Why God?

[fcgv]

Why God?

Do we ever know whyjust one person survivesan impossible wreck?walks away unscathedshakes the dust off,and lives the rest oftheir days with thememory of being the onlysurvivor? is there a God who wouldwill 5 or 500 to die and savea few‘lucky’ souls, who would will 294,000to die in a tsunami,Or that soldiers of any sideshould have a God onlyon their side? no matter how many are killedon either side? We hold a rose in our hands,wonder the beauty of it,pull it apart, take a thornto remove the thorn ofwhy we'll never understandhow our human heart breaksinto a million piecesin the pristine silence where not even one tear is heard. We are too busy praying to hold one another close to our breast.

Sr. Antonia Anthony, SSMI

[Posit]

If it is man's will to die, God will not get in the way.

[sharkman]

Why man?

[EchoesofMourning]

God has little or nothing to do with it - mass religion was created to justify the actions of the powerful and to control the throngs of uneducated.

[B. Max]

God has little or nothing to do with it - mass religion was created to justify the actions of the powerful and to control the throngs of uneducated.

No that sounds like government.

[NovaScotian]

God has little or nothing to do with it - mass religion was created to justify the actions of the powerful and to control the throngs of uneducated.

No that sounds like government.

and Organized religion.

[B. Max]

No that sounds like government.

and Organized religion.

No.

[Moxie]

God has little or nothing to do with it - mass religion was created to justify the actions of the powerful and to control the throngs of uneducated.

No Dear that's Socialism and Liberalism not religion. One is free to walk away from religion (excluding-in some countries-Islam) and suffer no consequence. The above political idiology don't want the people, sheeple and their cult followers leave you see they won't get elected to lead/rule the Chosen if the masses rise up and fight. Cuba is a prime example of the above.

I had a neighbour who was dying of terminal brain cancer and I asked him do you ever ask God "Why me lord" he said no rather offended he replied "Why not me." God didn't give me cancer the chemicals that he handled from transformers did. Blaming God for your good fortune or bad luck is an excuse to not deal with the issue at hand. We are masters of our own fate, God just lends a hand in times of strife and sorrow by giving us strenght visa vie faith that we will over come.

[NovaScotian]

No Dear that's Socialism and Liberalism not religion. One is free to walk away from religion (excluding-in some countries-Islam) and suffer no consequence.

According to Christian/Jewish/Muslim doctrine, if you walk away from God, you will spend eternity in hell. Not much of a 'free choice'. Now in any authoritarian state(sorry but liberal =/=socialist) you can walk away from the state and risk prison/execution/torture, again not much of a 'free choice'.

The above political idiology don't want the people, sheeple and their cult followers leave you see they won't get elected to lead/rule the Chosen if the masses rise up and fight. Cuba is a prime example of the above.

Not sure I follow....

I had a neighbour who was dying of terminal brain cancer and I asked him do you ever ask God "Why me lord" he said no rather offended he replied "Why not me." God didn't give me cancer the chemicals that he handled from transformers did. Blaming God for your good fortune or bad luck is an excuse to not deal with the issue at hand. We are masters of our own fate, God just lends a hand in times of strife and sorrow by giving us strenght visa vie faith that we will over come.

Where does God 'lend a hand' and how does he give us 'strength'?. Do you have an examples?

[NovaScotian]

No that sounds like government.

and Organized religion.

No.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[EchoesofMourning]

Organized religion was created by the government for the purpose that I stated above, so yes on both counts, it does sound like government and organized religion.

[Kitch]

I used to be of the opinion that belief in a 'god' was an individual's personal choice which I had no right to question. However, after reading Richard Dawkins's "God Delusion" and Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" I have changed my mind.

One of the core beliefs held by those that worship a god (I'm generalizing god to focus on the three 'Big' religions) is that humans are the rulers of the Earth (since we are made in 'his' image). We have come to believe, rather, take for granted that the Earth and its contents are our playthings. This has led to the extinction of so many more living things than is natural, and possibly global warming (who knows if it's the result of our actions... it could be though!). It has also led to many wars as well as the indoctrination of innocent children too young to have belief systems, limiting the scope of ideas that they are allowed to encounter and analyze at a young age, perhaps hindering their development.

