the seven deadly sins weren't invented by God. They were invented by the poet Edmund Spenser (c.1552–1599). He was going to make twelve, but petered out after 7 for some reason I forget.

Bill, you are mistaken. Saying "If A and B" is the same as saying "If A and if B". The first is just a more correct way of saying it.

But the statement was "... and all reindeer are blue," not IF all reindeer are blue.

I agree 100%: a being without evil will not create evil."

Bill: "Are all reindeer blue? It would seem that this is the position being put forward, and I consider that as a position being proposed as factual." Of course not. That is what "if" means.
Maybe the confusion comes from my implicit assumption that a being without evil will not create evil.

NICOLE WRIGHT what if yoou worship Jesus(ata) all your life and you die and find out that God told you not to worship anyone besides Him?

you asked what people thought the purpose of life is without answering your own question.

Marty,

I appreciate the discussion, but it feels as if we're getting to the "arguing how many angels will fit on a pinhead" point. I like the reindeer quip, so let's go there momentarily. Are all reindeer blue? It would seem that this is the position being put forward, and I consider that as a position being proposed as factual. It cannot be proposed as factual without at least some presupposition regarding a knowledge of reindeer. Why would someone say all reindeer are blue if they have never seen or have any knowledge whatsoever of reindeer? By saying it, the implication is "some" level of knowledge. A conditional statement says that when the condition is met, the outcome is predictable/known.

I would equate the statement you first made as not so much "God is a reindeer" as much as "God has an antler, reindeer have antlers, so God must be a reindeer." Do reindeer have antlers? Yes, but so do deer and jackalopes! A position such as "God has antlers, a red nose, flys, and pulls some fat dudes sleigh, and Rudolf has ...., so God must be Rudolph the reindeer" is a more sound/accurate/whatever the word is, of an argument. Why do I say this? Because while the attributes you listed are, I believe, true of God, they are not the whole character of God, just like an antler is not the whole character/attribute of a reindeer.

I agree that you first example is "an inescapable conclusion," but I don't believe it is the same form. Yet is does assume a knowledge that the universe exists today. Would "If God is evil, and love is in the world today, so God cannot exist" be equally true?

I just had the fleeting thought that I need to get a job!

This may be a more clear way to say it. Consider:

"If God is a reindeer, and all reindeer are blue, then God is blue".

This does not presuppose any knowledge of God, even whether he exists or not.

I keep telling the page to remember personal info and it won't. The above was me.

One of my posts got dumped also, so I'm saving them in Notepad now.

Bill, stating "If God is..." is a conditional. It does NOT presuppose any knowledge of God. I could have said "IF God created the universe, then he existed". I believe this is an inescapable conclusion, requiring no knowledge of the being. (akin to "I think, therefor I am") I think my argument was the same way, requiring no further knowledge than the premises (from chrisianity) themselves, and our knowledge that the univers exists and contains evil.

Marty,

Somehow I just dumped my lengthy response, so I apologize for this brief one. Without trying to sound as if I'm talking to a child, I will try to be specific.

You made a knowledge claim about God. "If God is..." How you derive that knowledge is insignificant to the question, but you do in fact put it forward as a known truth and the data from which you draw your conclusion. Based on this data, this claim, you then draw a conclusion: "so the above mentioned God cannot exist, or he would fix/prevent it." Your conclusion seems quite clear and authoritative in that there is no room for misunderstanding. You state that God "cannot" exist. Another way of putting it might go, "God does not exist. How do you know? Because if God ..." The point in which you state "if God," you make a factual claim. If you can make the factual claim that "if God is...," you state an understanding of how God would, should or could respond. This is by definition a theology: a reasoned understanding or position on God. It doesn't matter to the form of your argument whether you're talking about the God Jehovah or Zeus, the claim would still be stating a knowledge of the being.

You can sleep tonight knowing I'm not saying you believe in God! :> I only said you made a claim in a form which is made from a presumed knowledge of a being that you stated doesn't exist.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, any "Christian" teaching where God is the white haired, grandfatherly type who only exudes love, is nothing more than idolitry. The teacher has "made up" a God because this is NOT how the Bible represents Him.

To Dave,

I should have also noted Hunter's(?) book "Darwin's God" as a reference in how I derive my understanding.

Enough for one night!

Bill, "a posited knowledge of God was used to conclude that He didn't exist." What do you mean? I only claim to know how Christians and Jews view God, because that is what I was taught. Maybe I should leave the other monotheistic religions out. Are you saying I am wrong about their definition? How can I be claiming knowledge of God (other than his nonexistence) if I don't believe he exists?

My apologies to the board. The anonymous posting was my failing to log my name I suppose, but I readily take credit for the comments.

Dave,

I am certain that if my posts are reviewed fully, you will not find terms like "delusional" being used by me and regarding those with which I disagree. It adds nothing to civil discourse to move into ad honinem arguments and while I am no intellectual giant, it is intellectually barren.

My comments regarding the eye, which do not correspond to the fossil record since such soft tissue almost never survives, is referring to Darwin's comments in Origin. To paraphrase: the eye is so complex that any idea it could have been formed through natural selection is "absurd in the highest possible degree." (178) He then goes on however, to posit that if the case of "any organ," should one "know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor," then there is "no logical impossibility" that it could have happened that way. (120) Here, Darwin is saying that if one could imagine such a thing, then it is not impossible. While it may very well be possible, it is unprovable EITHER way. yet this has been a foundational reponse to dealing with complexity of an organism.

Why is this an issue? Because when one looks at the fossil data following the Cambrian Explosion, for example, one of the "big bangs," the fossil record shows an abrupt formation of complex organisms (shells). Yet there is no coherent explanation of such findings within the evolutionary profile, except for pure speculation. Does this fossil record disprove evolution? No! But it doesn't prove it either, and is in fact more of a problem than anything else. The paleantology text, Fossils and Evolution, by T. S. Kemp states, "The observed fossil pattern is invariably not compatible with a gradualistic evolutionary process." (1999, pg. 16) He states that the problem is either with the fossil record or the evolution narrative, but that they don't reconcile without hypothesizing "undiscovered fossil forms."

Ernst Mayr wrote in 1988, that "In spite of all the advances in genetics, we are still almost entirely ignorant as to what happens genetically during speciation." (Toward A New Philosophy in Biology, 208) He is certainly not anti-evolutionary.

The molecular clock, speciation and other areas have severe problems as they pertain to evolution. It is a highly complex topic and I am no expert by any stretch. I would only point out that my readings show that there are serious gaps in the theory's ability to reconcile a fair portion of the known data.

Marty,

A theodicy is a system which attempts to reconcile a benevolent God with the evil we see in the world. My point was that your position was a theodicy based on a faulty theology. As I have repeated over and over, my statements deal with the God of Christianity, so when I made the statement I was referring to this particular God. My basis for the fautly theology comment was you statement regarding your knowledge of God. While you may respond that you either don't believe in God (atheism) or believe that you/me/we can't know God (agnosticism), you none the less stated a position of knowledge regarding Him. If .... then.... This is a form which conotes knowledge. "If it rains, then we will get wet." Such a statement formulated about God is a theology: a reasoned position on God. From your argument, you concluded that God could not exist or was evil himself. This argument and its corresponding conclusion is what I categorized as a faulty theology, and ironic that that a posited knowledge of God was used to conclude that He didn't exist.

So, yes you have to begin with a concept of God in order to draw a conclusion. Yet if you make the conclusion based on bad/incomplete data, you get bad/incomplete results. If you truly want a complete picture of the Biblical God, then you must take the full record into account to draw a conclusive position. Yes, no, maybe?

Tonio: "'As to my core point, that original sin is a disgusting concept, I hope I am correct in reading your response as making no objection.'
Absol-freaking-lutely. I recommend the epilogue to Elaine Pagels' book "Adam, Eve and the Serpent," where Pagels offers her own theory as to why the concept originated."

A quick Google search on the topic turned up a post in another "On Faith" forum (poster's name withheld for sake of in-joke obviousness), excerpted thusly:

"Pagels asked why Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin has persisted in Christian teaching for so many centuries. After all, the doctrine teaches that all humans bear the guilt of Adam and Eve's transgression in Eden. Personally, I find that idea to be horrid. But Pagels concluded that people would rather bear that awesome guilt than accept the alternative, which is that death and suffering are random. Bearing the guilt gives people the illusion that they have some control over the world."

Makes sense to me. Much more so than original sin itself. Thanks for pointing me toward Ms. Pagels' work.

Dave in NM,

"I would say it's only relevant insofar as it relates to the validity or invalidity of a given belief system attempting to dictate ethics."

I agree!

"Would you agree that once something 'supernatural' is explained and its place in the natural world established, it's no longer 'supernatural,' and therefore never was?"

I would have to say so. I predict that as we learn more about our universe and the natural bases for events, our concepts of deity will evolve. Thousands of years from now, the world might see religious doctrines that would be completely alien to 21st-century thinking.

"As to my core point, that original sin is a disgusting concept, I hope I am correct in reading your response as making no objection."

Absol-freaking-lutely. I recommend the epilogue to Elaine Pagels' book "Adam, Eve and the Serpent," where Pagels offers her own theory as to why the concept originated.

Also, Bill, what do you mean by me using my "theology" as a foundation for my anti-God conclusions? How can you conclude that God does not exist without having a difinition for what God is? You HAVE to start with theology, right?

Bill: "What Marty posits is a 'theodicy' and is carried forward on faulty theological principles."

Are you saying I am carrying it forward on faulty principles? Please explain.

Anonymous: "I am not so certain that the fossil record does indeed show what you mention. I believe that many have placed their 'faith' in that particular narrative because of their theology more than the evidence provided."

But do you have any evidence for this, e.g. fossils that are not consistent with evolution? Or are you speaking only from your "faith" that the overwhelming majority of scientists are deluded? In either event, your premise might hold a drop or so of water if evolution were constantly being redefined to fit new discoveries. As it is, the theory has been clearly defined for decades, and each and every subsequent discovery has supported the theory as already posited. That's the exact opposite of the process you describe.

"Anyone can take a data set and weave a story around it that fits their needs. Some would say religions do that. I not only agree that SOME religions do that, but would add that 'science' has done likewise."

As long as you put "science" in quotes, meaning "not science," I have no means of refuting that statement. If you allege that any genuine practice of science can "take a data set and weave a story around it that fits [its] needs," i.e. manipulate data to fit a predetermined conclusion, I respond that that process is not just "bad" science, but the opposite of science. Taken literally, then, your statement is, by definition, untrue.

"I can certainly provide some specifics if so desired (see Origins and Darwins understanding of the eye, as an example of process still being employed today)."

Not sure what you mean here. I would be grateful if you would elaborate.

"What I find repellent is the concept that man can be relied upon to do good at all. "

What a thing to say. Not only that humanity is inherently evil (is that not what you're saying?) but that the very thought to the contrary is "repellent." What a sad, bleak outlook you have. I'm absolutely delighted that you will, in all likelihood, never have the chance to teach anything to my children. Any worldview based on such a premise is frightening in the extreme.

Folks,

I suggest that the idea that the Biblical God is "all benevolent" is idolatry at it's finest. It clearly goes against the Biblical record, as His wrath is seen often. That "God is love" is true, but not everything. That He is "just," among othere characteristics should also be remembered.

I care not for a god who would control me as a puppet on a string, yanking me to and fro. I am frightened just at the thought of my wife's response were I to bring home flowers and other gifts, and hearing her thank you's, I respond with, "That's OK, it's my duty." I don't demand her love, but desire it none the less.

"I begin with the premise that there IS a natural world, and everything else must yet be proven." Yes there is a natural world, which we witness first hand, but that is not the full set of what we would call knowledge. You and I might agree that Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address, but we can't really prove it. We can view the evidence provided, such as written accounts of those both there and even those not there, but you and I must weigh the veracity of the evidence provided and decide whether we find it true or not. How many people today still believe that the moon walk was filmed in Hollywood somewhere? The Bush conspricies run rampant, just like the Clinton conspiricies that said, among other things, he used Arkansas State Patrol officers to commit murder for him. The cases are built and people choose to believe or not.

I am not so certain that the fossil record does indeed show what you mention. I believe that many have placed their "faith" in that particular narrative because of their theology more than the evidence provided. Anyone can take a data set and weave a story around it that fits their needs. Some would say religions do that. I not only agree that SOME religions do that, but would add that "science" has done likewise. I can certainly provide some specifics if so desired (see Origins and Darwins understanding of the eye, as an example of process still being employed today).

Lastly, some would choose to blame God for a given outcome, yet I choose to blame mankind. At what point should God decide to step in an alter an impending event? Should God prevent the formation of cleft pallets, for example, in the womb? What about dwarfism? What about left handedness? Why stop at physical deformities?Why shouldn't He have caused a "natural" abortion of Harris and Klebold (Columbine) if He knows the future and prevent a slaughter of "innocents?" Or prevented their fertilization at all? Such things are illogical when the thread is pulled even a little bit.

What I find repellent is the concept that man can be relied upon to do good at all. Absolutely nothing in history bears this out. Given our known history in America alone, I can't see a body politic (men) that has consistently carried out policies that weren't self-serving and perpetuating. There are moments. But only moments.

Tonio: "It is certainly valid to ask where the 'first rock' came from. (Maybe it was Chuck Berry.) But in terms of human ethics, is that question relevant?"

Not directly, and I certainly wasn't trying to imply that it was. I would say it's only relevant insofar as it relates to the validity or invalidity of a given belief system attempting to dictate ethics.

"'I begin with the premise that there IS a natural world, and everything else must yet be proven.'
I would amend that to say that I would not take other people's beliefs about the supernatural to be my own without proof."

Would you agree that once something "supernatural" is explained and its place in the natural world established, it's no longer "supernatural," and therefore never was?

"I've always disliked the whole 'why does God allow suffering' argument. I regard a certain amount of suffering as inevitable in life, just as death is inevitable."

Sure. I think my statement is geared, not so much toward suffering per se, as to blatant injustices like the murder of a single parent. Suffering is a necessary part of life, if for no other reason than that pain teaches us not to touch fire. I just think that a truly benevolent god would work to alleviate unnecessary and truly unjust suffering, and if omnipotent, would succeed in doing so. As to my core point, that original sin is a disgusting concept, I hope I am correct in reading your response as making no objection.

