Does God have Respect for Life

[PsychoticEpisode]

sure there is a point where god is simply an idea

Agreed.

there is however a stage beyond that

Yes. God becomes a real invention.

(iow theistic claims have recourse to practice and furthermore conclusion, unlike atheistic claims which have no capacity to go past theory)

Classic sales pitch..... Personally as an atheist I have nothing to sell. Theists keep telling me I do but I don't know what it is. Is the theist pitch is always aimed at an atheist? As I've said numerous times, we have 2 choices, pick one and leave it at that simply because we know squat about any real god. We know plenty about the invented god(s) to fill several libraries. If you feel you're duty bound to change my call then all I can say is you're doing a great job trying to sell it.

I'm sure you've done more practicing and concluding than most. If you think you've figured out something no one else has then I guess congratulations are in order, I think. Sorry but I find it odd that people are passionate over a choice.

I have this new thread topic....What came first? The idea of a god or the one of no god? Did people walk around saying 'there is no god, there is no god' until somebody finally stated the opposite? Wouldn't it be ironic if it were atheists that started the whole god business?

why would he want to say something like that?

Come on now, any theist would say He already has, just have to understand.

**Back to topic: Remember we agreed a creator cannot respect his creation because he/she/it may have to destroy it. Can the same be said if god is a creation of the human mind? Does the human mind possess the wherewithal to destroy god?

 

[Balerion]

Light,

kind of strange the way they always call upon political and economic advisers (as opposed to religious ones) to explain or deal with the situation

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.

anyway if you want to judge a genre by its worst stereotype I'm sure you will never get anywhere (especially coming from a person who just advocated selling some sort of thing to live a life of non-commitment as perfectional)

Stereotype? Please. And who said being rich is a life of non-commitment? What would you rather have? Go to church and worship all day every day? Or prevent myself from indulging in life's pleasures because some god that someone else worships doesn't trust me enough to be responsible? Please. Your god preaches abstinence, I practice moderation.

at this point your mother and father would probably describe you as ungrateful

You're really stretching the definition of servitude here, pal. My parents raised me and taught me how to be a good, productive person. I don't need a god to hold my hand the rest of the way. I don't need nor want to be magically absolved of my crimes by sitting in a box and confessing to a priest. To worship is not only to take any burden of blame off yourself, but it is also to surrender any credit you might deserve for the good, and I'm not willing to do that. If I do well, it because I did well, not because some imaginary god gave me the strength.

or alternatively, that is the result of dovetailing one's inherent serving nature to things or objects not worthy of it

Nobody is a slave because they want to be. People make slaves of others because it is beneficial to them (the masters). Want cheap labor? Enslave a people. It has nothing to do with a natural want or desire to be a slave.

well if you think you can find love and happiness, even the mundane variety, without approaching issues of servitude I think you still have a lot to learn in life

I honestly have no idea how many damn ventures in life you've managed to cram under your exceptionally broad definition, but I'll say this: I'd rather serve my family, serve my wife and children, serve my parents, and my friends, than serve some invisible god that was invented a few thousand years ago by a people who honestly had no idea what made the ground shake or the rain fall.

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sure there is a point where god is simply an idea
”
Agreed.

“
there is however a stage beyond that
”
Yes. God becomes a real invention.

iow you disagree

“
(iow theistic claims have recourse to practice and furthermore conclusion, unlike atheistic claims which have no capacity to go past theory)
”
Classic sales pitch..... Personally as an atheist I have nothing to sell.

you have the idea that anyone who says god is not just an idea is wrong

Theists keep telling me I do but I don't know what it is. Is the theist pitch is always aimed at an atheist?

not really
Its kind of like a proposal that if you want to know you have to fall in line with certain requirements - kind of like the "sales pitch" of physics/chemistry is that you have to have a strong foundation of maths, theoretical knowledge of compounds etc

As I've said numerous times, we have 2 choices, pick one and leave it at that simply because we know squat about any real god.