"God" does more damage than good (if there is any good) to society. While it may benefit an individual, at least to the extent that they are incapable of logical thought and too weak to be responsible for their own life, it hurts every other living being on the planet.

[ScottSA]

One of the core beliefs held by those that worship a god (I'm generalizing god to focus on the three 'Big' religions) is that humans are the rulers of the Earth ... "God" does more damage than good (if there is any good) to society.

You seem very confused.

[Kitch]

You seem very confused.

Please elaborate.

[EchoesofMourning]

...

"God" does more damage than good (if there is any good) to society. While it may benefit an individual, at least to the extent that they are incapable of logical thought and too weak to be responsible for their own life, it hurts every other living being on the planet.

I would tend to agree Kitch, though I would modify your premise. I have no issues with most religions, only the 'big 3' as you termed them. My reason is simple - I don't know of other religions inciting wars on behalf of their god. Perhaps this is ignorance on my part and, if so, please enlighten me. However, I suspect there is a reason I've never heard of a gang of rowdy buddhists burning down another church because it was of another religion.

As for harm done to the planet, it has been and will continue to be done regardless of religion - it seems to be the result of humanity's ravenous hunger for resources.

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps this is ignorance on my part and, if so, please enlighten me. However, I suspect there is a reason I've never heard of a gang of rowdy buddhists burning down another church because it was of another religion.

Ever hear of Sri Lanka?

[Kitch]

I would tend to agree Kitch, though I would modify your premise. I have no issues with most religions, only the 'big 3' as you termed them. My reason is simple - I don't know of other religions inciting wars on behalf of their god. Perhaps this is ignorance on my part and, if so, please enlighten me. However, I suspect there is a reason I've never heard of a gang of rowdy buddhists burning down another church because it was of another religion.

As for harm done to the planet, it has been and will continue to be done regardless of religion - it seems to be the result of humanity's ravenous hunger for resources.

There are some people who decide not to define Buddhism as a religion, but rather a way of life or a philosophy. Indeed there isn't really anything to worship as a Buddhist (there are... sects, I suppose you would call them, that do seem to follow a hybridized version however). It's more about self control, enlightenment and meditation. Fighting wars would get in the way of achieving nirvana! But, I mean, it is a philosophy/religion born out of Hinduism, whatever that tells you. (This is a pretty useless paragraph). Perhaps my words were too general. But then how do you pick on specific religions and tell people they're wrong? That's what followers of each have been doing to each other for a long time.

The harm to the planet isn't the result of religion itself. Think about it... the knowledge that you were made in the image of god, or you are among the chosen people, or anything along those lines... how would you feel about your role as a human on Earth? It's not that anything forces, influences or even compels us to plunder the Earth's 'resources'. It's that we somehow feel that we are allowed to/supposed to. More specifically, it's that there is no consideration for all of the other living beings... we just do as we do because we are human. Read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael". It's an incredible book... an important one to, I believe. Quinn explains it by saying that we have come to live as though 'the Earth belongs to us' rather than the way our tribal ancestors lived as though 'they belonged to the Earth'. Ever hear the idea that the story of Adam and Eve is actually prehistoric war propaganda?

[jefferiah]

I used to be of the opinion that belief in a 'god' was an individual's personal choice which I had no right to question. However, after reading Richard Dawkins's "God Delusion" and Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" I have changed my mind.

One of the core beliefs held by those that worship a god (I'm generalizing god to focus on the three 'Big' religions) is that humans are the rulers of the Earth (since we are made in 'his' image). We have come to believe, rather, take for granted that the Earth and its contents are our playthings. This has led to the extinction of so many more living things than is natural, and possibly global warming (who knows if it's the result of our actions... it could be though!). It has also led to many wars as well as the indoctrination of innocent children too young to have belief systems, limiting the scope of ideas that they are allowed to encounter and analyze at a young age, perhaps hindering their development.

