There is a God.

He says it would make Daniel's day. He doesn't say it would make his day. It obviously did make his day, but he doesn't claim that is why he did it. But as I was trying to say even if he did do it to make is day it doesn't take away from the feelings he got from it.

I said that doing it to make yourself feel good doesn't change the fact that it does make yourself feel good. That was my point not that there is an outside force responsible. The fact that it is something that makes you feel good is what I think is special. I don't find it bad that it makes you happy and that's why you do it. I also don't claim that it is something bigger than you. I was trying to say the opposite. What I was saying is that there isn't a real explanation as to why helping someone else or charity would make a person feel better.

Whether or not it is good for a person to do everything in order to please themselves is a different topic. I wouldn't presume to tell a person why they should or shouldn't do something like that.

The main topic is that I think it isn't logical that giving to charity should make a person feel happy. It is that feeling itself and not why a person seeks it out, that I was ascribing devine status too.

Why do you think it makes you happy to give to to charity?

 

And, in most cases, I wouldn't begrudge you that take. In most cases, I envy you that position. The exception is that you do belong to a religion and, as such, especially given the one you belong to, you visit intolerance on others whether you recognize that or not. Intolerance toward gays and lesbians is today's easiest example but there are many, many others. You are a Catholic if I remember it right and so your faith is not only in God but also in certain rules of living that I cannot help but regard as bigotry. I'd very much like to not argue that stuff with you, but I've started now, against my judgment, and I can't help but finish. I have no interest in changing your basic views as, like I said, I envy them and I am loathe to do anything to disposess you of them. I wish even more that your church held more firmly to Christ's alleged teachings and less to judgmental rules of living, but I've given up that fight with the Church and I certainly don't want to have it with you. You have peace in it and I'm glad for you.

But you did ask for my take. Given the three guesses (since that's what they are) regarding Plato's scenario, the only thing of which I can be sure is that one is in absolute alignment with the most extraordinary example of wishful thinking imaginable, and so it is no surprise to me that one would choose it and no surprise that certain philosophers would bring all their powers to bear defending it, even if it all comes down to faith in the end. I have a friend here in Pittsburgh who used to be a Catholic priest. In his schooling days, he would question scripture and in the beginning his questions would be eagerly received. Sometimes the debates would range days before finally settling on the idea that, well, he just had to accept certain things as a matter of faith. The concept of faith is a perfect foil for the fact that the basic tenets of religion, of belief in God, have no basis in anything 'known' to us. It's perfect. A: "But it makes no sense!" B: "Exactly!" A: "Ohhhh... I see...." My version of "faith" extends further than that which is employed, in my cynical opinion, to make what I regard to be wishful thinking not only real but even righteous. My faith in unknowable things extends so far that I do not believe it is possible to know anything. As such, my "faith" disdains math as a game whose rules were invented on earth and therefore serve only earthly creatures. Likewise science. (Childbirth is a miracle? Compared to what?) My faith in the fact that we cannot possibly know anything is so strong that, even in my most respectful moments, I cannot help but ridicule an Aquinas who, in my limited knowledge, sought to use earthly examples to prove the existence of the divine. I regard the Bible the way I regard Greek Mythology (my very favorite pastime in my earliest years), as an attempt to understand an unknowable universe. And as an expression of mankind's deepest desire -- to matter. And, perhaps more to the point, to be immortal. To not worry with the idea that we die, that we go off the planet, because let's face it, that idea sucks. And I not only share, but I also admire that longing. I share with you that wish even while I regard it to be wishful thinking -- that there might be more than this life. But given that the people that first expressed those ideas on earth had the very best reasons to do so, whether they were "True" or not, I do not share your faith -- as compelling, appealing and attractive as the argument/non-argument might be. I know you've studied the philosophers and I know that you, like Aquinas, like to argue their merits in pursuit of your most wishful wish. I do not begrudge you that. I begrudge you other things, but not that. But you didn't ask that. You asked what I believed.

