Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do you think Christians get the problems people have with their religion?
Options
Comments
-
Sorry to disappoint you but I was never an atheist. There was certainly a long period where I didn't practice my Catholic faith and searched for God in the wrong places.Tim Robbins wrote: »I think you were previously an atheist but now you are not. You are trying to reconcile the dichotomy between the past and the present by having these arguments. The people in this forum that you are debating represent your past, another part of you that is embedded in your memory. You are trying to reconcile who you are by examing the contrast between you now and you past, by positioning people in this forum as your past.0 -
No, I'm not one of those.
Are you a rapist?
You never answered my question?
>If that's the case shouldn't we have had many more interjections by our governing rightous God?<
When did he stop? Can't you see the how illogical this is? If he was interfering for the 'greater good' as you say(postulate), when did he stop doing this and why did he even start in the first place if wasn't going to continue? He is all knowing, right? What kind of message is he sending us with this odd inconsistent behaviour which has all but disappeared in modern times. Yes there's zero activity from the Gods these days - and it's such a pity becasue we have microscopes and recodring equipment but no Gods prepared to go on the record. Odd, they didn't seem to mind during biblical times, they were out and about all the time wreaking vengence of some sort or another but nowadays, nothing bar the odd sighting of water on the Face of a statue of Mary, or some tool in Alabama whose sure he can see Jesus on his toast.
BTW I'm not rapist, what on earth ever gave you that idea????
Oh wait a minute is this a cunning trick?...........man your good!...I'll have to watch you!:)0 -
anyway, anyone care to have another stab at the "why does god not listen to the prayers of pleading innocent abused children but has time for all sorts of mundane things to keep Christians faithful" question?
As per my original post, if we are to take it that Adam and Eve were handed life in perfection, but chose to turn their backs on God, this raised the issue of sovereignty. If man could rule himself, successfully, without God.
This is why He cannot interfere. This is the origin of faith, in the things seen (the unneccessary complexity of human neurological function, etc, fulfilled prophecy, (e.g. succession of world powers from Egypt to US/UK & differentiation of nations and even the new age freedoms we enjoy under democracy)) as well as the things unseen (both in that we cannot see God, and we know he has promised to end the suffering we experience in this present system, and a restoration to that which we were meant to enjoy (Genesis Ch. 1 and Rev 21:3-6:
Ch 21 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also, he says: “Write, because these words are faithful and true.” 6 And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Al′pha and the O·me′ga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.”
If He were to interfere before this, the issue cannot be resolved.
I have no issues with my own religion, no questions unanswered, no mysteries or useless ritual. Just facts and plain scripture. No nonsense or emotion.0 -
so what you're saying is that because someone ate an apple thousands of years ago god allows kiddy fiddlers to carry on fiddling?
well that's got me convinced, I'll nip off and get that bible at lunchtime. :rolleyes:
seriously though, you're saying god cannot interfere, but your book is full of stories of him doing exactly that long after adam & eve were dead and buried. the 10 commandments, the great flood, sodom & gomorrah, the tower of babel, parting the red sea, plagues and pestilence, all that kind of thing and plenty more besides. (*not in any particular order)
either none of those things actually happened the way they were written (in which case your book is full of lies) or god DOES interfere in the affairs of man, but chooses to ignore child abuse.
why would he not just take away whatever it is in a pedo's head that makes him/her do it in the first place? if god created us all then he also created all the pedophiles out there too. what purpose does that serve?
if god did exist but did not interfere at all then how would you know he existed at all? how would you be able to tell if you were hearing him in your head or your own thoughts? i know that's the point of faith, but it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. you want/need god to exist, therefore he does.
if you accept the adam and eve story then by definition you must accept that anything that's claimed to have been done by god since then is a lie fabricated by men with voices in their heads. if they were in fact hearing gods voice then that's interference on his part.
on the suffering front, to a certain extent I can see that suffering in the adult world, personally I think some of the suffering I've had in my own adult life has made me a better person but there's no justification at all for the suffering of an innocent child under any circumstances.0 -
stevejazzx wrote: »BTW I'm not rapist, what on earth ever gave you that idea????