"God" does more damage than good (if there is any good) to society. While it may benefit an individual, at least to the extent that they are incapable of logical thought and too weak to be responsible for their own life, it hurts every other living being on the planet.

I have yet to read anywhere in the Bible where it states that the Earth and its contents are our playthings. I think Dawkins is exaggerating there. And I don't think the religion has caused alot of this damage. IE even communist atheists have abused the Earth. In the book of Genesis Adam the Man is given command over all things and is supposed to tend Eden. A position of such leadership does not imply that creation is his playtoy, but something which is under his care. Sadly we do treat the Earth as a plaything and take it for granted, but this is not a religious phenomenon. Rather, it is a human one.

I think your idea that religion creates the idea that we are allowed to or supposed to plunder the Earth is a little bit out there. To a reasonable extent we are allowed to use what we need to survive. Judging by what is written in the early chapters of Genesis it would be reasonable to assume that God originally intended man to be vegetarian.

Genesis

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

And then after the flood God says in his covenant with Noah:

Genesis

9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

I would assume this is because of necessity. Whenever you are in area where vegetation is sparse food must come from something. And I don't think any one takes this as God is saying you are supposed to treat the Earth as your play toy. The attitude the the Earth is our play toy does exist , but it is simply human selfishness.

The Earth is the Lord's and everything in it, says the Bible. It does not say that Earth belongs to mankind. We were put in a position of stewardship over it. This means caretaking.

Edited August 9, 2007 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

Ever hear of Sri Lanka?

Obviously not, or he/she wouldn't have asked for examples and clarification.

[jefferiah]

There are some people who decide not to define Buddhism as a religion, but rather a way of life or a philosophy. Indeed there isn't really anything to worship as a Buddhist

Hmmm, well there are very many devotee sects of Buddhism. There are many Buddhist icons and statues. Even many Zen Buddhists bow before Buddha statues, even though they are perhaps the purest example of a non-religious Buddhism (and perhaps this is purely a gesture of respect). Religion is not about worship either. Religion is a system of adherences. Many Buddhists have so many rites and ceremonies that even if they do not worship Buddha or the other enlightened ancestors, they are still a religion in that sense. But in the West we have many armchair Buddhists and there is a bit of convenience in that, I suppose, to soften the religion and change it to what you want it to be.

Zen Buddhists might also disagree with the assertion that it is a philosophy. Since philosophy involves discursive thinking it is not a direct experience of reality. When philosophizing one is not paying attention.

Edited August 9, 2007 by jefferiah

[M.Dancer]

I don't think the abscense of a worshipable divinity disqualifies something as a religion.

What do Scientologist worship (thetans?)

[Kitch]

I have yet to read anywhere in the Bible where it states that the Earth and its contents are our playthings. I think Dawkins is exaggerating there. And I don't think the religion has caused alot of this damage. IE even communist atheists have abused the Earth. In the book of Genesis Adam the Man is given command over all things and is supposed to tend Eden. A position of such leadership does not imply that creation is his playtoy, but something which is under his care. Sadly we do treat the Earth as a plaything and take it for granted, but this is not a religious phenomenon. Rather, it is a human one.

I think your idea that religion creates the idea that we are allowed to or supposed to plunder the Earth is a little bit out there. To a reasonable extent we are allowed to use what we need to survive. Judging by what is written in the early chapters of Genesis it would be reasonable to assume that God originally intended man to be vegetarian.

Genesis

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

And then after the flood God says in his covenant with Noah:

Genesis

9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

I would assume this is because of necessity. Whenever you are in area where vegetation is sparse food must come from something. And I don't think any one takes this as God is saying you are supposed to treat the Earth as your play toy. The attitude the the Earth is our play toy does exist , but it is simply human selfishness.

The Earth is the Lord's and everything in it, says the Bible. It does not say that Earth belongs to mankind. We were put in a position of stewardship over it. This means caretaking.

