Religion and politics are two very touchy subjects according to pretty much all of mankind. I read a lot of interesting blogs about politics and the way things are or the way things should be, but I hardly ever read anything about religion. Religion hardly ever finds its place on this blogging site. Here it goes… This is my opinion about religion in this day and age.
I am not an atheist, but a religious questioner. I believe that if there truly was a god he would have made everything perfect. There would be no reason for killing, death, and diseases. People tell me that, “this is the way God is testing us,” but I do not believe it. He should not have to test us because he is the “almighty creator” and has the power to do anything. Like my mom said, “the fact that God gives cancer to innocent children makes you wonder if there really is a god.” If there is a god, how can he torment innocent children with pain and suffering when they have barely even experienced all life has to offer?
One of my other major questions in life is, “why do so many religions share the same biblical stories?” Is it a coincidence that so many religions have essentially the same stories but with different minor details? This makes me wonder how there can be a true can religion or god if so many other religions have essentially the same stories.
In spite of my argument, I am definitely not against people that go to church or believe in some kind of god. I think it is wonderful that people become devoted to what they believe in. If it helps them get through the day, more power to them. What I do not like is being pressured and forced to agree and understand their side of the story. “If I wanted to learn about your religion, I would ask you myself.”
Also, as soon as people start talking to others about religion, it is like there is no off switch. Even if they insist that they are not trying to force their ideas on you or force you to see everything their way, there is no stopping them. Everyone that I talk to about religion just keeps hounding me and pushing their beliefs on me. It is healthy to have a nice peaceful religious discussion every once in a while to open up new doors and make people see something in a new light every once in a while, but the pressure and force is just too much.
Everyone should do and believe what makes them feel good inside and nothing else. There should be no outside pressure to think, believe, or feel a certain way. And that is my opinion!!
"Religion hardly ever finds its place on this blogging site."
You'd be surprised. Religion is actually very much talked about on this site, and has become a near dead topic--meaning so many of these blogs are similar that it becomes boring to read about. (That's a definition of a "dead topic", not your blog.)
“why do so many religions share the same biblical stories?”
Someone on the religious side of the fence would say "Because they are all based on the truth". Think about it, if they're similar, does that mean they're all talking about the same events? Or is it just cultural norms that many religions have similar stories in order to teach the younger generations ethics or morals.
I believe that if there truly was a god he would have made everything perfect.
Utopia is boring. In the beginning, the Creator said, "Let there be Seinfeld. And many people saw that it was good, but some people didn't like Seinfeld. So he said, "Let there be hardships, turmoil, and sadness, so that the people of the world may learn how to conquer fears and live despite all odds". The people saw this and said, "What are you smoking?!" And so, nobody really understood the big guy, so everyone assumed he was either cruel, misunderstood, or didn't exist.
I amaze myself with my randomness sometimes.
One of my other major questions in life is, “why do so many religions share the same biblical stories?”
The short answer is...they don't. When sluicing through the myths of the world's religions, there are far more differences than there are similarlites. Now, if you limit your study to a close, culturally related groups of religions (like for example, judaism christianity and islam) you will find similar stories because they share a cultural heritage and derive their stories from common sources. These three all belong to just such a group, known as the Abrhamic religions due to their common reference to the same semi-historical patron. Three versions of the same stories are not nearly as impressive as they would be if these stories had originated in disparate regions and in radically different cultures.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'm an atheist. Took me a long time to get to the place I am. I don't try to change other people's minds because spirituality and religion are those things that you cannot force unto a person. We all have different experiences and perspectives that makes it impossible to walk in someone else's shoes. Therefore, telling someone they are "foolish" for believing in a god is well, just not worth it.
I'm pretty tolerant about religion as long as the religious leave ME alone to believe what I believe.
