The Religion Thread!

Loomis wrote:

That said, though, I often hear that Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion.

It is, though I understand that has more to do with birth rates than conversion.

Sharky wrote:

That's just the human condition for you. In Biblical terms, fallen man.

"Naturally, it would be convenient to adopt a rigid and clearly defined attitude, to represent Christian civilization as a corporate arrangement of human life that would permit everyone to follow, without the least hindrance from his fellows, the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. In that case, without further ado, we could examine our own age, retrace the course of history, and declare that such a civilization has never existed. But in adopting such an attitude--and the enemies of Christianity have often used this kind of argument--we are confusing the city of man and the City of God. The perfect imitation of Christ is impossible here, but our very impression is sanctified, for didn't God imitate man, and weren't man's despair and failure expressed by God himself on the cross? So in our definition of a Christian civilization we should not be led astray by the presence of wars, injustice and cruelty, or by the absence of charity. All those things can exist in a Christian state. They are not the marks of Christianity, but of man."
~ Graham Greene

Sharky wrote:

Re: Harms - thanks a lot for the links and suggested books.

No problem. I don't have many opportunities to share them.

Sharky wrote:

Most of them are Greek Orthodox, though one's Russian. What's the big difference in interpretation of scripture, other than their differing cultural traditions?

Well, like all of orthodox (small "o") Christianity, the Orthodox Church holds to the Nicene Creed as an effective summary of the narrative of the beliefs of the church. So the outline of beliefs is very similar to conservative Protestantism and Catholicism. The difference is in the emphasis. Since the Orthodox Church did not embrace Augustinian understanding of Original Sin, they ultimately came about to a different understanding of what Jesus' death and resurrection accomplished. So their stress is less on a punitive atonement and more on Christ's loving work in entering into the cosmos and participating with it (the Orthodox Church is fond of the suggestion that even if the world had not fallen, God would have become man purely out of love). That isn't to say the Orthodox Church doesn't have a great sense of sin (how else could we explain Dostoevsky?), but in terms of the work of Christ, they emphasize different things than the Protestant and Catholic traditions.

Furthermore, they emphasize mystery and the otherness of God, often preferring to speak of God in terms of what he is not than what he is. The Western tradition has, of course, always understood that Christianity is essentially a belief that the nature of the universe and all existence hinges on paradox (which reached its full bloom in the existentialist Christianity of Kierkegaard), but it has nevertheless couched itself in more logical language. The West, inheriting from the Greek philosophers, gave us systematic theology after systematic theology. The Orthodox Church, inheriting more from its Judaic origins, as well as the culture of the east, has tended to shy away from such belief structures and embrace mystery.

Additionally, like Catholicism, the Orthodox Church understands tradition to be a source of utmost authority, understanding itself as having maintained the teaching of the apostles and the early Church (and, in truth, it has changed the least of any Christian tradition over its many years of existence, and it's far easier to draw a direct line between the Christianity of the early centuries and the Orthodox Church than it is between early Christianity and any other Christian tradition). While it maintains organization, the Orthodox Church denies the hierarchy and power structures of Catholicism, thereby avoiding severe conflations of faith and political power. On the other hand, it is not strictly Bible-centric, so the Bible, while understood as the norm that determines all norms, is understood as having context. It is both a gift to and a product of the community that treasures it. As such, it is to be understood as that community has historically understood it, in constant dialogue with the figures of the past. So while it is not strictly hierarchical in the same way as Catholicism, the Orthodox Church also denies the individual-centric Christianity that was born in the Protestant Reformation.

HJackson wrote:

If you believe in a creator who personally intervenes in human affairs, created man from dust, and created woman from man's rib, then no, that is totally at odds with science.

A creator who intervenes in human affairs isn't at odds with science, per se, it's just something that science can't verify. You're conflating science--which is a method--with a philosophical system. Science is based on methodological naturalism. It can only verify that with which it examines with strictly naturalistic explanations, and so it does. But science is not inherently associated with philosophical naturalism.