Perhaps 'plaything' is a term that can be misunderstood, or in your case, intentionally misinterpreted to support your idea. We are the 'guardians' of the Earth? Does this not imply that it is under our control? Or, maybe you would prefer to use another word instead of control. We are responsible for everything that happens on Earth, at least everything that we do here. Well, does the Earth NEED a guardian? It was around for millons of years before our species even came to be. (If you want to dispute that I'll be happy to engage with you). Did it NEED a guardian then? No. So what are we 'guarding' it from? US! We seem to think we need to do things to preserve it when all we really need to do is leave it alone! We belong to the Earth, the Earth does not belong to us.

I'm out there? Well, let's get real here. If you want to refer to genesis, you will show how 'out there' the religious people that follow the book are. (You can pick and choose which parts you want to take literally... I suppose that's all you can do with such a horrible book such as genesis). Did you read the story of Sodom? There's two VERY similar stories, that I know of, so I might mix this one up... but if I do, then I'm paraphrasing the other one (that I know of). So in this story a preist comes to visit some man. The villagers form a mob and demand that this man turn the priest over to them. He says 'no, but have my daughters instead, and "HUMBLE" them'!!! So, rather than give up a priest he passes his daughters on to be raped and sodomized. Well, I'm sure that my representation isn't accurate, but it IS a story in genesis and there is another one like it. Point being, it's a WHACKED out book. If you want to take your morals and understandings of the Earth from it, then I question YOUR mental fitness. There is no god to tell us how we ought to live. There are books and stories that have been designed to serve the purposes of 'somebody'.

[jefferiah]

No I rather think you are the one making the convenient interpretation, since I don't know anyone who interprets the charge of stewardship the way you have. But rather you are telling me what everyone else interprets it as, what I interpret it as. You are not privy to the minds of others and reading a book by Dawkins doesn't make you privy, either. No offense to the man himself, but this is true.

Now look let's say you are my son. I am going away for a long vacation and I leave my house in your hands to be taken care of. You are in charge. Do you think the message I am sending you is that you can smash my windows, eat all my food, throw lavish parties, and puke all over my rug?

In the Sodom story there was no priest. Lot (Abraham's nephew) lived in Sodom, and it was two angels who went to give him a warning that it was going to be destroyed. Where does it say that the Lord commanded Lot to give up his daughters? Lot gave up his daughters. Not God.

As for horrible things in the Bible there is no end to them. But these are stories about humans. How many Jews or Christians do you think feel that their daughters are disposable to sex offenders?

Sorry if you were offended but I did not actually say that you were "out there". I said I think this idea of yours is.

This is what i said:

"I think your idea that religion creates the idea that we are allowed to or supposed to plunder the Earth is a little bit out there."

Ask the Christians on here if they feel that God is telling people that it is ok to wreck the Earth. They know what they think, not Dawkins, Sir.

As for wrecking the Earth it is a human thing. We do it in order to create and maintain the conveniences we now have. Without the network of multi-lane tar strips we call highways which run through massive areas of what used to be natural habitat for many critters, medicare would be useless. You would have access to nothing. And in order to travel these lanes we had to suck oil from the Earth and refine it. The paper in your printer comes from trees. The paper in Dawkins book. I am sure he does his part in keeping the oil industry and paper industry and construction industry and transport industry in a state of existence. Yet he is not religious. It would be a great if we could rid ourselves of these things, but you must understand that many many people, religious or secular, would complain if they were not there.

Cities, stadiums, casinos, sports teams, cars, trucks, ships, tranes, planes....all these luxuries. Are they religious entities?

Edited August 9, 2007 by jefferiah

[Kitch]

No I rather think you are the one making the convenient interpretation, since I don't know anyone who interprets the charge of stewardship the way you have. But rather you are telling me what everyone else interprets it as, what I interpret it as. You are not privy to the minds of others and reading a book by Dawkins doesn't make you privy, either. No offense to the man himself, but this is true.

Now look let's say you are my son. I am going away for a long vacation and I leave my house in your hands to be taken care of. You are in charge. Do you think the message I am sending you is that you can smash my windows, eat all my food, throw lavish parties, and puke all over my rug?