essentially its an issues of education
at a certain point even a famous physicist knew nothing about physics

We know plenty about the invented god(s) to fill several libraries. If you feel you're duty bound to change my call then all I can say is you're doing a great job trying to sell it.

it's not so much that I feel duty bound to change your value system.
At this point we are simply having a discussion.
You feel god remains solely and wholly an idea by extrapolating your experience to all accounts on the subject.
I feel that unless you fulfill general standards of knowledge (like issues of qualification etc) your feelings on the matter are not so greatly authoritative to deeply dye the discipline.
For instance if I don't fulfill certain requirements of physics, of what value are my postulations on electrons?

My question to you is simply "If you don't fulfill the requirements (or perhaps even know what the requirements are) for spiritual life, on what basis to you assert that your opinion of the subject is authoritative?"

I mean why don't you just leave it at "this is what it is like for me" rather than "this is what it is like for everyone"
?

I'm sure you've done more practicing and concluding than most. If you think you've figured out something no one else has then I guess congratulations are in order, I think. Sorry but I find it odd that people are passionate over a choice.

what on earth makes you think I have figured out something no one else has?
I remember one significant saintly person who responded to a question "what makes you special?"
he simply replied "I never made anything up"
to say the least, passionate innovation is not a pre-requisite .....

I have this new thread topic....What came first? The idea of a god or the one of no god? Did people walk around saying 'there is no god, there is no god' until somebody finally stated the opposite? Wouldn't it be ironic if it were atheists that started the whole god business?

its just another tentative argument (iow one that has a flexible foundation and is simply an opportunity to express one's values)

for instance you could just as easily ponder the issue of how atheism is an antithesis of theism.

It won't amount to much (except perhaps in the eyes of those who hold similar values)

“

why would he want to say something like that?
”
Come on now, any theist would say He already has, just have to understand.

perhaps it might be an initial catalyst for theistic discipline but there are very clear indications that one does not come to successfully understand god by figuring out how he does things (in the vedas that is sometimes technically called "jnana" - distinct from karma (working for a comfortable material position) and most certainly bhakti (loving devotion to god untainted by desire for personal aggrandizement)

mad 22.17 “Devotional service to (God) is the chief function of the living entity. There are different methods for the liberation of the conditioned soul—karma, jnana, yoga and bhakti—but all are dependent on bhakti.
etc etc

**Back to topic: Remember we agreed a creator cannot respect his creation because he/she/it may have to destroy it.

I don't think we came to any conclusion why god would need to destroy it.
what exactly is going wrong with it?

Can the same be said if god is a creation of the human mind? Does the human mind possess the wherewithal to destroy god?

the idea of god can be destroyed - certainly - much like you could destroy the idea of electrons - you can even destroy history like that too

eg

 

[lightgigantic]

JDawg

“
kind of strange the way they always call upon political and economic advisers (as opposed to religious ones) to explain or deal with the situation
”
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.

if you placed one jelly bean for every article written to elaborate on current issues in the middle east from a writer with economic/political credentials in one jar and placed one jelly bean in another jar for those written by persons with theistic credentials, which jar would be bigger?

“
anyway if you want to judge a genre by its worst stereotype I'm sure you will never get anywhere (especially coming from a person who just advocated selling some sort of thing to live a life of non-commitment as perfectional)
”
Stereotype? Please. And who said being rich is a life of non-commitment?

you gave it to challenge that one could maintain a life that doesn't approach issues of service

What would you rather have? Go to church and worship all day every day? Or prevent myself from indulging in life's pleasures because some god that someone else worships doesn't trust me enough to be responsible? Please. Your god preaches abstinence, I practice moderation.

