Total hijack, and not a fair response, but…
Have you considered that those three phrases are nearly perfect dactylic hexameters? You could always rewrite a piece of Longfellow’s “Evangeline” discussing the putative interventions of Poly’s Loving God, the Divine Weasel, and the Mysterious Ends God.
Hmmm…but the Divine Weasel isn’t wholly evil, He’s just a nutter. Um, I mean, beyond my mortal ken. 
I’d need a Pure Evil God. I am too out of practice to attempt metered poetry, anyhow; I always did it from feel, not training.
Polycarp, the death of your grandfather reminds me of the death of my aunt just this past summer. She was a victim in a traffic accident and the autopsy revealed that she had cancer that she apparently was not aware of.
My mother, who is a believer, said pretty much the same thing you did, that He ordered the traffic accident to spare her sister from the ravages of cancer. (So much for people having free will…)
Which begs the questions, “Why did He allow her to get cancer in the first place? If He was going to kill her in an accident, why was it necessary for her to first have cancer? And don’t plenty of people without cancer have auto accidents? And don’t plenty of other people die long, horrible, lingering deaths from cancer? Why didn’t God spare them? And what about the trauma of the driver of the truck that hit my aunt’s car? Why should he suffer? (And he was VERY traumatized.)”
You got the “mysterious ways” bit correct. It means we do not know HOW God does what He does. It does not mean we can’t understand WHY. But people have twisted the meaning of that phrase around in order to answer those tough questions. (“We don’t know why God spares some and not others. His ways are mysterious and yadda, yadda, yadda…”)
Anything to avoid the possibility that deaths happen randomly, that no One makes them happen and no One is waiting for us on the other side of the abyss…
Intelligence and religon are intertwined- but it takes and different kind of intelligence to see through the blantant brainwaishing of organized religon and to look beyond just the words of the bible and to look to the writings of other philosophers- there is so much more out there to which people refuse to even look at- how sad and unenlightened
Amen to that!
“Those who seek God in churches and scriptures are properly called jack-asses, for God is not in them.” Marguerite Porete
That is how I understand the concept. Some Protestant sects teach that Original Sin is why we are all doomed to Hell if we don’t turn our lives over to Jesus. The fact that two people who (allegedly) lived six thousand years before you were born committed that Sin, that you are not responsible in the SLIGHTEST for that Sin, is just too damn bad. Them’s the rules and you gotta follow 'em whether you like it or not.
Too which I reply, “If you want me to follow the rules, the rules have to be fair and make logical sense.” Punishing me for what Adam & Eve did makes no sense to me. It would be like punishing me for Lincoln’s assassination.
I believe that if there were a God, His rules WOULD be both fair and sensible. The fact that the rules do not make sense and are unfair is, to me, further evidence that both the rules and God were the creation of humans. (The rules are as real as any other abstract creation, but God is just a fictional authority figure created to make the rules seem more authoritative.)
Where did I say I did not want to avoid death? Point this out to me, please.
I repeat myself: Where did I say I wanted to die?
Oh, and your latest post: YOu and this new poster actually have a lot in common with the late Steve Allen. He wrote two books detailing his problem with the Bible. (I read both of them.) He said, quite explicitly, that he did believe there was a God, but the the Bible was very poor evidence for His existence.
Hey, you can understand (as some Prtoestant sect somewhere probably teaches) that the Christian God is actually a giant platypus living in the Austrailan outback. Such an understanding wouldn’t have much bearing on what the truth of the matter is.
In light of what the fall of man really represents, God is actually offering a fair shake.
You never did say this. And I would agree with you – if there is no God then living a moral (holy) life while others do not is really just giving yourself the short end of the stick. But if there is a God, it is difficult to rationalize living imperfectly. Obviously, I’m not even sure it ends up being a fair trade off myself, but I am in doubt on both sides and so keep gliding along the road to destruction I’m on. People who live holy lives tend to get nailed to things, burned at things, shot in the head, etc. And things don’t improve because of them. So I don’t see what the point is – that is I suppose my one blind spot I am keenly aware of.
When it comes to living a moral life, most of us–believers or unbelievers–manage to find a Golden Mean between being total scumbags, and giving away all of our possessions and deserting our friends and families.
Yeah, Buckner. I understand most people feel OK about have some morals in some areas and not in others. Oh well.
Revelations 3:
Yeah, JAB, Gaudere, David, Vile Orb, Spiritus, and all…why do you insist on living morally when there’s nothing in it for you? :rolleyes:
That’s not even a Pascal’s Wager. Maybe a Cobol’s Wager; it sounds like a case of business economics: how far can we overprice this tawdry product before it passes the point of diminishing returns?
