Why surrender yourself to a greater power?

I suppose you would have to be certain the greater power has more smarts than you do and has your best interests in mind.

aperson, while I can understand your point of view on this I must disagree. Ok, you are probably right for the most part. There are a lot of "religious" people who would rather let someone else run their life. It seems easier that way. For one if you aren't making the decisions you aren't responsible necessarily when things go bad. Blame it on God right? A lot of people do that. Not all, but a lot. Though a lack of willingness to take responsibility for ones actions is certainly not limited only to religion by any means. However, I must also say that there's a lot more to believing in God than what most people talk about. Yes, it's a different path to follow. Someone else seemingly calling the shots, and so forth. But for some it's not really like that.

The God I believe in allows us to make our own decisions. Just like anything in this life there are choices to make, whether it involves religion or not. People make life changing choices every day at work even. Whether decisions involve a "God" or not there are consequences or rewards for each one and each person needs to be willing to take responsibility for either way it ends up. I think, for me at least, it all boils down to hope. I was thinking about this on the way home from NV. As people I believe we all need to have hope in something. For me it's God. Something bigger than me that helps me to not feel quite so lonely in this great big world we live in. Maybe in some peoples eyes that makes me weak. Maybe not. Really, either way it doesn't matter to me because I know what I believe and why.

I think for the most part religion has provided me with a sense of greater good. That it's more important to seek the welfare of others than myself. Doing this has, at times, caused me great pain and a bit of grief because it's easy to be taken advantage of and not realize that is what is happening. But mostly, it's given me great joy to help others, to do things that make them happy, to give them something maybe they wouldn't have gotten any other way. To not be so wrapped up in what I want, and where I want to be in life that somehow I am suddenly there, right where I want to be. It's amazing sometimes the way things happen in life. I know that thinking of others first has helped me to grow as a person and to see things from different perspectives that I may not normally see them as.

My personal opinion, involving religion anyway, is that it is worse than a thief that comes in the night to rob you. I'm sure that sounds quite contradictory to what I just said, however, bare with me here. You see, religion has become as selfish as it accuses "the world" of being. The people trying to "save" the world from condemnation are themselves sitting in the front seat of the handbasket on the way to hell, so to speak. What I respect most in a person is someone who says what they believe and sticks to it. All too often most of the "christians" now-a-days, talk all big and bad, criticize, judge, condemn, and yet are the most irresponsible shmucks you ever met. Why? "Well, God will fix this." they say, as they run their credit card bill up to $30,000, and then go to church on Sunday and shout amen to the sermon about God delivering you from your debt...

If there is a God, I have no doubt He gave us a mind for a reason and expects us to use it. The idiocy found within the "christian ranks" now-a-days blows my mind. People expect to be able to do whatever they want and God will just "rescue" them if they mess up. Now, don't get me wrong here, I believe God is a God of mercy, and He does extend grace to people, however, just like a 16 year old kid who keeps getting in car accidents, how many times exactly are his parents suppose to buy him a new car because he screwed up AGAIN? A lot of life I believe is based out of common sense and good choices. I don't believe I have to do some whooptie do rain dance for God to bless me, or bring good things my way. I don't believe I have to put on some show and try to convince others that I am right in order for God to love me.

I believe that I just am what I am, and I believe what I believe, and that's quite alright. Just like you are who you are, and believe what you believe, and that's quite alright as well. I won't bang you over the head with my bible. I see no point in that. As I've said before and I'm sure I'll say again, I don't believe I stand to lose a thing by believing what I believe. Worst case scenario if I'm wrong, I die and become nothing. Yet, I lived a happy life. Did the things I enjoyed. Helped others. And had the peace of believing in something bigger than me all the while. That's quite enough for me.

Why is it that it is supposed that a religious person cannot run their own life? Who do you suppose/propose is running it? Who is making the decisions and how?

Are you suggesting that religious people have no thought process of their own and are some kind of zombies? I am really curious as to how and why you make these propositions.

I said that people are greatly influenced by the Bible, the Church etc.

They accept that what is in the Bible is law, or that what the Church says is law, without questioning them.

Re: Why surrender yourself to a greater power?

