New Orleans Modern Day version of "Sodom and Gomorrah"

[Tigercat]

To be sure that it is possible to have the scientific means to explain everything in the universe to make the universe enclosed and isolated is a type of faith.

Devote Aethism(note: not agnostic, the two are not interchangeable despite the fact that many use them as such) is as much faith based as devote Christianity, and frankly no different in terms of its approach to assumptions or faith before questioning.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I think that's a great post and therein lies where the difference in this thread started. Some people feel that because the church pastor put that sign up that he was being hateful to the people of New Orleans despite the fact that the actions of his church were the exact opposite in that they were not only praying for those people but also doing things to help the relief effort. His words, to me anyways, were meant as a wake up call to get our lives in order and stop committing sins before we face a tragedy like that in our own lives and not as some pretentious comment meant as a silent rejoicing that a city had been flooded and its people were dead or displaced.

I too think it's a great post and what I always thought Christianity was all about (back when I was a Christian (Catholic)). But, as is clearly evidenced from my reaction to the initial post of this thread, I interpreted the pastor's words as meaning something wholly different than Gary did. Wholly different.

You know what though? Even accepting Gary's interpretation of this pastor's view and assuming I believed in god, if this was god's way of sending us a "wake up calll to get our lives in order and to stop committing sin", I'd say "Fuck you, God. I have no place in my heart or life for a being that decides to kill hundreds of people (mainly the sick, the poor, and the elderly) and ruin thousands of lives simply because he feels we are 'sinning' and need a wake-up call. You're just going to sacrifice those poor people in hopes that we 'get with the program'? Blow me."

I would also, as a Christian, ask myself, WWJD? Would Jesus send a hurricane to pound away at the poor, the sick, the elderly (these people do appear to represent the majority of those who have died/suffered the most due to this tragedy) to send us a message? Not any Jesus I know. And if he did, see my response to "god" above.

That whole paragraph, of course, is hypothetical because I don't believe in god and, in turn, I can't hate him or be angry at him anymore than I could hate or be angry at Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, unicorns, pegasuses(i?), or ligers.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I think that's a great post and therein lies where the difference in this thread started. Some people feel that because the church pastor put that sign up that he was being hateful to the people of New Orleans despite the fact that the actions of his church were the exact opposite in that they were not only praying for those people but also doing things to help the relief effort. His words, to me anyways, were meant as a wake up call to get our lives in order and stop committing sins before we face a tragedy like that in our own lives and not as some pretentious comment meant as a silent rejoicing that a city had been flooded and its people were dead or displaced.

Here's the thing.. if the pastor had put up a sign that said something like "What if the hurricane had hit YOUR town? Would your soul be prepared?" then I think we'd all agree that his message was just meant as a wake-up call. But no, he said "The big easy is the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah." We're all well aware that the Bible story is that those cities were specifically destroyed and all the people in them killed because of their inhabbitants sins. So what the pastor is saying is that the people of New Orleans got what they deserved.. that the Christian god killed them and destroyed their city because of their sins.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

If God is all powerful, can he make Kerry Collins become a leader?

Bitter Raiders fan!

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

You know what though? Even accepting Gary's interpretation of this pastor's view and assuming I believed in god, if this was god's way of sending us a "wake up calll to get our lives in order and to stop committing sin", I'd say "Fuck you, God. I have no place in my heart or life for a being that decides to kill hundreds of people (mainly the sick, the poor, and the elderly) and ruin thousands of lives simply because he feels we are 'sinning' and need a wake-up call. You're just going to sacrifice those poor people in hopes that we 'get with the program'? Blow me."

I would also, as a Christian, ask myself, WWJD? Would Jesus send a hurricane to pound away at the poor, the sick, the elderly (these people do appear to represent the majority of those who have died/suffered the most due to this tragedy) to send us a message? Not any Jesus I know. And if he did, see my response to "god" above.

That whole paragraph, of course, is hypothetical because I don't believe in god and, in turn, I can't hate him or be angry at him anymore than I could hate or be angry at Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, unicorns, pegasuses(i?), or ligers.

Then again if you believed in God you would also believe that He would even send His own Son to His death in order to save the rest of us. I understand that without that belief its impossible to comprehend how God could let such destruction and death happen so don't take this as me trying to bible-thump on you - just explaining the viewpoint from the other side of the fence.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

think of it this way:

Michael Jordan scored 63 points in one game once (i believe it was against the Celtics in a playoff game). over the course of his career, he's had many 40+ scoring games, including 55 points against the Knicks one time. he's a proven explosive scorer. you're a fan of Vlade Divac, one-time Lakers and Kings center, who over the course of his career has generally topped off at the 20 points per game range.

someone tells us that either Jordan or Divac scored 100 points in one game in a game that wasn't ever witnessed by anyone - no one attended the game and it wasn't televised. based on Jordan's track record if you were to tell me he was the one who scored 100 points i would believe you. he's proven himself to be a highly potent scorer. you believing Divac could have scored the 100 points requires a lot of faith. he doesn't have a history of being that kind of player, so yes, while it's *possible* he could have scored 100 points it's so highly unlikely that it's foolish for you to entertain such notions.

this is the difference between science and religion. when religion, like science, can use hard facts and evidence to prove its claims i'll probably be more religious.