And what I believe is there is no supreme being or beings. There is only Nature. I never have trouble reconciling why bad things happen if there is a God because I know that there is only Nature. And Nature is awesome and beautiful and cruel. Nature will result in a stillborn baby. Nature will ravage us with monsoons and tornadoes. Nature will create majestic mountains that are so high and awe-inspiring we insist it made by a divine hand. Bottom line is: nature cares not a whit for our human sensitivities. But we can care about each other.
I think that the reason churches are so successful is because they meet the very real human need of coming together, feeling good, having purpose, and loving one another. Churches are a place designed to meet this need. Unfortunately the very real flaws of organized religion can also infect the minds of the masses.
"Even if they insist that they are not trying to force their ideas on you or force you to see everything their way, there is no stopping them." - This is because there is but one road in these people's eyes to happiness and solidarity. They are convicted in their beliefs and they do not like gray areas. Rather, they thrive in black/white. They prefer structure and a clear doctrine to follow. But consider...is it really one-sidedness?Wouldn't you cling just as tenaciously to your beliefs (or non-belief)?
It's an ongoing struggle, but in the end, let's hope love wins out. Because love is the ultimate message. ;-)
You know, I've always wondered how great a utopia would actually be. I mean, we all have differences, and some of those differences are very detrimental to individuals. But, would we have some of t...
it's either abortion, religion or global warming
but I agree...one should not discuss religion unless it is with good friends and even then it is not advised...:]
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
she's a spaceman, no walker, dreamer...maybe
it's either abortion, religion or global warming
That's funny but I don't think that's true. I'm almost certain that over 50% of the threads on Progressive U are about other topics. It sure seems like that's all we talk about though.
but you might be right, who knows.
I did take a break from blogging, maybe they started to go on and talk about other topics
I should add school life, love, and or friendship.
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
she's a spaceman, no walker, dreamer...maybe
...but in my experience, religion, abortion, global warming are among the most common topics, and definitely tend to get the most reads.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
religion, abortion and global warming create so much discussion and what one can call back and forth...sometimes other blogs do too, but at times it just seems like what we are always arguing about is either religion, abortion or global warming.
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
she's a spaceman, no walker, dreamer...maybe
I think you described the abortion, global warming, and religion phenomena pretty accurately. I agree with you there but maybe the heat is getting to me. Know what I mean?
it's either abortion, religion or global warming
but I agree...one should not discuss religion unless it is with good friends and even then it is not advised...:]
Honestly, I have the most trouble discussing religion when its with my friends. Partly because I have such differing beliefs with a lot of them, but also because it gets brought up in later conversation.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
They become "dead topics" that are overused and abused. They get to be a bit tiresome to see in the Recent blog posts list. Even now I see "Octomom" and "Walmart" over there...often used topics.
I thinks there's lots of religious talk on this site. ProU must be a very crude place if etiquette states that you never "discuss politics or religion in polite company." Hah!
For your first question about religion, about why there is suffering in the world- this is difficult for any religion to explain. Many modern religious scholars have abandoned the idea that "God is testing us." Rather, they point to the notion that without natural evil (like cancer or tsunamis or whatever), human virtue would be nonexistent. First of all, you need evil to have good. If evil did not exist in the world, neither would goodness. Secondly, you need evil to have things like compassion, heroism, etc. As James and Stuart Rachels put it, perhaps "evil is necessary for the development of moral character."
A second approach to natural evil is from a Christian point of view. It points out that our time on Earth is only a prelude to eternal bliss in heaven. So why does it matter that we have to experience a few fleeting blinks of pain and misery in the face of eternal joy? While I am a Christian, I realize that to convince others I need to take a non-Christian approach. I think the idea that evil is necessary for good moral character has merit. Take it as you will, though.
As for your second question, I think it is significant that all cultures in all corners of the world had religion. Even if they they don't have very similar specific beliefs, the fact that they would all believe in something otherwise nonsensical and supernatural may suggest that all religious beliefs stem from a time when the first humans recognized the existence of some sort of universal deity. Over the eons, their specific beliefs would change.
Hm, should I hit my "off switch" now? Well, I have nothing else to say anyway. Good religious questions- they bring up deep philosophical arguments.