I'll leave your references to the Genesis account alone, though. Reconciling the Genesis narrative with the accepted scientific narrative of human origins can be tricky business.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

lachesis wrote:

I'm an athiest but that tends to mean that my religion is science as opposed to some central diety. I do believe religion has generally formed a nescessary prop for social evolution, though I'd say the function of churches and orders behind religion are of much more dubious and controversial value.

Can a person believe in science and in a Creator? I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, really. I believe science proves there had to be a designer.

I also don't believe that billions of people around the world who have never met one another and would probably have nothing in common all suffer from the same mass delusion. It can't be coincidence that through the centuries thousands of different languages, cultures, tribes, ethnicities, etc....all have believed in some sort of God or Creator. The poodle skirt was a fad......Members Only jackets were a fad.....penny loafers were a fad.....belief in a higher power, a supreme being, can't simply be just a fad or a weakness, or it would have died out a long time ago. It seems to me humans are hard-wired to look for something higher than themselves...to look for meaning to their life...to question why we are here and where we go when we die.

Certainly it is possible to believe in science and a creator, I know many who do (or at least did at Uni). The real issue is what you believe constitutes a designer (at what point is it something to worship or for which worship has any relevence). Whatever is the designer or is behind the design is imo so different and deatched that no definition of deity or religious form used or within our understanding could ever apply, imo everything we learn demonstrates there is yet more to learn. I see religions as being generic placeholders for things we don't yet comprehend, or else for ideals which collectively we need to aspire, we don't like to deal with the unknown because that equates to unsafe, similarly conforming to social orders is difficult we need a cushion for our own motivational struggles one that is readily relateble, hence religions are afforded a personality, feelings, a structure, that calms our minds. This is evidenced in history imo, while God or Gods have existed for a long time, their structure and nature has changed considerably - the Sun was once worshipped till it was tamed, or percieved as routine. The mantle of religion passes on to more esoteric forms but is still in flux.

I certainly don't see Religion as a mass delusion, imo its simply a logical manifestation of humanity using all avialiable tools to progress social order and evolution. A concept to bind us and make us feel kinship amid the swell of envy and predjudice, fear and ignorance. Sheer weight of numbers don't prove anything to me indeed to paraphrase that weighty tome 'Men in Black' - a person can be smart, but people they can be really dumb, humour that rings true I believe.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

RobDudley wrote:

j7wild wrote:

the first evidence of Man and Religion was found on drawings on Cave Walls dating back to about 25,000 years

Did those pictures have tits?

:o Wow! A RobDudley post that is funny!

Now your turn.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I do occasionally attend a church but that's mostly because my friend really got into Christianity and she likes to bring someone along, I also like the atmosphere, you have to find the right kind of church for that she says.

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Atheism (particularly Dawkinism) seems to believe that mankind can function easily without religion - simply a vague sense of joy in the wonder of the natural world is enough. I posit that's it not. One thing that atheism and agnosticism can never replace is religion's sense of community, tradition, the arcane, order, ritual and focusing oneself on others, things that are deeply bedded in man's nature. Even the fairly middle-of-the-road Anglicanism still has the Holy Communion, which holds an incredible atmosphere for churchgoers.

I've found no better alternative offered.

Sharky wrote:

One thing that atheism and agnosticism can never replace is religion's sense of community, tradition, the arcane, order, ritual and focusing oneself on others, things that are deeply bedded in man's nature. Even the fairly middle-of-the-road Anglicanism still has the Holy Communion, which holds an incredible atmosphere for churchgoers.

It's surely more than possible for people without religious faith to have a sense of community, tradition and the other things you mention. Anyway, if they're deeply bedded in man's nature why the need for the religion to draw them out?

Not knocking religion, though. I'm an occasional churchgoer, and I find atheism terribly arrogant.

Loomis wrote:

It's surely more than possible for people without religious faith to have a sense of community, tradition and the other things you mention.