This is what's known in theological circles as the Jordan-Divac Conundrum.

It's corollary, of course, is that a comparison of Jordan and Divac is like comparing filet mignon and bologna.

*strums guitar*

"My bologna has a first name, it's V-l-a-d-e. My bologna has a second name, it's D-i-v-a-c..."

[ice4277]

I just spent A WHOLE HOUR READING THIS THREAD AT WORK AND GETTING PAID TO DO IT!




And it still feels like a colossal waste of time.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Then again if you believed in God you would also believe that He would even send His own Son to His death in order to save the rest of us. I understand that without that belief its impossible to comprehend how God could let such destruction and death happen so don't take this as me trying to bible-thump on you - just explaining the viewpoint from the other side of the fence.

Don't worry, I certainly don't take this as bible-thumping at all. But, if God sent His own Son to His deth in order to save the rest of us, why did he have to go a kill all those old, sick, and poor people in New Orleans? Didn't Jesus' death already accomplish all that?

Even assuming I did believe that God sent His only Son down here to die for Our sins and to save us, I still don't see how that would excuse what he did in New Orleans to all those people. Is this supposed to be like a Jesus Redux? That all of those poor, sick, and eldery folks (all God's children) were also sacrificed to "save" the rest of us?

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Then again if you believed in God you would also believe that He would even send His own Son to His death in order to save the rest of us. I understand that without that belief its impossible to comprehend how God could let such destruction and death happen so don't take this as me trying to bible-thump on you - just explaining the viewpoint from the other side of the fence.

I think the problem with that type of flood today(and attributing anything like it as God's attempt to influence ______) according to the tradition of the Jewdao-Christian God, is that he is very hands off now. Floods for Old Testiment times made sense. For the Jewish tradition, the old testiment and the acts of God within serve the purpose of letting the people know that he has a covenent with them. By the time Jesus came around the knowledge and existence of that covenent was secure. By now its all about having Jesus as the example of the right path, and letting human beings decide to go on the right path of their own, without having to interfere with free choice.

Thats why we needed Jesus isn't it? It wouldn't make sense to smite the wicked for the benefit of redemption anymore. Redemption is in the individual's hand now.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ice4277

I just spent A WHOLE HOUR READING THIS THREAD AT WORK AND GETTING PAID TO DO IT!




And it still feels like a colossal waste of time.

Go Lions! Go Wings!

Pavel Datsyuk wont decide if he'll play for the Wings this year or not until next week (according to his agent). Hanson is unsure if he'll be able to go next week.

There, some relevant info to make it all worthwhile.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Don't worry, I certainly don't take this as bible-thumping at all. But, if God sent His own Son to His deth in order to save the rest of us, why did he have to go a kill all those old, sick, and poor people in New Orleans? Didn't Jesus' death already accomplish all that?

Everybody dies in the end; one central message of Christianity is that we need not fear death. Yes, Jesus died for us, and suffered for us, but more important, He is judged for us. This is a concept that often eludes non-believers trying to wrap their minds around Christianity.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Everybody dies in the end; one central message of Christianity is that we need not fear death. Yes, Jesus died for us, and suffered for us, but more important, He is judged for us. This is a concept that often eludes non-believers trying to wrap their minds around Christianity.

I refer to Tigercat's post which said what I was implying much more clearly. Also, I was raised Catholic. Did First Comunion, been confirmed, went to sunday school, the whole nine yards. I was a Christian for the first 27-28 years of my life. It wasn't until just recently (last 3-4 years) that I became an athiest, so it's not like I am approaching this whole thing from a completely foreign prespective and these concepts are so alien to me that I can't wrap my mind around them. Then again, I probably was never "really" a "believer" in the true sense or at least haven't been one for sometime now.

[hoopsguy]

Cronin, if you don't accept the existence of God then you do need to fear death under Christianity because there is a special place in hell waiting for you. And therein lies one of my biggest problems with Christianity. Take two men, one a pedophile who embraces God with all of his heart on his deathbed and another who lives a life of servitude to his fellow man but does it for his own motivations and does not believe in God. What happens to these two men when they die?

If you ask an atheist, they are both dead. End of story. No afterlife. But if you ask a Christian, they tell you that the pedophile is saved through the grace of God, which does not extend to the man who lived a good life as judged by his fellow man but not as judged by God.

If there is any one deal-breaker for me in Christianity, this is it.

Also, I'm glad to see that this thread has begun to resemble a good conversation between people who respect each others views.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

To be sure that it is possible to have the scientific means to explain everything in the universe to make the universe enclosed and isolated is a type of faith.

Devote Aethism(note: not agnostic, the two are not interchangeable despite the fact that many use them as such) is as much faith based as devote Christianity, and frankly no different in terms of its approach to assumptions or faith before questioning.

There's a lot to cover this morning. I'll start with the simplest.

This is a common misconception. Atheism is pretty simple, though. It is the absence of belief in a god in any of the forms put forth by theists. It requires no faith.

By the admissions of most philosophers, it's impossible to prove their god exists. It exists on faith. Some say it's up to scientists to prove there is no god, but that can't be done - you can't prove something doesn't exist.

