What is the objectionable school of thought in this case? Has it made him anti-science? Has it turned him into a bigot? Is he less respectful of differing, but well-reasoned, opinions due to it? I don't consider searching for wisdom in texts passed down from generations past as cheating oneself of finding their own answers. Philosophers have drawn wisdom and artists have drawn inspiration from scriptures. I think skeptics should welcome Christians who are non-dogmatic with their faith and are open to "carving out corners" in their belief system to accommodate new ideas.
There is no strict adherence... the best it can be is human representation of God words. My perception is my truth whether or not it's the real truth.
Whereas God says you should accept him and his teachings as a matter of faith, the Buddha encourages people to reject his own teachings if you find them to be untrue. No one saves us but ourselves. We ourselves must walk the path. That Buddha dude is pretty awesome.
It's not a disagreement on language. It's the equivalency used as some sort of legitimacy of the faith. Who doesn't believe in love?
My way of observing my faith and reading the bible isn't really anything I've inherited. My parents were very insistent on not sharing their ideas on the specifics of their religion. They'd ask me what I thought. They'd give me things to read. But on most things it wasn't that they molded me into anything. I've had all the same questions and disgust at stories of wiping out tribes on behalf of the Lord's commands that are being voiced here. For me now, it comes back mostly to two things. 1. Was the wiping out of the people the message of the story, or something that happened in the story because of wrong doing? 2. The message of Jesus which is the message I try and follow isn't about wiping out entire tribes of people and killing the children. Jesus message is the biggest one. How does everything else fit into that. As a follower of Christ that seems like what I should believe. Again I can look to Christ's own example and his reaction when religious leaders adhered to strict literal translation of what they saw as the ancient old testament laws. Christ himself talked about obeying the spirit of the laws over the letter of the law. Christ himself told them that he didn't come to change the old texts but to fulfill them. He said that to people who were literally following the old testament laws. That might mean that their interpretation wasn't the one intended if one is to believe Christ. Some of that stuff seems evident to me now, but it wasn't always. As far as the love is God part... Here are some reasons why I can buy it. This woman rescued her father by lifting a car off of him. That was love that spurred that on. http://abcnews.go.com/US/superhero-woman-lifts-car-off-dad/story?id=16907591#.UdZR3KxdD3E Most people have probably seen others make sacrifices for love, show extra consideration because of love, etc. The idea of what would happen if everyone acted like that close to all the time is one I would be in favor of. To me the idea of loving an enemy is beyond human nature and would be my idea of divine. The idea of people doing that all over would lessen the amount of enemies out there. Those concepts go beyond human nature IMHO. I'll also add that I don't have all the answers and there are certainly things in the bible that I don't understand. In fact the more I learn about it, the more I realize I know very little about it. Each new piece of context I learn adds to my understanding. So far the new pieces I've learned about have moved me more in the direction of God is love than away from it. I will also say that the only time I mentioned someone not believing in love that I recall from this thread was after saying that I believe in God and that I believe that God is love, and they said that they didn't believe in my God. So if I've just said that my God is love, and they say they don't believe in my God, then I was just paraphrasing what they said.
The problem is that everyone can't be right. If there is a god, one religion is right and the rest are wrong. Everyone's gods cant be universal. Love isn't dependent on anyone being right or wrong, it just exists. I think there is a trend in religion to praise god or the positive things that happen but ignore god when terrible things happen. All the credit and none of the blame so to peak. That's what I think they're referring to. When some fantastic, improbable event happens that results in something good then it's a miracle and let's praise god. When some horrible improbable event happens that results in something terrible then god's got nothing to do with it. Like the tornado in Moore, survivor says god was looking out for me but the dead kid in the school, where was god for him? Anyway, I certainly believe in love and the message of love in the bible. I think those messages and the teachings attributed to Jesus (real person or not) are awesome. I just object to love having anything to do with god. God can have your soul but he can't have love without a fight.
It's as legitimate as any other faith. That is the faith. It's not trying to manufacture an equivalency. Someone else came up with it thousands of years ago. I didn't come up with it to legitimize my faith. That is my faith. I agree with you. Who doesn't believe in love?
What you said about love just existing is what I think people in most religions think of their God. It just exists. Maybe that's a reason it makes so much sense to me. As to one religion being right and the rest wrong, what if the one that says God is love is right? You just said love just exists. I just don't think it's a competition about being right or wrong. I agree with you about people praising God for the good and ignoring God when they see bad things. But from my perspective God really isn't pulling levers to make tornadoes happen. Love doesn't do that. So I don't give God credit or blame for surviving or victims of natural disasters. The time I would, would be if someone risked their life to save someone because of love.