Sure. The sense of brotherhood from team sports comes the closest, but I wouldn't say it's anywhere near as transcendent and powerful as religious rites.

Loomis wrote:

Anyway, if they're deeply bedded in man's nature why the need for the religion to draw them out?

Because otherwise they''d go untapped or worse, misdirected to hooliganism, gangs, syndicates and so on. That's my observation.

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

It's surely more than possible for people without religious faith to have a sense of community, tradition and the other things you mention.

Sure. The sense of brotherhood from team sports comes the closest, but I wouldn't say it's anywhere near as transcendent and powerful as religious rites.

I think there is some truth in this although I'd suggest that it opens the door for religion being a manufactured tool to facilitate social community as opposed to being a truth in its own right. The lingering quote being 'if there is no God it would be nescessary to invent one' etc. Equally I feel there are many alternative reasons and concepts that can inspire comunity spirit today, to varying degrees of success and accesiblity science and politics among them.

Loomis wrote:

Not knocking religion, though. I'm an occasional churchgoer, and I find atheism terribly arrogant.

I apologise if thats the way I come across but I am uncertain why it is any more or less arrogant to state you believe something isn't the case as opposed to stating you believe something is?

There is nothing totally wrong with atheism on an individual level. It's the organised atheist, the Richard Dawkins style advocate that feel the need to pontificate: about how religion is totally false, that millions of people are going through their lives deluded, and that it's their job (nay, their duty) to free these people from the delusions that they're just too dumb to be aware of that is arrogant.

Most religious people I know or have encountered are thoroughly aware of the limits of what they believe in. It is only the terribly naiive, emotionally immature and unenlightened, who believe 'gee, a Tsunami occurred, but God didn't stop it. So either he isn't there or he's a jerk'.

Such atheists also use science as a crutch to lean on while their point of view is thoroughly unscientific. Science has only begun to explain a tiny fraction of the of the infinite mysteries of the universe so to go ahead and make a conclusion along the lines of 'There can be no creator God' or countless, broader conclusions about driving forces behind all life/the universe etc cannot be made with evidence. Yes, the idea that there is a kingdom in the clouds that people ascend to is quantifiably bunk, but that ignores the more transcendent point of religion in the first place. One cannot rule out what one does not know.

And then they point to the crusades, or Tibet, or the witch hunts, or 9/11, the inquisitions or any act of violence, conflict, discrimination or oppression that was cloaked in religious terms at any point in human history and say 'See, religion is evil!' but then overlook the great deal of good religion, organised and otherwise, has on the world. Christian values underpin the law, our society, the Enlightenment, indeed, the Catholic Church's dominance is greatly responsible for the development of society as we know it. Then there are the community outreach programs, the homeless shelters, the orphanages, the schools, the aid programs -- many run by those who get nothing from it but the satisfaction of doing 'God's work' or conforming to the philosophy of their religion. Then there is the art, so on and so forth.

All this from people who typically purport or outright boast about how open-minded they are on social issues...

They're as bad as the worst of those whom they seek to denigrate.

And that's all I'll say, because I don't feel anywhere near well-read enough to be posting in this thread.

lachesis wrote:

I apologise if thats the way I come across but I am uncertain why it is any more or less arrogant to state you believe something isn't the case as opposed to stating you believe something is?

Well, it isn't, of course - both positions can come across as arrogant (or not arrogant, depending on how they're articulated). BTW, I wasn't referring to anyone who's posted in this thread as arrogant - I was thinking of Dawkins and his ilk.

Vesper, I agree completely with what you've just posted.

I'd concede that people preaching either with a 'Holier than thou' or a 'more scientific than thou' attitude is equally contemptible. Dawkins is not someone I patronise or am sure I have ever heard talk so I can't comment specifically on him but surely those of a religious bent preach weekly of how it is right to worship God whereas those that aren't are less regimented and organised in their own preaching?

By and large anyone consciously promoting organised athieism almost seems like they are pursuing a self defeating contradiction, however proposing an alternate reason to unify/socially bond is simply answering the point Sharky suggested?