This behavior is in no way specific to religious people, and it doesn't necessarily mean they reject responsibility. Agnostics do the same whenever they let their banker compose their stock portfolio, have their doctor determine their diet, or ask their lawyer how to deal with the bullying boss at work. And this can be a perfectly responsible decision. In fact, if you believe those other authorities make better decisions about your life than you would on your own, it would be irresponsible not to defer to their judgment.

While your points are well taken, Thomas, there is an apples to oranges aspect which makes your analogy misleading. A lawyer studies for many years--in the United States, usually six or seven years, passes rigorous examination, and must be admitted to the bar. Bankers perhaps require less education, but far more experience before being put in a position to responsibly advise people on investments (and in many states of the United States, must be licensed to do so, and pass examination and meet educational requirements for that licensing). Physicians probably require the most education, and must be licensed, although the cynical might say that once licensed--given the behavior of county medical associations--they are without further meaningful oversight.

None of this applies to religious leaders. The quality and rigor of their education is not regulated by any agency, and is at the discretion of the sect to which they adhere. They may freely establish their own sect, and the most scurrilous people may assert religious authority and call themselves whatever they like--witness the Westboro Baptist Church (anyone unfamiliar with at group is advised that web searches on them will turn them up, but that they are an incredibly offensive group). No one assures that "ministers" of the "gospel" are adequately trained in family relations, psychology or child care when they are sent out to their "flocks."

Certainly, one may confide in one's spiritual mentor, and may well be rewarded for that trust with good advice--but there is no guarantee that that is the case, and no remedy if it is not.

Is this a good example, aperson?

Salt Lake Tribune



If he loses it will be the fault of the devil.

But, if things turn around and the money starts flowing it will be Gods grace.

I have a cousin who is very religious; some Baptist sect. They do not believe that anything they own is theirs. It belongs to God. Everything that has happened in their life is God's doing. If any decision is made it's God making the decision. His occupation was determined by God. His strengths were given to him by God. Where he chose to live and the car he drives is God's selection, not his.

Granted these people are a minority but there are those out there who totally submit themselves to God, or so they believe they do.

I think we are disagreeing about nuances here, not fundamentals. My banker may advise me to buy stock that he's already invested in. My doctor may prescribe a diet that gives me pimples. My lawyer may well give me bad advice. While it is possible to sue for malpractice in any of these fields, the practical remedies for bad advice are limited. A reasonable person may well conclude that fear of hell keeps the priest as honest as fear of a malpractice suit keeps the doctor.

From where I sit, this pans out empirically, too. As a former Lutheran, my relevant experiences are mainly with Lutheran pastors and the Diakoniewerk (that's Lutheran Social Services in America). In my subjective assessment, these people are as good at what they do as their competition in comparable government and business functions. Perhaps even a little better.

Religious people trust diffent authorities than we do, for reasons different from ours. As a result, they have their lives run by other leaders than we do. But this difference, in itself, doesn't make them rejecters of responsibility, which was "aperson"'s thesis.

Thomas, your appeal to nuance is disingenuous. A doctor, lawyer or banker who makes a bad decision is, of course, subject to displine from a governing body, and might not be subjected to severe penalties based upon a bad decision which the governing body decides was made in good faith--for example, you banker may have lost on the investment s/he advised you to make, which inferentially displays good faith having been misguided.

The same does not apply to a religious leader. Fear of sanction by a governing body is a fear of the here and now--fear of "hell" is a fear of the putative future in a supernatural setting, and most religions provide an escape hatch in the form of willfully self-imposed penance. Say enough Hail Marys and Our Fathers, and the big guy will forgive you diddling the altar boy. Hurt somebody in the pocketbook today, and they sit up and take notice.

Lutheran Social Services is, in my experience, one of the best charitable organizations going--i have far more respect for them and for Catholic Social Services, based upon experience in the "charity industry" than i do any other ogranizations. But there is no guarantee that one will have such excellence of practice in the person of any particular minister, and no remedy if that is the case.

