Can a person choose to believe in god?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jan 31 2007, 07:01 PM) [snapback]383517[/snapback]</div>

Well, this preacher has many friends who are atheist, or Jewish, Muslim, Hindu...I guess I disappoint those who think all preachers should shun them who don't believe.

I also love AC/DC and Lemmy and lots of things that I ought not to, so they say. Oh, and I say if you want to read a great book about the battle between God and the Devil, read The Stand by Stephen King. I love that book.

Anyway...time for Monty Python.

 

Daniel, Unitarians go back a bit further. Calvin actually had a famous one killed, roasted to death I think, (Michael Cervitas sp?) in Geneva. But you are correct that Unitarianism is most prominent here in the US. Personally, I think the UU hymns suck. They're mostly nauseating. This is one area where the Catholics shine. The polyphonic sacred music of the 15-16th centuries is among my favorite kinds of music. Luther's greatest disservice to us was the introduction of hymns which are, IMHO, the basest form of art.

I'll get back to you on the brain thing. I think that it sheds a lot of light on things. Mark and Frank have touched on it.

It's always time for Monty Python!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 31 2007, 07:14 AM) [snapback]383251[/snapback]</div>

And for you, the idea of "God=Love" and "God sends sinners to hell" is an example of an internal inconsistency? I'm willing to explore that one concept if we can do it without too many tangents. The thing I would start with, though, is that the concept of hell is not as high on the dogma list as the concept of God being love. For most Christians, you could eliminate all mention of hell and it wouldn't make much difference to them. (I was surprised at a debate on PoliteTalk where a pastor provided a list of "true evangelicals and born again people" and had as one of the 7 or 8 points belief in Satan as a person ... a strange requirement in my mind, as he's mentioned in the Bible less than things like sodomy).


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 31 2007, 07:14 AM) [snapback]383251[/snapback]</div>

I think perhaps apologists for a particular branch of a religion think this way, but its not true of most Christian theology. Theologians have vigorous debate on various issues, with dissenters usually leaving the particular denomination for greener pastures after a while. That's viewed as a negative by some, but I think its healthy (as long as they don't revert to punishment for heretics again!)


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 31 2007, 07:14 AM) [snapback]383251[/snapback]</div>

Churches do pay taxes on some things; the tax exemption is not absolute. The rules are complex, but as an example, if a church holds a commercial venture, such as a travel agency that arranges trips to the Holy Land, their earnings on that business are taxable. They do not have to pay taxes on donations made to them for their religious or charitable work, and the donations are deductible. In California, churches avoid property tax on the land they hold specifically for religious purposes (such as worship) but not for any commercial activity.

I wouldn't favor invoking taxes on religious organizations unless you're willing to tax all charitable and non-profit organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, Nature Conservancy, ACLU, etc. Many charities would cease to exist if taxes were placed on them, so the unintended consequences could be an increase in government payouts that exceeded the amount of taxes collected.

I would like to see "critical thinking skills" taught in school again as well, if the method was to use classical reasoning and not some new age, everybody get naked type of course. Those should only be held in college.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 4 2007, 07:16 AM) [snapback]385107[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm not so sure. Where are you getting your definition of love? (perhaps that's a tangent in and of itself!) That aside, I think most Christians would say that "perfect Love" or "God's Love" includes a sense of justice. Presumably, justice includes punishment such as eternal torment, although I do see that as problematic.

My own view is that whatever punishment is slated for the truly evil has to be consistent with the nature of God, and his nature includes both "justice" and "love". That leads me to the destruction of the soul as the punishment rather than the eternal suffering model, but God could have another solution that fits in with his nature that I have not thought of. The purpose of a belief in hell, for me, is to remove the need for me to exact "justice" or "revenge" myself; I have faith that whatever happens, the murderers, rapists, child abusers and others get what they deserve from a truly fair and impartial Judge who not only knows the facts of the crime without any shadow of a doubt, but also knows all the contributing factors.

In this respect, the concept of hell serves the same purpose as the American legal system; it is intended to remove the need for a "nation of men" to react and mete out justice in favor of a "nation of laws" to resolve disputes.

The concept of hell as a place of eternal torment is not one inherited from the Jews, according to some Jewish friends of mine. I suspect it is one of those doctrines adopted after the initial creeds (I know it flourished during the middle ages when church=state, and was probably a handy way to instill fear in the people).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 4 2007, 07:16 AM) [snapback]385107[/snapback]</div>

I would like to see a simple tax rate as well. Right now, the poor are paying no income tax up to a certain income, but still pay a disproportionate amount to SS and Medicare taxes. The upper middle class and rich "top out" of those two taxes after a certain income level ($95k, I think), leaving the poor to keep making up the balance.