Dave in NM, I agree with some of your points and disagree with others.

It is certainly valid to ask where the "first rock" came from. (Maybe it was Chuck Berry.) But in terms of human ethics, is that question relevant? The ethical principle of actions helping or harming others does not depend on any specific origin of the universe. If we had proof that, say, life on our planet was seeded by aliens, would that really make a difference in people's personal lives? Would such proof cause any of us treat our fellow humans differently than we do now?

"I begin with the premise that there IS a natural world, and everything else must yet be proven."

I would amend that to say that I would not take other people's beliefs about the supernatural to be my own without proof. And I wouldn't expect other people to adopt my own beliefs about the supernatural without proof, either.

"Yet I would assume you agree He could prevent such things if He wished? If so, to that extent, it IS His will that they continue to occur."

I've always disliked the whole "why does God allow suffering" argument. I regard a certain amount of suffering as inevitable in life, just as death is inevitable. However, I do believe that some elements of Jewish and Christian doctrine conflict with the idea of Yahweh as all-benevolent. But I don't expect or demand that anyone else share my opinion.

Bill: "I used the word supernatural as meaning an event that is beyond a natural explanation given man's knowledge base today; something that defies nature."

I agree with Tonio that that definition is overbroad. I maintain that many things now derided as "supernatural" may well have natural bases and therefore prove one day to be perfectly valid phenomena. That does not make them supernatural (above or outside nature). They're natural. I have no reason to believe *anything* is truly supernatural, unless the word is defined too broadly.

"If evolution is true, we are still left with where the first rock came from."

Which, of course, leaves the question, asked at least once above, where God came from. The origin of the "first rock" would seem to me susceptible to a natural explanation; the origin of God, by definition, is not.

"It would be fruitless to perform an analysis on a religion that relies on the supernatural if you begin with the limit that there is no supernatural."

As others here have done, this confuses lack of a belief with belief in its opposite. I don't believe in God, but neither do I have concrete evidence of God's nonexistence. Thus, I don't "begin with the limit that there is no supernatural." I begin with the premise that there IS a natural world, and everything else must yet be proven.

"it is entirely without merit to assume that just because a bird can develop with a new colored wing, it can therefore become an antelope given enough time."

I think recent additions to the fossil record provide yet further evidence that life began in the oceans and developed the ability to walk on land. I have yet to become aware of a single fossil discovery that is incompatible with evolution.

"evolution and Christianity as developed in the Biblical narrative, cannot mix."

At least we agree on something! ;^)

"It is NOT God's "will" that babies be born deformed; that planes fly into towers; that hurricanes hit New Orleans and other such things."

Yet I would assume you agree He could prevent such things if He wished? If so, to that extent, it IS His will that they continue to occur.

"rules were set and one tree was put off limits (eat and you will surely die). Once eaten, God fullfilled His promise and we live with the effects today. That is why we see the things mentioned."

The inherent cruelty of "original sin"; i.e. that innocents may be punished for the wrongs of others, is one of the more repellent aspects of Christianity. To echo Marty's logic, either God is unable to prevent such unjust retribution, in which case He is not omnipotent, or He consciously allows it to happen, in which case He is not good. Either way, the underlying reasoning is a poor basis on which to found a proselytizing religion.

Bill,

"I only wanted to stress that if you begin with the mindset that there is no such thing, you'll never get out of Genesis."

I don't understand that. Would you explain?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of moral authority being bestowed upon humanity by an outside agency, for two reasons.

First, in my view that idea assumes that humans aren't capable of acting responsibly on their own, of learning on their own to avoid behavior that harms others. I abhor the idea that humans always have to be told not to harm others. To me, it means that no matter what humans do that helps others, they're forever regarded as unruly, ungovernable children. Imagine if a 3-year-old Jonas Salk had taken a hammer to his uncle's piano, and he was forever defined by that incident.

Second, the priority of dogma isn't a moral authority or a coherent narrative. Dogma is "because I said so," about power for its own sake. Dogma actually forbids any attempt to analyze the coherency of its narrative. Please don't take this as a criticism of people who believe in these dogmas.

"When it says He made man in His image and it was "good," how does a non-feeling, non-aware (sapience) first shot mesh with that?"

I'll explain my metaphorical view of Genesis - as the human brain grew, humans acquired an awareness of death and a capacity for ethical choice. The first must have seemed to early humans like getting kicked out of paradise. The second may have seemed that way as well. Ethical choice is not easy sometimes, because humans often have an awareness of how our actions help or harm others.

So I see "God made man in His image" as a metaphor for sentience, which can seem like a godlike power when you compare the human mind with the animal mind. For the purposes of the metaphor, it isn't relevant whether the sentience evolved or was granted directly by deity.

Dave,

If you are indeed hearing such arguments, which I have no reason to doubt, I would only reply that Christianity is full of lazy Christians that are unwilling to work a little and learn what the Bible says. It is NOT God's "will" that babies be born deformed; that planes fly into towers; that hurricanes hit New Orleans and other such things. His will, according to scripture, was that man be cared for in the garden and commune with Him regularly. Still, rules were set and one tree was put off limits (eat and you will surely die). Once eaten, God fullfilled His promise and we live with the effects today. That is why we see the things mentioned.

Tonio,

I also don't equate all of what we might view as supernatural events to deity, which is why I caveated my statement with what we know today. I think many things we view that way today will become understood as purely natural once our science allows us to understand what's happening. I only wanted to stress that if you begin with the mindset that there is no such thing, you'll never get out of Genesis.

I fully agree with your position on encountering these events outside of the five senses, with what I can tell, without exception. I would only go a little further and state that I would then test these events against the Biblical record.

As to my understanding of Genesis, I do take a literal reading, although I admit straight up that it is not a complete record of history. I don't fault that because it isn't meant to be a history book, yet even if you took a class on American History, you wouldn't get every detail of every day at every place in the country. We get the hilites. I understand why you would take Genesis as you do. It would answer a lot of questions I have about how and when a lot of things unfolded, people especially. Where I start getting into trouble though is 1) how man derives his moral authority if it isn't bestowed upon him; 2) how to maintain the coherent narrative; and 3) if your reading is correct, does it mean God needed a do-over? When it says He made man in His image and it was "good," how does a non-feeling, non-aware (sapience) first shot mesh with that? Throughout Christianity we have struggled with how long the "day" was and other such things, but I can live with the fogginess on such issues because it doesn't affect the narrative. NOW we're talking about faith issues!

Bill,

"I used the word supernatural as meaning an event that is beyond a natural explanation given man's knowledge base today; something that defies nature."

Personally, I think that definition is unnecessarily broad. I suspect many such events wouldn't necessarily require a deity or other beings whose existence lies beyond this one. Attributing those events to such beings would be one way of explaining those events, but certainly not the only way.

"It would be fruitless to perform an analysis on a religion that relies on the supernatural if you begin with the limit that there is no supernatural."

I don't rule out the possibility of supernatural beings or supernatural existence. I suggest that humans might only be able to experience or perceive these in ways that do not involve the five senses and do not involve the empirical method. That was my point earlier about my friend who believes in angels. No one can see into another person's head or heart or soul, so no one can experience what another has experienced when it comes to the supernatural. And that's not a bad thing, in my view.

Your point about the Fall and evolution is a valid one. From your post, it appears that you read Genesis literally. Is that correct? I read Genesis as a metaphor for the development of human sentience. I assume that my reading conflicts with the literal reading.

I've been out for the day was surprised at the responses, but would ask the indulgence to ruminate a moment. I used the word supernatural as meaning an event that is beyond a natural explanation given man's knowledge base today; something that defies nature. While I don't care to "argue" Aquinas, I think that a first cause would qualify as "supernatural." Any theory has to have a beginning in its narrative. If evolution is true, we are still left with where the first rock came from. I would argue that if believd that it just "was," then that is supernatural. My point however was that placing limits on an analysis then limits the eventual outcome. An old joke about Freudian theories was that if you study sick minds, you get sick results. It is not normative. It would be fruitless to perform an analysis on a religion that relies on the supernatural if you begin with the limit that there is no supernatural.

I find it ironic that still today, folks like Marty use their "theology" as a foundation for their anti-God conclusions. Here, he actually restates one of the two legs with which Darwin began. The other happened to be natural, but still theologically based. Darwin pondered why a perfect God would create an imperfect nature, using the overwhelming amount of pollen generated by a plant that intends to polinate another. In other words, highly inefficient plant life. Again, this is a purely theological basis from which to begin. Unfortunately, Darwin's theology was as weak as most Christian's on this topic. What Marty posits is a "theodicy" and is carried forward on faulty theological principles. I say this based on the Biblical teachings within Christianity and wouldn't think of speaking for other religious beliefs. But the Christian "narrative" is clear as to the reponse in such matters, and it is precisely why Biblical creation and evolution as we know it today, cannot mix.

As a quick note, the bacteria that develops an immunity to antibiotics, per the example cited above, does NOT cross species in it's immunity. No one today would argue against this form of "evolution" because it is clear and not what is taught in the intellectual form of evolution. However, it is entirely without merit to assume that just because a bird can develop with a new colored wing, it can therefore become an antelope given enough time.

More importantly, I think anyway, is why evolution and Christianity as developed in the Biblical narrative, cannot mix. If man were not created by God and categorized as "good" then he could not have been in a lofty position. Therefore he could not have "fallen" (to use church speak) from his lofty, sinless position. If he develops from the primordial ooze, he is an accidental freak of nature without an inherent moral standing. If man CAN "fall" via his disobedience, per the Biblical narrative, then there is a need for judgment by the just God. This is not a difficult concept. Consider the desire for justice by EVERYONE with an ounce of moral fibre, regarding the priests molesting kids. We want JUSTICE metted out against them (not us and our problems, just them). Meanwhile back at the ranch.... if man is then guilty by their disobedience, then a "loving God" looks for a way of redeeming His creation. Answer? Jesus. Salvation is the redemption offered by the sacrifice of Jesus. THEREFORE, if no fall then no Jesus. If no Jesus, no authority in the Bible. Evolution does NOT provide for the moral authority of created man, which cannot justify the disobedience needed for a redemption, which finally results in no NEED for Jesus and His sacrifice. They DO NOT MIX.

The Bible is a narrative which is coherent, even if we don't like what some of it says.

Marty, I've heard the old "It's there to test our faith" thing a fair amount, but come to think of it, it was mostly in the '80s, when I still saw potential in discussing such matters with my fundamentalist brother. You're right to note that, now, the more confrontational, combative and politically active "fundies" do actually concoct pseudo-scientific rationales in an attempt to make their dogma sound plausible to the rational mind. This is undoubtedly an outgrowth of the aforementioned political activism - see, e.g., the attempts to mandate creationism in science classes. The endless positing and debunking of these make for mildly entertaining web-surfing when there's time to kill, but it's ultimately just fatiguing.

I do see a common counterargument to your "if God were good, why would babies be born deformed, good people struck by lightning and murderers allowed to go free" approach. They'll tell you, "God's will is too complex for us mere mortals to comprehend. HE has a Plan, and it's Not Ours To Know."

Again, no counterargument is possible, which is why it's constructed that way.

Dave, I'm sure that's what they are thinking, but I seldom hear them talk that way. The ones that try to convince us talk about 'evidence', ignoring the real evidence. My response to all religious arguments it this;
God is said in the major religions to be:
1) omnipotent
2) omniscient, and
3) benevolent (all good, wanting the best for all living creatures).

There is evil and suffering in the universe, so the above mentioned God cannot exist, or he would fix/prevent it. There is the free will excuse, but that is just another way of saying God indirectly created evil, and therefore is partly evil.

The above post was me - forgot to log in.

/accountability

Marty: "I don't understand how creationists can dismiss strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics, an obvious (although small) example of evolution."

In my experience, creationists have the perfect answer to all such questions (fossil record, proof of evolution, earth revolving around sun, etc.): "God put it there / made it happen, etc. to test our faith." Assuming you buy the premise (i.e. that God made the rats and the maze, and is performing experiments on us [the results of which, in his omniscience, he must already know in advance], and we're just too stupid to catch on), it's a bulletproof argument. All one can really say in response is, "but that's asinine," and the great circular argument returns to its beginning.

Tonio - I agree that evulution and religion are compatible. The bible cannot be taken literally without getting some REALLY screwed up ideas, as has been shown earlier in this thread. The problem is that there are three sides here: creationists, religious people who believe in evolution, and atheists. I personally am an atheist. I don't understand how creationists can dismiss strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics, an obvious (although small) example of evolution.

True, evolution conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis, but why would Genesis have to be read literally at all?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

"The New York Times article, titled ‘As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting,’ opens:

‘Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

‘Such startling propositions—the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years—have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity—until now.’

I don't understand why evolution is even in this discussion. This may sound like a dumb question, but why do so many people assume that evolution is incompatible with religion? Why couldn't someone have faith in God and still accept the evolution hypothesis? True, evolution conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis, but why would Genesis have to be read literally at all?

Bill: "Even evolution relies on the supernatural."

Um ... I echo Tonio's uncertainty regarding your definition of "supernatural" (or perhaps the confusion here is your definition of reliance). To me, evolution is the epitome of the reasons NATURE is beautiful and fascinating - in other words, evolution is the antithesis of the supernatural, and therein lies its beauty.

Bill,

"But as you know, you will find almost every adherent believing they have found 'Truth' in their particular narrative, because otherwise, what's the point?"

I don't understand the definition of "truth" in that context. If someone discovers something through faith, I don't understand why the discovery would have to apply to other people.

Here's an example - I know someone who believes in angels. According to her, she was close to death and encountered an angel. According to many religious dogmas, her belief is incorrect and her experience is invalid. That claim sounds wrong to me. You state that "My faith is not self-generated, but given to me from God." Some religious dogmas claim that is incorrect as well, and that claim also sounds wrong to me.

In both your case and the case of my friend, it sounds like both of you have had experiences that no one else can understand on more than an intellectual level. Is that accurate in your case? I'm suggesting that each person with faith has a unique experience that leads them to believe. Whatever the source of the experience, it happened and no one else can take that away from the person. The real understanding of the experience is locked in the person's head. My issue with dogma is that it says "You should believe" or "You must believe." That invalidates the experience that leads to faith, and thus invalidates the believer.