Atheism is the willingness to say "I don't know" with no strings attached. I'm comfortable not knowing everything about how the universe was created. I don't think there's any controversy any more that there was some sort of Big Bang. But what created it, whether it was the first Bang, one of a series or even one of a set in parallel universes is just speculation right now.

I don't know. And what's more, I don't even care. It's not important to me. I've got nothing vested in the creation of the universe. I'm much more interested in other aspects of science.

Let's say someone came along tomorrow and repeatedly demonstrated some supernatural ability, something I thought was impossible, but was part of some religion. Scientists tested him, made sure it couldn't be a trick (like the carnival games of professional tricksters like John Edward). I'd have to incorporate that into my world view.

I don't think that will ever happen, but it may, some day. An atheist accepts that the answers to some questions may be surprising. So far, though, no answers leading to anyone's concept of any useful god have ever been proven. It isn't exactly a leap of faith to believe, for the moment, that will continue.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Cronin, if you don't accept the existence of God then you do need to fear death under Christianity because there is a special place in hell waiting for you. And therein lies one of my biggest problems with Christianity. Take two men, one a pedophile who embraces God with all of his heart on his deathbed and another who lives a life of servitude to his fellow man but does it for his own motivations and does not believe in God. What happens to these two men when they die?

If you ask an atheist, they are both dead. End of story. No afterlife. But if you ask a Christian, they tell you that the pedophile is saved through the grace of God, which does not extend to the man who lived a good life as judged by his fellow man but not as judged by God.

If there is any one deal-breaker for me in Christianity, this is it.

Also, I'm glad to see that this thread has begun to resemble a good conversation between people who respect each others views.

So the atheist's answer is better to you for what reason? Your sense of justice?

[rkmsuf]

So I jump ship in Hong Kong, and I make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over there in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper,..a jock. So I tell 'em I'm a pro jock and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama himself. The Twelfth son of the Lama; the flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So i'm on the first tee with him, I give him the driver; he hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long...into a ten thousand foot crevasse right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says: 'Gunga Galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga.' So we finish the 18th and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, 'Hey, Lama, hey. How about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know?' And he says, 'Oh, uh, there won't be any money. But when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.' So i've got THAT going for me. Which is nice.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Cronin, if you don't accept the existence of God then you do need to fear death under Christianity because there is a special place in hell waiting for you. And therein lies one of my biggest problems with Christianity. Take two men, one a pedophile who embraces God with all of his heart on his deathbed and another who lives a life of servitude to his fellow man but does it for his own motivations and does not believe in God. What happens to these two men when they die?

If you ask an atheist, they are both dead. End of story. No afterlife. But if you ask a Christian, they tell you that the pedophile is saved through the grace of God, which does not extend to the man who lived a good life as judged by his fellow man but not as judged by God.

If there is any one deal-breaker for me in Christianity, this is it.

Also, I'm glad to see that this thread has begun to resemble a good conversation between people who respect each others views.

I have always had this problem too. In fact, I got into a long, extended argument with some religious folks who came prostelizing to my door during the 2000 NHL Awards ceremony (I only remember this because during the debate I told the pair to hold on while I watched Yzerman win the Selke ). I brought up the exact same arguments (though I think instead of a pedophile, I used a mass murderer who had killed and raped a dozen nuns as my example). There was no good answer and despite my pressing the issue and wishing to continue the debate, it took about 20 minutes or so, but I finally got rid of them. They never came back.

[hoopsguy]

Yes. I cannot subscribe to a code that strikes me as so fundamentally flawed. I cannot fathom teaching this system to my children, if I'm someday lucky enough to have them. The scenario described above does not feel like God's love. It smacks of petty hatred to cast the 'good man' to hell for his lack of faith while embracing the pedophile in Heaven for eternity because of one moment of clarity/faith/whatever.

[st.cronin]

Ok, that's what I figured.

There are several answers to that problem, probably none of which you will like.

First of all, no man is so good that he doesn't require the intervention of Jesus when it comes time to be judged. All of us commit sins.

Second - the atheist's answer shows no justice, either. No matter what, when your clock is up, there's no future. How does that square with your sense of justice?

Third is the mystical answer, which I won't get into because it will take too many paragraphs and will likely be incomprehensible.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

So as long as science might prove it sometime down the line that's good enough for you to prove that God does not exist?

Couldn't I turn that around and say because science may never prove something that it is proof that God must exist or that someday someone may disprove a scieintific theory accepted today so I should not accept any scientific theories as truth because the opposite cannot be proven today?

Well, short answer is yes. I put my "faith" in science since I can see the tangible results of science. Even though science theories have been wrong (the whole Earth is flat thing for example), they have been far more positive than negative.

I'm sorry, but I do not know of any theological theories out there (other than the normal it must have been divine intervention). Are there any that have been proven? That to me is the difference between science and religion.

[rkmsuf]

Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hangin curveball, high fiber, good scotch... that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, I believe there ought to be a Constitutional ammendment outlawing astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents on Christmas morning rather than on Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three nights.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Well, short answer is yes. I put my "faith" in science since I can see the tangible results of science. Even though science theories have been wrong (the whole Earth is flat thing for example), they have been far more positive than negative.