not sure how this topic came up ... but anyway just to map out a some what broad topic the living entity ultimately has no constitutional relationship with matter, either in terms of material attachment or detachment. The essence of life is all about service (and the problem of material life is that one adopts a service attitude towards matter .... hence all material designations of being the "material enjoyer" or "material renouncer" are illusory since the very foundation of such designations is temporary - ie the corporeal body and associated mind/senses)

as for responsibility, actual social law and order is a byproduct of dharma (although perhaps somewhat estranged by secular/capitalistic values), so if the law of a country doesn't trust you enough to keep its laws off your body, there's a good chance that god is also working under a similar premise

“
at this point your mother and father would probably describe you as ungrateful
”
You're really stretching the definition of servitude here, pal. My parents raised me and taught me how to be a good, productive person. I don't need a god to hold my hand the rest of the way. I don't need nor want to be magically absolved of my crimes by sitting in a box and confessing to a priest. To worship is not only to take any burden of blame off yourself, but it is also to surrender any credit you might deserve for the good, and I'm not willing to do that. If I do well, it because I did well, not because some imaginary god gave me the strength.

maybe the point is getting lost here
you originally advocated something like "just see how mean and nasty god is - there are implicit issues of service in religion and god - I am sure glad I am not religious so avoid the service"

my response is that ALL walks of life have service at their foundation, even the godless variety, so its not clear what you think you are avoiding.

“
or alternatively, that is the result of dovetailing one's inherent serving nature to things or objects not worthy of it
”
Nobody is a slave because they want to be. People make slaves of others because it is beneficial to them (the masters). Want cheap labor? Enslave a people. It has nothing to do with a natural want or desire to be a slave.

the very label "slave" indicates that there are certain issues between the server and the served that are being neglected.
For instance would you describe your mother or father as your slave?
To say that all walks of life demand service means that unless we fulfill it we cannot exist.
That is why even filthy rich people who would never run out of money even if they went insane and started buying anything at least have a cat or dog to render service to

“
well if you think you can find love and happiness, even the mundane variety, without approaching issues of servitude I think you still have a lot to learn in life
”
I honestly have no idea how many damn ventures in life you've managed to cram under your exceptionally broad definition, but I'll say this: I'd rather serve my family, serve my wife and children, serve my parents, and my friends, than serve some invisible god that was invented a few thousand years ago by a people who honestly had no idea what made the ground shake or the rain fall.

so with or without god, service remains
I guess you just made my point

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Believe in god and heaven with all your focus and mind, have true faith in what is not known to your eyes and you will be happier. It can help you with many of lifes struggles, or imagine an eternity of anything you desire, if you can find a way to do that it would be better for your energy and quality of life.


Try to do it and see if you can, its hard to make leaps of faith I can do it for short amounts of time.


peace.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I feel that unless you fulfill general standards of knowledge (like issues of qualification etc) your feelings on the matter are not so greatly authoritative to deeply dye the discipline.
For instance if I don't fulfill certain requirements of physics, of what value are my postulations on electrons?

My question to you is simply "If you don't fulfill the requirements (or perhaps even know what the requirements are) for spiritual life, on what basis to you assert that your opinion of the subject is authoritative?"

Well I have worried about your qualifications. I'm not sure if you are what you say you are and I have intimated that several times before. Then I tell myself it's an anonymous forum and everybody's qualified.

How are you qualified to speak knowledgeably about spirituality? Education? Did you read it in a book? Through meditation? Drugs? Dreams? Contact? Experiences? Eyewitnesses? Divine revelation? Feeling it? Hard evidence?

 

[Adstar]

Or does He have to? Can you be a creator and still have respect for life even if it didn't turn out the way you planned or is a lack of respect needed in order to make adjustments?

This is a question I asked a bishop once at a church rally when I was a mere lad. He told me that God respected human life. Animals and plants were life without consciousness and therefore not in need of respect. Of course I asked him about how god could be respectful of human life and still find it necessary to destroy us now and then. His response was to look at me strange and walk away.

So really I'm in a quandary, on one hand god respects only human life and on the other hand he doesn't respect any life. The latter may be a prerogative only a creator would be entitled to.