"To state that there is no supernatural capability before beginning an analysis rules out ANY system, religious or secular."

I'm not sure what definition you are using for "supernatural." I use the word to refer to beings or existences beyond this one. Your example of the alcoholic sounds incredibly inspiring. Whether there was anything supernatural involved, I suppose that is up to the recovered alcoholic and his or her experience of faith.

Tonio,

"my personal objective in this discussion is to take a position outside of any religious dogma," to which I agree if you stay with the def of trying to force a position on someone. If you mean that you desire to stand outside any individual narrative and evaluate them comparitively, I would agree that doing so is a good thing. But as you know, you will find almost every adherent believing they have found "Truth" in their particular narrative, because otherwise, what's the point? I doubt a Hindu would say that, yes they are Hindu, but that Christianity is really the way to go!

Regarding Christian faith, any discussion should maintain its Biblical definition and application. The Bible states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) I like this definition because it applies to what you may get for Christmas also. You may not "know" what it is, but given those hints you've dropped and all the things you've seen, you have "faith" that it will be X. This passage doesn't say "close your eyes and jump," but instead it is evidentiary. Most people may take the "close...jump" approach in life, but it is NOT what the Bible teaches regarding their faith. Let's also understand up front that Biblical faith is not developed on our own. This may surprise you and probably most Christians, but faith is also a gift. Romans 12:3 states, "For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith." As God has allotted. (We also do poorly on the first part, but this is a discussion on faith) My faith is not self-generated, but given to me from God. As with all things, one we prove ourselves capable of handling a little, He gives us a little more.

I highly recommend viewing all narratives, religious and secular, through an objective lens. But in the end, we all make a decision. Even a "no decision" is a decision against something. But I don't think they can all be equal, even if for no reason other than "personal tastes." Some skepticism is good, but can be taken too far. To state that there is no supernatural capability before beginning an analysis rules out ANY system, religious or secular. Even evolution relies on the supernatural. If you've ever been around it, you know that when a 40 year long alcoholic can walk away without ever taking another drop, that's a supernatural event. WE are a supernatural event. With the "billions and billions" of stars, surely there would be more "earths" out there when looking at the statistics.

Personally, I love the quest for knowledge. It is "faith" that causes the scientist to take a particular path of experimentation, but is done so based on what has come before. Likewise, it is "faith" that holds me to Christianity, based on what has come before.

Now is that slammin or what!

To Nicole Wright -

You said: "Think of believing in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit as Fire Protection. You have nothing to lose at the end of your life. Do you?"

Do you think God would fall for a cheap trick like that?

Bill, my personal objective in this discussion is to take a position outside of any religious dogma.

Most religions make some sort of claims about the supernatural. Numerous posts here have belabored the old argument about those claims being impossible to prove empirically. In my view, that argument misses the point on two counts. First, it devalues the idea of individual faith. Second, it fails to recognize that all religions are affected equally by the argument. What that means to me is that no dogma can be any more objectively factual than any other dogma, that the truth of any dogma is a matter of individual faith. The existence of both Jesus and Buddha is a matter of historical record, but in my view, the divinity of either of those men is a matter of individual faith, and that's a good thing.

My goal is to treat all dogmas' claims equally, to have what I hope is a sense of healthy skepticism about all of them. I don't see any reason why I should regard any one dogma's claims as more true or factual than the others. I don't expect or suggest that anyone here do the same, because I oppose the idea of telling people what religious beliefs to hold.

Tonio,

As I mentioned, I do believe in a literal hell because the New Testament says it's so. However, the NT states that you must "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved," not "believe in hell and you'll be saved." This belief is in regards to His deity and His living a life that was meant to be lived out by all men, a life without any disobedience to God. This is whay He is refered to as the "Second Adam." Since you and I can't do that, we have been given a "gift" through Jesus in that we can claim His perfection as our own. This is done by our understanding of His perfection as opposed to our imperfection, not because of a hell that awaits you, me or anyone else that doesn't accept the gift. As I mentioned, I can't make you believe (read "save you"); only you can make that decision, just like you have made the decision not to believe (today anyway).

As to faith, it is not a "blind faith" as most would state, but one based on a good deal of empirical evidence. Even skeptical scholars admit to the Old Testament writings being produced over hundreds of years and during this time, all of the predictions (prophecies) regarding a "coming Messiah" have been fulfilled. Skeptical scholars continue to work vigorously today to find a way to explain the OT book of Daniel because of the accuracy of his political predictions stated hundreds of years before they actually happen. Archeological findings related to Biblical issues have ALL supported the Biblical claims written. The book of Mark was written during the reign of Nero, who was in the habit of dipping Christians in tar and then using them to light the streets of Rome. REASON states that the Christians converting during this very time, just a few years following the death of Jesus, MUST have known something to run this risk. Today, we the church/Christians have grown fat and lazy because all we risk is some name-calling. But these guys, living in the very day of Jesus, died for their belief. It shames me to no end when I compare my life to theirs. These are historical facts, and not just documented in the Bible.

Lastly, if we take your definition of dogma, then I would agree with you, because the experience is all that matters. We must experience Jesus through a movement of the Holy Spirit. Still, I believe what I believe and think I am right on many critical points. Is Jesus the only way to heaven? He said so Himself. "I am the way... no one comes to the Father but by me." We don't just make it up. It is a categorical statement and therefore, one that is not open to "interpretation." If I decide to throw this one out because I wish it weren't true, then why stop there? There's a whole lot more of them I'd like to be rid of. Sometimes, it would help me sleep at night. There are, however, many passages which are open to interpretation and I try not to get hung up on them.

It's late and I hear that small whispery voice now: Save the cheerleader, save the world!

Dave:

You are exactly right. I do see the need within myself for a creator. I see it for others as well, but yet I do realize that others such as yourself do not see such a need. I respect your opinions and I believe you respect mine. I welcome such discourse as ours, it helps us find the truth. My job is simply to supply the facts, you make the decisions.

Thanks to all for the respect you have shown me in this area. I must move on for now...other areas to visit.

Mark Eaton: "If you do not believe in God, what facts can you provide that your belief is true?"

You have not identified a belief. You have only identified a lack of a belief, which need not (and, of course, cannot) be proven "true."

You go on to identify evidence of a man named Jesus. I agree there is evidence that such a man existed. You do not identify anything but tenuous evidence that he was magical / mystical / supernatural.

You claim to have come to religion as a means of explaining what you describe as "engineering." Sounds like you decided there was "creation," and merely set about to find the creator. Where you see engineering, I see an ecosystem that's had a lot of time to distribute its energy. Beehives are in hexagons; structurally a very stable form. I'm just okay with the idea that bees developed that form over a long period, all by their beeness. I don't need to ascribe the process to an anthropomorphic "engineer." I continue to defend your right to fulfill that need, as long as you see it in yourself. Frankly, I'm pleased that you found something to fill the void, and I respect your earlier statements to the effect that you're disinclined to mandate that I do the same. Should my children develop the void and need something to fill it, I assure you I will not begrudge them the same solace, provided they have attained a stage of development at which they are capable of making an informed decision (mine came in my early teens).

Dave:

Here we circle back to the truth, again. I say again truth is hard to find. But are we really searching? If we do not search, how will we ever find it? If you do not believe in God, what facts can you provide that your belief is true? Only on the basis of facts can truth be found. Objective truth. Provable truth. Undeniable truth.

I believe the facts are on my side. If you would seek truth or facts about Jesus, you will find them. For example, it is widely accepted as fact that the Gospels (Matt. Mark Luke John) were written in Israel between 25-80 years after Jesus lived. I point out that they were written in Israel for a reason. If they contained known factual errors then the Jewish leaders of that day would certainly have pointed the errors out. The books were written by men who either lived with Jesus, or interviewed people who did. They had intimate knowledge of Him, as good as any witness in a trial today can provide. They could remember what he had said, what he did, where he went, etc. It is also recorded that 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection. For forty days after the resurrection, they saw Him. But you say, perhaps He did not die, just swooned? How many people do you believe the Romans put to death that did not really die just swooned? The Romans were incredibly good at killing people. Torture was very dear to them. Jesus really died. But you ask, how can we believe the books we have today are what Jesus really said? Good question. Lets begin by looking at the dates they were written. I mentioned 25-80 years after Jesus. Eyewitness testimony. People who actually knew Him. Do you know that figure is increadible for an ancient document. Closest second place for an ancient document (more than 1000 years old) is 180 years after. Secondly, lets look at the number of manuscripts there are. Like the gradeschool experiment, facts may change with the number of tellings. New Testament alone has an incredible 24,000 hand-written manuscripts. Closest second place for an ancient document is 300. We can compare the manuscripts to each other to see if the telling has change. Do you know what? It has not. Todays book is the same as it was when written. Archaelogical digs today are confirming the places in the book. Other historical accounts prove that He really lived. There is a lot of data if you look.

So the truth can be found, if you are serious about looking. I was once an atheist like many of you. Too much engineering in this planet to be random so I started searching. I sought truth in Eastern religions like Buddhism. I discussed Judaism with some rabbinical students. Discussed Catholicism with practicing Catholics. I became a student of the worlds great religions. All had the myths you are describing. All had the great stories of creation, the flood, hell, the after-life. But none of them had any imperical data about these stories. They had their prophets, but nothing could be proved of what they said. They were just fables. All except one. What He predicted, happened. He really rose from the dead, just as He said. The temple really fell, as He predicted. Do I need to go on?

Search for truth. Find it. Wrestle with it. If it is real truth, it will stand the test of time.

Dave, very well put. It is only a tiny minority of religious people, Christians AND Muslims, who are so 'certain' in their belief, and murder non-believers. It is still far better to be open-minded.
Mark Eaton: I think Dick was only lumping Christian murderers in with Muslim murderers, not including most Christians.

Mark Eaton: "I say that a child's mind is like a vaccum in space. Open up the vaccum and it must be filled with something. If we do not fill our childrens mind with our own values and morals, it must be filled but with what?"

Mark, from your other posts on here, I expected better. Your answer is disingenuous. The comment about proselytizing was not, I am sure, an indictment of the practice of teaching children "values and morals." My criticism of the practice, one I'm sure I share with most non-religious people, is that it's immoral to teach children the mythologies and dogmas of religion as fact (or - here's that word again - "Truth"). It's fully possible to teach children not to lie, cheat, steal, or inflict pain on others, without stating as fact that there's a magic being in the sky who will reward them forever if they follow the rules.

As to some religionists' certitude resembling that of other religionists who use violence, I didn't read the original post as saying Protestants are murderous and evil. I read it as saying their certitude can lead them to immoral acts, which I think many will recognize in fundamentalists' support of a presidential administration bent on waging a war that's resulted in legions of innocent deaths. To those of us outside the preconceptions of a religious outlook, the various murders aren't really all that different.

Dick Springer:

I must take offence to the indirect reference of Evangelical Protestants having the same absolute certainty as the terrorists of 9/11. I find that insulting and slanderous. We do have an absolute certainty in our faith, but it is certainly not connected to violence in any way. Please do not lump me into the same category as the terrorists of 9/11.

I would to comment on your statement of proselytizing children. I say that a child's mind is like a vaccum in space. Open up the vaccum and it must be filled with something. If we do not fill our childrens mind with our own values and morals, it must be filled but with what? The values of their teachers, professors, peers, etc. which we as their parents may not agree or approve of. But what of free will or free choice you say? Is any one of us really an island? Do we think completely independent or do we process the opinions of others based upon the facts we know about the subject of discussion? We are influenced by others whether we admit it or not. Therefore, I want to influence my family in my own way, and not have them only influenced by others. If that is proselytizing, then every home, school, university, congregation, synagogue, mosque, and temple in the world is guilty of proselytizing.

Bill,

I appreciate the sentiments in your post.

You wrote that "It is impossible to 'scare' or 'threaten' someone with hell and have them 'convert' based on this knowledge." I agree. But that seems to contradict what I've read in the New Testament (which talks about God destroying both body and soul in hell) and what I've read about Protestant Christianity. Protestant doctrine says that faith alone is the way to heaven, that one has to believe in order to be saved. How can a person make himself or herself believe something?

I've always understood "faith" as a transcendental belief acquired through a unique experience. As I've understood it, the believer has been through something that causes him or her to believe in the absence of empirical proof. I imagine that to be a very personal and precious thing to the believer, wrapped up in the person's sense of self. To me, the whole idea of dogma negates the validity of faith. Dogma says that one should believe not because they've had an experience that leads them to to do so, but to do so simply because it's required, simply to please others. That sounds outrageously wrong to me.

My point about "best interest" wasn't about helping people in need. My point was that people who seek to convert others sometimes claim that such conversion is in the best interest in others. I have a deep suspicion of that claim, although the claimants themselves are motivated by good intentions. That goes back to my point about faith - why should the individual have to deny his or her faith to suit someone else's dogma? When someone wants to change my faith, it feels to me like a violation of my mental privacy.

Valid point about the Bible's meta-narrative. I think it's possible to debate the merits of such a narrative, either on its own or in comparison with other narratives. I won't debate the specific of evolution with you, other than to make two points - in my view, evolution doesn't qualify as a meta-narrative, and many Christians find evolution to be compatible with the Christian meta-narrative. What I'm saying is that such narrative should be up to the individual.

About "understanding of God" - I suggest that any religious discussions take place outside of any dogmatic frame of reference or any meta-narrative. Not all the world's dogmas presuppose a monotheistic God, and many individuals' faiths are based on some other supernatural model. When one discusses different religions but talks as if the existence of a monotheistic God is an objective fact, the person might be simply using a frame of reference that he or she can understand, but the implication is that one reference is more valid than another. If someone has faith in the grace of a Christian God, someone else has faith in the divinity of Buddha, and a third person has faith in something that doesn't fit any organized religion, why do some people have problems with these?

it is pointless to talk about loving god while out of the other side of your mouth you are hating his creatures--- not for anyone in particular but if it made you angry when you saw this then you're guilty.

Evangelical Protestants put a good deal of effort and resources into proselytizing children through such things as their Good News Clubs in schools and a variety of other outreach programs. Their double standard is striking. From threats of violence to simply talking about inappropriateness when Susan Jacoby simply states her lack of belief in God, they seem to believe that presenting any view other than their own to children is wrong.