Here's what I believe:

I believe that I feel better when I act with compassion. I believe that pain and suffering are awful things. I want to experience them as little as possible and I want to contribute to them as little as possible. (That's why I'm vegan.) I believe that helping others gives me joy. I'd like to be helped too and I like it when I am. I believe that each of Christ's teachings, each of the teachings of the Buddha, each of the teachings of Mohammed (as I understand them all in that Dummies Guide to Everything I Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten sort of way) are a good guide to a more compassionate earth and that's the sort of earth I'd like to live on and the sort I'd like my loved ones to live on. (Yes, I believe in love.) I try to live my life according to those teachings and others of their kind. I do not respect, nor do I try to live according to, the rules of Yahweh as expressed in the Old Testament, although I was raised as a Jew, nor do I try to live according to any rules of living found in the New Testament that do not find their base in compassion. In fact, I energetically disdain them. I find Yahweh to be an arrogant God and, regardless of his existence or non-existence, I do not and will not worship him. I likewise will not "accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior." And here's where your church's entire argument not only falls apart for me but actually makes me want to punch it in the head (although ninety-nine times out of a hundred I resist that impulse as evidenced by my previous absence in these threads). Your religion, twhy, says that if I lead a remarkably Christ-like existence but refuse to say those words, refuse to bow in allegiance, refuse to say a certain name, I will burn in hellfire for all eternity. Meanwhile, under your religion, another could lead what your own faith regards to be a positively Satanic lifestyle, ask forgiveness, say the requisite penance and enjoy eternal bliss. I am not a scholar, but my understanding is that it is the understanding of your religion that these rules come from God. If I believed in that God, I would disdain him and war on him. He would never be my god. Nor would one that asks a person to suppress all his romantic love on this earth because the object of that love was of the same sex. A god that would damn a good, compassionate homosexual to eternal hellfire would be my enemy and I would revel in sharing hell with that homosexual if it meant I'd be heard in expressing my bitter disdain toward that Hitler of a God, that eternal, arrogant murderer. And I'm not even touching the crap about the Pope refusing to disown child molesters who wear the cloth. That's tiny next to these threats of eternal damnation.

Sorry you asked? I don't know a single thing in this world, twhy. I don't claim to. But I do believe in some things. And if that damns me to hell, well then the devil be praised. I'm not the least bit worried. If you really want to know, I feel pretty goddamned righteous about the way I live my life even as I'm sorry it will be short. I'd like it if it were longer, even eternal, but I don't think it will be. Meanwhile, I'm going to go ahead and keep treating people right to the best of my ability and let "God" take care of "Himself." Peace be with you, bro. I'm rooting for you like I do for everybody else in this mixed up world.

 

rimmy,

I think I understand where you are coming from, but just to make clear about something that I had talked about earlier:

I didn't give that Genesis and those games expecting to get monetary value for them. It is true that I gave those things up for something. But that something was to see an uplifting of spirits for a very sick little boy and his family. When I saw that I was successful that is when I received the feelings I described earlier. So, I think I know what you are saying: even though I didn't receive any gift back or money for what I did, I still gained something out of the experience which was making a little boy and his family happy.

 

Yes, you summed up what I am saying perfectly.

FB,

Did you think I was arguing with you? I can't tell from your post. When I said to re-read, I was saying that I agreed with your point that I quoted - motivation doesn't matter or take away from the act of giving. Sometimes people like to feel a smug superiority, but I don't even mind about that because I am just happy about the act.

Why do I feel happy about giving? Well, I am not religious or spiritual, so I get nothing there. I guess I just don't like that there are people who want or need. I am very empathetic and highly emotional, so I feel great sadness when I think/see/hear about any kind of pain of other people.

I am a freak, though. In many ways, I am a surly, caustic crumudgeon who hates other people. I am negative. At the same time, though, I seem to have a great love for humanity and don't think that anyone should be poor. I am horrified by animal cruelty, and love babies and children. I am an optimist. So it is a constant push and pull, I guess. Maybe the guilt I feel (subconsciously, of course...otherwise I wouldn't be tht way) from being an ******* everyday is counter-balanced by my giving/caring for others?

 

Honestly, I am deeply rooted in science, but I think I believe in God just in case, if you know what I mean. Love the movie Contact. If there were a movie to describe my whole existence on the subject, that would be it, and I am on both sides of the fence.

Amazon cells an audio CD that deals with the concept of God through the course of history. Not sure if it is good or not. Temped to listen.

 

Yes and No. It's a trick question!

God is a name for something that is really beyond names. Whose definition of God am I supposed to believe or disbelieve? Yours? Mine? Each individual person has their own perception about God.