When God created the universe He said it was good. But once it became contaminated or twisted if you like He no longer saw it as good. God does not respect what is not good.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

When God created the universe He said it was good. But once it became contaminated or twisted if you like He no longer saw it as good. God does not respect what is not good.

All I can say to that Adstar is that God either erred in His analysis or forgot about the contaminants He also created.

 

[Balerion]

if you placed one jelly bean for every article written to elaborate on current issues in the middle east from a writer with economic/political credentials in one jar and placed one jelly bean in another jar for those written by persons with theistic credentials, which jar would be bigger?

What are "theistic credentials", exactly? Anyway, the consequences of the conflicts over there have economic and political consequences, not religious ones.

you gave it to challenge that one could maintain a life that doesn't approach issues of service

Yes, mindless service of the the invisible that goes against all reason and rationality. To do stupid things like giving up one of your favorite things for Lent, or not eating meat on Fridays, or fasting from sun up to sun down every day for a month. Or confessing your "sins". If service is a part of life, I'd rather be in service of something that matters, like my family, or my career. You know, something that can actually have an influence on my life.

as for responsibility, actual social law and order is a byproduct of dharma (although perhaps somewhat estranged by secular/capitalistic values), so if the law of a country doesn't trust you enough to keep its laws off your body, there's a good chance that god is also working under a similar premise

Law and order are a natural byproduct of human society. Don't attribute it to anything other than instinct. It is not the result of a religious philosophy.

maybe the point is getting lost here
you originally advocated something like "just see how mean and nasty god is - there are implicit issues of service in religion and god - I am sure glad I am not religious so avoid the service"

my response is that ALL walks of life have service at their foundation, even the godless variety, so its not clear what you think you are avoiding.

I think you're stretching the definition, but regardless, I already made my point for why if you do have to be a servant in your life, why you shouldn't be one to some invisible god that has never existed.

the very label "slave" indicates that there are certain issues between the server and the served that are being neglected.
For instance would you describe your mother or father as your slave?
To say that all walks of life demand service means that unless we fulfill it we cannot exist.
That is why even filthy rich people who would never run out of money even if they went insane and started buying anything at least have a cat or dog to render service to

so with or without god, service remains
I guess you just made my point

Hardly. Serving my family does not require me to stop eating the foods I love ritualistically, or to feel the burden of guilt because I may have done wrong in the eyes of some invisible god.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

What are "theistic credentials", exactly?

Sort of a common theme in this thread. JD, love the way you cut to the chase.

A lot is being said by resident theists about credentials & qualifications being required for meaningful religious debate. That should eliminate about 99% of all theists from thoughtful discussion. The jury is still out on whether the 1% who claim to have the right stuff really do possess some kind of knowledge essential to the theistic movement. How is it that anyone is more qualified than another to speak expertly on something no one knows any truths about.

Do educated theologians and philosophers feel they are above the masses? At least here is evidence of how a religious leader is born. Think of yourself closer to god and holier than thou. This attitude is definitely a requirement if you want to lead someone down your path. The lack of respect issue is not just between a god and his creations. Qualified religious leaders seem to mimic their god. The mere mention of credentials and qualifications smacks of elitism and preferentialism.

The common retort is that not all of us are qualified to be physicists, engineers, etc. I ask the qualified to stay within this universe. To venture out is asking for trouble because you might as well talk about nothing.

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychoticepisode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I feel that unless you fulfill general standards of knowledge (like issues of qualification etc) your feelings on the matter are not so greatly authoritative to deeply dye the discipline.
For instance if I don't fulfill certain requirements of physics, of what value are my postulations on electrons?

My question to you is simply "If you don't fulfill the requirements (or perhaps even know what the requirements are) for spiritual life, on what basis to you assert that your opinion of the subject is authoritative?"