If you are certain that you are right and everyone else is wrong, then the double standard follows. A Catholic formulation is that "Error has no rights." People with this kind of absolute certainty sometimes fly planes into buildings.

Bill,

"I also think we would agree that it is "profoundly sad" when any child begins down the path of disobedience."

I would caveat this of course -- you are making the assumption that the parent's instructions are moral and warrant obedience.

I would assert that if a child has Christian or Muslim or Jewish parents that accept each and every precept of their specific faith and attempt to live their lives strictly in accordance with the teachings of that faith, then only through disobedience can the child begin to become a moral creature.

I do not believe any of the main Western monotheistic religions, if obeyed to 'the letter of the law', allow one to be moral. It is only by picking and choosing from their holy texts that 'moderates' can begin to discard some of the evil dictates and become the type of people you wouldn't mind living next door to.

Tonio,

I would never call you stupid and the threat of hell is really meaningless. Don't get me wrong. I believe in a literal hell, but I don't believe that acceptance of this belief buys anyone anything. Christian doctrine addresses hell because it is scriptual, not because it has a place regarding the doctrine of redemption/salvation. It doesn't. It is impossible to "scare" or "threaten" someone with hell and have them "convert" based on this knowledge. I acknowledge it is often tried, as can be seen on this board. But redemtpion comes via the understanding of man as a sinner incapable of earning his entry to heaven. We can only understand this position of sinner in contrast to the perfect Creator, God. There is more of course, but my purpose is not to evangelize, but define why the "threat" of hell provides little in the discourse of redemption. It aint my bag.

I am curious how it is in your "best interest" to feed the poor with money you have to go out and earn, and all they have to do is show up for meal-time? How is it in your best interest to spend your weekends building a house with Habitat for someone who can't otherwise afford one, vice spending it with family or friends? Don't you have to work for yours? I submit you make a key point of mine in that our NATURE is to look out for our best interests, just as you claim. It is the "meta good," Jehovah God of the Bible for me, that defines doing these things as "good" because we are not wired to think so otherwise.

Therefore, God establishes "Truth," meaning timeless meta-physical (spiritual) precepts which are not culturally formed or shifted. It instead transcends time and bias input by human failings. My claim is that the Bible contains a meta-narrative give us an over-arching understanding of God, man, nature, life, emotions, ethics and even the after-life. It is complete in form and function, to bring us to an awareness of God and His plan. Likewise, evolution is a meta-narrative. It puts forward its understanding of man, nature and life, but cannot address emotions, joy, ethics and other such things. They are competing narratives and do not mix. Intelligent Design is a farce. Either "A" or "Not A." Therefore, many on this board need to come to grasp with the fact that we will NEVER reach consensus. I don't like it, but I can't change it. I don't browbeat because my function as a Christian is not to "save" you (which the Bible emphatically says I can't do anyway!), but to defend what I believe.

"Science" once agreed the earth was flat and the sun rotated around the earth. You say anyone can attach God's name to a claim. I say the "science" of evolution requires greater faith than anything within the realm of Christianity. Consider the Korean and his stem cell research. Busted and yet he still claims his research thesis was right, even though he had to falsify his data to make it seem so. What about "vestigial organs" or "evolutionary convergence?" I always recommend reason, logic and science. It will drive you into the arms of God.

My night is over.

Bill, I see your example about being "cool" as really about seeking status in the eyes of others. People much wiser than myself have described that status as false, as about pleasing others at the expense of one's self.

When I talk about intrinsic worth, I'm talking about a human being's worthiness to exist. My idea of that is that it would be something that no one can take away from me, even if they take away my life. I do not trust anyone to define or decide my worthiness to exist. Why? Because other people have agendas that have nothing to do with me. That doesn't mean that other people are out to get me or anything like that. It just means that the only person I can depend on to look out for my best interests is myself. If I don't speak up for myself, why should I expect anyone else to do it for me?

Let me put it another way - if someone claims to know what God wants for me, why should I believe that person? Anyone can attach God's name to any sort of cause or idea, for reasons that might be benign or malign. The Moral Majority once claimed that God had a position on US ownership of the Panama Canal.

Do you see "meta, overarching, truth" as defining the nature of deity or the afterlife? Does such truth define human nature? Does it define the purpose of life? Or does it define something else altogether? Regarding the questions I just named, I doubt that the human race will ever agree on the answers. But maybe humans can talk about the questions killing each other over the answers, or without threatening each other with hell or calling each other stupid when they don't agree.

Anonymous,

Do you think that your children will ever lie to you? Will they ever disobey what you request of them? If so, is this taught to them in school? OK maybe that was a bad question... but I suggest that they figure this out on their own because they have a will of their own and the inate desire, as I mentioned before, to act on what they think is in their best interest. Is this evil? Not eh way you or I might understand it. Is it wrong? I think we would agree that it is. I also think we would agree that it is "profoundly sad" when any child begins down the path of disobedience.

To Tonio I would say that others have addressed to some extent the "truth" to which I speak. I doubt anyone here believes that there are no absolute truths, little "t," as Dave mentioned, the atomic weight of carbon. The "Truth" to which we concern ourselves with here is the big "T." The metaphysical vice the physical; a meta, overarching, truth. Is there a "God?" There either is or isn't. A basic rule of logic, you can't have "A" and "Not A" simultaneously.

As to intrinsic worth that you seek for yourself, I would suggest that it is naive to try and define that on your own. History shows that when men set about to do that, they fail miserably. The list of those who also felt they had an intrinsic worth is long: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Nixon, Bill, etc., etc., etc. I want to think I'm cool. I buy cool clothes, have the latest cool haircut, drive a cool car. But the "truth" is that I'm 47, four grandkids, grey hair, somewhat overweight and have baggy eyes.

Worth of any kind will always be defined by others, whether man or God, by what they are willing to pay for it. God paid a big price for it.

"Is what you say the truth?"

I honestly don't know -- but it's the best I can do at the moment.

"If there are many correct answers, then why should I believe you and not someone else?"

I would recommend you evaluate each of our answers and use them to modify your existing beliefs as appropriate.

"We desperately want to find the white light of truth in our very dark and grey world."

I'm having a brandy watching my kids play Uno next to a fire by the Christmas tree -- my world isn't really that bleak at the moment.

Tomorrow night I'm attending a Socrates' Cafe with some friends -- the topic of discussion this week is 'What is friendship' -- who knows, maybe I'll discover that even with all of these differences we are still friends.

In the meantime, enjoy.

Hey Canyon:
Your ignorace has no bound. You just called GOD impotent. Actually it is your brain that is impotent. My friend GOD is same for all whether a person is a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu.

By calling God differenly, HE still remains the same just as SUN is called by different words in different cultures and languages. Egyptian called it 'Rah', Muslims call it 'Aftab', Hindus call it 'Surya' and english speaking people call it 'Sun'. How does that change the sun? or does it. No sun remains the same.

So grow up, open your ears and your brain so that you may listen and just do not get swept by bible alone. May Almighty give you strength to grow up.

Anonymous:

Is what you say the truth? If there are many correct answers, then why should I believe you and not someone else? If there are many correct answers, then one answer must be that truth is an absolute. You see, truth is difficult to find. It hides everywhere. We desperately want to find the white light of truth in our very dark and grey world. But it is elusive. Just when we think we possess it, it slips through our fingers.

Dave:

Forcing someone is never a smart way to help them see your viewpoint. That was the essence of my point to the other believers. We have for too long been shouting Scripture at the top of our lungs while the rest of our lives do not reflect the values of those Scriptures. We do not live what we are shouting. I can work side by side with anyone and discuss anything, but I will certainly tell you when I disagree with you. However, I will certainly listen when you disagree with me. But what you will see from my life will demonstrate something more than words can ever convey. My life must reflect God's love for us, otherwise my life here has been a failure. Without preaching, believers are to love God first, and our neighbor as ourselves second. That is it. End of story. We have lost sight of that. We have for too long been busy shouting when we should have been rolling up our sleeves and extending the hand of friendship.

"Sorry, 'What is Truth' is an essay test -- not multiple choice. There is no one correct answer [though there may be many wrong answers]."

I'll go so far as to say that, in most cases, there's one right answer (the atomic weight of carbon, or the speed limit on State where it intersects Main are not, generally speaking, matters of opinion). BUT, on the Big Questions, e.g. "why are we here," "who 'created' us," etc., anyone who professes to have "truth" is either selling something, or has already bought more than they need. Usually both.

"There is one and only one truth and all other answers are false."

Sorry, 'What is Truth' is an essay test -- not multiple choice. There is no one correct answer [though there may be many wrong answers].

There are several billion intelligent adults on the face of the Earth. Given a test on all of the specific articles of faith that you believe, it is entirely possible that not a single person on the face of the Earth would answer every question regarding faith the way that you do. So what are the odds that you are 100% right and that every one of the other couple of billion are wrong?

Mark Eaton:

Thank you for your words, which are, by and large, a lonely voice of rationality among the other "Believers" here. Much as I am loath to request anything more of you, after you have offered so much in terms of love and "hearing" (if not "listening"), I would ask confirmation that, in addition to your willingness to share what you clearly believe to be news of inestimable value, you also covenant to withhold the sharing of that news where it is offensive, intrusive, insulting or otherwise unwelcome, and acknowledge the rights of others to disagree when presented with the news you offer. If you will so agree, I believe people of my beliefs can work with people of yours to build real understanding and harmony, where no one's viewpoint is forced on another.

Believers:

Why so much anger towards those who do not believe? We are not here to judge, sentence, and condemn these ones. We are here to sow the seeds of God's word with love. Without love first, no one will ever listen. If you were a missionary in a foreign country and spoke the words you have, I doubt if anyone would ever speak to you again. We can only witness to others of what God has done for us by first showing them that we value them, we love them, willing to help them, and that we listen to them. I challenge you all to live by James 1:19 "Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath".

All Others:

Please forgive my brethren. Our zeal gets in our own way. We love you all, by the love of God in us, and understand how important a search for truth is. Search for truth. Give it all you have, because without truth, life has no meaning. Find truth where it hides. But remember, truth is an absolute. There are not multiple truths. Two plus two is four, not four and five. There is one and only one truth and all other answers are false. You may just be surprised in what or whom you find truth.

Children,

The ancients had many tales, myths, superstitions, and embellished stories, many that exemplify what it means to be a good person. This was the ancients' way of looking at things around them. From this grew Greek mythology and many stories of the Bible and the Koran. Today based on our current knowledge disciplines of Theology, Physics, Psychology, Philosophy, History, Archeology, Geography, Anthropology, Genetics, Medicine, Astronomy, Biochemistry and Microbiology, we can now separate fact from fiction of the ancient world but the good observed by the ancients remains today and forever will be.

To Bill and Dave, *enlightened* self-interest goes a long way towards making the world a better place to live in. And what else do we really need?

"harm mothers?" - This message brought to you by the International MOMS Club.

Bill,

I don't understand what definition you are using for "truth" or even "meta-truth." I see the word "truth" thrown around all over this site. In many cases, religious truth is equated with a specific dogma. Or at least, that is what I perceive from the context. I propose that if there is an objective religious truth, it is outside the realm of dogma. Whether or not there is a single god, many gods or no god, or whether or not there is an afterlife, I don't see what those questions have to do with truth. Any answer to those questions, in my view, amounts to a specific dogma.

Why does one need to subscribe to a specific dogma about deity or deities to have a definition of good or evil? What is wrong with defining "good" as actions that help others and "evil" as actions that harm mothers? Why wouldn't humans at least be capable of reasoning for themselves what actions might help or harm others? (The fact that many humans ignore such decisions is not the point.) Isn't that type of decision-making the whole principle behind ethics? If one argues that humans can't decide or shouldn't be deciding ethical issues, that implies to me that there would be no reason for humans to have intellects in the first place. The whole idea of good and evil being defined for humans by some other being sounds very much like "Because I said so, that's why."

"Lastly, I'll say that I'll bet I have a much higher view of life than you do. In fact, I view humanity as infinitely valuable and loved, to the extent that the Creator became man and died for it! Does that sound like a view of life as worthless?"

I want myself and my life to have intrinsic worth. To me, it's not intrinsic if the worth is granted by another being, because I don't want my worth to be controlled by someone else, to be subject to someone else's moods and whims. Personally, I don't see how one can define human nature as bad and not conclude that humanity itself is bad, because the two seem intertwined to me. If one defines human nature as bad, that means to me that humans aren't capable of any actions that help others. Instead, I like the idea of ethics as about actions that help or harm others, because that idea gives the individual intrinsic worth.

I wish to simplify this discourse somewhat and pose two questions of equal measure:

Do you believe in God? and if so, how does your religious affiliation support your belief that God exists?

Thank You,

NBA

Bill: "I do see human NATURE as bad."

That's just so profoundly sad. I think a potent counterargument comes from watching children. My kids, like most, have a seemingly infinite capacity for affection and caring. At Halloween, my two-year-old son's favorite activity was not getting candy, but reaching into his bag and GIVING candy to others. We had studio portraits of our kids taken just after Thanksgiving. In one, my son was to stand behind my 5-year-old daughter with his hands on her shoulders. Spontaneously, he leaned forward and kissed her on the cheek (the photographer had the wits to snap the picture). I see occasions like those as evidence that human nature is essentially good. My son has neither the capacity nor the experience to act at great variance from his nature. I think avarice, malice and hate are learned behaviors, while compassion, affection and giving are innate. That you see the fundamental nature of my children as "bad" or "sinful" is both distressing and, as you might imagine, a bit insulting.

Tonio,

I cannot speak for "western religion" since I'm unsure just what that is. I do however feel as if I have a well formed understanding of what I believe Christianity speaks to, within the confines of the Biblical record.

What I question is how you define good or evil. Both are relative constructs without some form of standard from which to measure it. I am reminded of the very recent John Stossel(sp?) special on the charitable giving by the rich. As he told Ted Turner, he could have given more what with the billions he was left with. To me, Turner gave a LOT! (why to the UN I'll never understand) But it is a relative measure when held up to other billionaires and what they give. Was he "good" by the amount he donated?

Evil is also relative. Consider Hitler. Some would say the most evil of men. Yet this is relative. Take him out of the picture and you're still left with a "most evil" man, act or whatever, just not him. How do we establish a "standard" by which we can live fruitful lives? Let the people decide? How well has that worked in the past? Today even?