I'm sorry, but I do not know of any theological theories out there (other than the normal it must have been divine intervention). Are there any that have been proven? That to me is the difference between science and religion.

If you're looking for a pragmatic rationale for religious belief, you just need look to the many, many examples of people whose lives have been made better by faith.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There's a lot to cover this morning. I'll start with the simplest.

This is a common misconception. Atheism is pretty simple, though. It is the absence of belief in a god in any of the forms put forth by theists. It requires no faith.

By the admissions of most philosophers, it's impossible to prove their god exists. It exists on faith. Some say it's up to scientists to prove there is no god, but that can't be done - you can't prove something doesn't exist.

Atheism is the willingness to say "I don't know" with no strings attached. I'm comfortable not knowing everything about how the universe was created. I don't think there's any controversy any more that there was some sort of Big Bang. But what created it, whether it was the first Bang, one of a series or even one of a set in parallel universes is just speculation right now.

I don't know. And what's more, I don't even care. It's not important to me. I've got nothing vested in the creation of the universe. I'm much more interested in other aspects of science.

Let's say someone came along tomorrow and repeatedly demonstrated some supernatural ability, something I thought was impossible, but was part of some religion. Scientists tested him, made sure it couldn't be a trick (like the carnival games of professional tricksters like John Edward). I'd have to incorporate that into my world view.

I don't think that will ever happen, but it may, some day. An atheist accepts that the answers to some questions may be surprising. So far, though, no answers leading to anyone's concept of any useful god have ever been proven. It isn't exactly a leap of faith to believe, for the moment, that will continue.

See I would characterize you as agnostic. Atheism, by my definition at least, is the rejection of theism. You don't sound like you are rejecting theism at all. Fully rejecting something that can't be proven or disproven requires as much faith as fully accepting it.

[Northwood_DK]

For the last few pages this post has taken a turn for the better. This is some of the most interesting stuff I have read around here for a very long time.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you're looking for a pragmatic rationale for religious belief, you just need look to the many, many examples of people whose lives have been made better by faith.

That's a good point...however, who made their lives better? God or themselves? I consider God a mental placebo for those people if you're talking about "living" their lives better.

The counterpoint is that God has also made their lives worse. A house burning down? A child dying? A hurricane?

[Antmeister]

I find this thread interesting only because I don't understand why this got into a deep philosophical/religious debate. The problem I see is that the pastor decided to put up the sign shortly after the incident. It is just a matter of disrespect and has nothing to do with his beliefs. Why would he feel a need to put up a sign when he can already talk about these beliefs to the people of his church? Do you think that placing that sign out there is spiritually uplifting and will draw more people to the church?

If an Islamic person were to place a sign outside of their mosque quoting that New Orleans deserved death because of their beliefs, those same people defending this guy wouldn't think that person should ever have a voice for such an opinion.

I just don't see how anyone can defend someone who is clearly using this opportunity to promote his own beliefs over the tragedy of others. Sure, he has a right to put it up there and I don't think someone should intervene and take it down. But I still believe this is very disrespectful to those that just suffered.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Yes. I cannot subscribe to a code that strikes me as so fundamentally flawed. I cannot fathom teaching this system to my children, if I'm someday lucky enough to have them. The scenario described above does not feel like God's love. It smacks of petty hatred to cast the 'good man' to hell for his lack of faith while embracing the pedophile in Heaven for eternity because of one moment of clarity/faith/whatever.

Umm...its not quite as simple as you make it out to be. Simply embracing God on your deathbed does not clear the way for you to be standing outside the pearly gates. You still have to make reparations for your sins and if you've committed a lifetime of them simply apologizing and asking God's forgiveness before you die doesn't cut it. In order to be forgiven you must make reparations and that happens in the afterlife.

We as Catholics believe that when you die you are judged and sent to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell. If your soul is clean (obviously not the pedophile in your example) then you get to enter heaven. If not you enter Purgatory or Hell - the difference is that Hell is eternal. Embracing God and renouncing his sins may save the pedophile from Hell but he or she will still have to make up for those sins in Purgatory and a soul can spend any length of time in Purgatory to attone for those sins until the end of time.

You make it sound like you can get spend your lifetime raping and murdering and pillaging so long as you were baptized and that before you die tell God you are sorry for what you did and you'll be whisked away to Heaven for eternity. That is not how Catholics believe it to work.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

If an Islamic person were to place a sign outside of their mosque quoting that New Orleans deserved death because of their beliefs, those same people defending this guy wouldn't think that person should ever have a voice for such an opinion.

That is my chief beef, too.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

That's a good point...however, who made their lives better? God or themselves? I consider God a mental placebo for those people if you're talking about "living" their lives better.

The counterpoint is that God has also made their lives worse. A house burning down? A child dying? A hurricane?

If you concede that God is responsible for their house burning down, then you are already a believer.

If we are still discussing pragmatism, it is certainly conceivable that religious faith is what allows some people to work hard to rebuild their lives instead of stealing tivos and whisky.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you concede that God is responsible for their house burning down, then you are already a believer.