”
Well I have worried about your qualifications. I'm not sure if you are what you say you are and I have intimated that several times before. Then I tell myself it's an anonymous forum and everybody's qualified.

so IOW you (already) have a conception of what it means to be qualified on theistic matters?
If you elaborate upon it then it can be analyzed

How are you qualified to speak knowledgeably about spirituality? Education?

education plays an element

Did you read it in a book?

books are a part of education

Through meditation

meditation is a broad kind of term, but I guess you can include it too

? Dreams?

dreams sometimes offer a clue into how one's desires are working

Contact?

contact with what?

Experiences? Eyewitnesses? Divine revelation? Feeling it? Hard evidence?

actually authority in spiritual life comes from three things - scripture, saintly persons in general and one's guru
the moment you can start to lodge a suggestion that falls in line with all three is the moment a person starts to speak with theistic authority

 

[lightgigantic]

Jdawg

if you placed one jelly bean for every article written to elaborate on current issues in the middle east from a writer with economic/political credentials in one jar and placed one jelly bean in another jar for those written by persons with theistic credentials, which jar would be bigger?
”
What are "theistic credentials", exactly?

the ability to speak about theistic issues with a decorum of authority and knowledge (much like political/economic credentials)

Anyway, the consequences of the conflicts over there have economic and political consequences, not religious ones.

hence politics is primary

“
you gave it to challenge that one could maintain a life that doesn't approach issues of service
”
Yes, mindless service of the the invisible that goes against all reason and rationality. To do stupid things like giving up one of your favorite things for Lent, or not eating meat on Fridays, or fasting from sun up to sun down every day for a month. Or confessing your "sins". If service is a part of life, I'd rather be in service of something that matters, like my family, or my career. You know, something that can actually have an influence on my life.

you are simply talking about where your attachments lie (namely in the body and things related to the body)
the reason that theistic disciplines have different prescriptions is because it is commonly understood that the body has a predictable course and conclusion

“
as for responsibility, actual social law and order is a byproduct of dharma (although perhaps somewhat estranged by secular/capitalistic values), so if the law of a country doesn't trust you enough to keep its laws off your body, there's a good chance that god is also working under a similar premise
”
Law and order are a natural byproduct of human society. Don't attribute it to anything other than instinct. It is not the result of a religious philosophy.

law and order is instinct?

“
maybe the point is getting lost here
you originally advocated something like "just see how mean and nasty god is - there are implicit issues of service in religion and god - I am sure glad I am not religious so avoid the service"

my response is that ALL walks of life have service at their foundation, even the godless variety, so its not clear what you think you are avoiding.
”
I think you're stretching the definition, but regardless, I already made my point for why if you do have to be a servant in your life, why you shouldn't be one to some invisible god that has never existed.

actually god becomes knowable by service
you've got it back to front

BG 18.55 One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

“
so with or without god, service remains
I guess you just made my point
”
Hardly. Serving my family does not require me to stop eating the foods I love ritualistically, or to feel the burden of guilt because I may have done wrong in the eyes of some invisible god.

so you are neglecting one sort of ritual to favour another sort
in what clear way are you any different?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sort of a common theme in this thread. JD, love the way you cut to the chase.

A lot is being said by resident theists about credentials & qualifications being required for meaningful religious debate.

well would you think it reasonable to discuss higher mathematics if there was no consensus what 1+1 equals?

That should eliminate about 99% of all theists from thoughtful discussion. The jury is still out on whether the 1% who claim to have the right stuff really do possess some kind of knowledge essential to the theistic movement. How is it that anyone is more qualified than another to speak expertly on something no one knows any truths about.

how is that you know that no one knows the truth about it?
where did you learn that truth?

Do educated theologians and philosophers feel they are above the masses? At least here is evidence of how a religious leader is born. Think of yourself closer to god and holier than thou. This attitude is definitely a requirement if you want to lead someone down your path. The lack of respect issue is not just between a god and his creations. Qualified religious leaders seem to mimic their god. The mere mention of credentials and qualifications smacks of elitism and preferentialism.

at the very least, I assume you are quite satisfied to have an elitist mechanic fix your car

The common retort is that not all of us are qualified to be physicists, engineers, etc. I ask the qualified to stay within this universe.

and what is your qualification to determine the length and breadth of the universe?

