|
Post by beagriestache on Jun 21, 2008 19:40:17 GMT
To reply to Anarchicalan's points..
Religion has caused no wars ever you say - this is perhaps an argument about semantics but I would point you to my earlier post. What I said was religion is by definition non-testable and therefore open to interpretation. It is all things to all people. Those people who started wars (crusades, jihads, whatever you want to call them) were perfectly justified in their eyes because of their RELIGIOUS beliefs. These are no doubt different to yours Alan, but to say that religion has never started wars is plain wrong. The aim of many religious faiths may be peace, love and harmony but as I say, it's a human concept, open to interpretation as anyone sees fit.
You don't KNOW that there is a higher power, you choose to believe this. This may be because of personal experience I don't know. However, there have been thousands of people through time who have KNOWN that there is a higher power and many of these people have been suffering from mental illness, been simple charlatans or just plain deluded. There are several cults around the world currently awaiting the second coming whose members KNOW that there is a higher power and that he is going to end the world on a certain date. The truly weird thing is that no-one ever leaves when the date arrives and nowt happens!
I can offer several explanations why otherwise rational people such as yourself Alan choose to believe in God. a) It's comforting to believe in life after death especially if you lose a loved one b) It's pleasing to think that there may be a reward for decent behaviour after death c) Evolution has acted in a way such that the human brain produces behaviours in us which we call religious as a means to bind us together socially. Man is a social animal after all. I choose to believe that Stoke City deserve my support (which up until last season had as much tangible evidence as God's existence!) and this binds me together socially with my fellow practitioners at the Brit. d) It's unpleasant to think that we live in a meaningless universe where things happen for no purpose (if this isn't the explanation for events like the tsunami I hate to think what it might be) e) anyone raised by religious parents has effectively been brainwashed to believe in their form of faith from their birth. This explains the perpetuity of various religions in different parts of the world. It must be very difficult to abandon religion in the family context as you risk alienating your loved ones.
Science is testable and rejectable and a worthy successor to faith. If you truly have faith, pray for recovery from illness, don't use medicine, doctors, hospitals, surgery....
There have been hundreds of wars since humans first started living in social groups. You just know more about the recent ones because of better communication systems since the start of the 20th century. Inter-tribal conflict of one form or another has been going on since human beings evolved, it has nothing to do with materialism as we understand the concept latterly in relation to spirituality. (It does however relate literally to materialism where groups of humans would fight for territory, food supplies and breeding partners).
Sincerely, all the best, Alan.
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Jun 22, 2008 16:42:12 GMT
tache - Back to the point you've amply made for me regarding religions causing war.
They don't.
PEOPLE cause wars. Your argument above merely affirms that.
Yes, some of them justify it with religious slogans, or (as I said earlier) hijack a religious idealogy to claim superiority or some "offence" to drag the gullible into their power struggle.
It's semantics, possibly, but it's also accurate.
I agree with many of your "reasons" for a belief in God; I think they have relevance even if it's a romantic view of the Almighty.
However, like you, I can see flaws in them and don't believe they're enough to sustain a credible belief/faith system.
God gave doctors their skills, hence we depend on their ability to help us. He gave us science, so we take advantage of technology.
Man corrupts everything he can lay his grubby hands on, hence we have wars, greed, lack of care and/or responsibility and all the other things I previously mentioned.
Materialism is the bane of modern society, and the gullible are exploited daily, even hourly.
Tribal conflict has been - as you rightly say (and the Bible would support you) - around since we can recall, and evidence clearly supports your longer historical view. There can be no argument to defeat that point. Only an idiot would claim differently - we both know several who fall into that category I'm sure.
The difference with christianity - for that is the subject of the thread title - is that we (should) strive for betterment, without conflict, hatred, jealousies, pettiness and we do so having been set the example of Christ.
In so doing, one aspect of our faith is that of healing.
The charlatans you mention - and quite rightly - don't fall into the same category as genuine healers; people who have gifts neither you nor I can explain with rational argument.
I ask you to please, go and see this man. If he's a charlatan, you'll see it and can justifiably condemn him as such. However, if you can see no fault in him, then please be honest and manly enough (I do believe you are) to admit your argument may have to be adjusted.