Isn't this simply a case of one viewpoint being attuned to agressively react to the proposition that the contrary view carries more validity with the usual loud and obnoxious extremists on each side doing their best to drown the other out rather than really understand one another (pretty much the antithesis of community) - much the same as we often see on the internet <insert name of film I like> is factually better than <insert name of film you like> because of XXXXX (with XXXX being subjective opinions presented as objective facts)?

On the whole, I'd rather be told I'm going to burn in hell than told I'm stupid.

If you disagree with a Bible bashing, proselytizing Christian, they'll just tell you you're evil and the spawn of the Devil. Disagree with Dawkins, and he calls you an idiot.

One is a cause for laughter; the other is just plain rude.

lachesis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Loomis wrote:

It's surely more than possible for people without religious faith to have a sense of community, tradition and the other things you mention.

Sure. The sense of brotherhood from team sports comes the closest, but I wouldn't say it's anywhere near as transcendent and powerful as religious rites.

I think there is some truth in this although I'd suggest that it opens the door for religion being a manufactured tool to facilitate social community as opposed to being a truth in its own right.

Note my my use of the word tradition. This therefore excludes manufactured religions/cults such as Scientology, which are relatively new.

lachesis wrote:

Equally I feel there are many alternative reasons and concepts that can inspire comunity spirit today, to varying degrees of success and accesiblity science and politics among them.

What I am saying is this: out of the communal activities that certain branches of science and politics encourage, I haven't come across any of them that can match the pure qualities of say a Catholic Mass or an Anglican Holly Communion. Political gatherings I find, bring out some of the worst in the human condition - tribalism, nepotism, petty jealousy, anger, avarice, deceit, snark, mocking, suspicion, and arrogance.

There are no equally valid substitutes.

Loomis wrote:

I find atheism terribly arrogant.

The view itself isn't but I agree that atheists in this age tend toward a nauseating arrogance and self-righteousness.

Harmsway wrote:

HJackson wrote:

If you believe in a creator who personally intervenes in human affairs, created man from dust, and created woman from man's rib, then no, that is totally at odds with science.

A creator who intervenes in human affairs isn't at odds with science, per se, it's just something that science can't verify. You're conflating science--which is a method--with a philosophical system. Science is based on methodological naturalism. It can only verify that with which it examines with strictly naturalistic explanations, and so it does. But science is not inherently associated with philosophical naturalism.

I'll leave your references to the Genesis account alone, though. Reconciling the Genesis narrative with the accepted scientific narrative of human origins can be tricky business.

Fair. I'll concede that I was prehaps hasty to label a belief in intervention unscientific.

Vesper wrote:

Most religious people I know or have encountered are thoroughly aware of the limits of what they believe in. It is only the terribly naiive, emotionally immature and unenlightened, who believe 'gee, a Tsunami occurred, but God didn't stop it. So either he isn't there or he's a jerk'.

Strong argument...

Simply asserting that atheists are 'terribly naïve, emotionally immature and unenlightened' for pointing to serious problems with religious faith (an all-powerful, all-loving God allowing great suffering and evil), problems that are acknowledged by many people of religious faith, is particularly lazy. That religious people are aware of these problems, and are 'thoroughly aware of the limits of what they believe in' doesn't at all disarm the arguments. If a man believed in an invisible pink unicorn but expressed that he often stuggled with the reconciling the unicorn's pinkness to its invisibiltiy, that doesn't at all prevent the argument 'an invisible entity possessing visible qualities is logically impossible' from having strength.

Vesper wrote:

Such atheists also use science as a crutch to lean on while their point of view is thoroughly unscientific. Science has only begun to explain a tiny fraction of the of the infinite mysteries of the universe so to go ahead and make a conclusion along the lines of 'There can be no creator God' or countless, broader conclusions about driving forces behind all life/the universe etc cannot be made with evidence. Yes, the idea that there is a kingdom in the clouds that people ascend to is quantifiably bunk, but that ignores the more transcendent point of religion in the first place. One cannot rule out what one does not know.