To venture out is asking for trouble because you might as well talk about nothing.

I guess it boils down to how much a person is prepared to learn

 

[Balerion]

the ability to speak about theistic issues with a decorum of authority and knowledge (much like political/economic credentials)

OK, but the media is dealing with the fallout of such events. Who better to discuss these things with?

hence politics is primary

Well, no. Religion is the cause, but the consequences are political. Just like rape is physical, but the more lasting effects are psychological.

you are simply talking about where your attachments lie (namely in the body and things related to the body)
the reason that theistic disciplines have different prescriptions is because it is commonly understood that the body has a predictable course and conclusion

What does that have to do at all with what I said?

law and order is instinct?

Absolutely. Even the most primitive of civilizations had (and have) a structure to them. And by definition, you'd call them "godless", even if that only meant they did not worship the "one god".

actually god becomes knowable by service
you've got it back to front

BG 18.55 One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

And you fell for that? You give visible devotion and service for an invisible reward? Wow. Sucker.

so you are neglecting one sort of ritual to favour another sort
in what clear way are you any different?

Because my rewards are real, and do not force me to suffer regardless of my actions. I don't have to get on my knees and thank some invisible being for my good works or my good fortune. I don't have to credit someone else for my achievements. I don't have to blame anything else for my bad deeds, either (Satan, anyone?), and I don't pretend that I can be absolved of all my wrongdoing by simply saying a prayer.

Also, I don't have to give any of my money to a church. That's pretty awesome, too.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Lg...believe it or not I enjoyed philosophy seminars at university more than any other. Some good looking women there too. My prof told me in private that all I had to keep doing to get an "A" was to continue badgering the rest of the pseudo-philosophers in the room. I told him I liked his philosophy, a once in a lifetime admission for me. I always liked the word pseudo, it sounds philosophic don't you think? Anyway, he let me mark my classmates essays, unbeknownst to them.

Some people in that room could quote philosophy texts verbatim from memory. Whenever I saw that on an essay I gave a barely passing grade for lack of originality and thought. Prof agreed. I have taken that attitude and kind of extrapolated it to fit the current qualified. There are no experts, only plagerizing frauds. That goes for anybody, no qualifications required.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg...believe it or not I enjoyed philosophy seminars at university more than any other. Some good looking women there too. My prof told me in private that all I had to keep doing to get an "A" was to continue badgering the rest of the pseudo-philosophers in the room. I told him I liked his philosophy, a once in a lifetime admission for me. I always liked the word pseudo, it sounds philosophic don't you think? Anyway, he let me mark my classmates essays, unbeknownst to them.

Some people in that room could quote philosophy texts verbatim from memory. Whenever I saw that on an essay I gave a barely passing grade for lack of originality and thought. Prof agreed. I have taken that attitude and kind of extrapolated it to fit the current qualified. There are no experts, only plagerizing frauds. That goes for anybody, no qualifications required.

interesting anecdote
basically philosophy without a sense of the absolute amounts to nothing more than parlour games

 

[lightgigantic]

Jdawg
“

the ability to speak about theistic issues with a decorum of authority and knowledge (much like political/economic credentials)
”
OK, but the media is dealing with the fallout of such events. Who better to discuss these things with?

whats the matter?
they're incapable of discussing or reporting on the cause?

“
hence politics is primary
”
Well, no. Religion is the cause, but the consequences are political. Just like rape is physical, but the more lasting effects are psychological.

yet you see that the cause of rape gets more airplay ....
“

you are simply talking about where your attachments lie (namely in the body and things related to the body)
the reason that theistic disciplines have different prescriptions is because it is commonly understood that the body has a predictable course and conclusion
”
What does that have to do at all with what I said?

you talked of why things don't add up to your values, so I am just reminding you thats precisely because theism holds different values.