Take care and God bless.
|
|
|
Post by beagriestache on Jun 22, 2008 17:21:51 GMT
Hi Alan
Religion is an abstract human concept and therefore incapable of literally doing anything let alone wage war. If this is your point I agree. However that human concept in one form or another is and has been a precursor to conflict. Just one of hundreds of precursors.
I think the resaons I gave for having belief are enough for sustaining a belief system for millions of people. You'll notice I didn't use your word credible. They don't need to be credible, look at many of the weird things people believe in under the name of religion: virgin birth, the creation of a planet in six days, six armed Hindu gods, etc etc. Yet nobody seems to question the whole idea of belief when time moves on and religious doctrine is shown to be false such as the earth orbiting the sun and not the other way around as the Catholic Church insisted for centuries. Papal infallibility? Clearly not. I don't consider religious beliefs credible, more a kind of superstition, which are supported by billion pound industries.
Materialism - couldn't agree more Alan. Look forward to the Vatican giving away its appallingly opulent riches for the benefit of the needy. (I think you'd probably agree with this).
Agree with your thoughts on christianity and following Christ's example. It's nice to see someone who hasn't lost sight of the original idea. It's a great shame that much of the rest of the Bible is so morally dubious e.g killing those who collect sticks on the Sabbath, going to hell if you consume pork and shellfish at the same meal...I prefer to seek betterment without the need to invoke superstitious beliefs.
Final point about the healer. I would go to see one if he/she happened to be nearby and didn't charge to attend. Incidentally, I wonder what those doctors whose skills God so generously donated think about healers? Surelt if there was any tangible evidence for their success they'd be available on the NHS? It'd save us a fortune!
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Jun 24, 2008 8:37:34 GMT
BT - you're right in so many ways and I totally agree with you about the papacy - the C of E isn't too badly off either, and would do better to promote itself if it became more relevant to the poor and needy! (I'm C of E, can you tell?)
The Bible has many issues that give a strange message, but Christ came to give us a NEW message, and that is the point you're missing.
Actually, it's the original message, but with the poignant example of His sacrifice - a most horrible and painful death (in order to dissuade others from following His path) for the salvation of all.
It was the Romans who executed Christ, but only as a political convenience to appease the potential uprising led by the Sanhedrin of the time. Ciaiphas and Annas were powerful men - even under occupation - and didn't want to lose that power. Once again, a righteous faith (Judaism) hijacked by the greedy and power hungry.
We've seen it all too often, and Mugabe is a prime example in modern politics.
The virgin birth is either believe it or don't, I choose to believe it. After all if God can create a whole world, even universe, then creating a single child is a minor feat. However, it's NOT a prerequisite to eternal salvation, even though it's in the creed. The creed is a prayer, not a tick list for faith, too many people (especially christians) don't understand that.
As for going to see this man - it's clearly stated in the opening post that he's on Stafford Common and doesn't charge. I'm sure some may feel moved to make donations but it certainly doesn't appear to be obligatory, nor would it seem to be pushed.
As for doctors and the NHS, many doctors will tell you that prayer healing is very real, and there are many examples where their knowledge has simply been confounded.
You're an excellent debator BT, I look forward to your reply.
|
|
|
Post by beagriestache on Jun 24, 2008 16:32:46 GMT
Hi Alan
The Bible is full of contradictory messages, there is no doubt a webiste somewhere which lists examples of these but I can't be bothered to trawl through the internet looking for it!
Christ, if he existed, and you'll agree there is no real evidence that he did (since even the writers of the synoptic gospels are inconsistent with the details of his life e.g. his ancestry) had some excellent messages for mankind. Much of these have been adulterated and twisted by on a regular basis by christians and non-christians alike. I doubt whether anyone really understands what the christian message in its entirety actually is these days and would find it almost impossible to abide by in this day and age. Much better to agree a moral code based on sound scientific and ethical principles and adapt it to changing times as and when necessary without recourse to superstition.