The "flat tax" proposals have had a certain amount of progresstivity built in, and I would welcome a "progressive" income tax that incorporated the payroll and Medicare taxes as well, as long as there was no possibility of any deductions. I saw a study ... which I cannot find now, so you'll have to trust me ... that said the average income tax ever paid by "the rich" was around 22%. Even when the top rate was way up there above 40%, the average the wealthiest wage earners ever paid was much, much lower. So why not have a "progressive" income tax that taxed all wage earners and welfare recipients at something like 5% (for Medicare and SS), and increased in stages to 22% for the highest earners. No deductions, no credits, no filing at the end of the year unless you have income that wasn't taxed (rental property income, etc.)

Why include the poor and welfare recipients? Because everyone should pay something, and being a part of the SS system is a good thing for them.

I'm more comfortable with eliminating all the income taxes and going to a straight sales tax. That gets people who have accumulated wealth but are living off their trust funds; why should Paris Hilton pay less in taxes because she's an heiress? That would also nail the "evil churches" as well as those other "evil non-profits" like Moveon.org!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 4 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]385107[/snapback]</div>

Not contradictory to me. God does not "send" you to hell, you're sent away from God by your own beliefs and actions. We are born sinners, damned forever. God "loves" you so much that he sent his son to die FOR you. If you accept this, you will spend eternity with Him, if you choose not to, then you will simply remain where you are already going. No contradiction there. IOW, if you are dying, and I come upon you and tell you I love you and all you have to do is love me back and I will save you, then how is it that I am killing you if you refuse and you simply finish dying. I did not kill you, you killed yourself.

Wait, again, unbelievers cannot understand this...God says so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 4 2007, 12:54 PM) [snapback]385223[/snapback]</div>

According to whom? My God does not say so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Feb 4 2007, 06:24 PM) [snapback]385233[/snapback]</div>

In the Bible. Let me find it...be right back...(wait, you are Jewish right...it is in the New Testament, written by Paul)...1COR 2:14.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (KJV)

In the Old testament, there are statements like A foolish man says there is no God. Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child (remember I said we are all born sinners, damned to hell). The mouth of fools pour out foolishness. The thought of foolishness is sin.

So, if the definition of a foolish person is one who denies God, then a fool speaks foolishness. And, since Jesus is the Son of God then one who denies Jesus is a fool also.

This is not my opinion, this is what is written in the Word of God. My opinion is how I interpret it. So, go ahead and interpret it in any way you choose.

And, IsrAmer, in what writings of your God does He accept that his Word can be understood by anyone who just lifts up the scriptures and reads them.

In fact, in Proverbs, God says not to speak into the ears of a fool (Prov 23:9 KJV)

JMHO and quotes from the scriptures I use.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 5 2007, 12:33 PM) [snapback]385679[/snapback]</div>

Not a problem ... I know there's a lot of stuff happening right now! Hurry back.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 4 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]385223[/snapback]</div>

It's always problematic when a system of belief claims infallibility and perfection for itself...and when individual failings are placed upon the inadequecies of the believers.

 

Well, that only makes sense, Pinto. If everyone who believed in God(s) were perfect, then madkow and windbags could spell!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 5 2007, 10:49 AM) [snapback]385622[/snapback]</div>

Evening lads,

Man you forget to check in on this thread for a few days and it takes you an hour to catch up. Good stuff though.

Now, on with it...

I find the above rather strange. Why would any rational and reasonable person construct a universe like the above? So this God who "so loved the world" sets us off on the path to eternal damnation (I'm assuming that's what you mean by hell, correct me if I'm wrong) and then communicates to us through a book that very jewish centric and only recently widely available? Those that are ignorant of this book continue (blissfully ignorant, I suppose) on their original path? And I'm foolish because I think it's so much bollocks? Maybe god is an egomaniac who only loves those who understand his bizarre logic, but that reduces god to the status of the teenage girl who gets pregnant so that someone will love and need her (because no one else does). I would hope that god's family home life were better than that!

Seriously. What is the point of it all? Give me a non-circular explanation that explains why believing in God the Christian way is the only way to successfully live a good, moral life.

Daniel, check out the Feeling Good: The Science of Well-Being by C. Robert Cloninger. My Dad's a big fan of it (he's a shrink). I think I'm going to dig into it myself. Perhaps we could discuss it at sometime in the future.

Fshagan, would you condemn someone to eternal torture because they don't love you? Would you condemn EricGo to hell? What about Bin Laden or Hitler or Stalin? Would you condemn your children to eternal torture if they emancipated (the legal term) themselves and never spoke to you again? That seems to be the equivalent here, is it not?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 6 2007, 08:26 AM) [snapback]386068[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I think you are right in terms of our understanding of love, and the analogies used to equate God to a parental figure (which Jesus used).

I would say that if hell exists, then God is not just "love" in the sense we understand the word, but that he is also vengeful, an extractor of justice, fear-inducing and awful to behold. All of those concepts exist in the Bible for God. I think Christianity in the 20th century emphasized the "God is Love" angle because of "marketing"; just as Roger Williams wrote the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" for a different generation that was expecting the harsh reality of God as judge, so the 20th century church emphasized the "God is Love" angle for evangelistic purposes.