“
law and order is instinct?
”
Absolutely. Even the most primitive of civilizations had (and have) a structure to them. And by definition, you'd call them "godless", even if that only meant they did not worship the "one god".

if the origins of law and order are instinct, why do you have the instinct to be free from them?

“
actually god becomes knowable by service
you've got it back to front

BG 18.55 One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.
”
And you fell for that? You give visible devotion and service for an invisible reward? Wow. Sucker.

so you sit on your laurels if you want to know someone?

“
so you are neglecting one sort of ritual to favour another sort
in what clear way are you any different?
”
Because my rewards are real, and do not force me to suffer regardless of my actions.

loss and gain in the material world is the language of suffering

I don't have to get on my knees and thank some invisible being for my good works or my good fortune.
I don't have to credit someone else for my achievements. I don't have to blame anything else for my bad deeds, either (Satan, anyone?), and I don't pretend that I can be absolved of all my wrongdoing by simply saying a prayer.

since material life clearly illustrates how no one is independent, it's not clear what ruse you are trying to pull

Also, I don't have to give any of my money to a church. That's pretty awesome, too.

as if money stays with you

 

[Balerion]

whats the matter?
they're incapable of discussing or reporting on the cause?

That's not at all the case. If you're trying to tell me you've never heard a religious authority speak on the causes of the strife in that region...

yet you see that the cause of rape gets more airplay ....

How so?

you talked of why things don't add up to your values, so I am just reminding you thats precisely because theism holds different values.

And that's fine. I don't have a problem with religion being a shield against life's hardest realities.

if the origins of law and order are instinct, why do you have the instinct to be free from them?

Who has the instinct to be free from law and order?

so you sit on your laurels if you want to know someone?

No. But getting to know someone doesn't involve going to church, giving money to a church, saying prayers, feeling guilty about something you have no control over, or worshiping some invisible deity. You can't compare religious worship to social existence. They are two different animals.

loss and gain in the material world is the language of suffering

Uh huh. But you have to face those regardless. Why add onto it another level of suffering?

since material life clearly illustrates how no one is independent, it's not clear what ruse you are trying to pull

I'm not trying to pull any ruse. I'm simply saying that God is not required for you to live a full life, a happy life, or a good life. On the other hand, I believe that worshiping God adds a whole bunch of grief to your life that wouldn't be there without worship.

And the notion of God really is silly. If you know you have to do all the things in life that are difficult, suffer the losses and enjoy the gains, why would you then add another layer on top of that? Why would you burden yourself with things like sin, for example? Why add more grief than necessary?

as if money stays with you

Sure it does. Never heard of a savings account? And again, if I must spend money, I'd rather spend it on things that I care about. And when you get right down to it, if I don't like the way the taxes are, I can cast a vote for a candidate that would change that tax system. I at least have a voice in the matter. Where is my voice in the church's scam? Oh, that's right...I don't have one.

 

[Lori_7]

Or does He have to? Can you be a creator and still have respect for life even if it didn't turn out the way you planned or is a lack of respect needed in order to make adjustments?

This is a question I asked a bishop once at a church rally when I was a mere lad. He told me that God respected human life. Animals and plants were life without consciousness and therefore not in need of respect. Of course I asked him about how god could be respectful of human life and still find it necessary to destroy us now and then. His response was to look at me strange and walk away.

So really I'm in a quandary, on one hand god respects only human life and on the other hand he doesn't respect any life. The latter may be a prerogative only a creator would be entitled to.

god respects life enough to perfect it according to his law so that it might be eternal, and free from sickness, suffering, and death, allowing for our free will.

 

[Balerion]

god respects life enough to perfect it according to his law so that it might be eternal, and free from sickness, suffering, and death, allowing for our free will.

If that were true, there would be no sickness, suffering, or death.