Again, as I said in another thread, very few atheists would posit the positive statement 'no God exists'. If that's your conception of 'Dawkinsism' or whatever, I suggest you actually read something he's written or watch him speak.

I've done both. And quite clearly I was paraphrasing. I did not equate such a statement with Dawkins himself. And if you've never met an atheist (let alone many) who would cloak themselves in Dawkinism and make that statement - just like millions of biggots cloak themselves in every form of organised or disorganised religion in the history of the planet you've got your head in the sand.

Quote :

Strong argument...

Simply asserting that athesits are 'terribly naïve, emotionally immature and unenlightened' for pointing to serious problems with religious faith (an all-powerful, all-loving God allowing great suffering and evil), problems that are acknowledged by many people of religious faith, is particularly lazy.

Once again, I prefaced my statements rather clearly (though evidently not clearly enough...) to clarify that I was not speaking at a level of generality that applied to all atheists but a particular school or type of them, if you will, who behave in a particular manner. I did cite Dawkins but not neccessarily because of his ideology or theories but rather for the fact he serves as a banner around which many less critical thinkers gather.

Quote :

That religious people are aware of these problems, and are 'thoroughly aware of the limits of what they believe in' doesn't at all disarm the arguments

Well I disagree, I believe it does to a limited extent. Theology is a moving beast just like the law. It is not fixed nor is it permanent. Catholicism today is a different beast to what it was even a hundred years ago let alone ten hundred. If organised religion is aware of such a conflict, and have come up with explanations to explain the apparent contradiction, surely the proper thing to do in a proper debate of ideas is to rebutt the refined proposition rather than the original question? Many atheists (of the type I was writing about) do not make it past that basic question which every religious and non-religious person has sought to answer in some form or another dating back to the Ancient Greeks. That's not to discredit those who do and debate on a more articulate and in depth level, who in my view serve an important part in both the evolution of modern theology and the continuing relevance of organised religion (which may be counter-productive, but so what).

Quote :

If a man believed in an invisible pink unicorn but expressed that he often stuggled with the reconciling the unicorn's pinkness to its invisibiltiy, that doesn't at all prevent the argument 'an invisible entity possessing visible qualities is logically impossible' from having strength

.

But at the end of a day, if a man believes in an invisible pink unicorn, do you really think pointing out that a unicorn is improbable to exist and could not posess the qualities he believes it does will make a difference? Religion in many cases serves the purpose to give reason to the unexplainable or incomprehensible. It is inherently illogical. Unless you can explain that original unexplainable situation, the believer will just come up with some other ratoinalisation or reason when challenged, possibly one that makes even less sense.

I guess the other issue I was trying to articulate and perhaps did not succeed in doing is atheism is frequently adopted and perverted just like religion, and usually with an arrogance behind it. It's a stereotype, and I'm sure there are many a humble atheist, but there are plenty who aren't. It doesn't come from thin air. And the insistance by many, including Dawkins, that atheism is immune from such corruption whereas religion isn't, when really the root cause is that some people are just intolerant jerks and any difference opinion can cause conflict just doesn't sit well with me. I still don't think I've articulated my point clearly, tbh.

Sharky wrote:

Note my my use of the word tradition. This therefore excludes manufactured religions/cults such as Scientology, which are relatively new.

I used the term manufactured in reference to a possible reason for religion ever arising in formal society, but at some time every religion was introduced/new to somewhere or someone.

Sharky wrote:

What I am saying is this: out of the communal activities that certain branches of science and politics encourage, I haven't come across any of them that can match the pure qualities of say a Catholic Mass or an Anglican Holly Communion. Political gatherings I find, bring out some of the worst in the human condition - tribalism, nepotism, petty jealousy, anger, avarice, deceit, snark, mocking, suspicion, and arrogance.

There are no equally valid substitutes.