If we are still discussing pragmatism, it is certainly conceivable that religious faith is what allows some people to work hard to rebuild their lives instead of stealing tivos and whisky.

No, I don't believe God is responsible for someone's house burning down...which is interesting.

If you are a Christian and your house burns down, who do you "blame" in each example:

1. The fire inspector finds no cause for the fire.
2. The fire inspector finds that it was faulty wiring of some sort.
3. The fire inspector believes it's arson.

If you believe in God, then do you blame him in each example? If you don't blame him in #2 or #3, then couldn't he have prevented your house from burning down?

I don't necessarily believe in God...but if I did, yes, I would take the good with the bad.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Umm...its not quite as simple as you make it out to be. Simply embracing God on your deathbed does not clear the way for you to be standing outside the pearly gates. You still have to make reparations for your sins and if you've committed a lifetime of them simply apologizing and asking God's forgiveness before you die doesn't cut it. In order to be forgiven you must make reparations and that happens in the afterlife.

We as Catholics believe that when you die you are judged and sent to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell. If your soul is clean (obviously not the pedophile in your example) then you get to enter heaven. If not you enter Purgatory or Hell - the difference is that Hell is eternal. Embracing God and renouncing his sins may save the pedophile from Hell but he or she will still have to make up for those sins in Purgatory and a soul can spend any length of time in Purgatory to attone for those sins until the end of time.

You make it sound like you can get spend your lifetime raping and murdering and pillaging so long as you were baptized and that before you die tell God you are sorry for what you did and you'll be whisked away to Heaven for eternity. That is not how Catholics believe it to work.

From what I recall, most protestant Christian faiths don't do the whole purgatory thing. It's just either heaven or hell. And all you gotta do is say "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior" and mean it and you got your Get into Heaven Free card.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'm sorry, but I do not know of any theological theories out there (other than the normal it must have been divine intervention). Are there any that have been proven? That to me is the difference between science and religion.

How can it be proven? Let's say someone is dying of cancer - has two weeks to live. Doctors have stopped treatment and are just trying to let the patient die in peace. The family prays for a miracle cure. A month later the patient is not only still alive but fully cured of the cancer. Is that proof of divine intervention?

How many years of research and study of the individual without being able to obtain the reason for the dissapearance of the cancer would you be satisfied with before attributing the cure to a higher power? Would you ever? At the end of years of research exhausting every possible reason for the cure to no avail would you just say it must be something we still haven't made the connection on or a factor we haven't considered like how many Diet Cokes they drank in that time or would you consider that proof of divine intervention?

The people who believe in divine intervention will see it that way from the minute the person is cured - those who do not will spend a lifetime looking for any reason but that to be the case. When a scientist tests a theory he or she is willing to accept a result different than their hypothesis if its proven to them and they reformulate the hypothesis and test again. How can you possibly prove God's existence or divine intervention to someone who will not accept that as the answer?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I don't necessarily believe in God...but if I did, yes, I would take the good with the bad.

Exactly.

In the examples above, it is certainly possible that somebody might be angry with God. This is not unusual; even Moses and Jesus were at times angry with God.

But in the end, as you concede, life is overwhelmingly GOOD and BEAUTIFUL, and it all flows out from God.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Telle

From what I recall, most protestant Christian faiths don't do the whole purgatory thing. It's just either heaven or hell. And all you gotta do is say "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior" and mean it and you got your Get into Heaven Free card.

To be honest I couldn't tell you how Protestant Christians look at it - that's why I only spoke from the Catholic perspective. If that is the case I certainly could see why there could be skepticism of something like that but again, I'm Catholic so I don't want to speak out of turn with regards to anything else - maybe someone else who is Protestant can explain it.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I too like to discuss things like this - I hate how the ineveitable flamefest occurs but my goal is to have a discussion, to converse with an opposing viewpoint and not to try and beat people who don't agree with me over the head with a Bible.

It's easier on me, obviously. I don't have a horse in this proverbial race. I was raised without religion. I try to respect other opinions, though it's sometimes difficult when I believe that someone is using religion in a cowardly manner (like taking shots at the people of New Orleans while they're down).

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

The thing is Jim that we don't know how the world started. There is no proven fact - you have beliefs just like me - you just believe in different things. I believe that God created the world, I assume you believe in a scientific explanation. You can say that organized religion seems like a manipulative system but I can say the same for science. No scientist can prove that the world began with a big bang just as no religious person can prove that God created the world.

As I said in another message, there's no longer debate among scientists about whether there was some sort of Big Bang. Too much direct evidence. There's a lot of discussion right now about what led to it.

The thing is, science is always open to new theories, as long as scientists can back them up. Religion isn't. That's the fundamental difference between religion and science.

In science, you base hypotheses on known and repeatable observation. In religion, you modify observation with one static hypothesis formed a long, long time ago.

I wish religion would just stay out of science entirely, let these people do their jobs without interference. Obviously, there are religious scientists, and good ones. But they have learned to separate their religious beliefs from their work.

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

But there has to be an answer doesn't there? When I put my faith in God that there is a reason some event happens that I don't understand I believe there is a reason for it - just one I am not meant to know.