Tell me what God is and what God is not. I think some people who say they don't believe in God are only disbelieving a certain perception or idea of God.

Thomas Merton said "God shows Himself everywhere, in everything - in people and in things and in nature and in events. It becomes very obvious that God is everywhere and in everything and we cannot be without Him. It's impossible. The only thing is that we don't see it."

If you go by that definition, I say yes.

There are many ideas about God that I disagree with. Here are some random thoughts...

I don't think of god as a separate deity that just mingles in our lives. I do not believe "he" created existence out of nothing. I don't see a judging, wrathful god who gets angry. I don't believe in eternal souls. I don't think heaven is another place. I think God is the totality of good AND evil. Prayer or worship can be helpful to some but not is necessary. I think salvation comes from love, transcendental generosity, discipline, patience, energy, meditation and knowledge. I believe what some call God and the Kingdom of Heaven others call Absolute Truth and Nirvana, etc. And all are a part of us, and we a part of it, right now.

 

I thought we had agreed too, it was just when you asked me to re-read I thought you felt we were disagreeing, and so I wasn't sure either. I thought I missed it and that we had disagreed.

I don't think you are that much of a freak. I fell much the same on the specific interactions I can be surly, grouchy guy who loves animals and babies too. Though I only get really grouchy when I feel comfortable or things get totally sappy, I'm in the presence of someone who is a poser or things get hippy-style annoying.

 

This is what I get for sticking my nose in a D&D discussion. I feel compelled to keep up and I can't. I haven't looked at this thread since I left work yesterday and now...

Anyway, I appreaciate y'all trying to express what a "personal relationship" with God is. I still have a hard time understanding how that terminology fits though. What you all describe sounds to me like this: you feel moved to do good, for example, and you attribute that to God's presence and when you do good, you feel God smiling on you for it. I guess I can see how that would seem like a personal relationship, but to me it seems like a subjective interpretation of a feeling you have.

Not terribly surprising, but I have a lot of the same feelings about this subject as Batman. Also not surprising, he expresses it better than me. I do, however, feel there is a possibility that God exists. But if so, I don't think organized religions do Him justice.

Cheers.

 

Yes, twhy. In the same way that, while the ACLU mostly exists to promote civil liberties it must also exist to defend the KKK. Being tolerant in the whole means also tolerating intolerance. Good point. I guess.

Why are your beliefs intolerant? Because you consider homosexuality a "sin." Because you consider anything a sin. But most particularly because you consider the violation of your church's ancient rules of living to be sinful. An opposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with compassion, has nothing to do with brotherhood, and as such it is naked bigotry to me. It is 'live your life as I say or go to hell' with no good humanitarian reason to support it. It is naked bigotry. It has nothing to do with living a righteous life. In fact, it has everything to do with living a self-righteous life. And it is shameful.

I've only just started The Idiot a few days past. I have an incredibly hard time believing Dostoevsky supports that premise as you imagine it (as supporting the Catholic Church's "We're right; agree or you'll burn" philosophy). Dostoevsky was a deep thinker, a sympathetic soul and a depressive. Each of these qualities is in stark opposition to your church's moralistic positions. I'll visit back in a few weeks, when I've finished the book. I expect I'll have something to say then about your misunderstanding of Prince Mishkin, but I won't know for sure until I've finished the book.

Only religious people and serious afficianados of He-Man Masters of the Universe talk like this. I don't believe in good and evil. If I did, I would take Skeletor over Santa Claus eleven times out of ten.

Your religion says that anyone who disagrees -- including deeply religious Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and also people who live right but don't subscribe to religion -- will burn in eternal hellfire. So here's an example. The Catholic Church is bigoted toward all non-Catholics and even more toward all non-Christians. The way that Catholics smile superiorly and say, "Mine is not to judge, God decreed it" and all only makes the self-righteous smugness stinkier. No one judges like a Catholic and no one is more arrogant in their friendliness to non-believers.

I'm not familiar with the example but it wouldn't surprise me to learn they were Catholics (or at least Christians). The Church has perfected the art of disowning its most passionate supporters.

That's fine. It illuminates nothing, but it's fine.