Oh wait a minute is this a cunning trick?...........man your good!...I'll have to watch you!:)
I never said anything to give you the idea that I would view the Tsunami as an act of judgement.
You asked me one strange question for no apparent reason, so I thought I would reciprocate.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have no issues with my own religion, no questions unanswered, no mysteries or useless ritual. Just facts and plain scripture. No nonsense or emotion.
You may have no question unanswered, but just because you have an answer, does not mean its the correct one. Can I ask you please, Is it 'right' to tell a lie under any circumstance?0 -
And therein we see what Christianity should be about. That Christ died to pay off the debt of Adam, the original man who was made perfect, but sinned and questioned the very authority of God.
Of course, God could have destroyed him, and started again, but the question remained as to whether man was fit to rule himself.
No, the question remains how religions who put forward the idea of a loving God explain the fact that God is almost completely absent from daily life, and that horrible things happen all the time.
Most do it with a creation myth similar to yours, a story that explains why God doesn't do anything to help us (its normally our fault strangely enough) so the religion can go "Ha! Look, this is why God doesn't do anything" to people who complain that if God existed surely he would do more.
It is an attempt to explain why a universe with their God looks an awful lot like a universe where their God simply doesn't exist.
The issue atheists have with this is that these stories, including the Judea/Christian one, are almost always rather ridiculous and illogical. They also always seem to sound like stories created by primitive people who really didn't understand a lot of things very well.0 -
maoleary wrote:And therein we see what Christianity should be about. That Christ died to pay off the debt of Adam, the original man who was made perfect, but sinned and questioned the very authority of God.
Which in itself is a rather illogical and nonsensical assertion, because Jesus was supposed to be send by God the Father to Earth to die, so the proposition that this death was a payment to God the Father doesn't make a whole lot of sense. God the Father is in essence paying himself off with the spilling of blood of his own son. One wonders how that would be worth anything to God the Father. If you owed me something I certainly wouldn't get much satisfaction from beating up my own son rather than chasing you for the money.
Again it appears to be, from an atheist position, a rather ridiculous, not particularly well thought out response by a primitive people to a tragic series of events that they were at a loss to explain, ie their religious leader who is supposed to be the Messiah, being caught and executed.
This type of thing happens rather a lot in cults centered around a leader who claims to have supernatural powers or abilities (and is parodied quite well in South Park with the leader of the "Great Explorers Club" gaining immorality just before he is killed by a train)0 -
No, the question remains how religions who put forward the idea of a loving God explain the fact that God is almost completely absent from daily life, and that horrible things happen all the time.
Most do it with a creation myth similar to yours, a story that explains why God doesn't do anything to help us (its normally our fault strangely enough) so the religion can go "Ha! Look, this is why God doesn't do anything" to people who complain that if God existed surely he would do more.
It is an attempt to explain why a universe with their God looks an awful lot like a universe where their God simply doesn't exist.
The issue atheists have with this is that these stories, including the Judea/Christian one, are almost always rather ridiculous and illogical. They also always seem to sound like stories created by primitive people who really didn't understand a lot of things very well.
You should really provide examples rather than generalise so much, its difficult to keep this as a conversation when you don't quote anything to back you up.
How can man prove he can rule himself if God interfered? And nobody said God doesn't care, his heart was breaking whenever Israel turned away from him.
You cannot categorically reject all religion because you're too lazy to actually read the bible and see what it says.