Since you didn't answer one thing I wanted you to I will ask again. Why do some children in the same situation as your son not survive? There's not some doctors who always save the child and some doctors who never do. Why is the doctor skilled enough to save one child and yet not another under the same conditions?

I answered your question. I said I don't know. Obviously, the conditions were slightly different from every other case that ever took place. Our child was out of danger within an hour, though they kept him in the ICU for four days.

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Thankfully your son survived and I'm very glad he did but what if he wouldn't have. How would you have come to grips with that? Would you have blamed the doctor for being unskilled or wondered if you and your wife were cursed with bad luck? Could you go through life being ok with saying "I don't know"? If in my world God is allowing the death of an innocent child then who or what is allowing it in your world while others are able to live through the exact same situation?

I would have tried to figure out what actually happened. We know we had a healthy baby, according to ultrasound, at 41 weeks.

If it were just bad luck, we'd've found a way to deal with it. I'm not religious. I understand some people "lose" their religion over events like this. My in-laws didn't.

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I guess I just find myself in the same struggle trying to look at things from the other side - what factor can cause one child to live and one to die when they suffer from the exact same problem and are treated by the same doctor and is that factor something that cannot be explained? Isn't believing in luck or karma the same as believing in a supreme being? Its like the age old intangibles question - sports fans believe they are there but they can't be measured so are you foolish to think that sports outcomes are determined by more than simply the physical abilities of the players on the field? Is it foolish to think that the life or death of a child in that situation is determined by something more than the physical ability of a doctor or scientist?

Everything can be measured. We just haven't discovered a theory that accounts for those intangibles in baseball.

Karma, superstition, religion. They're all essentially synonyms. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way. A religion is a more evolved and organized set of superstitions.

Luck is just what it is. Sometimes you hit a line drive straight at the center fielder. Sometimes a weak grounder finds its way between the shortstop and the third baseman. I think there's a lot more luck in baseball than any other sport. The better team wins with less certainty.

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

First, I'm very sorry for your brother-in-law and all your family at the loss - I can only imagine how devastating that must have been for your entire family.

But you mentioned that he didn't "beat the odds". Religious faith is not based on probability whereas science and math are. So what are the odds of surviving? How can you possibly calculate such a thing and does the fact that with the enormous complexity of the human system you could never calculate the true odds of such a thing give you any unrest? When I play poker I know I have a A:B chance of catching the card that will win the hand. Those odds can be calculated because I know how many possible cards could come up so when I play poker I don't "pray" or "have faith" that my card is going to come up - I play the odds. But in a situation like Noah's I don't need to calculate anything - all I can do is trust that God has a plan and that whatever the result it was the way it was meant to be - that gives me peace.

Eventually, we will develop ways to calculate survival under those circumstances. Noah was given a near-zero chance of surviving until adulthood. I have no idea if that was accurate and I don't care. "Beating the odds" is just a figure of speech.

You didn't mention that you would pray in a case like Noah's. I was going to say that if there is a mystical plan we can't possibly understand, who the heck are we to ask for interference? Prayer seems a waste of time, given that belief.

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I respect your stance and opinions as I hope you respect my beliefs. My questions are because I'm curious as to how someone else sees things. I also know that for someone who isn't religious or doesn't believe in religion its very difficult to understand how someone could place so much trust in something they never will see and can never scientifically prove exists but if you did understand that then you would probably be religious.

True enough. I simply accept there's a lot I don't know. I think you do, too, you've just accepted a more complex explanation.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

How can it be proven? Let's say someone is dying of cancer - has two weeks to live. Doctors have stopped treatment and are just trying to let the patient die in peace. The family prays for a miracle cure. A month later the patient is not only still alive but fully cured of the cancer. Is that proof of divine intervention?

How many years of research and study of the individual without being able to obtain the reason for the dissapearance of the cancer would you be satisfied with before attributing the cure to a higher power? Would you ever? At the end of years of research exhausting every possible reason for the cure to no avail would you just say it must be something we still haven't made the connection on or a factor we haven't considered like how many Diet Cokes they drank in that time or would you consider that proof of divine intervention?

The people who believe in divine intervention will see it that way from the minute the person is cured - those who do not will spend a lifetime looking for any reason but that to be the case. When a scientist tests a theory he or she is willing to accept a result different than their hypothesis if its proven to them and they reformulate the hypothesis and test again. How can you possibly prove God's existence or divine intervention to someone who will not accept that as the answer?

Good questions. I don't think I would believe a theory through process of elimination...so I would keep searching for an answer.

Note: the following is an extreme, but I think you get my point
What if in the example you noted the person who was dying of cancer were a convicted serial murderer and on death row? Would you assume that it was divine intervention? If you did, would you campaign to get him out of there since God obviously spared him from death and has something meant for him?

[hoopsguy]

Gary, have been raised in the Episcopalean faith I was trying to reconcile what you had said here about purgatory. This was not something I recalled as part of the Sunday sermons, nor something I recalled reading in the Bible. So I ran a Google search to see if I was just running into a huge hole in my memory of the teachings of the Bible - it has been about twenty years since I regularly attended.