It's really not a calm one for me, as you might have surmised. I actually believe religion's done far more harm than good (the election's an example, but it's nothing compared to The Crusades or the various wars), but I don't like arguing in pursuit of dispossessing people of faith. You start so many threads here about religion, each of them with a deceptively smiling face, that I couldn't help myself this time, but I still don't like it. Again I say I don't begrudge you your faith. I deeply begrudge the self-righteous, smug, judgmental attitudes your Church teaches, smiling all the way, and while I respect you generally I disrespect you following those teachings, but I still do not begrudge your faith.

Plato represents a situation whose end is unknown. And then he gives you three guesses as to what will happen if you walk outside. You present the scenario as though any of us might be able to divine the true answer. If anyone should explain, it's you.

Bloomfield. Tell her to come around sometime and I'll show her a good time. That is, if she's not to afeared of damnation and all. I am, after all, a heathen.

That I exist? Yeah, I probably do, for what that's worth. And I figure I'm typing on a keyboard too. What follows that is some philosophers take on the miracle of humanity and the proof in that of the existence of God. Meanwhile, while I type on this keyboard, a cow eats grass and takes a dump. Later that cow's carved up, cooked and eaten by your compassionate Christian self. I exist and the cow exists and the philosopher can not only manipulate the first fact to prove there's a God, but he can manipulate the second to say the cow's there for my eating pleasure. I respect a religious person who values life by opposing abortion and the death penalty and murdering then feasting on murdered animals. The rest, the ones who selectively value life, I regard as hypocrites.

I never said it was "unreasonable" to believe in God. In fact, I think it is quintessentially reasonable. Given a choice between a reason for our existence coupled with an afterlife versus neither, what is commonly referred to as our survival instinct would clearly prefer the prior. It is precisely that form of "reason" that makes me skeptical of the premise. When I am told to disregard religious fanatics of our modern times and also to disregard religious peoples of all times if they come from, say, the East, I become more skeptical. When I am told that certain men were inspired by God to write a book that should guide us in 'rules of living' for all eternity, I go beyond skepticism and start to laugh. When that same book and its accolytes impact public policy my laughs are poisoned with bile and I get pissed off as hell.

Aquinas fans love long discussions. I sincerely doubt one would be necessary. But I'd be fine with a short one.

I'd like it better if evangelists didn't smile all the time while they tried to bring people around to what I regard to be a deeply hypocritical, deeply self-righteous (and if you really want to know) deeply un-Christ-like judgmental way of thinking. I like you fine twhy, but the smiles really rub me wrong. You do belive my gay friends will burn in hell, do you not? We can be polite with each other, but on this topic we are not on friendly or even polite terms.

I have an enormous beef with the concept of original sin. I also have a beef with the concept of sin in general. I don't have a beef with the concept of forgiveness. To help you understand the difference, how's this? I forgive you for being a Catholic. But only if you'll repent for it. If you don't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with the other thing. That's fair, right?

This pisses me off more than anything else you've written here or elsewhere. You purposefully picked out the term "object" to make your BS point about lust. And you did it to disdain homosexuality. You knew it wasn't what I meant and you admitted as much but you used it as a vehicle to express your learned bigotry. When I talk about two men or two women loving each other I'm not talking about sex or lust. I'm talking about love. If you can see the difference in your own relationship, you can see the difference in the relationships of gays and lesbians. The only difference is in the plumbing and in the fact that your church is a church of bigotry.

I'll drink with anyone, twhy, and I love all "God's" creatures. I do hate your church. I think it's destructive and hateful, but I choose to love the sinner and hate the sin in that case. And anyway, I don't blame you for wanting to believe in something. I'd drink with you. You'll notice that I quoted every bit of your post to me and I tried to answer every one of your points substantively to the best of my ability. I'd love it if you went back to my earlier post and did the same. Most especially, I'd love it if you'd answer my most basic beef with your religion (and, by extension, your god) -- the one that says that one can lead a righteous life, according to Christ, but go to hell for not saying his name while a virtual devil can say his name and some Hail Mary's and go to heaven. I'd like you to answer that and everything else I wrote the same way I tried to do it with your post (more than an "ok" on the more difficult points would be swell). I used to like coming here to talk politics and avoid religion here but, Jesus be praised, as of the last election, these are our politics now. Blows my American mind, but so be it. Let's do this thing if we have to.