I cannot categorically reject evolution because I don't know it well enough. At least I'm willing to agree to that!0 -
OK, here's the post you asked me to respond to. My original question to you was why do you post attacks on Catholicism in the Christianity forum. I'm not sure which posts of mine you're referring to but I do try to present my beliefs without judging anyone concerned. I really don't try to impose my beliefs on anyone but I have a right to defend my faith. When I give an opinion on a issue of morality, people can take it or leave it. Being a sinner myself, I'm in no position to judge anyone but that shouldn't prevent me giving advice when asked.CerebralCortex wrote: »Because I aspire to a world wide secular culture. Did you ever perhaps think your posts may be subjective and offensive to some? They offend me because they are concerned only with imposing your beliefs on people who have long since woken up from religious delusion. I don't have to say anything nice because as far as I am concerned you don't say anything nice either.
rant over.
My comment about your bitterness was in response to several acerbic comments you made about the Catholic Church. Do you expect me to reply with "nice" comments? Clearly you have big issues with the CC and you've made this very clear. I just think your view is very subjective.0 -
Advertisement
-
More to the point, why would an entity outside of time and space, with the power to create the unbelievably enormous universe, bother with petty mind games and human blood politics and send his 'son' to die on bronze age earth?Which in itself is a rather illogical and nonsensical assertion, because Jesus was supposed to be send by God the Father to Earth to die, so the proposition that this death was a payment to God the Father doesn't make a whole lot of sense. God the Father is in essence paying himself off with the spilling of blood of his own son. One wonders how that would be worth anything to God the Father. If you owed me something I certainly wouldn't get much satisfaction from beating up my own son rather than chasing you for the money.
I mean lets all take a step back and look at that concept from the outside - it's nothing short of ridiculous. It could only be a concept created by men.0 -
The fact that you frame it in such terms is what I'm talking about.How can man prove he can rule himself if God interfered?
We appear to be alone. Religious followers, who have a strong desire for us not to be alone, rationalize this fact with their belief in a supernatural deity that is supposed to strongly care about us by saying there must be some reason why if this god exists we still appear to be alone.
The Abrahamic religions rationalize this though a series of rather nonsensical stories about the first sin, Adam's punishment, and a God who wants us to prove ourselves on Earth before our reward in heaven.
Atheists on the other hand simply go "We appear to be alone, so we probably are"
I know you believe God cares, that is the issue. If you believed God didn't care their wouldn't be an issue, we would be alone because either God doesn't care or God simply doesn't exist (the outcome of which for us is essentially the same)And nobody said God doesn't care, his heart was breaking whenever Israel turned away from him.
The issue your religion, and a lot of religions have, is explaining why if God does care (and a completely non-caring god is rather pointless to a religion so most deity worshiping religions have a god or gods that care on some level) the universe looks the same as one where God either doesn't care or doesn't exist.
Well actually I could, but I have actually read the Bible, and I've seen what it says.You cannot categorically reject all religion because you're too lazy to actually read the bible and see what it says.
I haven't read all the holy books of all the religions in the world (as I imagine neither have you) but I feel I've learnt enough about supernatural religions (particularly aspects they have in common) to reject them as the manifestation of certain human emotions, desires, and though processes.
Ultimately religion seems to stem from a human desire to put agents of control over things we perceive are outside of our control, particularly over issues that trouble or worry us, such as death.
The concepts of gods places a known quantity over things we often don't understand well or have trouble predicting. This concept of gods is nearly always modeled around known human characteristics (which we can obviously understand and can relate to far better than other aspects of nature) and in particularly parental figures who we connect, from a very early age, with action, authority, wisdom and ultimately protection.0 -
I mean lets all take a step back and look at that concept from the outside - it's nothing short of ridiculous. It could only be a concept created by men.
That is a good point.
Even if it turns out that it isn't I think few would argue that it certainly sounds like a story invented by a primitive people with a primitive concept of the natural world.