My claim is that a meta-truth must come from a meta-narrator, which I call the Christian God. He ascends me, you, the Pope, everyone. It scares me to think that I might have the responsibility to be a "truth" arbiter as much ass I change my mind on some issues. It scares me equally that you might be also. At least on the "capital T" truths. So I definitely don't "generalize about human nature" based on what's in MY head. I claim that is as dangerous as using your head, GW's head, Clinton's head, etc.

Lastly, I'll say that I'll bet I have a much higher view of life than you do. In fact, I view humanity as infinitely valuable and loved, to the extent that the Creator became man and died for it! Does that sound like a view of life as worthless? I do see human NATURE as bad. I could use the term "sinful" but will stay with yours, bad. In fact, my statement was that EVEN Darwin views us/man the same way. What that does to my self esteem is obvious, it humbles me! I do not claim all knowledge, but some knowledge. I do not claim perfection for myself or any man, but a striving towards a defined concept of "good" that is never changing. I am not "better" than any unbeliever, for my claim is that Jesus, the Sacrificial Lamb, died for us BOTH EQUALLY.

Gotta go shopping with my wife, but should anyone care to question further, I'll check back later. And BTW, I hope we aren't being judged by our typos!

Bill: "Don't put words in my mouth..."

I didn't. I asked a question.

"What I did say, was that as Darwin and all of Christianity have said, is that mankind seeks that which appears to please "himself" most..."

Okay. That may be what Darwin said - It's not what I've said, and Darwin's saying it doesn't make it true. However, in a sense it is true. Any organism tends, as a group, to do what's in the best interest of the species (we have become so dominant over the other species that we no longer need exhibit this behavior - a self-correcting mechanism). I believe it's in the best interest of humanity to treat one another with respect - to accept one another, not just to "tolerate."

It pleases me to do good; to help others and to teach my children to do the same. Not, as Christianity teaches, because I'll be rewarded if I do and punished if I don't, but because it's better to be part of the solution than part of the problem. To me, being a good person is SELFISH. It serves my ends to help, to give and to serve. The unattainable ideal of "selflessness" is, to me, one of the more irrational tenets of the Christian view of "goodness."

All that being said, then, I take it you at least tacitly admit that, by any rational definition, atheists, Humanists, etc. are as fully capable as Christians of being "good" people?

"fautls" ...And hasty posting without spell-checking is one of my faults.

"I am without equivocation saying that EVEN the Christian, or any religious and especially non-religious person cannot be truly 'good.' "

Bill, you crystallized my main objection to Western religious doctrine. From my perspective, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all define human nature as bad and humanity as worthless. I take that doctrine personally, and I don't apologize for that. I do not understand how I could accept that doctrine and still have any self-esteem.

As I mentioned above, humans have proven themselves capable of enormous good and enormous evil. But I cannot use that to judge whether humanity is inherently good or inherently bad. Why? Because I do not know what is in other people's heads. I only know what is in my head. I know only my own strengths and weaknesses, my own qualities and fautls. I do not understand how anyone can generalize about human nature based on his or her own nature. And I resent it when people claim to know what is in my head.

Dave,

Don't put words in my mouth, for as Zig Ziglar has said, That's not sanitary! Your claim is not what I said at all AND I dare say that I'm one of the most reasonable Christians/persons you will find; maybe even more than yourself.

What I did say, was that as Darwin and all of Christianity have said, is that mankind seeks that which appears to please "himself" most (not a gender argument here). That it is, as Darwin said, against our very "nature" to do that which is selfless. We may in fact do the occasional "good deed," but that is not how we are "wired." We always seek to protect ourselves first and foremost.

I am without equivocation saying that EVEN the Christian, or any religious and especially non-relgious person cannot be truly "good." I recognize that I am making a truth claim without having defined the core issue, What is "good?" So, I define "good" as one who ALWAYS has and will live out a selfless life as described by the Bible. You may ask about other religious documents, but even then it is a losing battle isn't it? Being perfect against ANY standard? How good is good enough? My analogy might be a drop of malaria in a glass of water. Say what you will, I'm not drinking it! Even though it's such a very small portion of the whole.

People of religious faith say that God is pure love, all love, only love...unless I don't love him, because he will abhor me and will damm me for the eternity.

Does this means that God don’t exist? NO. It only means that if God exist he is not pure love.

Does this proves that God exists? NO, certainly no. Love may be one of the multiple and contradictories qualities of human kind that religion leaders have projected in to the concept of God.

People of religious faith say that God is omnipotent, has power on and above anything in the universe and beyond......well, except over Satan. He was able to infect all us with the virus of sin, and because of that, a good portion of all humans that have ever existed must be burning today and for ever. Not bad achievement for the archrival of God.

Does this mean that God don’t exist? NO. At least not entirely. This could signal that if God exist probably is not that powerful.

OK, but the universe must have had a beginning, must have been created by something more powerful than the universe, something like an intelligent designer.

This mean that God exist!

Well...not so fast, nobody knows for sure. Even if most of the humans believe this.

The need for a cause does not necessarily leads to the concept of God as professed by most of the religions.

On the other hand, science can’t explain today the origin of the universe, maybe never. We don’t know where we came from, nobody knows for sure today, maybe never...

Still we all must have faith in the human kind as a whole...all good people... including good people with or without religious faith...including good people in all religions...including good people with or without scientific faith.

May the peace be with you.

Bill: "You may argue that a person can be caring, selfless and giving without a meta-physical God. There were many posts to that effect early in the thread. I would only respond that the falsehood of this thinking is not just a "Christian" concept..."

So are you really saying it's a "falsehood" that someone can be a good person without your particular religion? If so - wow. Just wow. You can't be reasoned with.

GA_Atheist,

What if my God is the wrong one? Then I have missed out on a lot of good stuff, like cheating on my wife, lying, stealing, drinking till I puke, greediness, etc. (note they are all self-centered and a short list of how I seek my own good/satisfaction). Unless of course, I get to die and come back as a bug, or a skunk, or maybe a platypus since I really like those.

But maybe you say that you don't do those types of things. You may argue that a person can be caring, selfless and giving without a meta-physical God. There were many posts to that effect early in the thread. I would only respond that the falsehood of this thinking is not just a "Christian" concept, that man seeks his own fulfillment, but is one embraced by the father of evolution himself, Darwin. "Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends." (Darwin, Origins, 93) This is a cornerstone tenent within the opposing myth he developed, called evolution.

I choose to be a Christian because all of the questions I develop from what I see and experience find answers within the Bible. I also choose to be a Christian because all of science, reason and logic point me there. It is there that I find rest for my soul.

Me again: "and I'll live my life your way ..."

...sigh...

"...my way...," that is.

Woops.

Me: "I have no reason to believe my (earthly) life is all I have."

D'oh! That's "I have no reason to believe my (earthly) life is NOT all I have."

Stupid posting-without-preview.

Enh - thread's dead anyway. Long live the thread.

Tim: "I have a question for everyone. Let Say that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit does exist we believe in him and the teachings of the Bible. We become good people. We die and there is no God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. Nothing Lost. But what if it is true and we don't believe in him. Then we spend eternity in Hell. Think of believing in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit as Fire Protection."

See, there's a neat scenario incorporating both the "threats" aspect of religion and the "bribes" aspect. Carrots and sticks in one question. I happen to think it's better to "become good people" because that's the right thing to do - because that's how society works best and how we find the greatest happiness, rather than out of fear and greed. To me, living an entire life for the wrong reasons, only being a good person because I've been promised and threatened, hardly amounts to "nothing lost." It's an entire life lost, and I have no reason to believe my (earthly) life is all I have. To recap the beliefs of most non-religionists: you go live your life your way, which right I'll defend to my last breath, and I'll live my life your way (which you'll spend your last breath trying to keep me from doing). Each of us can decide independently which is the better way to be human.

The post from Jon stated..."If you refuse to open your ears to God's existance you will never be able to hear his words echo through your soul."

How then to respond to those of us who were once very devout, then for whatever reason #1 began asking honest questions, #2 entered into a "crisis of faith" so to speak, and truly, honestly and fervently asked for "God" to reveal himself and "His Truth", only to end up believing faith, all faith, just doesn't make sense? I remain open to this experience, but by remaining truly open, I have found reason and have become a Humanist. P.S. Don't insult me by saying "then you never really believed". I did. I don't now.

I've been away from this site for a while and I see nothings really changed.
Canyon Shearer and others spouting their Bible verses with no other rational arguments to any questions of religon.
I see a new person, Nicole, who seems to remind me of Canyon.

I've been an atheist since around 12 or so, and have had quite a fullfilling life. I'm still fairly young, and I'm looking forward to new experiences none of which I need to worry if I'm going against "gods" word.
Why do I need a "god" in order to have meaning in my life?!
I have a good wife, friends, pets and the future to gain more knowledge of how things work...what more do you need?

I feel sorry for all the REALLY religious people that seem to just worry about every aspect of their life and if what they're doing will get them into "heaven."
Are you guys happy? It sure doesn't seem so.

I agree with Richard Dawkins in that it's wrong to bring up a child in a religion. They should be allowed to decided for themselves (when old enough).
I guess if you disagree, than it's okay for these White Supremacists to teach their kids that other races are bad...

One last thing...
None of the religious people have answered the question on what if their religion isn't the "correct" one?
I keep hearing what if "we're" right and there is a god...
well, what if your god isn't the right one?

Just a few thoughts to consider:

-Proofs for or against God's existence are all fallacious.

-Doubt is an intrinsic element of faith. Where there is no doubt, faith is unnecessary.

-When doubt, for or against God's existence is denied, the impulse to intolerance, and worse, is sure to rise.

-Wisdom is comfortable with ambiguity.

"If you don't believe in The Lord; why are we all here. what were we created for. This whole life would be MEANINGLESS."

Maybe the individual makes his or her own meaning. Maybe the answers to life's mysteries are different for each person.

Nicole Wright posted:
" God Knows a persons heart and convictions."
Then he would know I am incapable of accepting his existence without sufficient evidence. He would know any claim of belief by me is fallacious. So the whole exercise is pointless.

"I have a question to all who do not believe: If you dont believe in The Lord; why are we all here. what were we created for. This whole life would be MEANINGLESS. What is the purpose for existence."

I was created by my parents because they wanted a child. I have fulfilled this purpose by having been a source of much entertainment as well as much anxiety for a couple of decades. Beyond that, the only one to give my life a purpose is me. I am glad no other being has purpose for me, as I am too busy seeking out my own goals, thank you.

The whole idea here in the U. S. of A. was that, unlike the Europe of the 18th century, we would leave each person to decide privately what kinds and depths of beliefs he or she should hold. The government chose quite deliberately to not support (and to the greatest extend possible provide a constitution free of theological bases) so that people would not be at each other's throats about issues that cannot be resolved in any court or venue. And while the earliest and even later generations here did not achieve this in perfection, yet for a long time most understood the delicate compromise made for the sake of peace in our founding documents.

Whatever each of us believes and wants our children to believe, it ought to remain a personal decision. If we assess things fairly, our society has done its best for long to allow free exercise of religion on an individual basis. And we have enjoyed theological peace.

Now we are a nearly infinitely diverse population, and there are more possibilities in beliefs than one might ever have imagined. Contrary to some of my fellow citizens, I feel that religion is best kept to one's self; not offered like snacks on a plate to those who have not asked for "enlightenment." If someone seeks out this "knowledge" then by all means give what you care to give. Read the postings and see how heated people become on this matter. If we truly enjoy peace among us, let us not continue to dun each other with our beliefs in hope that one will change.

When questions or doubts arise, let each person seek the source of learning of their choice and keep to him- or herself the solace it may bring. There is a great wisdom in being quiet until asked. (Now that I've broken that rule . . . lol!)

I wish you all good, warm, friend-and-family-filled holidays/celebrations/festivuses!

Cheers

Nicole said
"I have a question to all who do not believe: If you dont believe in The Lord; why are we all here. what were we created for."

If the existence of a deity settles your mind regarding why we humans exist, then what about the question of why the deity itself exists? Isn't it just the same problem, with a different subject?

You'll likely respond that God doesn't need a reason to exist, but if you can believe this about God, why can't you believe this about everything else? Maybe the universe "just is" without reason.

You think there needs to be a reason, but that is because your mind (as well as mine) just has a strong habit of attributing reasons to phenomena (for good evolutionary reasons). But really this concept is just a human construct. Humans invented "reason". If there were nobody around to think, then there would be no such thing as reason either. Please don't confuse human constructs with absolute reality. And don't presume to have some special ability to know absolute reality either. None of us do. You should be more honest and humble about that.

"But do you blame governments for the wars and inequity they have supported through time? Should we drop all the inherent violence and bigotry of government. Should we teach our children to become anarchists?"

What drives people to kill? It's the belief that they and they alone understand 'the truth'. Once you decide that the 'others' don't understand the 'truth' it becomes trivial to determine some rationale for their destruction.

Religion provides that certainty of truth -- relgion kills.

Nicole wrote: "But what if it is true and we don't believe in him. Then we spend eternity in Hell"

Your god sure sounds like a horrible thing (I'm struggling not to use harsher language). Why so huge a punishment for so small a "crime"? Do you really feel that such a god is truly a loving being? Maybe you're mistaken and the god you think you are worshipping is actually the devil...seems more consistent with your description.

This scenario you propose (Pascal's wager) might be a reasonable bet if the odds were closer to 50:50 (between your particular version of God being right and mine), but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case. The fact is that the more precise your conception of god, the less likely it is to be accurate. I feel pretty good that the odds are WAY in my favor.

Also, I have a lot to potentially gain by being a nonbeliever. For one thing, I have a better chance at seeing reality clearly, and thus appreciating it more fully. Beliefs are inherently delusional, for they are always limited by our narrow view and our insecurities and egos. Best to hold on to as few as possible, and as provisionally.

The worse tragedy in my opinion would be to live the only life I'm going to ever get deluded by my own wishful thinking - thus missing out on the wonder of true reality. I hope you take this to heart.

Dear Anonymous:

You say "if enough children can drop the inherent violence and bigotry of religion, perhaps one day we really will achieve peace on earth and good will toward man."