Many modern religious scholars have abandoned the idea that "God is testing us." Rather, they point to the notion that without natural evil (like cancer or tsunamis or whatever), human virtue would be nonexistent.
It doesn't matter how you spin it, the basic idea is equally abhorrent. Let's say that you are a father of five, misbehaving children. Let's also say you had a syringe full of an infectious disease. Would it be "moral" for you to inject that syringe into one of your children, so that the other four would learn from the experience of watching their brother or sister die a horrible death, and hopefully be "better people" because of it? Let's say you tried it, but it didn't work, and your kids are still a bunch of a-holes. So, next you decide to drown one of your remaining kids. Do you think that seeing the dead, bloated corpse of their sibling would help them to be more "virtuous?"
Let's be honest...if a HUMAN did these things, there would be no real debate about whether that human was a "good" person or a "bad" person. There would be an immediate consensus that the father in this example was a murderer, or at best completely insane. That rationale would seem to apply whether or not the perpetrator of these crimes was human or "god."
It points out that our time on Earth is only a prelude to eternal bliss in heaven. So why does it matter that we have to experience a few fleeting blinks of pain and misery in the face of eternal joy?
Call me crazy, but the sixty to seventy years (the average human lifespan) doesn't seem like a "a few fleeting blinks" to me, ESPECIALLY when the evidence that suggests that "eternal bliss" waits for some people at the end of that period is exactly zero. But even if we grant all of that...if this "god" is actually an omniscient, omnipotent and (as christian theology posits) omnibenevolent, then it really doesn't make any sense that "he" would impose this kind of suffering for any period of time. Its infliction would have to be intentional as well as unnecessary by definition. That leads to the perception that a being behind something like this could only be capricious and cruel.
I think it is significant that all cultures in all corners of the world had religion. Even if they they don't have very similar specific beliefs, the fact that they would all believe in something otherwise nonsensical and supernatural may suggest that all religious beliefs stem from a time when the first humans recognized the existence of some sort of universal deity.
There is a subtle flaw in your comment, since you are begging the question that the perception of these ancient people, common or otherwise, was actually true. In fact, primitive people had a LOT of common beliefs that we now know are false. The fact that most ancient people believed that the world is flat didn't make it so. The human mind works in similar ways, regardless of where you stand on the surface of planet, and it isn't surprising that ancient people came up with similar explanations for comment events that they lacked the sophistication to easily understand. All of the kids in a first grade class are likely to believe in the existence of Santa Clause. But give them a few years, and eventually they will start to figure out that they parents were just lying to them.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I think you're still misinterpreting it. The child dying of infectious disease is not suffering to "teach the others a lesson"- that's not very different from the notion that "God tests us."
Perhaps I didn't explain it in great enough detail: we need comparisons to first experience something, and then to appreciate it. For instance, without darkness, light cannot exist, or without a concept of "shortness," then the concept of "tallness" does not exist. St. Augustine is credited with first pointing out that, similarly, without evil, good cannot exist.
On top of that, without evil, people would not appreciate the good. In fact, we wouldn't regard goodness as being anything special whatsoever- we'd take it for granted. A world without evil is also a world without good.
This same concept also goes for the idea of heaven as eternal bliss. What's the point of having a heaven if the earth is already a place devoid of evil, and if goodness doesn't exist either? Evil is logically and psychologically necessary if we humans want to experience goodness (and heaven) as well.
Lastly, the fact that our ancestors were wrong about physical facts doesn't change much about spiritual, emotional, or psychological ideas. If the concept of religion is a universal characteristic of the human mindset, why did all of our brains evolve to include it? Is religion a survival mechanism? Does it give people a leg-up in natural selection? As for the Santa Claus example, it is easy to see where such a belief comes from: the parents. But in the case of belief in the supernatural or a deity, how does someone come up with such a seemingly bizarre concept out of the blue? In short, even if religion is a result of how our brains are naturally wired, how and why were our brains wired like that in the first place?