It relates to very human concepts and behavior, it sounds like a story humans would invent to explain the actions of other humans.0 -
Not this again! I already explained to you that Jesus aquired a human nature (body and soul) in addition to His divine nature (pure spirit) and that His human dignity was infinite by virtue of His divinity. It was the sacrifice of Him human person that atoned for sin. No human being has the ability to atone for sin because sin is infinitely insulting to God and we don't have infinite dignity. Take it or leave it.Which in itself is a rather illogical and nonsensical assertion, because Jesus was supposed to be send by God the Father to Earth to die, so the proposition that this death was a payment to God the Father doesn't make a whole lot of sense. God the Father is in essence paying himself off with the spilling of blood of his own son. One wonders how that would be worth anything to God the Father. If you owed me something I certainly wouldn't get much satisfaction from beating up my own son rather than chasing you for the money.0 -
What mind games are you talking about? And what do you mean by human blood politics? You just threw that in to stir things up didn't you? Or are you just being subjective?More to the point, why would an entity outside of time and space, with the power to create the unbelievably enormous universe, bother with petty mind games and human blood politics and send his 'son' to die on bronze age earth?0 -
are you sure? how do you know? are you not a catholic then or do you just have a direct line to god that the heads of the catholic church are missing?
Yeah, pretty much. His name is Yeshua, more commonly known as Jesus the prophesicised Messiah. I'm not special in this though, he is the mediator between God and Man. He can be your 'direct line' if you want it. Unfortunately many religions place themselves between Jesus and Man. 'You must be in our club to be saved' is usually their Rhetoric. Catholocism, Jehovahs Witnesses etc etc. There seems to be an opinion that if one differs with 'the heads of the church', then that person is being arrogant. However, arrogance has nothing to do with it. Also, such reasoning is actually used within these religions themselves to stop people questioning the 'heads'. However, ones relationship with God should not be lazily left in the hands of religious overlords. By all means discuss and reason with many, be humble in such reasoning, knowing that, unlike the 'heads' of the many churches, you can be wrong. Until such time as the holy spirit fills me up and testifies with me, I shall be very prone to error. What I have now however, is a wonderful tool for telling me the fruits of the spirit, and the fruits of unrighteousness. This would be the collection of books commonly known as the bible. Within its pages are the means to see the shortcomings of so many religious organisations. So again I'd say to you, if you truly seek answers to your questions, then prayerful study is what I would recommend. Beyond that, I think you will only find things to confirm your already held views.0 -
I'm not particularly trying to start an ontological scrap, but what do you actually mean when you say "infinite"? What's an infinite insult, or infinite dignity? Is it aleph-null, aleph-one or something else?I already explained to you that Jesus aquired a human nature (body and soul) in addition to His divine nature (pure spirit) and that His human dignity was infinite by virtue of His divinity. It was the sacrifice of Him human person that atoned for sin. No human being has the ability to atone for sin because sin is infinitely insulting to God and we don't have infinite dignity. Take it or leave it.0 -
Because a tangible God is absent - his presence is in the mind only. Some 'see' him, some don't. What's that all about?What mind games are you talking about? And what do you mean by human blood politics? You just threw that in to stir things up didn't you? Or are you just being subjective?
As for blood politics - God dropped Jesus as a Jew into the Roman Empire and had him start preaching stuff that was inevitably going to be seen as treason. His whole purpose was to die on the cross for our sins.
I'm not trying to stir things up - I really am trying to convey how bizarre a series of actions this would be for the creator of the universe.0 -
It was the sacrifice of Him human person that atoned for sin.
You are ignoring (rather consistently and I must say annoyingly) that God the Father, through God the Son who was sent by God the Father, created the human body with magic out of nothing. It didn't exist until God created it, and only existed through an action of God (that is a keep point). God then sacrificed the body he created and sent to Earth, to himself. God created something to then give to himself. This is supposed to atone to God himself for our sin.
Pointless in any system of justice I'm aware off.
The issue isn't how innocent Jesus' body was (though your religions concepts of innocence is rather peculiar), the issue is where did Jesus' body come from and why sacrificing it to God was supposed to have value to God.
No one answers this question.
They just repeat the dogma of their religion that Jesus' human body was pure and innocent and only a pure and innocent body could be sacrificed for all sin and that Jesus' sacrifice was in place of us and blah blah blah all this stuff I already know so you don't need to keep telling me.