Your belief in the virgin birth is worrying. This would indicate that you can believe or deny anything without concerning yourself with evidence and making a judgment based on it. If you think about that for a minute, you'll see how dangerous the extrapolation of that idea could be. Most bible scholars consider that the story of the "virgin" birth comes simply from a mis-translation of the word "maiden" from the aramaic to greek during the first millennium.
The healer - Stafford common is too far for me to go to see this man. If he came to my local church and didn't charge I'd gladly go along but I'm not prepared to expend time and petrol money on this kind of experiment.
I think your logic is wrong on the doctors front. There may be examples of people apparently being healed through prayer, but this doesn't prove that this is what happened. A simpler explanation may be that the sick person's immune system got the better of their disease. I think you're choosing to assume prayer was the causative agent when all you can definitively conclude from the example is that the person recovered and no-one knows why. It's a leap of faith (ho ho!) to jump to your conclusion.
And while we're discussing this aspect, think of all the people who have prayed for their loved ones to recover without them doing so. If you apply prayer power to the successful ones, you must also apply it to the failures and then ask yourself why this was the case this time.
Was God distracted? Not interested? Too busy? Did this particular person not deserve to be healed? To focus on the apparent successes and ignore the failures is convenient at best and disingenuous at worst.
By the way, have you got a season ticket for next season?
Cheers BT
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Jun 24, 2008 22:58:07 GMT
BT - actually Christ's existence is documented by many people. Josephus is the most respected historical commentator of the time, and he mentions him. The Jews mention him in their records, as do the Romans of the occupation. Even the Egyptians have a small mention of him somewhere, and they couldn't really care less!
Jerusalem was a massive trading city with several major festival markets each year. People travelled from all over the Middle East to trade there. It's safe to assume the people who were there enjoyed the gossip like we do today.
Now whether you believe He's the Saviour is another matter, but a man called Jesus of Nazereth (known as the Christ), was crucified for blasphemy, at Golgotha, under the orders of Pontius Pilate in what we have come to understand now as 4BC (ironic I know).
Yes, I know that "virgin" and "maiden" have probably been confused in translation, but as I said previously, I choose to believe it, it's not necessary to believe it in order to be saved. That doesn't diminish my faith or its relevence.
As for prayer - as you rightly say, it's a leap of faith; but there being no rational, scientific explanation, then recovery caused by faith and prayer is every bit as plausible as your reasoning. In fact, it has a potentially greater plausibility because something positive was being done, as against the negative of giving up on the patient.
When it doesn't appear to work, sometimes God's answer is "no", or "not yet", or maybe when we pray "Thy will be done", He expects us to accept it.
Yes, I have my season ticket, I hope you do too.
|
|
|
Post by beagriestache on Jun 25, 2008 17:33:35 GMT
This has been an interesting debate Alan.
We could go on forever no doubt, arguing over various points but I think what we've established is basically that our thought processes are different.
I think you are prepared to accept the existence of God without any real evidence (I'm not talking about plausibility, nor whether millions of others agree with you, but real, consistent, challengable and reliable evidence). This isn't a criticism, just an observation of how I think you think (if you follow!)
Whereas I need something more concrete. I'd imagine being a believer it must be nice to know that whatever happens there is the fall-back position that it's all God's will, comforting I expect.
However, for me there are just too many inconsistencies, too many holes in all the faiths of the world for much of it to make any sense. I look around at what happens in the world, man-made or natural and see an almost complete absence of purpose. The only purpose I would accept based on 4,600 million years of Earth's existence is a giant experiment by an immense intelligence who is sitting observing in a detached way and making notes about this strange creature which is going through a worshipping stage of evolution.
I think I'll leave it here Alan. I have to say, in contrast to many self-proclaimed christians on this board who are quick to show their anger when you point out problems with their religion, you've been a real breath of fresh air and credit to you. If all christians were as tolerant and fair-minded as you, the world would be a much nicer place I'm sure.
I think I'll stick to being a humanist and wish you all the best with your choice too.
I have got my season ticket for next year. At least it's paid for! Not seen it yet! Have a great season and here's hoping we stay up.
May see you on another thread sometime.
All the best.
|
|