In short, Purgatory does not appear to be mentioned in the Bible:
http://www.gotquestions.org/purgatory.html

The use of this link is not meant to validate gotquestions.org - it is just one link that I found among many at the top of my search "Bible purgatory" that covered similar ground. Another link that seems to take more of a "pro-Catholic" slant is:
http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/purgatory/#5

Now I'm hardly an expert on this. And I did not want to make this a discussion about Catholicism, per se since I'm less familiar with this than the general teachings of the Bible. This is why I used the term Christianity in my initial post, which I understand to be a more generic umbrella for the set of religions that subscribe to both the Old Testament and the New Testament in the Bible.

Before this search my only exposure to the concept of purgatory was in English lit classes. Think it was Chaucer ...

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

See I would characterize you as agnostic. Atheism, by my definition at least, is the rejection of theism. You don't sound like you are rejecting theism at all. Fully rejecting something that can't be proven or disproven requires as much faith as fully accepting it.

Fine, I'm agnostic then. I also, technically, can't reject the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster, for the same reason.

I think there's about the same probability that your God exists as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

However, most definitions of atheism are more simply a belief that gods don't exist. I believe that to be the case, understanding that it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[RendeR]

A lot of really wonderful posts here on this hot topic.

To the discussion of why should we believe science about things it can't explain any more than we should believe in GOD I say this:

Science can at least give me something understandable, something tangible as evidence of WHY it should be trusted.

GOD is Faith, I should beleive in GOD because.....why? Give me SOMETHING here. I cannot and WILL not simply take a theologins word on something so profoundly life changing as a leap of FAITH. FAITH alone is NOT enough, for anything.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Exactly.

In the examples above, it is certainly possible that somebody might be angry with God. This is not unusual; even Moses and Jesus were at times angry with God.

But in the end, as you concede, life is overwhelmingly GOOD and BEAUTIFUL, and it all flows out from God.

What do you base this "flowing from GOD" comment on? Life is INDEED overwhelmingly good and beautiful. I have only to look at my Daughter to understand that concept, however I have no illusions that such beauty came from an omnipresent superior power. Life is all around us, why must there be a supernatural reason for its existance? Why is a mundane scientific view so unbearably impossible for those of faith?

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

That is my chief beef, too.

Yes, but it seems that people would rather argue about their beliefs rather than look at this particular situation as a whole. It's amazing to see how far people will go to defend someone when they know it is wrong and usually are good hearted enough not to do this themselves But yet, it seems that if anyone opposses the spiritual/religious/political viewpoint of a person that shares a similar belief, then people will go to no ends to defend this person. Just an observation.

[Tigercat]

Purgatory is definitely a Roman Catholic invention. I don't think Eastern Orthodoxs even believe it and Lutherans are fully against it, as back in the day they associated it with selling of indulgences.

Its importance varies by family, by church, and so on. It has an official place in Catholism, but its specific purposes and prominence is a little murky. I have heard some talk of it as if all must spend some degree of time there to atone for all the sins we have. I have heard others talk of it as a special place for certain people not full fledge hell worthy sinners, but ones that still must atone for their ways. I have even heard it mentioned in conjunction with unbaptized babies who will one day be taken from purgatory up to Heaven.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Purgatory is definitely a Roman Catholic invention. I don't think Eastern Orthodoxs even believe it and Lutherans are fully against it, as back in the day they associated it with selling of indulgences.

Its importance varies by family, by church, and so on. It has an official place in Catholism, but its specific purposes and prominence is a little murky. I have heard some talk of it as if all must spend some degree of time there to atone for all the sins we have. I have heard others talk of it as a special place for certain people not full fledge hell worthy sinners, but ones that still must atone for their ways. I have even heard it mentioned in conjunction with unbaptized babies who will one day be taken from purgatory up to Heaven.

Okay...this is a perfect example of how religion doesn't work. What proof is there that there is a purgatory? We believe it because a man said it was so? Even other Christian religions disagree with this concept. So who's right, or is neither right?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RendeR

What do you base this "flowing from GOD" comment on? Life is INDEED overwhelmingly good and beautiful. I have only to look at my Daughter to understand that concept, however I have no illusions that such beauty came from an omnipresent superior power. Life is all around us, why must there be a supernatural reason for its existance? Why is a mundane scientific view so unbearably impossible for those of faith?

As I've tried to explain in other posts, science and religion are NOT in conflict. There are many very good books written by people smarter than me as to why this is a false dichotomy. Science answers questions of quantity; religion answers questions of quality. There is no reason why a person of faith should reject science; and in fact, most do not.

In any case, the post you are responding to was explaining the point of view of a believer, not trying to convince anybody of anything. You're completely missing the context of my post.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The thing is, science is always open to new theories, as long as scientists can back them up. Religion isn't. That's the fundamental difference between religion and science.

That's true - I won't deny it but how could religion possibly be? With religion you are following the teachings of the be-all, end-all. You can't just one day wake up and say oh, I guess God was wrong for 2000 years. If you don't believe that God is perfect and therfore the teachings you are living your life by are perfect then why would you devote your life to Him in the first place? With scientists there is no ultimate scientist or whatever. Someone is right until someone else comes along and proves him wrong and then everyone believes that person is right and so forth.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You didn't mention that you would pray in a case like Noah's. I was going to say that if there is a mystical plan we can't possibly understand, who the heck are we to ask for interference? Prayer seems a waste of time, given that belief.

I would be praying non-stop because I believe that is the only thing that I could do to help. I believe that things can change with prayer - that the impossible can happen. I know that if I pray for it that doesn't mean it will happen but I know that if I don't there is no chance of it happening. Sometimes God allows things to go differently if there is enough prayer. That's what I was trying to bring up with the same doctor, same symptom scenario. I believe that God is the determining factor and that there is always the chance that He will change the outcome with enough prayer.

I know that springs the inevitable question "what kind of God allows suffering and possibly death just so that you will pray to Him" and that's fine it people want to see it that way and some people can't get a handle on why they should worship a supreme being and that's fine too. I don't expect everyone to understand that. But if you look back to stories in the Bible, Jesus didn't walk around going door to door asking if anyone needed healing. People came to Him and asked to be healed. The point is that I believe you have to make God important and you have to keep God as the center of your life. God is not just there when its convienient for you or when you need something and sometimes He sends a reminder that you're forgetting about Him.

I'm not saying that your brother-in-law and his wife had their son die because God was trying to send them a message. I have no idea why Noah died nor will anyone probably ever and I'm very sorry that it happened.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Note: the following is an extreme, but I think you get my point
What if in the example you noted the person who was dying of cancer were a convicted serial murderer and on death row? Would you assume that it was divine intervention? If you did, would you campaign to get him out of there since God obviously spared him from death and has something meant for him?

Yes, I would believe it was divine intervention and no, I would not campaign to get him off of death row if he was rightfully there. God may very well have something meant for him but that doesn't mean that has to be in the public. Perhaps He would be using the man as a sign of a miracle to get others to believe. Maybe it would be a way to get the man to convert before he dies as an attempt to save his soul. A miracle doesn't have to be a worldwide changing event - sometimes it is just meant to change one person.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Yes, I would believe it was divine intervention and no, I would not campaign to get him off of death row if he was rightfully there. God may very well have something meant for him but that doesn't mean that has to be in the public. Perhaps He would be using the man as a sign of a miracle to get others to believe. Maybe it would be a way to get the man to convert before he dies as an attempt to save his soul. A miracle doesn't have to be a worldwide changing event - sometimes it is just meant to change one person.

I think I understand what you're saying. Interesting.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

As I've tried to explain in other posts, science and religion are NOT in conflict. There are many very good books written by people smarter than me as to why this is a false dichotomy. Science answers questions of quantity; religion answers questions of quality. There is no reason why a person of faith should reject science; and in fact, most do not.

In any case, the post you are responding to was explaining the point of view of a believer, not trying to convince anybody of anything. You're completely missing the context of my post.

I read those posts and I can pretty much agree that they are not in conflict. I apologize if I was unclear. What I'm trying to grasp here is WHY someone should accept one reason for existance instead of the other. As the case is with Creationsism and evolution.

The whole concept of being a "believer" I think is the hardest thing for me to understand. I just cannot come to grips with giving up my "free will" to accept something that seems to me, to be so profoundly ludicrous.

Again, I am not trying to insult anyone, I'm seriously trying to understand how and why FAITH can be so powerful. It is based on..nothing, it is founded on words transcribed by men a million times over. Inneffibly falible at that point, let alone the specific intervention and editing done by man over the eons.

I really WANT to understand, to at least have a glimmer of why people would simply brush off what is physically before them, and isntead embrace a philosophy that offers nothing substantial and answers none of the real questions of the world with anything concrete.

Again, not trying to be snippy or anything, I'm sincerely wanting to get a grasp of this FAITH thing.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by RendeR

GOD is Faith, I should beleive in GOD because.....why? Give me SOMETHING here. I cannot and WILL not simply take a theologins word on something so profoundly life changing as a leap of FAITH. FAITH alone is NOT enough, for anything.

Faith as definied by Websters "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

How can it be more than what it is? Faith is not about being able to prove whether it exists or not. Either you believe in it or you don't. If you do not believe God exists then you don't believe - if you do then you do. If it has to be proven to you then its not faith and even if it was proven to you would that make you believe? If God appeared before you would you believe in God if you didn't already? My guess is not without having the original faith that He exists.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Fine, I'm agnostic then. I also, technically, can't reject the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster, for the same reason.

I think there's about the same probability that your God exists as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

However, most definitions of atheism are more simply a belief that gods don't exist. I believe that to be the case, understanding that it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Don't look at me for a specific God! I live in the land of possibilities myself. And since I can find shiny happy thoughts and harmony I aim for by considering certain unproveable possibilities, I go for it. If there was a 2000 year old story about a giant zombie meatball that promoted harmony between men in the name of flying noodles, I would probably think that was such a great thing that I would bow to ragu sauce myself.

And hell, if there is a creator of the universe, something that created something from nothing, than the universe is the number 1 and "God" would be the number 2. Because God would have to be everything in the universe and more. Meaning that everything in the number 1, including all our descriptions of God, incooperate some part of God. So, yes, I guess my God, if I have a God, is indeed a flying piece of speghetti.