Imagine for a minute that instead of a perfectly innocent thing being exchanged for all of sin God simply needed something that was perfectly blue (the colour blue).
A perfectly blue object, say a ball, will atone to God for sin.
But imagine now that God creates a perfectly blue ball and then gives himself it. Does that atone to God for insult done too him? No, of course not. He only created it to give to himself.
You guys keep focusing on how blue the ball is, rather than asking the far more valid question why would a blue ball that God himself created would have value to him.
Getting back to Jesus, you guys keep focusing on how innocent he was, and that only a perfectly innocent human being could atone for infinite sin. I'm not arguing that and I swear if someone answers my question again by simply repeating that I'm going to get rather annoyed.
You ignore that Jesus' perfect brilliant infinitely innocent human body only came from God in the first place.0 -
Because a tangible God is absent - his presence is in the mind only. Some 'see' him, some don't. What's that all about?
I think there is alot of 'he touched me' or 'I feel him' (no rude connotations please) from followers. I would be skeptical about this. I couldn't take this as evidence at all. A hindu could say such things, a muslim etc etc. It means very little really IMO. What I see, is evidence of a creator, and looking at his creation I would conclude that this creator cares. From that point, I'd seek the identity of this creator.As for blood politics - God dropped Jesus as a Jew into the Roman Empire and had him start preaching stuff that was inevitably going to be seen as treason. His whole purpose was to die on the cross for our sins.
I think this is a misrepresentation, maybe based on a common misconception. It was Jesus' life that gave his death value. His purpose was to show that man was not a faulty design. That Man could indeed live a life in harmony with God. From the moment Adam sinned, Man has had accusation against him. So a man, like Adam in that he was borne of God, came to show he could live in harmony with God. His death meant that he did this up to the time of his dying. Through many temptations, and threat of harm. The accusation against Man was impaled with Christ, so that all men living in faith will be free of this accusation also.I'm not trying to stir things up - I really am trying to convey how bizarre a series of actions this would be for the creator of the universe.
I can understand the feeling people have about the actions that happened. 'Why didn't he just start again? etc etc'. To my knowledge, there isn't a definitive answer. I have opinions on it, but its not definitive. If one is starting from a point that God should have done this or that, then you are accepting that god does not know best. From this view, you will always feel that mans wisdom has better answers, or more satisfying answers, and you will understandably conclude that to trust such a god is idiocy, or to simply look for reasons and evidences to be atheist. However, if one has already discovered God, then being able to say, 'I'm not sure, but it must have been necessary', is no big deal. There is unanswered questions in all walks of life, atheism included. The origin of space being one. However, the atheist puts faith in science to one day find an answer, and such faith is based on what science has already done. There are certain questions in Christianity that we have no definitive answers for, but we have faith that God works for our benefit based on the things that he has done, and the promises he has made and fulfilled.0 -
Advertisement
-
You ignore that Jesus' perfect brilliant infinitely innocent human body only came from God in the first place.
Do you really think you're going to get anywhere with this? That last thread on this went on for a long time and it never happened. You'll give yourself a stroke.
I want a blue ball... I mean really really blue.0 -
More to the point, why would an entity outside of time and space, with the power to create the unbelievably enormous universe, bother with petty mind games and human blood politics and send his 'son' to die on bronze age earth?
I mean lets all take a step back and look at that concept from the outside - it's nothing short of ridiculous. It could only be a concept created by men.
Maybe because He cared enough to intervene in the mess that we are making of this planet and of ourselves.
The fact that God is infinite, and that earth is tiny and finite in comparison to the universe, carries no logical implication that God cannot choose to involve Himself in our affairs.0 -
so we have free will just so long as we don't do anything god doesnt approve of, in which case he steps in and sets us straight.0
-
Maybe because He cared enough to intervene in the mess that we are making of this planet and of ourselves.
The fact that God is infinite, and that earth is tiny and finite in comparison to the universe, carries no logical implication that God cannot choose to involve Himself in our affairs.