I agree with your comments re political gatherings although in some ways the chruch has had a lot of freedom to preach conformity and attack contention while few political ideals have been afforded such power, for significant periods of history church & politics were inseperable with religion a somewhat pliably motivator for very human ends.

I do accept that religion has had a vital and progressive influence on society and the world but the question of whether the world needs religion is demonstrably different to whether you believe there is any foundation to a given religion. When demanding conformity to the law in the midst of an environment where crime is not enforced or patrolled, then it is easy to see a justification for hellfire and brimstone as the ultimate 'boogey man', but as we become more enlightened or at least more eager to live without fear the impetus to obey the law has new selfish benefits civilisation gradually becomes something people covet.

From my own experience I have to say there are equally valid substitutes science, evolution, a simple quest for truth being prominent (while we might not agree the truth unconvered we can nevertheless unify in the quest). However the problem today is finding a route that will unify given that the more violent and brutal methods of the past are no longer going to be permitted.

@Vesper & Drax & generally

Again I have to confess to having no interest in converting anyone to my own 'ideals', but in terms of people who do proactively 'preach atheism' I do not see any greater arrogance or self righteousness than those who preach faith.

There will exist extremists on both sides of any complex argument, isn't this simply the ignorant minority of both persuasions shouting much louder than the greater masses. Inevitably we hear and respond to the contentious voice that challenges us much more readily than the equally loud and contentious voice that just happens to agree?

REUTERS: Far more Christian than Muslim migrants worldwide.

Quote :

PARIS (Reuters)- Christians far outnumber Muslims as migrants around the world, including in the European Union where debates about immigration usually focus on new Muslim arrivals, according to a new study issued on Thursday.

Of the world's 214 million people who have moved from their home country to live in another, about 106 million (49 percent) are Christians while around 60 million (27 percent) are Muslims, the study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said.

Only 3.6 million Jews around the world have moved across international borders, the study said, but that is 25 percent of the world's Jewish population, by far the highest proportion on the move of any faith group.PARIS (Reuters)- Christians far outnumber Muslims as migrants around the world, including in the European Union where debates about immigration usually focus on new Muslim arrivals, according to a new study issued on Thursday.

Of the world's 214 million people who have moved from their home country to live in another, about 106 million (49 percent) are Christians while around 60 million (27 percent) are Muslims, the study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said.

Only 3.6 million Jews around the world have moved across international borders, the study said, but that is 25 percent of the world's Jewish population, by far the highest proportion on the move of any faith group.

I agree with everything Harms and Rave say.....and Ambler too, if he chips in.

=

J7! Out with it! Were there tits on the those cave drawings?!



====

Regarding the question that Dawkins and others find to be so profound; ie "how can a truly loving just God, allow evil to hold such sway over the earth?"

Its an obvious and fair question but the answer is also very clear. Its biblical. It's a tenet of orthodox Christianity.

Namely the fall of man. Evil has a source and it's not God.

Man however triumphs over evil through salvation in Christ. Man triumphs over death through the sacrifice of the cross; through the Paschal mystery.

Christianity teachs that man has both a fallen and a saved nature. Christianity asks us to embrace our saved nature.

====As for "proof of God's existence" The Bible tells us that the transcendent is not available to unaided human reason. Reason simply cannot approach something outside its bounds.

The great medieval philosopher and theolgian Thomas Aquinas, and others, but probably none as eloquently as Aquinas, have penned volumes on the relationship between faith and reason.

The theology is scripture based. Acquinas explains that the notion that God exists is wholly within the grasp of natural reason, BUT God's nature, the who and the what of God, can only be partially penetrated by natural reason. God's nature comes to fuller light only through revelation and faith. And such revelation is achieved through an act of the will. In otherwords one must seek with both an honest and open heart. God knows what's in our hearts.

Seek and ye shall find. Not sure if that's a Bible quote but its pretty close.

Where's Keyvan when you need him? The guy knew his scripture.