Thanks, just watched the grandkids do fireworks and got on here to check D Howard stuff, hope my favorite Irish rocker is doing well, and those were great pics of China... "I am curious though if you talk about a Hindu as pure, good and righteous as God would be rewarded how does that correspond with the view that salvation isn't achieved of through acts alone" Any person who has no pride or selfishness, has never been unrighteous or impure and has always been perfect in goodness as God Himself, has no more need for salvation than God would. If one is already as good as God, then no need to change. Jesus said the healthy don't need a doctor, the sick need a doctor, then he said I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Salvation is for the sinner, the wicked and the lost.
I don't have negativity towards any of you, only what you propose that would hijack a universal emotion for religious purposes. As difficult as it is to practice with everyone I meet, I recognize that you and I on a basic level are the same. We largely want the same things in life... love, safety, health, happiness, etc. Whatever differences we may have, religious or otherwise, we share so much in common as people.
Oh it's definitely a competition for a lot of believers and non-believers alike! It's big business! I get your point though. I think your beliefs differ from most Christians I've met or heard speak. Good enough. Good debate.
It's objectionable because it's neither well reasoned, or indicative of faith. Religion certainly doesn't have to be of the organized variety, but is rooted in dogma by definition. One of the first philosophers that truly grabbed me was a Christian named Soren Kierkegaard. His outspoken disillusionment with organized religion was because he consistently saw as a clear lack of faith within the church. In his view the church shouldn't try to prove Christianity or even defend it against those who don't believe. It should help the single individual to make a leap of faith that is synonymous with belief. Organized religion indefinitely becomes convoluted by the reinterpretations of the teachers that are often forced on individuals. Faith is a blind leap/belief in something that has NO reasonable answer. Searching for fundamental truths to problems with a systematic reliance on reason & logic is philosophy. Faith is a belief in something that cannot be reasonably explained as truth. Trying to justify being Christian by working backwards from the answers given, building some structure of logical reason to support yourself is paradoxical. It only indicates an unwillingness to take that leap blindly. I'm not trying to be condescending in any way. I'm very accepting of all forms of faith, religious or otherwise. Even ever piece of science that we know an understand today could be unfounded with new information. However, many out there are more brainwashed than faithful. I only aim to encourage people to explore different perspectives in an unbiased manner when they would normally dismiss their doubt as they are often taught to do.
yes.. in good vs evil? no there is no such thing as a war of good on evil if it does exist its because our dumb ancestors saw it that way
One mans evidence of love and god, is another mans evidence of fight or flight instincts appropriately reacting to a survival situation. Calling that, love, seems to cheapen in imo. To me, love is higher than an instinctual survival trait shared by most species in the animal kingdom. It's more metaphysical than emotional.
No one or no religion is going to be right, we just need the fortitude to admit that. We are all in the process of learning and growing and because we can only be in one place at one time and on Earth for a limited amount of time, we'll never know everything, so it's best to approach life with love for yourself and others. Fact of the matter is that the concept of God is above all of our heads (at least a full understanding) and anyone who thinks they have all of the answers is a fool. For example, I'm still trying to figure out how things are eternal, having no beginning or end. It doesn't make any sense on one hand but does make sense on the other. What if was just time for the people who died in Moore? What if the plan for their life was to die at that moment? And what if God did them a favor? We always say that when someone dies, they went to a better place, so if they are no longer bonded to the negativity of this planet then it can be said God brought them back to peace. All we can see is that the higher power allowed them to die but he in fact helped them (assuming when we die, we go to a peaceful situation).
Is this continual sarcasm necessary? No one in this thread is bashing atheist or criticizing their right to feel the way they feel, so I see no need to ridicule those who do feel there is a God. We get you, you don't think God exist and making the joke one time would have gotten the point across without coming off as a prick.
Of all the years I've spent participating or viewing religious debates, both online and in real life, this is one of the silliest things I've ever seen. God created someone to die so that a seatbelt law could be made. Very cool. I don't object so much to the God creating someone to die thing, but the idea that the "First Cause" would work through the US federal government to bring light to the people of America is just something I cannot take seriously. It reminds me of a round-table death penalty debate I participated in years ago where a guy's justification for the death penalty was that God had created the US federal government to carry out His judgement. A room of ~200 people face-palmed all at once.
I actually believe that it is fight or flight and love. I believe that one triggered the other. If that was someone trapped under the car who the woman didn't care about would her fight or flight have been triggered to the same extent? Obviously adrenaline made it possible for her to do what she did. But what triggered that adrenaline? It wasn't her survival. She wasn't trapped. It also wasn't the adrenaline of the man trapped that got him out from under the car. But I do also agree it can be metaphysical.