"The fact that God is infinite" should mean that he would never need to trouble himself or care about our existence. The "mess" you refer to is only a mess from a human perspective which is also overly subjective.0 -
Maybe because He cared enough to intervene in the mess that we are making of this planet and of ourselves.
Its more how he intervened that is the bizarre bit. Sending his "son" (what ever that means) as a human to the middle east to live as a carpanter and then get executed by Romans...
.. well its not the why I would do it. But I imagine you have faith that this was the best, perfect, way to do so.
To me it just looks like fitting a religious story around some pretty ordinary events (man believes he is god, starts cult, gets followers, gets executed). It is bizarre that God would choose to perform his most important revelation in a manner shared by a history worth of cult leaders and charlatans.0 -
0
-
So do I understand you correctly that you believe that god cared 2,000 years ago during the height of the Roman Empire when society was ticking over fairly well, but failed to intervene during, say, the Second World War when god's chosen people were virtually exterminated?Maybe because He cared enough to intervene in the mess that we are making of this planet and of ourselves.
It seems a rather strange way to manifest a duty of care, I must say.0 -
The problem is an elephant in the room. You can search Christian writings for an answer, or you can have faith that God knows best, but that doesn't escape the issue that it it preposterous to suggest that an intelligent entity more powerful than we could even imagine would send his "son" to the middle east as a carpenter to save humans from themselves.There are certain questions in Christianity that we have no definitive answers for, but we have faith that God works for our benefit based on the things that he has done, and the promises he has made and fulfilled.
I know have no problem with the concept of God involving himself - merely with the manner he was purported to have done it.The fact that God is infinite, and that earth is tiny and finite in comparison to the universe, carries no logical implication that God cannot choose to involve Himself in our affairs.0 -
the very core of the Christian argument is based on an insurmountable contradiction that no amount of bible quotes can overcome (IMHO).
1. right at the start of 'the book' god cast out adam and eve for turning their backs on him and left man to his own devices never to intervene in the affairs of man again (which is the only reasoning given so far for him stopping/preventing child abuse) until he had atoned for his sins and would once again join god in heaven etc. etc.
2. the rest of the book then goes on to show ALL the things he's done in the world since to prove his existence and strengthen the faith of his followers, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, babel, parting seas, plagues, pestilence etc. and the biggest one of all that I'd (oddly enough) forgotten about 'JESUS CHRIST'.
can someone explain to me how both of these things can be true at the same time?
one or other of these things has to be untrue for the other to work, but if one thing is a lie then how can you have any 'faith' that any of it is true at all?
it also strikes me as a very strange coincidence that god is made himself strangely absent since man as a civilisation started to understand the workings of the universe a little better.
since science has now shown a lot of explanations of the universe that were absent during the first thousand or so years of christianity a cynic could be forgiven for thinking that as it's a lot harder to pull the wool over peoples eyes these days with brand new acts of godliness it's a lot easier to rely on the old stuff thats easier to believe in the absence of recorded empirical evidence against it at that time.0 -
Advertisement
-
the very core of the Christian argument is based on an insurmountable contradiction that no amount of bible quotes can overcome (IMHO).
1. right at the start of 'the book' god cast out adam and eve for turning their backs on him and left man to his own devices never to intervene in the affairs of man again (which is the only reasoning given so far for him stopping/preventing child abuse) until he had atoned for his sins and would once again join god in heaven etc. etc.
2. the rest of the book then goes on to show ALL the things he's done in the world since to prove his existence and strengthen the faith of his followers, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, babel, parting seas, plagues, pestilence etc. and the biggest one of all that I'd (oddly enough) forgotten about 'JESUS CHRIST'.
can someone explain to me how both of these things can be true at the same time?
The straw man that is number 1 is not true.
Christians do not believe that God made a commitment never to intervene in the affairs of men again.
What many of us believe (I obviously can't speak for all Christians) is that there is a limit to how much God can intervene without thereby making free will meaningless.0
Advertisement