You blame religion for many bad things. But do you blame governments for the wars and inequity they have supported through time? Should we drop all the inherent violence and bigotry of government. Should we teach our children to become anarchists?

Bad government has killed more people in the last 100 years than bad religion. So why is it you single out religion for your venom and not the greater 'evil'?

It sounds to me like you are on a crusade.

Tim:

The problem of the blind faith issue, is that religious believers tend to remove critical thinking from their faith. This might be acceptable if you were certain to be right. However, religious people tend to ignore or dismiss the possibility, that religious leaders motives are not pure. Your religion forces you to accept whatever, your neighborhood minister, or worse yet TV enagelical has to say. You ascribe some sort of purity in motive to people who claim to have the same beliefs as you and so you support them blindly. They are human, just as you and I, but they claim to have some special knowledge of divinity. That is religion, and that is why it is feared.

What is the harm in this? What is the Iraq Civil war but a war of religion. If you cannot see how religion is used as a means of control and manipulate, perhaps you can observe it in the Shia and Sunni conflict. Just as religion turns these groups into madmen, because rational thought is suspended, how can you be certain that it does not impact your judgement in the same way?

I am a 63 year old raised in a liberal Catholic household. Yes, I said "liberal." My father's greatest gift to me as a child was to allow questioning of religious teachings and dogma and to encourage me to think for myself. He always said he found it encouraging when things were tough to think that "someone up there" was looking out for him. He was a believer -- but told me I would have to reason these issues out for myself.

Through my personal experiences, education, and reading over the years, I have reached the conclusion that there is neither God nor Gods up there. I believe that man has created God in his image, not the other way around.

I have given my children the same gift that my father gave to me, the freedom to examine the evidence and make up their own minds about religious and philosophical questions. None has ever disparaged me for that, nor do they all share my conclusions.

I belief I have given them no greater gift than this. I hope they will continue this family tradition.

"We should stop hating and bickering and find a resolution to loving one another."

-I agree with you 100%. This implies being tolerant of our differences and not calling the life of another person or group "MEANINGLESS" simply because they don't subscribe to your beliefs.

"I have a question to all who do not believe: If you dont believe in The Lord; why are we all here. what were we created for. This whole life would be MEANINGLESS."

1. You're implying creation. If you're asking what are we "here" for, I am here to live my life as a good person doing good deeds. Would you call that meaningless?

2. Meaningless or not, doesn't make a religion true or a god to exist.

I have a question for everyone. Let Say that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit does exist we believe in him and the teachings of the Bible. We become good people. We die and there is no God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. Nothing Lost. But what if it is true and we don't believe in him. Then we spend eternity in Hell. Think of believing in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit as Fire Protection. You have nothing to lose at the end of your life. Do you?

God Knows a persons heart and convictions. He wants you to accept Jesus as your lord and savior. He wants you to fully accept him witha all your heart, soul, and mind. You should love Jesus, becuase he died for everybidy sins. He died on the cross for all of us. He gave his life in such a brutal way. He did that for everybody. Dont accept him becuase of you want "Fire Protection". Accept him becuase he SACRIFICED his LIFE. God knows your true intentions, your actions, and your heart. God wants you to confess with your tongue, and to believe in your heart. To trust him, and to have Faith. FAITH is the key issue here.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

I have a question to all who do not believe: If you dont believe in The Lord; why are we all here. what were we created for. This whole life would be MEANINGLESS. What is the purpose for existence. I would rather take my chances in believing and seeking God for direction, then not believe and accept the Lord and be terribly sorry. For some who want to take that chance, your realize you are playing russian roullette. God will accept anyone who accepts his son; again that is a risk that i hope you wouldnt want to take. I pray God' presence will be in your lives, even if you dont believe in him. His children loves everybody, we all are not judgemental. Seeking god will give you joy and peace that is unattainable in this world. We should stop hating and bickering and find a resolution to loving one another.

JT

"To all the secularists and atheists:

What if we as Christians are right about God you you are wrong? You have a whole lot more to lose then we do. Just a thought... "

It is a thought that Pascal had a few hundred years ago. It is called Pascal's wage.
I never found that wage very honest because it implies that , by just pretending that you believe, you would escape Hell.
I am a total agnostic. I am not searching the proof of the existence or the non-existence of God. I just live my life, godless.
I am more interested in being the best person I can be, rather than putting faith in a higher power.
Obviously, the fear factor is a very powerful weapon and the religious leaders use it very efficiently.
Actually, the "wage" can be reversed. If you are wrong, then you have wasted your life believing in fallacies. And if this is the only life we have , you have lost everything.
Just a thought !

"The second arguement I hear from doubters is that they refuse to believe in anything they cannot see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. How ridiculous!"

-Just because we cannot directly perceive something with our senses doesn't mean we should begin to assign it as supernatural.

"Should I refuse to believe that the moon has a backside because it is beyond the range of my senses, even beyond the range of my telescope?"

-Apollo missions put an end to that mystery. We now also know it isn't comprised of cheese.

"Is there no such thing as imagination because we lack the tools to define and measure it?"

-We lack the tools to define and measure Zeus. But i "imagine" He exists because without Him, we would have no thunder and lightning. I believe in Him so that He would spare me on a cloudy day. So far, so good because i haven't been struck. Praise Zeus.

Tim:

So are you also a practicing Jew, Muslim and Hindu [may as well be -- nothing to lose if you are wrong]? And on the Christian thing, do you simultaneously follow all of the different Christian sects -- Catholic and Protestant and the 'minor' ones like Mormanism and Scientology? And what about some of those 'old time religions' like Greek / Roman / Norse? I mean, if you die and you are wrong, what's the big deal following them here on Earth?

Unfortunately, the world is a lot more complicated than Christian / Non-Christian...

I have a question for everyone. Let Say that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit does exist we believe in him and the teachings of the Bible. We become good people. We die and there is no God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. Nothing Lost. But what if it is true and we don't believe in him. Then we spend eternity in Hell. Think of believing in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit as Fire Protection. You have nothing to lose at the end of your life. Do you?

Well blogged Susan. I talk to my kids, not just about the appropriateness to doubt conceptions of god(s), but of the need for critical thinking. It irks me that religions all focus on promoting belief in the supernatural in the young. Is this because it is easier to keep believing in absurdities if established early?

My favourite quote at the moment:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" - Stephen Roberts

JT,

What do you believe the punishment to non-believers will be?

Whatever it is, why would a loving god be so malicious and vengeful for such a small matter as merely being a skeptic?

"What if we as Christians are right about God you you are wrong? You have a whole lot more to lose then we do. Just a thought..."

And what if the Hindu's are right -- we're both pretty screwed, huh?

Same if the Muslims are right, or the Jews.

And of course, even if you are Christian -- if the Catholics are right the Protestants are probably not much better off, are they?

Or maybe the Mormans are right -- or God forbid, the Christian Scientists!

What if the Greeks and Romans had it right long ago -- I'm guessing Hades isn't going to be very kind to us.

Personnaly, I'm hoping the Norse were close to the truth -- I've always had this thing for buxom blondes in chain mail...

Sigh.

JT: "To all the secularists and athiests:
What if we as Christians are right about God you you are wrong? You have a whole lot more to lose [than] we do."

To JT: What if the Muslims are right about God and you are wrong? You have a WHOLE lot more to lose than you realize.

Mary Cano wrote at least two bizarro things that ticked me off:

"I don't believe that doubt is a gift in any shape. Of course we should not just accept every doctrine presented but ask questions and decide for ourselves"

This is self-contradictory. "not just accept" is synonymous with "doubt".

"Had you been my sister and said that you didn't believe in God to my child, I would have been in your face in 2 seconds! That is simply not your place"

How would it not be in your sister's place to honestly answer the question about what she believes? You'd expect her to lie or evade the question, so as to protect your daughter from other viewpoints? That's truly awful parenting on your part.

To all the secularists and athiests:

What if we as Christians are right about God you you are wrong? You have a whole lot more to lose then we do. Just a thought...

"To say you would teach a child to doubt is to say that you would teach them not to believe in any religion."

Then yes, by all means, teach them to doubt. Teach them to question. Teach them to examine and analyze. Teach them to be critical and be skeptical.

Perhaps they will come to see that there is no difference between God and Allah and Zeus and Odin and Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- all are mythical creatures created entirely by man to help explain the meaning of behavior of the universe.

If enough children learn this, if enough children can drop the inherent violence and bigotry of religion, perhaps one day we really will achieve peace on earth and good will toward man.

Stefan at 3:52
I concur, but could never have said it so well. Thank you.

It never ceases to amaze how much hatred religious people have for those who are different -- all the while carrying on ad nauseum about their loving gods.

Susan is free to doubt.

Susan's neice is free to doubt or not.

You know, a whole lot of us have our doubts about God but we're absolutely certain we don't believe in religion.

Save me the quotes. I prefer the heat, anyway. Your hell doesn't scare me as much as your rhetoric.

"By and large people believe what they want to believe.."

Thank you, Stephan - You have very eloquently put us all in our places, and yet affirmed that the human experience is, for each of us, a journey with boundaries set only by the limits of our individual imaginations. The relationship between faith and knowledge becomes tenuous whenever two people with different experiences share thier views - this has been and will forever be part of the beauty and mystery of the human experience.

To be "in your face in 2 seconds" is the archetypical reaction of a theocratic thug. If the child had asked someone Jewish or Budhist if he believed that Jesus was God and that person responded no, would you "be in that person's face"? You could simply explain that some people in the world are do not share your views and that they are free (inspite of Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's efforts)to do so. You could even respond that they don't share our beliefs but we try to convince them of the righteousness of our view.
There are those who would make Christianity the default religion of the nation. Believing in anything else is the equivalent of being a concientious objector.
As for Christmas, anyone who complains of the holiday being stolen or co-opted is a complete hypocrite. The timing of the holiday, the tree, wreaths, Santa claus all have pre-Christian, Pagan roots. The were conciously co-opted by the Roman church to convert the masses. What the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys are really saying is "Hey, give it back. We stole it first!

God is Love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Ray Charles is God. It makes as much sense as any other religion.

Susan, your answer was The Perfect Copout

To say you would teach a child to doubt is to say that you would teach them not to believe in any religion. A young child is more interested in being like his or her parent than anything else and they will 'doubt' to please you and fit in, not because your doubt is right or wrong.

If you are a parent, then stand up and be a parent. Look at your faith and the faith of your spouce (or the collective lack of it) and see if the truths your faith aims for are worthy of your child. Notice I said the truths that religion AIMS FOR, not whether they live out these truths perfectly. Perhaps Michelangelo said it best - "The greatest danger of most of us is not that we aim too high and miss it, but that we aim too low and reach it."

I hear two weak arguements come from the mouths of 'people with doubt' in these blogs. The first is that they reject religion because God is not good enough for them - i.e. "My god would never let bad things happen to good people". What an ego-centric view of the world this is. Show me someone that has led a charmed life and I will show you a person without little or no sence of empathy or concern for anyone but themselves. If pain was fair (and thus deserved) we could dismiss it. If pain was dished out in equal measure we could ignore it. It is our pain that defines us. A purpose-driven religion might teach people how to first to deal with pain when we encounter it and then how to deal with it when we see it in others. Oscar Wilde said that "nothing worth knowing can be taught" and there is some truth in this. A book cannot teach empathy or courage or patience or love. Pain, on the other hand, can teach many things worth knowing if you let it. Almost all religions address pain and loss and offer ways to help you grow from the experience.

The second arguement I hear from doubters is that they refuse to believe in anything they cannot see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. How ridiculous! Should I refuse to believe that the moon has a backside because it is beyond the range of my senses, even beyond the range of my telescope? Is there no such thing as imagination because we lack the tools to define and measure it? Whether you believe in God or not, this arguement is weak and utter drivel. It is better to say "I just don't believe" than it is to spout such nonsence.

Most people who call themselves 'religious' have doubts too. The difference is that they are looking for answers to questions that cannot be voted on, questions about things that cannot be empirically measured, questions more important than any of that. In the answers to these questions, some people have found God and are happier, more fulfilled, and more productive because of it.

If you live in an ego-centric world - just you, your tape measure, and your measuring cup - then perhaps you could start exploring religion with your child. Instead of teaching doubt, recognise these questions of faith and of 'recognising our place in the world' are important.

Is your child's search for what's right an invitation for you to review your skepticism?

This is why I go to sleep every night and hope the Muslims would kill more Christians. After all the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I am proud to be a christian. What you said is PURE EVIl. I am a person that loves all people, and religions. There are several christians that are non-judgemental. You have hatred in your heart, and you words kill. You are no better than these terroist overseas. One of God's commandments is Thou shall love thy neighbor. One of his greatest commandments. I am proud and most grateful my parents brought me up to LOVE God and to accept JESUS as my Lord and Savior. You dont believe, becuase you dont want to. God gives everybody the Free will to choose to accept him. He does not force us, he loves us so much that he gives us the choice. God WILL prevail in the end. I promise you. Your enemy(satan) will not win. At the end, Jesus will prevail, it says in revelation. The bible was divinely inspired by GOD. Who is almighty and powerful. Just becuae you cant see him dosent mean he isnt present. You cant see air, but you can breathe. You will trust a plane to land, but wont trust God who created you. You will trust a car to run, but wont even consider how many chances the Lord has saved you from destruction.
I respect everybody views and opinnions but I beg you, make the choice to accept the Lord, before it is too Late. God loves you all, and so do I.
God bless

Paths and Questions

From the Arch Bishop to Starhawk and Mrs Jacoby and all the posted comments all ring true with similiar tones. Choices; to love, accept or believe is what it boils down too. I think ,as with most everything in life, that there is a little truth to all.
If God is "Love" then God is Wiccan or Islam or Jewish, Christianity or even the non-believer because they all love. Consiquently if the answer is that simple its the question that must be all together confusing.
Find your place in the world. Love God, whatever you call him; he knows who your talking too (and love you back)
What's the worst that will happen? Either your dead and the joke is on you, or....

Peace to all, unconditionally

My version of the bible is better. It says:

"If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll be darned to heck."