For instance, without darkness, light cannot exist, or without a concept of "shortness," then the concept of "tallness" does not exist. St. Augustine is credited with first pointing out that, similarly, without evil, good cannot exist.
One difference, of course, is that people don't die horribly from being infected with shortness. The problem with this line of reasoning is two-fold. First, if in fact this "god" fellow is the omnipotent being, they one would assume that "he" could set up the rules of the universe however "he" pleased, which should include being able to craft a reality in which opposites of this sort would be unnecessary. So, either this "god" fellow isn't omnipotent (or more likely, simply doesn't exist) or "he" isn't omnibenevolent. To borrow an example that I have seen presented around this site, the child pictured below is afflicted with Harlequin type ichthyosis...
Now, call me crazy, but IF this "god" guy actually exists, he is either A) and incompetent creator, or B) and extremely cruel one. And, neither quality is worthy of worship.
On top of that, without evil, people would not appreciate the good. In fact, we wouldn't regard goodness as being anything special whatsoever- we'd take it for granted. A world without evil is also a world without good.
That's all well and good in a philosophical discussion of the nature of the perception of good and evil, but that's not what we're talking about, really. You are proposing that an actual being exists that created the entire universe and set up "the rules" for how things work. If that is so, then this inability you describe is a flaw in our design. Also, would you say that this "god" is likewise limited? Can "he" also not understand good without evil? If your answer is "yes," then this "god" is not omniscient, and if you say "no," then the argument that opposites are required in order to perceive a state of being is false. Take your pick.
What's the point of having a heaven if the earth is already a place devoid of evil, and if goodness doesn't exist either?
This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to negative consequences. It doesn't provide any insight into the actual truth-value of your claims.
If the concept of religion is a universal characteristic of the human mindset, why did all of our brains evolve to include it?
That's an easy one...religion is NOT a "universal characteristic of the human mindset." Religion is a learned behavior (or if you want to get technical, a meme) that is taught to children at a young age. If a child is NOT taught religion, he or she will know nothing about it.
But in the case of belief in the supernatural or a deity, how does someone come up with such a seemingly bizarre concept out of the blue?
The human imagination is quite powerful, and our tendency to projection human emotions onto objects and events in our world is well understood. Its called "anthropomorphism".
Of course, you putting the cart before the horse. None of this speculation has any real meaning unless you can FIRST provide some actual, objective evidence that would suggest that they whole idea of "god" isn't just some made up figment of your imagination. As is the case in ALL apologetics, your entire case rests upon the logical fallacy of begging the question. None of this makes any sense unless you blindly accept the existence of "god(s)" as a premise. That premise, however, is indefensible due to an utter lack of such evidence. We could just as easily (and rationally) be debating "Who is stronger, Superman or The Incredible Hulk?".
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Blackout, you have articulated reason and truth very well and you are absolutely right on. Why can't other people see this? Personally I do not dismiss the concept of God but I reject any claims that God is an individual intelligence. It's silly and childish to have such beliefs. The concept of original sin is also absurd.
It's all kinda like believing that humans can cause the earth's climate to cool or warm, depending on what the environmental wackos of the times declare is occurring at the hands of humans. But I am seriously in agreement with your comments above and ignore my immature urge to mention global whining -- I mean warming. Anyway, Good post.
"First, if in fact this "god" fellow is the omnipotent being, they one would assume that "he" could set up the rules of the universe however "he" pleased, which should include being able to craft a reality in which opposites of this sort would be unnecessary."
How does that fantasy world actually work? Or, does it only live in your head?
---
"Now, call me crazy, but IF this "god" guy actually exists, he is either A) and incompetent creator, or B) and extremely cruel one."
Actually you are just living in a dream world that you made up. That is an escape mechanism that apparently you need because you think the real world is "extremely cruel" rather than treating reality as an actual objective standard by which those of us that face things as they are must make ALL of our judgments.
