why religion makes no sense? please respond

Yes, I understand what you mean. There are some similarities between the two traditions, but naturally there are many differences. Still, both are, to some degree at least, about improving the future, or working toward a better future.

why does war make sense. Why love someone to lose them. why do babies die. and just who is god. so we can say, saved? hmmmmmm.
why not live each day and be.
god brings folks together and sets rules etc. The rules exclued others tho. god of self is self and is.

Usually, war is senseless. All war is sparked by senselessness. However, under certain circumstances, war may be necessary. For example, responding to Nazi Germany and intervening in other genocides like Rwanda or Darfur... oh, wait, only the first example was historical, sorry.



It's tough, I know. But nothing is permanent. Everyone will die at some point. It's a fact of life, really. There is a considerable lesson to be learned, though. The experience of losing a loved one should help instill compassion for others who will undergo the same experience. Perhaps this sort of compassion is just what we need to combat future war. Or maybe just some more nuclear warheads, but that's an entirely separate debate.



SIDS, brutal parents, birth complications, sickness, all sorts of causes.



The closest one can get to an expressible answer is in figurative language, and there exists plenty of that to read already. Perhaps we might think of scripture and teaching like this - a finger pointing to the moon. The finger is the teaching and scripture, and it all points to the same thing, the moon. Of course, each finger will have a slightly different trajectory; teaching and scripture will have differences. But they all point to the same thing, the moon, or God in this analogy. Also, the fingers musn't be confused with the moon itself, they only point the direction. Thus, no scripture or teaching is perfect for all people, in all places, at all times. Further, because the directing hand is not the moon, to see the pointing finger is not the same as seeing the moon. Reading scripture and hearing teaching is not the same as experiencing God. You have to actually look up to the sky to see the moon. You have to search to find God. Just as the pointing fingers will help you spot the moon, scripture and teaching will help you find God.



Beats me. Though, I've met a great many people who share that idea who also disagree on the proper way to go about living each day and being. This suggests to me that there is a great deal more to be considered even after we understanding that we should just live each day and be. We need to look into just how that plays out in the daily life of a human being.



Often times, yes. However, don't we also see the opposite occuring? Many spiritual leaders have been notably inclusive. Few modern men have been more inclusive than Dr. King.

War always makes sense on some level.

1. Conquerors seek power, control of the world, land, financial gain, fame and glory.
2. Defenders and the Opressed seek freedom, independance, and self preservation.
3. Murderers seek to slaughter.
4. Intervention may seek peace and the preservation of innocent life, the preservation of aliances or any of the above reasons.

hhmm... odd that the link attached my name to that post. Those were Sarah's questions, and good questions, but just not mine.



Okay, I hope I'm not stepping on any racially sensitive toes here, but how was Dr. King inclusive? Don't get me wrong, I think the man did some great work for the civil rights movement, and he did say some things that were all-around inspiring, but he was a racial leader petitioning for the betterment of his race. And there's nothing wrong with that, a lot more of it should happen, but I just don't see how he was inclusive. (Bear in mind this is coming from someone who does not live in America and did not have to deal with those civil issues. I'm not trying to shoot your statement down, DT, just trying to gain a little insight into the topic.)

Solace - No problem at all. Dr. King was fighting for racial inequality; his church was an African American church and it was his responsibility as their minister to help lead the people for good causes. What we have to remember is that Dr. King was not fighting only for his congregation, nor was he fighting for his race alone. Dr. King's efforts transcend race and culture - King was fighting for equality at large.

Civil rights are not just an issue for certain racial minorities, civil rights are for all people in all places. I think King understood this. Most of his work was focused on a particular community, but King's sights were not limited to the African American community. Case in point would be his opposition to the war in Indochina.

Okay I see what you mean about how extending civil liberties to include all groups is an inclusive ideal. But Dr. King was on the outside looking in. He was knocking on the civil rights door asking for those inside to let everyone in; he wasn't inside opening up the door for everyone. Now don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that if he was inside he would have gladly opened the door, but such wasn't the case.

This is an interesting subject though, DT, even if it's off-topic for this thread.

time to thread this then ----

To carry the door analogy - Dr. King was certainly on the outside, but he did not knock on the door and ask to be admitted. King stood outside, brought others to stand outside, and called on a loud speaker 'you on the inside cannot keep us out any longer'. He was on the outside, to be sure, but he was an outsider who rallied the strength of his peers so that they could, in keeping with the analogy, pick the lock and prop the door open for everyone.

heh heh, okay DT, point taken.:surrender: