Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Just pointing out that we have one author and two apparent accounts....

You are confusing the laws of the land with what god names as sins.

The laws of the land are largely pragmatic to generally benefit the people of that land.

Sin is what god has declared sin to be according to his whim, and more tangibly, sin is what the different religions of god define it to be, which are for the most part strikingly dissimilar.

Some laws of the land are based on those religions' definitions of sin.

Intrepid,
The laws of the land, e.g. "the rules in my country," aren't arbitrary in that they are established for the benefit of the people. People follow them to varying degrees, and police enforce them likewise. I'm familiar with laws against spitting in the street or not cleaning up after one's dog.

OK... now explain to me how God did things any differently. His laws were established for the benefit of the people. People followed them to varying degrees, and He enforced them.

God is all powerful. He could have named absolutely anything a sin. That is arbitrary.

You are confusing laws and sin, Intrepid. Some laws are based on things that god says are sins.

Most sins are named by god to benefit himself.

"... He enforced them..." Just how did he enforce "them?"

Actually, all sins are named by god to benefit himself.

Infrablue,

It sounds like you know the mind of God?

c.i.

Mostly, he'd slaughter them.

Sometimes he'd let them put on sackcloth, sacrifice animals to his name, and let them atone for their sins in that way.

How so, MA?

In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience; as an insult to God; as something detested and punished by God; as injurious to the sinner.

In the New Testament it is clearly taught that sin is a transgression of the law; a servitude from which we are liberated by grace; a disobedience punished by God.

I take it that your quarrel is not necessarily with the sin, but with God.

Borrowed from another forum on a2k:

October 1, 2005 latimes.com
The dark side of faith
By ROSA BROOKS
IT'S OFFICIAL: Too much religion may be a dangerous thing.

This is the implication of a study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and Society, a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion. The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States.

ADVERTISEMENT

Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality.

He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. ?- which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) ?- also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

This conclusion will come as no surprise to those who have long gnashed their teeth in frustration while listening to right-wing evangelical claims that secular liberals are weak on "values." Paul's study confirms globally what is already evident in the U.S.: When it comes to "values," if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust.

Murder rates? Six of the seven states with the highest 2003 homicide rates were "red" in the 2004 elections (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina), while the deep blue Northeastern states had murder rates well below the national average. Infant mortality rates? Highest in the South and Southwest; lowest in New England. Divorce rates? Marriages break up far more in red states than in blue. Teen pregnancy rates? The same.

Of course, the red/blue divide is only an imperfect proxy for levels of religiosity. And while Paul's study found that the correlation between high degrees of religiosity and high degrees of social dysfunction appears robust, it could be that high levels of social dysfunction fuel religiosity, rather than the other way around.

Although correlation is not causation, Paul's study offers much food for thought. At a minimum, his findings suggest that contrary to popular belief, lack of religiosity does societies no particular harm. This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of "faith-based" social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs.

We shouldn't shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous. Secular, rationalist approaches to problem-solving emphasize uncertainty, evidence and perpetual reevaluation. Religious faith is inherently nonrational.

This in itself does not make religion worthless or dangerous. All humans hold nonrational beliefs, and some of these may have both individual and societal value. But historically, societies run into trouble when powerful religions become imperial and absolutist.

The claim that religion can have a dark side should not be news. Does anyone doubt that Islamic extremism is linked to the recent rise in international terrorism? And since the history of Christianity is every bit as blood-drenched as the history of Islam, why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being?

Arguably, Paul's study invites us to conclude that the most serious threat humanity faces today is religious extremism: nonrational, absolutist belief systems that refuse to tolerate difference and dissent.

My prediction is that right-wing evangelicals will do their best to discredit Paul's substantive findings. But when they fail, they'll just shrug: So what if highly religious societies have more murders and disease than less religious societies? Remember the trials of Job? God likes to test the faithful.

To the truly nonrational, even evidence that on its face undermines your beliefs can be twisted to support them. Absolutism means never having to say you're sorry.