Me, I prefer Basic: the morality I espouse would be quite satisfactory if there were no god who enjoined it. Since there is, I find myself in a win-win situation.
Joel, that argument fell flatter than a lead zeppelin. (There’s a whole lotta love in the world; don’t confine it exclusively to religious dedication.)
Interesting reading, luckily, work has been slow for the last day and a half!
Because I’m somewhat anal, I’m going to address a point or three that were brought up (I think almost exclusively by Joel) a number of days ago and probably have either been forgotten or dismissed outright, but they had not, as of 5:20 PM on Wednesday the 29th, been countered (or not sufficiently so), so forgive me this (relatively) small indulgence.
jmullaney: you mentioned something about “flat-Earth,” possibly in jest…
The issue there is a question of scale and friction…and possibly that “objects at rest…” thing. Fair enough? Next…
Your repeated mention of rubbing your eyes and the colors not being transferable to others, lest they do it themselves. A number of things here:
you shouldn’t do that, it’s bad for you; see here (for floaters), and here (for eyeball Q&A), and here (for info from a women’s health site, but probably okay for men, too)
I think this might be mentioned in a few of the above links, but the phenomenon you are experiencing is not mystical, it (the reasons for its occurrence) can be described by scientific method. What’s more, it can be repeatedly demonstrated to occur. Next…
Your little analogy of “the man who thought the sky was yellow:”
Again I believe this was countered, but not totally cleared up, so to offer some (overly) simple attempts to “enlighten:
the “test” required to counter this belief is simple:
a) show the man a blue card and ask him if he agrees it is blue,
b) have him look at the sky,
c) confirm that what he is seeing is in fact blue (assuming it’s not a pre-tornado sky, which would then be greenish)
Determine if the man understands the principles of light and movement through various mediums and all that and whether he agrees that the atmosphere is in fact composed the way we understand it to be and ask him then what the prescribed outcome of light transmission through this atmosphere should result in (color-wise). Next…
Indeed. My understanding was that Baptism was the solution to this little SNAFU. Isn’t that actually the whole point of Baptism? Since this usually occurs fairly shortly after ones entrance to the mortal world, then how could we maintain our “fallen” ways? I was Baptized, had First Communion and have been Confirmed, heck, I even went to catholic school from grades 3-12. I was told one of the tenants of Faith is to question your Beliefs, which I did. I found the answers wanting, for lack of a better descriptive term (save: incredulous). I found that the majority of organized religions are, in fact, saying the same basic thing: live a wholesome life and be good to each other (yes, the Golden Rule); that religious direction, regardless of Belief, basically tells you how to have a safe and good life (with the exceptions of the emotional baggage many have found they acquire and the guilt many associate with minor infractions of the “rules”).
Chris Rock, I think, described the rationale for many of the parables and, I suspect, many of the religious tenants when he did his bit on food, to wit (paraphrasing):
Life was hard back then. A pork chop might kill you. They made it a religious rule not to eat pork to keep people form dying. (to continue: Now we have refrigerators and a pork chop is your friend…)
[giant oversimplification hat on]
In the OT, God was a vengeful and wrathful God, because times were hard and that was the necessary means to control the masses. With time, life got a little easier and the NT God became more compassionate and forgiving, etc. etc. The Bible is nothing more than a specific set of guides set forth by a particular set of people to describe what they feel is a good life.
[/giant oversimplification hat off]
It was once said, and I don’t know by whom, but it makes sense to me, that if God did not exist, man would create Him [to explain things that they could not through obvious or scientific means].
I won’t pretend to have as deep an understanding for the minutae that has been shown by others in this thread and I hope I’m not bringing things up that were left alone because other simply decided they were of such little importance as not to matter, but as an engineer and a reluctant-Diest, I wanted to post an share my opinions on things here.
As to the OP, apples and orange, IMO.
Revelations 3:
I woulden’t actually attribute traffic accidents to gods work though. God controls the general outline and helps christans who follow his words but traffic accidents are mere chance.
I don’t believe its possible to live without morality for very long. Its simply a basic part of the human structure that you need to survive IMHO.
Your point?
But if he refuses to do so, what then?
Er, I think that is part of what they believe.
(The Free Spirits have a different teaching of what is needed to be under grace.)
It does not eliminate the weakness of the soul nor does it fix the secular institutions of the world.
If you think this, you have been somewhat misled. The commandments as explained by the Catholics (with which the Free Spirits mostly concur) differ radically from those of the Protestants and others.
Well… there is of course none good but God, much as you like to throw the word around… but, well, you really think Jesus was crucified just for telling people do “don’t worry, be happy”?