In the meantime, I think its important to respect all honest faith beliefs or lack thereof. We all come from the same place and we ultimately all share the same destination. Meanwhile we are all on our own little journeys and at various stages, in our quest for truth.

tiffanywint wrote:

Regarding the question that Dawkins and others find to be so profound; ie "how can a truly loving just God, allow evil to hold such sway over the earth?"

Well, that's the same as blaming all bad behaviour in adults on their parents, isn't it? I mean, the only answer to that question is to remove all elements of Free Will, and have everyone behave properly, which would include not undertaking any kind of actions that would have an adverse ecological effect, I don't mean making us behave because we're frightened of disobeying, and I don't mean making us simply obedient. I mean removing even the remotest possibility of ever doing anything contrary to the good of humanity, the world, and fluffy creatures everywhere,

Not even blind obedience. Simply incapable of anything contrary to God's Will.

Where would be the fun in that?

Ever played Sims? Do you make everyone in your Sims universe perfect, law-abiding citizens? Doesn't that make for a terribly tedious - not least of all pointless - game?

It's not a proper question. It's a child question - why is the sky blue? Why do we sneeze? Why do we yawn? Why - why - why.

Ravenstone wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Regarding the question that Dawkins and others find to be so profound; ie "how can a truly loving just God, allow evil to hold such sway over the earth?"

Well, that's the same as blaming all bad behaviour in adults on their parents, isn't it? I mean, the only answer to that question is to remove all elements of Free Will, and have everyone behave properly, which would include not undertaking any kind of actions that would have an adverse ecological effect, I don't mean making us behave because we're frightened of disobeying, and I don't mean making us simply obedient. I mean removing even the remotest possibility of ever doing anything contrary to the good of humanity, the world, and fluffy creatures everywhere,

Not even blind obedience. Simply incapable of anything contrary to God's Will.

Where would be the fun in that?

Ever played Sims? Do you make everyone in your Sims universe perfect, law-abiding citizens? Doesn't that make for a terribly tedious - not least of all pointless - game?

It's not a proper question. It's a child question - why is the sky blue? Why do we sneeze? Why do we yawn? Why - why - why.

You've hit on the paradox of free-will. It can be both a blessing and a curse. But from a Christian pov free-will is a burden because it allows one to choose evil. The most profound prayer a Christian can make is simply, " I pray that I might do the divine will." The divine will being perfect so why would one want anything less?

However to honestly and sincerely make such a prayer, without one's fingers crossed behind the back, would require a fairly mature state of faith formation, that would take some work to get to. Most of us though would prefer to manage our free-will, all for the greater good of course and take our chances. Such is life. Such is humanity. Such is the fallen world.

So we all do participate a real-life sims game. We are all cursed with free-will.

JS Bach's Mass in B minor or this?

A Wave of Reason all the way - for its message, of course.

Alan Jacobs comments on Ross Douthat's BAD RELIGION.

(For those who don't know, Douthat is a commentator for the New York Times, and his book, BAD RELIGION: HOW WE BECAME A NATION OF HERETICS is making quite a stir.)

j7wild wrote:

Loomis wrote:

j7wild wrote:

I ain't saying anything.....

my views on Religion are more controversial than my views on Politics...

:cheers:

With respect, I doubt that you (or anyone else) could come up with any "controversial" views on religion that haven't already been debated a gazillion times down the centuries. Feel free to take that as a challenge, though. :D

in that case:

I feel religion is the biggest lie ever perpetrated by man on man and it's been used to start wars, murder innocent people, commit genocide, deny children basic medical care and letting them die from illnesses, rape women, starve children to deaths, extort money and valuable goods from the poor and rich alike, commit child molestation and pedophilia and child abuse, etc etc

Why?

Because there is NO God!!

It's a LIE!!

Quite right.

Though I do think Muslim and irish-Catholic terrorists are scum because of their "religion"...

There are no grateful virgins as gifts for your 'achievemnt'.There is only blackness when the SAS shoot you in the head.

Only nothing nothing. And blackness. The End.

Same as everyone then, killers and victims both. And the rest of us.