The "incompetent creator" did a worse job than you could have in your imagination. How can anyone see that as anything other than you thinking that you are smarter and wiser than Reality as it actually is?
Try to remember God created the real world.
---
"Can "he" also not understand good without evil? If your answer is "yes," then this "god" is not omniscient, and if you say "no," then the argument that opposites are required in order to perceive a state of being is false."
Only if you can give an example where dark might exist w/o light or positive w/o negative, or good w/o evil. Otherwise you are fantasizing that something imaginary is real. Omniscient is seeing all that IS, not seeing all that IS NOT.
Prove that ANY of these polar opposites can exist independently.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
How does that fantasy world actually work? Or, does it only live in your head?
Considering that I'm the one who bases his beliefs on what the actual, objective evidence acually suggests, I think that your comment is rather remarkably misplaced. But hey, if you're going to claim to worship an omniponent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent deity, then those terms imply by definition that such a being would be able to set up "the rules" of reality any way "he, she or it" would wish. Beyond that, I can only judge the actions of that alleged being based on the evidence that I see...and that evidence suggests that IF such a being exists, then that being is most definitely an ASSHOLE.
Actually you are just living in a dream world that you made up. That is an escape mechanism that apparently you need because you think the real world is "extremely cruel" rather than treating reality as an actual objective standard by which those of us that face things as they are must make ALL of our judgments.
Honey, you really can't make an appeal to actual objectivity when your entire belief system is based on a purely speculative assertion. What follows is by necessity based on applying the consequences of that belief in the real world. If a human parent were to intentionally manipulate the genetic make-up of their children so as to saddle those children with grotesque physical defomities, I doubt seriously that any sane person would attempt to defend that act as somehow being a "good" one. I just don't see any reason to treat the imaginary creator that some people like to peddle around here by a different standard of morals and ethics.
The "incompetent creator" did a worse job than you could have in your imagination. How can anyone see that as anything other than you thinking that you are smarter and wiser than Reality as it actually is?
How "good" I would be at the job is not relevant, since I never created a universe in which such fucked up things happen. Nor have I asked anyone to worship me or to base their lives on my example. I have dominion over exactly ONE person...me, and even THAT's more responsiblity that I would like, sometimes.
Try to remember God created the real world.
I'll try, but I just can't seem to get past the core logical fallcy that such a memory would require. Until you can actually provide some kind of actual, objective evidence that your "god" actually exists, then we can only speculate upon the nature of your "deity." To date, my suppositions have exactly as much evidence that hey accurately do so as yours (which is, exactly NONE). But at least mine follow a rational pattern and apply standards which are gererally accepted by modern socities regardless of their particular religious preferences.
Only if you can give an example where dark might exist w/o light or positive w/o negative, or good w/o evil. Otherwise you are fantasizing that something imaginary is real. Omniscient is seeing all that IS, not seeing all that IS NOT.
Again, this argument lacks consistency if your believe in an omniponent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent deity, and if you don't then you are arguing against something that was not included in my presentation.
Prove that ANY of these polar opposites can exist independently.
I don't believe that they CAN exist as such (at least not in the realm of human understanding) because of the way that the human brain works. But, we're not talking about human perceptions. We're talking about an allegedly all-power being who is said to have created the universe as an expression of "his" will. Such a being, if "he" is truly "all-powerful" would have the power to create a universe that worked however "he" wanted, and which followed whichever rules that "he" desired to put in place. The only way to reconcile the defintion of omnipotence with this alleged creation is to A) suggest that this "god" intentionally chose certain people to suffer horrible, painful disfigurements in order to fulfil some purpose (and which I contend could only be interpreted as a cruel one) or B) suggest that this "god" had no choice in the matter (and thus really isn't "omnipotent" at all).
The issues is described by one of the most entertaining of classical paradoxes, which can be stated thus...
Can 'god' create a rock so heavy that 'he' cannot move it?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I think something we're also missing out, and this is, admittedly a purely religious standpoint, but humans brought evil into the world.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711