Furthermore, for every Lutheran or Catholic Social Services office which is doing good work in the community, there is a wild-eyed bible thumper who is making people's lives unnecessarily miserable and filled with an irrational fear--and the law and society make no distinction between the two. I mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church--they are not affiliated with any other Baptists organization, and are universally condemned by all orther Baptist organizations--but that doesn't stop them using the name, and promoting their warped "God hates fags" message. And not a thing (in the United States, at least) in law prevents them from peddling their hatefulness. Not a thing in law prevents fundamentalist bible-thumpers from teaching their congregations that women and children are chattels, and a private lawsuit as between two otherwise undistinguished individuals is the only remedy.

You are comparing apples to oranges, and the differences rise to much more than nuance. Not everyone in the world adheres to Lutheranism, Catholicism or the tenets of the Southern Baptist Conference. There are differences of degree in the quality of the message and the control of ministers over their congregations, and those differences frequently rise to far greater extents than mere nuance.

Thomas, your appeal to nuance is disingenuous. A doctor, lawyer or banker who makes a bad decision is, of course, subject to displine from a governing body, and might not be subjected to severe penalties based upon a bad decision which the governing body decides was made in good faith--for example, you banker may have lost on the investment s/he advised you to make, which inferentially displays good faith having been misguided.

The same does not apply to a religious leader. Fear of sanction by a governing body is a fear of the here and now--fear of "hell" is a fear of the putative future in a supernatural setting, and most religions provide an escape hatch in the form of willfully self-imposed penance. Say enough Hail Marys and Our Fathers, and the big guy will forgive you diddling the altar boy. Hurt somebody in the pocketbook today, and they sit up and take notice.

Lutheran Social Services is, in my experience, one of the best charitable organizations going--i have far more respect for them and for Catholic Social Services, based upon experience in the "charity industry" than i do any other ogranizations. But there is no guarantee that one will have such excellence of practice in the person of any particular minister, and no remedy if that is the case.

Furthermore, for every Lutheran or Catholic Social Services office which is doing good work in the community, there is a wild-eyed bible thumper who is making people's lives unnecessarily miserable and filled with an irrational fear--and the law and society make no distinction between the two. I mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church--they are not affiliated with any other Baptists organization, and are universally condemned by all orther Baptist organizations--but that doesn't stop them using the name, and promoting their warped "God hates fags" message. And not a thing (in the United States, at least) in law prevents them from peddling their hatefulness. Not a thing in law prevents fundamentalist bible-thumpers from teaching their congregations that women and children are chattels, and a private lawsuit as between two otherwise undistinguished individuals is the only remedy.

You are comparing apples to oranges, and the differences rise to much more than nuance. Not everyone in the world adheres to Lutheranism, Catholicism or the tenets of the Southern Baptist Conference. There are differences of degree in the quality of the message and the control of ministers over their congregations, and those differences frequently rise to far greater extents than mere nuance.

Well, "aperson" certainly doesn't make that distinction. But a believer, when he decides to dedicate his life to a religious cause, may well make a conscious decision for one denomination over another. He may well decide that Lutheranism, Episcopalianism, or Catholicism persuade him, while far-out Baptist sects are creepy. At the very least, then, "aperson" was painting with an awfully broad brush. (Not that I'm innocent of this myself.) Some believers, though not all, act responsibly when they put their lives on auto-pilot and let the deity of their choice take over.

As to the sanctions governing bodies impose on bad doctors, lawyers and bankers, I don't deny they exist, nor that they have some effect. But I suppose your faith in the relevant governing bodies must be a lot greater than mine. That must be why you see a substantial difference where I see a difference of nuances. (Just ask Montana what the Massachussets government did to her when she refused to drug her son for school, and you'll learn that government has its creepy corners too.) Of course, being the tolerant person I am, I don't think you're a shunner of responsibility just because you trust government to enforce professionalism. You and I simply believe in different authorities.

I don't "have faith" in governing bodies--i have resort to them if i think it is warranted. If i were not to get a response which i considered appropriate, i would holler louder, and make more people in responsible positions miserable and eager to get rid of me by attempting to provide a solution.

No such remedy is available with religious institutions. You attempt to equate circumstances which are not equal.

Re: Why surrender yourself to a greater power?