In the Sodom story there was no priest. Lot (Abraham's nephew) lived in Sodom, and it was two angels who went to give him a warning that it was going to be destroyed. Where does it say that the Lord commanded Lot to give up his daughters? Lot gave up his daughters. Not God.

As for horrible things in the Bible there is no end to them. But these are stories about humans. How many Jews or Christians do you think feel that their daughters are disposable to sex offenders?

Sorry if you were offended but I did not actually say that you were "out there". I said I think this idea of yours is.

This is what i said:

"I think your idea that religion creates the idea that we are allowed to or supposed to plunder the Earth is a little bit out there."

Ask the Christians on here if they feel that God is telling people that it is ok to wreck the Earth. They know what they think, not Dawkins, Sir.

As for wrecking the Earth it is a human thing. We do it in order to create and maintain the conveniences we now have. Without the network of multi-lane tar strips we call highways which run through massive areas of what used to be natural habitat for many critters, medicare would be useless. You would have access to nothing. And in order to travel these lanes we had to suck oil from the Earth and refine it. The paper in your printer comes from trees. The paper in Dawkins book. I am sure he does his part in keeping the oil industry and paper industry and construction industry and transport industry in a state of existence. Yet he is not religious. It would be a great if we could rid ourselves of these things, but you must understand that many many people, religious or secular, would complain if they were not there.

Cities, stadiums, casinos, sports teams, cars, trucks, ships, tranes, planes....all these luxuries. Are they religious entities?

There's two things I want to say first. One, I want to apologize for my tone in my last posting. Two, I believe you're defending religion against Dawkins because of what you know about him, not because of any of his ideas that I've presented... because I haven't presented any (that I remember). The main idea that I've provided ... 'we belong to the Earth, the Earth doesn't belong to us' is from Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael". The only Dawkin's book that I've read, so far, is "The God Delusion". Now, I'm a soon to be science teacher, so I approach things in a very scientific way. The question about whether or not god exists is not a scientific one because it is impossible to disprove (if you aren't familiar with the scientific method and care to know I'll be happy to help). In his book, Dawkins tries to show that it IS a scientific hypothesis because we can speak of it in terms of probabilities, which show that it is not a 50/50 relationship... it is actually less probable that a god exists. BUT, I haven't talked about that stuff at all... it's just there as a very short summary of what I know of Dawkins.

The fact that you don't know anyone who defines 'stewardship of the Earth' as I do may speak more about the people you're acquainted with than it does about what people think. Maybe not, but it's a possibility. In truth the interpretation isn't the relevant part... it's the consequence. Which is why it's not important whether or not 'god' said anything of the sort.

Your son/party analogy doesn't work. Your house is not analogous to the Earth. Your house was built and needs to be maintained while the Earth came to be the way it is millions of years before we humans came about and dominated it.

Ya, I knew I got the story of Sodom wrong. I never said anything about 'the lord commanding' anyone to do anything. And your attack on Dawkins is unwarranted since I presented none of his ideas. (I assume you haven't read the "God Delusion" though... I also presume that you'd dispute it before picking it up... hence HIS distaste for religious types). The reason I brought it up wasn't to show that god is a terrible thing. Genesis was where you found support for one of your ideas... I was trying to show what a bad source of any morals or understandings of the way things are/ought to be it is. I'm not blaming your god for telling us to destroy the world... that would be a scape goat... as is your explanation that it's human tendency to destroy the world.

None of the things that you've listed are 'religious entities'. This stuff won't make sense to you until you understand my main point that I'm taking from Daniel Quinn... and I don't know that I'm any good at articulating it. (I suggest you read "Ishmael" if you really want to know where this idea comes from). As I said before, the Earth existed LONG before Adam and Eve were supposed to have been around. And we humans have been around since long before then too. How did we survive before? Evidently we did. And the Earth didn't need a steward before... so why does it need one now? What makes us so special? (It is that idea that we think we're special that is dangerous, specifically). There are people on this planet now who (probably have their own forms of religion... so I guess my attacks are more aimed specifically at the 'big' ones) don't act as stewards. They take what the Earth gives them and nothing more. They don't destroy land to farm on. They don't let their populations grow to such numbers that ecosystems can't support them. They live as though they belong to the world, not the other way around. I hear the groans now... they don't have the comforts we have now. Sure, but we can have some of our comforts without destroying the livelihood of other species. What right do we have????