God is God, and if our theology includes hell and judgment, then God is the author of that as well.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 6 2007, 08:26 AM) [snapback]386068[/snapback]</div>

You mean in terms of a church teaching enforced by state rule or other method of coercion, and not personally held beliefs? I certainly am not into coercion of any kind ... remember, I'm an almost-Calvinist, so I see no hope for anyone not already chosen by God. There is no need to coerce them, because if they are "God aware" they will be saved, and if not, I'm not powerful enough to change it.

My experience in a free society, where people are free to believe in God or not as they wish, is that people either believe or not, and express that they have always had that belief (or lack thereof).

Hell is not a major doctrine for me; it either exists or it doesn't. The value of the concept, for me personally, is that I don't have to extract vengence for wrongs committed against me; God has said vengence is His to extract. In the end, if God decides to forgive them all ... Hitler, Saddam, etc. ... then He is simply exercising his authority. If He decides whatever other path for them ... not sure where the idea of fire that burns but never consumes comes from, but OK ... then that's his prerogative. That's not a prescription for law, but a thought for the individual.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 6 2007, 08:26 AM) [snapback]386068[/snapback]</div>

True, but they usually spend far more, and you would capture the underground economy with a sales tax (to a point; there are still "cash deals" that fly under the radar). A 20% sales tax on cars, boats, and all other items would have them paying more into the system than they do now, and would at the same time encourage savings.

I think the real inequity in our system is that only workers are taxed; the "trust fund kids" sit on their nest eggs and spend millions every year, and pay less in taxes than the middle income worker does. But how do you tax accumulated wealth fairly without eventually impoverishing people who have a nest egg but no earned income? Paris Hilton could spend it all, eventually.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 7 2007, 08:06 PM) [snapback]386817[/snapback]</div>

Its a fair comparison, and no, I would not consign people to hell. But I am not God.

But let's say that hell is real, and God is not only the palatable "God is Love" God of recent history, but also the God of vengence, the God of Justice, and the God that created hell for those He chooses to send there.

Because God doesn't fit our conception of what he should be doesn't mean those things aren't true. I would trot out my electricity analogy now, but I think Daniel already dismantled it!

In terms of theology, if we are trying to decide which concept of hell (or non-hell, as it were) we are going to say is consistent with our understanding of God, these kinds of questions are useful. We have to reason, and debate, and decide.

But if we are trying to say God doesn't exist because he is not the God of the "God is Love" crowd, then we have a problem: just because God is terrible doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Feb 7 2007, 11:42 PM) [snapback]386849[/snapback]</div>

That seems so bloody pointless to me (amongst other things). How can you find any solace/peace in worshiping/believing in/loving/etc such a creature? It seems to me that in this view we're all just pawns of a brute. So how does JC, the Prince of Peace fit in? The Golden Rule and all of that? The god that you're postulating doesn't seem to really believe in it. Or am I missing something?

What's the point of interpreting the Bible in this view? You're either in or out. It seems in this scenario that you'd better read it literally and hope you were chosen. If you interpret it incorrectly you could spend an eternity regretting it. If you choose to interpret the Bible who do you decide which parts to interpret? The whole thing? Just certain parts? If the thing's open to interpretation then you could probably come up with a variety of consistent religions that were opposed to each other. What then? How would you be able to whittle it down to one interpretation? You could say "common sense" but that is likely to be heavily influenced by culture. As you know, I would say that common sense tells you the whole thing is bollocks.

Of course, the whole thing is predicated on book written ages ago that cannot be independently verified. Since there are other religions that claim the same thing and function the same way then how can we choose? The logic is circular in each case. Why choose the Bible? The Koran claims to supersede it. Why haven't you chosen to follow Islam? How can you be sure that it's not the correct "version".

I'll ask again, give me a non-circular explanation that explains why believing in God the Christian way is the only way to successfully live a good, moral life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Feb 6 2007, 07:56 PM) [snapback]386358[/snapback]</div>

What individual failings did I put on inadequacies...or do I just not understand your point. I was only talking about peoples ability to comprehend or fully understand the scriptures as put forth in the Bible. If you are a non-believer....WHY would you even care to?????

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Feb 8 2007, 01:06 AM) [snapback]386817[/snapback]</div>

*...bollocks?* Quite simply....yes!

There is also quotes in the Bible tell us (believers) to avoid vain and profane babbling and it is foolish to speak wisdom to a fool....which is why I spend a lot less time here lately...or at least don't get involved in as many threads.


I know, I know, some of you just think I have slunk off with my tail between my legs being whupped by such great wisdom...not true.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 8 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]386975[/snapback]</div>

Primarily for three reasons:

1) Intellectual honesty. The bible and religion are used to back irrational, untrue or impossible claims.

2) Policy making. Related to the above. People in policy-making positions are using religious claims to back policy that is not founded in reality and is harmful to us.

3) Religiosity in general promotes radicalism. Indirectly so by claiming that religious claims of any kind can not be challenged. To a degree this blankets and protects radicalism which obviously (9/11) is harmful to everyone.