 

Dostoevsky certainly diliked/ditrusted the Western Church (he often made Church officials his villains), but he was fairly close to the Russian Orthodox tradition. His ideal was sobornost, which is a kind of spiritual community centered around the love of Christ, mutual responsibility/support, and charity. Part of his nihilism from his earlier days remained constant, though, so it was an odd mixture. But he definitely thought the understanding of suffering and sin were essential for the sobornost (salvation through suffering).

A better description of sobornost is from Father Zossima in The Brothers K:

That is what makes Dostoevksy so much fun. The characters in his book are never fully anything. The Father of the local monesterty talks about salvation and doesn't even mention God or Jesus? Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment and Verkhovensky in Demons also never fully got to a real "truth." And Myshkin is an odd character that is not ideal and doesn't meet his own ideals.

Alyosha (Brothers K), who is often considered the closest to Dostoevsky himself, is within the church, but wonders if God exists, even at the end when he supposedly sees the light (this is in keeping with Dostoevsky, though, because he always wrote of his doubts about God, despite his spiritual beliefs. He couldn't ever kill his doubts, but at the same time he couldn't ever believe there couldn't be a God).

Sorry...ignore me. I just love this stuff. I realze I am not contributing. I just ask to be allowed an explosion every now and then. Just don't get me started on Dostoevksy and Satan!

 

twhy -- perhaps you misread his question. he didn't ask me to tell him whether there was a God or not. he asked me to explain how i could say i had a relationship with an entity that doesn't confirm its own existence. my answer stand. it may make me a madman...delusional...all that. but the answer is subjective...not objective.

 

hey you people who are typing WAAAAY too much


you aren't gonna change the world or anyone's opinions in here.

just thought i'd let yall know

 

Do you really believe this?

 

Hey twhy,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. As I've said, I really shouldn't be talking about this stuff -- especially so soon after the election. It is very difficult for me to keep my emotions in check when I have so many gay friends and when I have so many friends who have been victims of sexual abuse as children (not by priests, but still). I should probably duck out around now, but I'll just give you a quickie response.

Although I am marginally pro-choice (a very difficult issue for me and one in which there are no winners), I wholly admire your opposition to abortion. I admire too your opposition to euthanasia and even your opposition to birth control as I know that you regard that too to be responsible for a loss of life (I disagree, but I respect the position and the extremity of the position). I think you also oppose the death penalty, though I can't remember exactly. If so, you're well on your way to an extraordinarily consistent pro-life (in the broad sense) position. I deeply respect that. If you were vegan too (including not killing bugs -- and since you asked, I don't), I would respect it even more. Likewise if you opposed war, except in the case of direct defense, I would respect it more still. I come down quite differently on the issues of suicide and right to die, but maybe that's another thread.

Last thing (I hope) on the gay issue. I get the argument that people ought only to have sex for the purpose of procreation. I think you've probably addressed this before, but what is your position on a hetero married couple, married in the eyes of God and the Church, who cannot have children? Are they sinning when they have sex?

At the risk of repeating myself, one last, more concise respose to the original question:

I think we agree that belief in God is a choice. I have said before I know nothing and, as such, am basically agnostic (though my recent anger toward the church, between the gay thing, the child molesting priests and the church's failure to do anything substantive about it has made me want to characterize myself an atheist -- whatever. I'm not. I'm agnostic.). But back to the choice thing. Is the choice whether or not to believe in God as he exists or does the choice revolve more around how we might like him to exist? I have many friends (some on the board) who say they believe in God but not religion. Or that they don't believe in a vengeful God or a proud one. Or that they believe in a higher power but not the one described in scripture. I have said I am a devotee of Christ's teachings as I understand them, but that I cannot abide the concept of sin, original sin or damnation. In making my choice as to whether or not to believe in a god of my own invention, one that is palatable to me, I'd be happy to say, as I did in my younger years, there is much (maybe all) that is unknowable. God is unknowable too (whether or not he exists) and if we can define God as that which is unknowable, I can say with assurance that I fully believe in "God." When he is defined as he is by the Catholic Church I say that I do not believe and that if I did, I would actively oppose him.

Anyway, sorry I got pissed and sorry I got you pissed. I do like you and I think you're a hell of a smart guy. I also admire your sureness and your pursuit of truth. You're certainly one of the more interesting, thoughtful posters on the board and I always enjoy your posts, even if I can rarely agree with them.