As for the Buddhist talk... I'M not the one who chooses to dispute its status as a religion. I don't really care. Nor do I care what anyone worships. I find it ridiculous to worship anything to tell you the truth. But that's just me!

[jefferiah]

Look Sir, you are telling me that maybe I interpret it a certain way but that I may be wrong about the majority of others and this is only something people within my small peer group believe. Once again, you are making assumptions. I know very little of Dawkins, but I thought that it was an idea from his book you were expounding. A mistake.

Believing that humans are special in some way does not necessitate bad behaviour. Sorry, but that is just nonsense. My analogy to the house was a good one. Many religious people actually do not believe in evolution and so therefore the situation is the same for them. They are on God's land. This is not our Earth. We were put in charge over it. That does not mean a position of being able to rape the land.

Now you say that you have a thing against big religions for doing this. Religions are not doing this, Sir. Religions are not people. Imperialism and land grabbing and trying to maintain progress, these things have been around for ages, Sir. It is a human thing. The Earth is the Lord's and everything in it, says the Bible. So do you think this is a command to pollute rivers destroy forests and dump radioactive waste near my well? These things have been done in the name of "Progress", whether or not it really is progress.

I never said we had the right to destroy things. I am pointing out that its not a religious thing, but it is plain human selfishness or dissatisfaction which makes us this way. In order to develop to the point that we have there had to be a great deal of land raping. I am not defending that or railing against that. This is the truth. In order to have the network of highways which brings people to hospitals, to have the paper which educates doctors, schools, power lines which light your house and give you your internet, there had to be a great deal of forest chopped down, land raped, oil sucked, etc. I am not saying it is right or wrong. But I will tell you that if you live in an area where you are let's say an hour from a hospital, there will be people there (religious or not) who would like to have one closer, or they would like to have a bipass highway built to bring them directly there. And this is not for religious reasons either. There is nothing so convenient that people will not want more of it, or nothing so fast and efficient that can't become faster. The standard of what we must have in order to survive has gone up a lot. I would say it is a secular thing. This is not a religious thing. I am not saying its good, I am not saying it is bad. I am saying it is. But you have to stop blaming this on religion. Do you think its because of the Bible that people want these things? I can tell you that atheists want them as much as anyone else. I did not groan about not having hospitals or losing these things, Sir. I was pointing out that people will groan. Cell phone towers, highways, etc, are not just associated with luxury but security. I do not have a cell phone myself, but many people see them as a wise thing to have. Parents buy their kids cell phones so they can keep track of them when they are not home or that if they need anything they can always call. You can phone the ambulance, police, etc etc, in situations where you previously could not. This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with how much humans demand in order to feel safe. I am not saying that standard is good, or bad, or groaning about it. I am saying that this is a good part of the reason for human raping of land. Because where service progresses and problems are solved, they are never one hundred percent solved. The bar raises. And wherever these progresses have not been made, people feel it must be spread there to give the needy in third world countries more hospitals, schools, roads and highways. I am not saying this is good or bad. I think the intention is good behind it, Sir. But at the same time I know that the Earth can only handle so much. I agree with you on this. But unless you sell your car, put up a solar panel, grow your own organic food...etc...you better stop pointing the finger at other people.

Other than that, if a ruthless person destroys land and takes more than his share from it, in order to have what he wants, it is probably because of his own selfishness or because he can get better mass production from taking more.

The Amish are Christians who fit the example of a people who don't rape the land and they live harmoniously with it.

If you want people to live without intrusion, I commend you. Now start doing it and stop complaining.