And that, of course, is what makes it so very dangerous.

My argument isn't heated, I'm merely stating the way I see things. My argument is with the idea of god, and how necessarily arbitrary the concept of sin is.

It is gonna be a wonderful day...and I am going to spend most of the morning on a golf course.

Gonna be loving it.

Life is great.

And every once in a while...I will probably reflect on the stuff our Christians brothers and sisters have offered up in this thread...

...and laugh out loud.

Yeah...life is wonderful.

They don't fear god...but if they do, it doesn't really mean they "fear god." Their god is good, kind, compassionate, and humanity loving. Those of us saying we don't know if there is a god and that the evidence is lacking are close minded...and they are open minded by insisting that there is a God...that the god of the Bible is that God...and that the god really is good, kind, compassionate, and humanity loving...and that they do not really fear the god.

Yup...I'll reflect on that stuff and laugh out loud...and enjoy this wonderful day.

Frank,

Why are you and others ignoring this? I keep trying to point this out to you and yet you insist this is not the fear we are speaking of.

This is taken from the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1fear

Pronunciation: 'fir

Function: verb

transitive senses

1 archaic : FRIGHTEN

2 archaic : to feel fear in (oneself)

3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God>

4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm

But, since you wouldn't give an inch on the definition of KNOW either, I am not surprised.

What is it that bothers you the most? The fact that we believe in something and you don't?

And good golfing!

I am not ignoring it, MA. In fact, I have commented on it several times.

In any case, I understand that you are saying the "fear" you feel is somehow different from the "fear" which we say you appear to feel.

I just happen to think you are rationalizing.

The god we are talking about is, according to the story you accept as true, listening in to everything you say and do...and will reward you greatly if you do and say exactly what it wants you to do and say...

...and will punish you by subjecting you to excruciating, unrelenting torture throughout all the rest of eternity if you screw up.

It just seems more likely to me that you "fear" that god in the sense of "dreading"...than in the sense of "awe."

And frankly, I don't blame you. If I thought for one second that god existed...I'd be needing constant laundry changes I'd be in so much fear.




What is it that bothers me the most..."The fact that we believe in something and I don't"...

...or what?

Wasn't there supposed to be a second choice?

But if you actually meant those two things to be separated by an "or" rather than an "and"...

...neither.

Really, neither.

I honestly don't care what you "believe" and I certainly am not, in any real sense of the word, "bothered" by it. That is not what any of my convesations are about.

I am concerned about the cumulative negative impact of superstition and religion on humanity.




Thanks. Truly, thank you. And I hope you have a wonderful day yourself, MA.

It is a wonderful life...and we can both appreciate our good fortune to be living and enjoying it.

You can be thankful to your god (no problem with that)...and I can just be thankful.

Frank Apisa wrote in a reply to Momma Angel:


Finally, something that we agree upon, Frank ;-)

Frank,

Can you understand why someone would get frustrated discussing this with you? It's not your opinions or your take on things that causes me any frustration, it's your telling me that you think I am rationalizing, etc. Frank, I tell you what I think, what I believe, and what I know and feel.

I am not afraid of God Frank. I love the Lord. I am so looking forward to the day that He comes again! He has given me salvation through His grace. There is nothing for me to be afraid of! I am sorry you do not accept that.

And not everyone believes that religion has a cumulative negative effect on humanity. It's not religion that causes the problems. It's certain interpretations that do.

Hey MA!

Just a quick question on clarification here. You consider religion and it's certain interpretations to be seperate. Can you explain that opinion a bit?

Hi Questioner!

How are you doing? I will try to explain what I mean.

To me religion is the delineation of Baptist, Catholic, Muslin, etc. And, because of different interpretations, they keep changing or adding new ones.

Now, that's just my view on things. That doesn't mean it is necessarily anyone elses. I feel there is a difference between religion and spirituality.

Regligion is sticking to the dogma and rules of a particular religion. To me, spirituality is sticking to the rules of God (and of course, that is as I understand them.)

I hope that helped.