Ah, but you don’t understand, Polycarp…JAB, Gaudere, David, Vile Orb, Spiritus, et al. aren’t truly moral because they haven’t given away all their possessions and deserted their friends and families and become Kung Fu-style wandering religious hermits. They’re all just a bunch of lukewarm evildoers, wallowing away in the pit of immorality.
I live morally because I am responsible for my actions. Not having a God to take care of things leaves us humans in charge, so to speak. Because I care about the universe and the people in it and I am responsible for the repercussions of every act I perform, I act morally and ethically in an attempt to make things better for everyone. Just because I don’t believe in God does not mean I don’t believe in human caring and emotion, especially my own feelings. I once cheated on a girlfriend. I had nightmares for months. I have never cheated on anyone since and never will. Acting immorally makes me feel bad. Acting morally makes me feel good. So, there is something in it for me.
An atheist who does not understand responsibility would probably not be a very nice person to be around. Indeed, I am glad that religions exist because I have encountered lots of people who have no sense of responsibility who act fairly morally because they fear the punishment for acting otherwise. Like how little kids behave better when Christmas is approaching and they are reminded of Santas book, these people tend to get more religious as they get older or otherwise closer to death. Responsible atheists don’t need that threat because they ARE responsible.
Then he should be regarded as a stubborn, willfully ignorant fool and should be ignored until he stops being one.
But you love money. You can’t “care about the universe and the people in it” and care for money too. Even aside from spiritual reasons – monied economies fail. They fail individuals all the time and make them suffer. They can fail whole nations too, and when they do all hell breaks loose. You can’t be moral and ethical and participate in a system which is morally and ethically flawed, much as you wish to justify yourself in front of others who can’t see the light.
“Would you describe for me what Marsellus Wallace looks like?”
Well, at least he doesn’t believe in something and then not follow through. Why is it that you still have your computer, your home, and basically anything else besides the clothes on your back? (All provided by a flawed, money-based economy of which you are a participant I might add.) Why aren’t you out there wandering about in poverty? Your personal ohilosophy seems to be that while you have the answer, you can’t be bothered to, you know, actually practice it.
you:
Your point?
My point is that this is an easily definable, repeatable and verifyable thing to do/determine the validity of. It requires no “leap of faith.” That’s all.
jab1 handled the “yellow sky” question. One should, whether its the sky or their faith/belief, be willing to investigate the options. If they do and then find them to be lacking, they may ligitimately say they have made an effort. The question, I suppose, is at what point should they cease investigation. I put forward that you would argue that they should continue until they reach the conclusions regarding faith/belief that you hold, and not until then. Myself, I think that as long as you have reached a conclusion that feels right and rings true, you are probably okay. Again, I continue to think about the matter, regardless, because it intregues me, not because I think I am “wrong.”
As for baptism, I’m pretty sure the way I was taug, Roman Catholic, was simply that Baptism removed the stigma of “original sin” and, IIRC, we were told at one time that should we find oursleves in an immenent death-type situation and a compatriot wished to be Baptised, lest he lose the Kindom of Heaven, we could bless some water and consecarte them (provided, of course, that it was done with sincerity and true faith/belief in the Lord, God) But I suppose that’s all really beside the point, and I really hope not to get into a discussion over the possible inaccuracies of my Catholic upbringing. Anyway…this ties into the “weakness of the soul” question, I believe.
At this point, I’d like to mention that I’ve not heard of the “Free Spirits” before, and have to assume it is an offshoot of catholicism? I mean no offense, I’m asking.
Not to get into this, but as I mentioned, I’m a reluctant Diest, and not really too into the belief in the Trinity; therfor, I don’t think “Jesus was crucified just for telling people do ‘don’t worry, be happy’?” in fact, I don’t think much of the stories of the Bible at all. I believe they are, in general, a nice couple of stories used to attempt to shape peoples lives through fear of consequences (and impending damnation). 'Course, there are references to the good things that may await a person should they follow “the path,” and that might work just as well. My interpretation, it doesn’t require a correction from anyone, it’s just what I’ve distilled it down to.
Something it sounds like VileOrb was alluding to (and VO, please correct me if I’m off base, I don’t want to take the wrong words from your mouth), just because one doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean they don’t lead a wholesome and morally acceptable life. It just means they don’t live that life to satisfy religious beliefs.
Love of money…it doesn’t have to be an absolute. I love to be able to eat and have a roof above my head. To do so requires I pay for these things. Yeah, good thing the Church never uses any of that stuff. (Sorry, I know it may be a jab, but not a totally invalid one.)