Confused on Religion! Need Insight

Bishop Burnet wrote to a friend that Charles Stuart had told him: "The only things that God hates are that we be evil and that we design mischief."

Burnet commented to his friend that the King "has a strange notion of God's love." Apparently, the King's statement was not comprehensive enough for the good Bishop. I rather suspect the good prelate had a long, long list of the things which God hates. Indeed, the human race does seem to have unreasonable expectations of the deity--there are only so many hours in the day, even for the omnipotent.

Good Morning, Oh Thou Ancient One--i hope all is well in Merry Old.

Fairly top ho old boy

and a very happy quarter to two in the after noon to you

Steve writes


Well I obviously disagree with theists like that as my personal belief is that God is unknowable. Also, I'm not real big on a lot of 'shalts' and 'shalt nots' except for those that truly make sense; i.e. if one jumps off a cliff, the consequence will be major pain and/or death. I do believe God puts thoughts and ideas into certain people's heads and when these people report that information, they are what the Old Testament defined as prophets. But I don't think it is essential that anybody else believe that.

Earl writes


Thanks Earl, but it only makes sense that I can't expect you to respect my views whether or not you agree with them if I don't respect yours. Also, I believe two reasonable people can widely disagree on any issue and neither be evil and, in fact, neither may necessarily be wrong from his/her own perspective.

But your thought of a court hearing is fascinating. Who would I call as witnesses? Wow, I would have to give that a lot of thought, especially if I had to limit the list. Can we call people back from the dead? If so, at the top of my list would of course be Jesus of Nazareth followed by Paul of Tarsus and Mary, mother of Jesus.

From more recent history, I would call Martin Luther, Joan of Arc, and Catherine Marshall.

So who would you call?

Foxfyre, Hmmm, yes would require some thought...I'm sure I'd have Farmerman on my bench, while I'd call Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Nietzsche, James Randi, Marc Twain...

But most of all I'd probably just enjoy cross-examining yours witnesses !

(obviously you would be defending your claim)

So you wish to be the prosecutor and I will represent the defense? What is the charge and against whom?

(I would most enjoy cross examining Nietzche I think, as in the end he is the most interesting of your witness list and, I think, the most vulnerable. )

I thought Einstein went to his grave believing in God..hidden variables and all that..I know he disliked shcroedinger's interpretation and wasnt a fan of heisenberg either..why on Earth would you call him as witness for atheism?

Personally, I'm no Atheist, but I will not try to mix science and God. There is no point to subjecting God to scientific principle as there exists no way for me to say:

If God exists then A will happen and I can measure it..

Science needs no God, Indeed it does better without one..coz then u need to answer Which God?

Unless you're a hard head like me Physgrad who believes God is the author of science, the metaphysical, and all that fits into neither. Science does better without God? I'm sure many scientists think so. But there's that pesky what if. . . .

What if the laws governing science were from the mind of God?

We can't know one way or the other can we?

God is referred to as the supreme lawgiver, is he not?

Foxfyre,
....I just love it when you see things my way.

Aw thanks Booman. Every now and then somebody agrees with me. It doesn't happen often, but every now and then. . . .

Neologist, I have to believe there is manmade law and natural law and a supreme law that overrides both. I believe God could be the author of what we call manmade law, but is not necessarily so. I believe God is the author of natural law, and I believe God can override both should he choose to do so. Again, that is my belief, and I don't think it essential that anybody else believe it.

Well, NumbFaint, have you gained any "insights" yet?

We seem to be on the same page.

as for me, I'm ok with the idea that gods may exist, I just don't understand why everyone can't see that everything (the universe) is entirely possible without any.

After we get to that point, I'm happy to look at evidence (or logic) that they do.

And I don't think that's the least bit illogical either, Earl. You have to work harder to get to the 'how it all came to be', but there's definitely more than one way to look at it.

Well Foxfyre, that's just it.

I'm not the one saying "I think I have an explanation (for how it all came to be), and I'm quite sure mine is right" like many theists are.

All I need to do is say "Really? What makes you think so?....can you show me why I should believe you?"

I'm happy to accept any reasonable evidence or logic...but I haven't seen any !

In fact all the evidence points AWAY from any kind of supernatural behaviour ever having occured anywhere ever.

Earl, I don't deny there are theists who won't tolerate any view but their own. There are also athiests who won't tolerate any view but their own either.

There are athiest scientists who believe as you believe. There are religious scientists who believe as I believe. There are many theists, such as myself, who don't claim to have any provable explanations and are not about to tell you that we do. And there are many like you who don't have any provable explanations and are not about to tell anybody else that you do.

"Believers" see the hand of God everywhere and find it far more difficult to believe there is not some intelligent design behind the universe. We don't accept that we are some mutant accident of nature.
We know we are unique and are here for a purpose. We also believe that non-believers are unique and are here for a purpose.

That you do not share the belief does not diminish you in the least.

What I dont understand is why people cant see that its so simple. Yes I did say simple.

When early man stopped being a hunter gatherer and started farming, for the first time he had both the time and the inclination to start pondering on the inexplicable. What happens if the sun doesn't come back in spring? Where does rain come from and is it going to come this year? They had no idea how to explain these things, but they were well aware of just how vulnerable they were to envirnomental factors over which they had no control. So as a way of explaining the inexplicable, and to give a name to something they hoped to appease, they told stories and invented gods. How many "rain gods" are there throughout the world?. The stories were elaborated and passed down and above all codified into a system which became the ruling polity. Much more recently, different groups at different times decide there could only be one God, and naturally they argued as to Who and What that meant. But it was still an attempt to explain the inexplicable. It was only in fairly recent times, since the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe and the development of 'science' as we know it today that we have made some outstanding progress in really understanding our environment and the Universe. Now we have the tools and the methodology to actually attempt some explanations of what was hitherto inexplicable. Science might be different from religion in many ways, but its still fulfilling the same basic function, except its far more effective and useful. We have not found the rain god or the sun god, but we have found sub atomic particles and neuton stars. And we still retain our sense of awe and wonder. For me, the most profound notion, and one that naturally leads back into the realms of religion is WHY is it that we CAN understand it? The answer to that of course is anything but simple.


(Here endeth the first lesson from the gospel of St. Steve14oo)

AMEN

"Religion can be confusing. Faith is another option, and a better choice EDIT (Moderator): Link Removed