Quoting the Bible to ""show that "God exists" really shows nothing. It actually stops dead any attempts at dialogue here. Quotes from the Bible do not "show" anything other than the fact that you think you believe (at least parts if not all of) what is written there. It is like saying that the evidence to support my case is (to borrow from Dennett) that my Aunt who passed away recently said so, and my Aunt is always right (so I claim). Then by definition, I cannot be wrong. (And we cannot ask this Aunt to clarify.) This is circular reasoning. I suppose it is not unlike a dog that is running in circles chasing its own tail. The dog never gets anywhere. Conversation goes nowhere.

For example, if you say that the "proof" of God's love is John 3:16, that is not really "proof" of God's love, but it is proof that somebody wrote about God's love in a book called "the Bible."

Julian, you are in a tiny minority of atheists, being so hateful and ignorant. The enemy of your enemy is NOT necessarily your friend. That fallacy has plagued the U.S. government and many others for a long time. I agree Christians and Muslims are the same, but most are decent people.

"I've apparently bumped into the home of the self-licking ice cream cone. Don't atheists and secularists just try to replace the theist's world view with their own?"

Quite the opposite, I find. Secularists seem to be very "free to be you and me" - and I mean that in the best possible way.

You don't see secularists forecasting eternal punishment for those who don't share their beliefs.

Julian, i understand your frustration but that's not nice to say. Can't we all just get along?

Lee: "I've apparently bumped into the home of the self-licking ice cream cone. Don't atheists and secularists just try to replace the theist's world view with their own?"

Ummm...no. The atheist's world is reality. Therefore, the religionist (vainly) attempt to replace the atheist's world with HIS own. Correct concept, you just got it backward. Nice imagery, though, for your snide little analogy (you people just can't help but insult everyone else, can you?).

TO: Jebus freaks

You are no different then Muslims. Both of you basically say that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Are you so stupid to think that god would hate someone and ban them to an eternity of torture over something that wasn't there choice in the first place. Think about it if you grow up a Muslim you won't change. If you grow up a Buddhist your are going to be a Buddhist for the rest of your life. Christianity is not the only way to look at death but at least you could be nice and keep your twisted Jebus comments to yourself. This is why I go to sleep every night and hope the Muslims would kill more Christians. After all the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I've apparently bumped into the home of the self-licking ice cream cone. Don't atheists and secularists just try to replace the theist's world view with their own?

"There is no such thing as good people, there are bad people who occasionaly and randomly do good things, but that by no means makes life better."

What a sad and empty faith.

Indeed, doubt is the beginning of all learning. Admission of ignorance is more honest than claims to knowledge lacking evidence.

Humans have very good reasons to have evolved a natural tendency towards kindness, as well as a natural tendency to exclude the 'other' and target it for cruelty. Awareness of the far reaching consequences of our actions and awareness of the shared humanity of us all lead most people to increase kindness and eliminate cruelty.

"Should religion be about finding a unique and individual purpose to one's life, about dealing with the certainties of death and random suffering?"

I believe there are people who live by those codes. It just doesn't have a big enough catch to attract the masses. You need incentives such as an afterlife and ways to spread the religion in terms of proselytizing.

So, Gretchin, if my child (I'm an atheist) was to ask you whether believe in god, you'd say nothing? By that I take it you are then against things like televangelism where my children might see people preaching right in my own living room?

There is no such thing as mixed-faith marriages or families, as God's Word tells us that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). Therefore, all other "faiths" are false and should be rejected. Why believe in something that maintains people in their fallen, rebellious, and sinful condition and rejects God's saving grace?

We cannot know God the Father without knowing Jesus Christ - God the Son. The earth and sky declare the glory of the Lord, and we are called to praise and exult in Him, not glorify created things.

Additionally, there is no freedom (even for "freethinkers") outside of Christ. Those who have not been born again are spiritually dead in their sins and slaves to sinful nature. Only the Triune God of this universe can give them freedom and spiritual life.

"In pure theory, we are all capable of the evils above mentioned. But we are also capable of doing good works. None of us are perfect, but that should never stop us from trying."

Excellent! To paraphrase writer Harlan Ellison, we are the species responsible for Dachau and My Lai, but we are also the species responsible for the Sistine Chapel and putting a man on the moon. My chief objection to Western religious doctrines is that they portray humans as inherently bad and in need of outside intervention. I don't know enough about Eastern religions to know if they say the same.

Does religion have to be about human nature? I don't understand why any religion would have a code of conduct that is any more complicated than simply Hippocrates' "above all, do no harm." Should religion be about finding a unique and individual purpose to one's life, about dealing with the certainties of death and random suffering?

Very well put, J. Roberts.

I can only offer anecdotes to the proclaimers of belief on this panel.

Matthew:

"We all perish in the end; it's called death but those who believe will have life after death."

Now that's the viral marketing the secularist minority needs. Ooh ooh. How about i add 70 virgins to life after death for everyone who believes, then we'll have more numbers to our group. Wait a minute, whoops there IS a religion that does that and they DO have more numbers than christians.

Canyon Shearer wrote:

"The answer is they do terrible things because it is the nature of human beings. There is no such thing as good people, there are bad people who occasionaly and randomly do good things, but that by no means makes life better."

Their assertion suggests that Hitler, Mussolini, McVeigh, and a host of others did what they did because it was intrinsic to their nature. And if the statement that there are only "bad people who occasionaly [sic] and randomly do good things" is at all true, then we can presume that the capacity for the cruelty inherent in the actions of these people is intrinsic to us, as well.

I must say that I disagree.

When we prosecuted the remnants of the Third Reich for having brought about the Holocaust, or Milosevic and his minions for the Bosnian civil wars and Kosovar genocide, the defendants were charged with "crimes against humanity." When we describe acts such as these, we often use the descriptor 'inhuman'--suggesting that the actions are beyond the pale of human conduct. If you describe to a person the details of what took place at, say, Auschwitz, Srebrenica, Babi Yar, or any of hundreds of sites, you will discover the listener to respond with what Rousseau termed an "innate repugnance" at the suffering of a fellow creature.

All this leads me to believe that humans have an inborn moral sensibility that allows them to distinguish right acts from wrong acts. But that is not to say that we are always empowered to act from those distinctions.

If Shearer's assessment is right, though, when--for example--Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarschal, was put on trial (for 'crimes against humanity') we could not have solely been prosecuting him. If humanity is as far gone as Shearer suggests, each and every one of us was sitting at the defense table with him. And that cannot be.

Limiting humanity to degrees of 'badness,' and delimiting 'good' as unattainable, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It merely ensures that instead of seeing the goodness within each other, we instead see wickedness and perversion. We then turn against each other, having no incentive to do good. We will be wary of each other and reluctant to trust our fellow man, because we will suspect him at every turn. Surely that is not what a just, merciful, and loving God intended for His people. And if you choose not to believe, perhaps you can agree with me that this is not a world we should want to live in.

Shearer may be right on one point: in pure theory, we are all capable of the evils above mentioned. But we are also capable of doing good works. None of us are perfect, but that should never stop us from trying.

AMCL: That is not the correct translation.

John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

We all perish in the end; it's called death but those who believe will have life after death.

"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge. If you cannot admit you don't know, how can you learn? Anyone who thinks he or she knows all there is to know already can only be described as the ultimate example of ignorance.

I would think people of faith especially (and atheists, of course) need to admit that there is doubt and seeking to know more and understand better are healthy things. Insistence on having a monopoly on "truth" is not only ignroant, but rather silly. What is the difference between worshipping a statue of gold that you made with your hands and telling the rest of us that only your notion of "God" which you made with your mind is the truth? Thinking that the statue of gold is an exact likeness of God pretends to knowledge that is not there. Same goes for thinking that your idea of God (and only your idea) is an exact definition of God.

AMCL: That is not the correct translation.

John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

We all perish in the end; it's called death but those who believe will have life after death.

AMCL: That is not the correct translation.

John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

We all perish in the end; it's called death but those who believe will have life after death.

Speak for yourself Gretchin.

Some kids, especially those who don't have to spend their sundays being indoctrinated by the bible actually know more to life than you think.

Take my daughter for example, she's 6 years old and know's about genes and inheritance. Why? because instead of reading the bible, i let her read a book about the human body, written and illustrated for kids.

I personally do not think you should have discussed your disbelief in God with a 7 year old. I think you should have spoke with her parents first and then decided the best way to explain it. As a believing parent I would not have wanted my sister having this conversation with my daughter. Should the question be asked then you find a way around it until you speak with her parents. Also, to think that she understood your answer only shows how unintellegent you really are. She may have nodded and seemed to understand but what 7 year old knows about Chromosomes??? You must be kidding me....or at least kidding yourself.

By and large people believe what they want to believe, generally something that affirms their conceptions about who they are and what kind of world they want to live in. A much more important question than "what do I believe?" is "what do I know?" It is not an easy question to answer because we are so strongly tempted to say that we "know" when we don't really. In this regard, most secular humanists are no different than religious believers. The world views of both are based largely on faith. They affirm something they wish to be true - without actually knowing if it is true or not. Too often in our culture we confuse so-called knowledge with knowing. While anyone can memorize and manipulate "facts," knowing is something very different. It is "experiential," rather than intellectual, a totally inadequate description of the difference. Making the transition from one who believes to one who knows is at the very core of human experience, and of life itself. No one can do it for us, hand us a road map, or tell us what we will find along the way. Each of us makes the journey alone - if we have the courage to open the door and set out.

Susan:

Have you heard the expression, "lies that cause people to believe, have fait are moral?" I was watching a film on the shroud of Turin and the curator said it in so many words. A discussion of the film afterwords lead to the expression. In no time, I saw it on a political blog, a reasonable place I would say. We would much rather hear a lie that confirms what we believe than the truth. That probably has something to do with our mental/emotional makeup, don't you think?

History is fiction based upon facts. I think it was Napaleon that said history is a consensus of opinions. The problem is writing. We cannot describe in words certain things. No matter how hard one trys a factual account of many things are impossible. A soldier that has been in combat cannot tell us so we will understand just how terrifying it is, for example. Therefore the hostorian cannot record that part of the battle in words one can understand. What else must the historian leave out as a matter of language limitations?

John 3:16 should be:

"For god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever didn't believe in him shall be damned to hell."

Act I

Dad: Don't you believe in me son?
Child: Not really. Can't I be curious?
Dad: That's it mister, you're gonna burn.

Now what kind of loving father would do that to his kid?

Act II

Child: Hell sounds so scary dad.
Dad: Don't worry, i've given birth to another kid(who's actually my clone) - now if you worship him i'll spare you from the burning.
Child: Wait a minute.. but your book of 10 rules says i can't worship anyone besides you!@
Dad: I'll make an exception.
Child: Sounds like you're just making up the rules as you go along.
Dad: That's not so. I work in mysterious ways.

I'm NO expert Steve and I'm not claiming to be. As far as gender discrimination I'm not sure what your referring too. Please see my notes below...
This is what Christianity teaches. Time to play with my kids... Have a great day everyone. I apologize if I offended you. Not my intention. Good night.

* III. "MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM"

Equality and difference willed by God

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.

370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.241

"Each for the other" - "A unity in two"

371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man's partner.243 The woman God "fashions" from the man's rib and brings to him elicits on the man's part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another "I", sharing the same humanity.

372 Man and woman were made "for each other" - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be "helpmate" to the other, for they are equal as persons ("bone of my bones. . .") and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming "one flesh",245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator's work.247

373 In God's plan man and woman have the vocation of "subduing" the earth248 as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator "who loves everything that exists",249 to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.

My question to Jon is this:

If your child chooses not to love you will you cease to love your child? Will you punish them for not having loved you enough, or at all for that matter?

Isn't the truest form of love one that is non conditional?

According to what you, and many others I have read, have wrote, your God requires me to adhere to a certain set of principles, and if I don't, I am forever punished and possiply damned, fair enough. My only problem is that your God uses the Seven Deadly Sins as a barometer, and yet doesn't hold His Godself to the same standards.

Your God sounds rather hypocritical. Punish me for being lustful, vengeful, succumbing to envy and greed. And yet, the mere act of punishing me for not loving Him and worshiping Him, as well as believing Jesus Christ to be my one and only saviour, would be committing those same atrocoties. Then again, it is said that God created man in his likeness, so it would reason that God is flawed and emotional, certainly not non-judgemental.

Nathan B. Austen

Dave in NM, you have a valid point when you talk about the sharing of opinions and beliefs when they're not wanted. While that is irritating, my real issue is that they want others to convert. And this goes for anyone in any belief system, including atheism. As selfish as this sounds, I object to anyone wanting me to convert for any reason.

If people are so inherently good, why is this world in such a mess?

"I'm wondering what Susan did five minutes later when the child encountered Santa."

Maybe the same thing that I say to my son: Santa is pretend and people like to dress up as Santa to get ready for Christmas and the winter.

Amazing imaginations, these young ones have.

Jon: "Christians do not force [their] opinions and beliefs on athiests but rather want to share what they believe."

The problem there is that you continue to "share" your "opinions and beliefs" when they're not wanted (which is most of the time), thereby "forcing" them. Also, of course, they vote for politicians who will enact those "opinions and beliefs" into law, thereby forcing them on all citizens. Put simply, Jon, you must be defining "Christians" much more narrowly than most of the population, most of whom would group the most pernicious of the belief-forcers in with "Christians" (as would those belief-forcers themselves). Most despicable of all, of course, Christians "share" their "beliefs and opinions" with children (but are too craven to define them as such, calling them, instead, "truth"). Thus, I reiterate my thanks to Ms. Jacoby for sharing something that truly IS valuable, unlike the "beliefs and opinions" of Christians, which are only valuable when wanted (which, again, is seldom).

I find it rather ironic that Mary believes so fervently in this loving, personal relationship she shares with God, that when her only begotten sister answers a question "honeslty" posed to her by Mary's child, Mary's response is threatening, defensive, and bordering on egregious.

I say ironic because although she clearly states she supports her children making up their own mind at some point (which, in and of itself is what Mary's God granted us-free will), when her offspring exercise their right to do so, mind you in accordance with Mary's own wishes that they do, she chastises her sister for being honest and allowing for an alternative viewpoint.

Not to mention - "The greatest gift you can give a child is love. Be a loving parent, introduce them to a loving God and a loving Savior." - Just don't introduce them to intellectually honest and supportive individuals who challenge your perspective and thus see things differently as you do... even if its in accordance with your wishes that your children discover for themselves what they choose to or not to believe.

"As for the Old Testament, how can a righteous judge be righteous if he’s not willing to punish the law breaker? That’s the first step to understanding the Old Testament. The New Testament explains the redemption of man’s sin and God’s final love for mankind. I suggest that you read it before criticizing the bible."

If you were referring to my post showing some other nuggets of goodness the bible offers, you will forgive me if I take great pleasure in pointing out that Corinthians is in fact NEW Testament. But maybe you can explain what gender discrimination has to do with "God's final love for mankind" since you appear to be the expert...

Yes, I agree on two points...but take a sharp turn there...

Doubt is "the perfect gift" because it is when we doubt the most, but turn to faith, that God surprises us with blessings beyond what "good people can do for themselves." Being "good people" is great, and our world is better every day because of good people like you and others who follow. But we are limited by our human-ness, and from there look to our Creator. For those of us who beileve and ask--from our point of fallen doubt--we are reassurred beyond motal belief!

Please be "good." And maybe seek "greater."

Blessings of Christmas....

I'm wondering what Susan did five minutes later when the child encountered Santa.

to live is to doubt but that does not mean that there is no certainty in the world we live in.My father was a Cuban political prisoner for 12 years and not once during his absent did I doubt his love for me nor his committment to a Loving God that allowed this injustice to come into our lives.
When my wife got pregnant and our child died in her belly at 7 months I did not doubt Gods love for us.
For the last 14 years my mother has had alzheimers
and is now in her last stages and not once have I doubted the God who gave her life and gave her to me as a mother.
Yes to live is to doubt but there are some things you can be sure about and for me one of those thing is that the God who made the heavens and the earth and everything in it is a loving God that loves me ,my family and the rest of the world

You’re almost there. What you lack in understanding of God and the bible is that God made man and the universe good not perfect! Only faith and love in God makes man perfect and that is the desire of Gods will. Ask yourself do you want a child that freely chooses to love you or a child that rejects your love or is insincere? Gods will is to move all of us to love him which in return completes his masterful plan. What glory is there if God made us to love him without personal choice and freewill? If you can understand that then you’re on the right track my friend.

As for the Old Testament, how can a righteous judge be righteous if he’s not willing to punish the law breaker? That’s the first step to understanding the Old Testament. The New Testament explains the redemption of man’s sin and God’s final love for mankind. I suggest that you read it before criticizing the bible. I have never met one person that has read the bible in it’s entirety that rejects the notion of God. That is my challenge to you. The book is powerful beyond human intelligence alone. All of my questions were answered which science could not do for me.

If you seek other proof of Gods will you don’t need to look far. Look at man’s incredible ability to creatively express himself in which no other animal of this world can do? Where do music, art, painting, and poetry come from? If you can prove that monkeys have the ability to paint the Sistine Chapel then maybe I would start believing more in science then in spirit… The man who created the Sistine Chapel was Michelangelo and he was a catholic.

Last but not least Christians do not force there opinions and beliefs on athiests but rather want to share what they believe.

Good day.

Here is another way to look at God:

You can imagine the smallest thing, a pulsar or a quasa, GOD is smaller than that. Now you can imagine the largest thing, the Universe itself, GOD is bigger than that.

That is why it said that - God is Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent.

In simple words God is always present, sees everything and is all powerful. HE has no form and HE has all the form. HE is Shiva (The Bliss) and He is Shakti (The Energy). HE is the cause of Birth, Life and Death (an automatic recycling system) which is Universal Truth.

Things will be formed (Birth), have a certain length of time in the world (Life) and then decay (Death).
Do not take my word. Look around and analyze yourself. Take any system, political, economical, physical, social or biological. All are goverened by this eternal cycle of birth, life and death.

What happens to us is indeed the result of our own deeds. What you SOW, so shall you REAP.

Have a peaceful day.
Akela

Merry Saturnalia--the "original" christmas--to all!

Praise be to Mirtha--the "original" jesus (by 1,000 years)! He was born on December 25, of a virgin. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and magicians. He raised the dead and healed the sick and cast out demons. He returned to heaven at the spring equinox and before doing so had a last supper with his 12 disciples (representing the 12 signs of the zodiac), eating mizd, a piece of bread marked with a cross (an almost universal symbol of the sun). Any of that sound familiar?

Don't be afraid. Critical thinking and the willingness to admit you may have been given false/misleading information your entire life are hard to deal with. Remember, truths and what's real in our world don't need to be forced on you--they are self evident to all.

Peace

God = Allah = Zeus = Odin = Baal = Flying Spaghetti Monster

My kids still think that Santa might be real, but they've pretty much out-grown the idea of an omnipotent diety.

I would like to applaud Ms. Jacoby, together with the commenters on here who have noted that doubt (or, more accurately, the ability and willingness to question) is, indeed, an inestimably valuable gift to our children. Every time an issue such as this surfaces on a discussion forum like this one, inevitably, the freethinkers / atheists / humanists, etc. are more rational, more eloquent, and more affirming of the rights of others than the vociferous "Christians" who feel the need to threaten, chide and insult. Except for "Unknoen," that is. ;^)

And Mary Cano: If you got "in the face" of someone who honestly answered a direct question asked by your child, what would that say about the strength of your position, and your belief that it can withstand alternate viewpoints? Or do you have no such belief, as strongly seems to be the case?

In any event, I wish everyone here happy holidays, whether strictly "holy" or not. Even those working as hard as they can to continue giving Christianity a bad name.

Canyon Shearer, "Judaism and Christianity have answered that question infinitely better than any other world view" -- that is ridiculous. They skirt the issue with things like free will. I pity you that you think people are not good. Do you seriously think that atheists only do good things at random? That doesn't even make sense. I know a few atheists and they all happen to be honest and decent. Also, you say "The wage of sin is death". So, children are being punished for something that others did? That would be an evil 'god' who did that!

Why is it that those who choose to believe in a "God", or subscribe to a particular belief aligned with a dogmatic system have the exlusive rights to "happiness"? or righteousness?

How can one assume "morale" superiority over those who live with the understanding that "happiness" is and always will be a choice of the individual regardless of their affiliations; and that righteousness and morality are outcomes based more on intent than association?

Do I need to believe as you do in order to live as you do? Must I ascribe to the same understanding as you in order to reach the same conclusions and thus the same destination as you?

I'll tell you what, lets both take a trip to New York. I'll leave from my house and travel by car (as it suits me better and for arguments sake maybe considered the road less traveled), and you leave from your current location and travel by plane (as it may suit you better and remains the more convenient form of transportation). I wonder what the end result might be? Could it be that we both end up reaching the same destination?

Nathan B. Austen

Oh goody! Someone came in and quoted the bible to enlight us all per usual.

Lord knows the bible is chock-full of good qoutes. Here are some of my favorites:

- "The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. -- Proverbs 30:17"

- "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. -- 1 Corinthians 14:34-36"

And my favorite teaching from the Bible:

- "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9"

I don't believe that doubt is a gift in any shape. Of course we should not just accept every doctrine presented but ask questions and decide for ourselves. My children will make their own decision at some point. In the interim, I, as a parent, am responsible for their moral upbringing. Had you been my sister and said that you didn't believe in God to my child, I would have been in your face in 2 seconds! That is simply not your place. Don't discredit those who believe in God as needing some sort of higher being to guide them. My relationship with God is real. "Religion" is a practice and has become impersonal to some so much so that they throw the word around as if it means nothing. I have a personal relationship with God. God does not give someone a handicapped child to punish them. That is not the loving God I serve. Things happen to us in life to make us stronger, to mold us into the person that He wants us to be, and sometimes just to teach us. The greatest gift you can give a child is love. Be a loving parent, introduce them to a loving God and a loving Savior.

Merry Christmas and God bless you and your family this season!

Okay, for all the bible quoters -- you are in a circular argument. If I and any other atheist believe that all religious works were written by mere men with no supernatural factor involved, then you cannot expect us to be moved by what is written in any one of them.

"Mrs. Jacoby,
With all do respect, Doubt is one of the most dangerous thoughts that satan will put in our minds. He wants us to question that there isn't a God, when there clearly is. God is love. It hurts to hear people who will never experience the joy and peace that the Lord gives to those who just believe.
John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
God Bless you."

John was obiously on the john when he spewed this piece o s***t. My god could beat up yours anyways. He would be like love conquers all then my god would punch him in the face and say "love this retard."

PS Merry chirstmas

I applaud Newsweek and MSNBC for including a freethinker in this panel. I respect the rights of others to have different views than me, but as an Athiest I'm often treated like someone who should be at the back of the bus.

Many Christians claim that Athiests and Secular Humanists are trying to destroy religion. What we want is acceptance of the fact that not everyone believes in God, and a little respect and consideration for our lack of belief.

I won't tell you how to raise your children, but I ask that you tell them that not all people believe the same way you do. I'm Athiest, my wife is Muslim. We agree that she may teach them as she wants, but when they ask me what I believe, I won't lie. I'll be kind to Islam, but I'll honestly explain why I made the choice not to believe. The choice to believe will be theirs.

Mrs. Jacoby,
With all do respect, Doubt is one of the most dangerous thoughts that satan will put in our minds. He wants us to question that there isn't a God, when there clearly is. God is love. It hurts to hear people who will never experience the joy and peace that the Lord gives to those who just believe.
John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
God Bless you.

Susan, wonderfully put and eloquently stated.

Canyon Shearer:
I pity you and offer a hug as solace.

Nathan B. Austen

Akela!
What a weird Concept!

In the beginning, God created man.
And man has been returning the favor ever since.

The god you have created is a non-threatening, impotent god. he doesn't exist. It's worse than if you imagined god as a banana-split with extra cherries.

It's a clear and decisive breaking of the 2nd Commandment, and the Bible says that idolaters will be outside the gates of Heaven, neither do they have any inheritance into the Kingdom of God.

I know that God exists! I can make this statement with full certainty because the proof is in the eyes of the beholder. What has been shown to me is not impossible for anyone to attain but you have to be willing and open to believe in him?

22For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. 23If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."

If you refuse to open your ears to God's existance you will never be able to hear his words echo through your soul.

For anyone who has experienced the conversion of heart understands that God is as real as the very air we breathe. Do you believe in air? You can't see it or taste it but when you hear the wind blow air reveals it's existance. So does God reveal in such a mysterious way.

I encourage every non-believer to take a step towards God then away from him.

Have a good day.

I would advise the parents to tell their children that religion may be useful at some time in their lives. In the meantime, however, it probably has no use at all. So they should focus on the traditional aspects of the Winter celebration. Some of us will make it through the long cold winter, others among us will not. We have enough food to sustain us, we have confidence as a family, and now is the time for us to express our love for one another, for the wider community, and for all humanity. We all hope for a peaceful world.

There is no need for religion in this context.

Enjoy a warm and peaceful holiday.

GOD!
Oh what a concept!
In Hinduism, there is a two line couplet that answers this question very nicely and runs across all religious boundaries.

"Depending upon the intensity and depth of feelings with in you, God will appear accordingly"

That simply means if you believe in father figure, God will come to you as a father, If you believe in Love, God will come to you as a Lover, if you are looking for a teacher, God will show you the path as a teacher and so on.

You decide what shape you wish the God to be with all your devotion, faith, belief and sincerity, Then God will appear to be in that form.
Akela.

"I told her that I didn't believe in God, that I believed in good people working together to make life better."

What do you tell her when she asks how Hitler, Musolini, Milosevic, Timothy McVeigh, and any one of any people down the street do the things they do?

The answer is they do terrible things because it is the nature of human beings. There is no such thing as good people, there are bad people who occasionaly and randomly do good things, but that by no means makes life better.

Your answer isn't giving her the gift of doubt in God, it's giving her the ignorance of secular humanism.

As for why there is death and decay in the world? Judaism and Christianity have answered that question infinitely better than any other world view. The Wages of Sin is Death. There was no death until man sinned. The fallen world in which we live waxes old. Sin has infested every aspect of our lives, from the tiniest DNA strand to the slowing of the Earth's orbit.

"Do you believe in God, Aunt Susan?"
I told her that I didn't believe in God, that I believed in good people working together to make life better.

That is inspiring and beautiful, Susan. Your honesty and positive reinforcement of faith in humanity is commendable and should be the norm for every aunt or parent who speaks to about a child regarding such matters. How much more worthy of the human intellect, albeit a seven year-old's, to encourage faith in an existing thing like society than to stifle the rational mind with talk of supernatural deities.

When children are old enough to ask a question, they deserve an honest answer.

You have summarized my point perfectly. Children should be so lucky to receive an honest answer. Unfortunately, most children receive the answer that their parents wish was true or had been taught to say. Though I have faith that humanity will transcend this stage of intellectual infancy, I reckon this a deceit that will not disappear soon.

Yes, I applaud anyone, religious or secular, who will own up to the fact that they simply "don't know".

I believe this answer is critically important to those of faith when speaking to children. It reinforces the idea that faith is not based on objective answers or incontrovertable fact, but rather a personal and subjective choice by every individual on what they choose to believe in the absence of "rock-solid proof" one way or the other.

I think the world would be a much happier and safer place if religion were less dogmatic and didactic, allowing folks to find their own path and their own conclusions. After all, if there is a God who bestowed free will upon us, are we not neglecting His greatest gift when we toe the line simply because the Bible/Koran/Talmud told us so?

Jacoby's reply to her niece was excellent. Cruel accidents of nature are inevitable. I think it's natural to fear the idea that misfortune is random. I understand the comfort that some people find in the idea of someone or something being in charge of everything in the universe. But I've seen that idea turn hideously ugly and hateful, such as people claiming that misfortune is God's punishment. I've heard claims that a child's deformities are supposed to punish the parents.

I am glad to hear that the shrill cries of the fundamentalist minority are beginning to have some competition on the national stage.

Although I can't undertand how a non-fundamentalist can still find divinity in their personal interpretation of holy books, I appreciate that they are tollerant of my views.

I've taken to countering claims that 'god helped so-and-so' with claims that so-and-so got lucky and I was glad for them.

I meant "voice" not "vice at the table", although I do expect a fair amount of gluttony in the coming holiday season...;-)

The world would be a better place if more of us were willing to honestly answer "I don't know" when we really don't.

I'm glad to see you participating here, Ms. Jacoby. We secularists need a vice at the table, and yours has been one of the more articulate I've found.