I was on Yahoo answers, and there was a person who was not particularly religious who asked a question.
Hmm...I bet you can all see where this is going. A person who's not religious, asking a question, to a crowd of crazy Christians. (Sorry, but those extremists need to get out of the media).
Here was a response the guy got...
"It has nothing to do with a "test." God made everything perfect for us. It is humans who reject God and question everything He does all the time, but everything God does is perfect. The only way into heaven is by believing the beautiful message of Christ Jesus. Please pray a sincere prayer with all your heart admitting to Him you are a sinner. Accept His gift of eternal life then you will be in heaven with Him forever. I pray that God blesses you with peace. Amen."
First of all, what's with this "God made everything perfect"? If God made everything perfect, then why are babies still born with dissabilities? We didn't cause that by rejecting God, so why does it happen?
But anyway, this all sounds like a cult. Worship the unknown leader, don't ask why, just do it. Admit that you're a sinner, admit you've done wrong, let him be your master. Don't question, no no no don't question, just believe. Believe it with all your heart and then finally you can go to...Heaven? Why do religious people use Heaven as their bartering tool? I mean, what's so great about it anyway? Why do we want to go there so much, especially if they're trying to convert someone who doesn't believe. In my experience non-believers have had stronger arguments against religion, than the people with arguments for religion.
Alright, I know I went all over the place with that but I found it pretty ridiculous.
Yes, but they don't know that they're right. Yet some still insult other people's views and won't accept that there are other theories out there.
I was only explaining why the extremists do what they do. I'm not an extremist, but it might appear that way from my post. I sometimes jump in on points even if I don't fully agree with the side I'm jumping in for.
My intention was to discuss why major religions seem so much like those little cults you see in the movies. You know, they have their robes and stuff. Of course they are a small religion on their own, but like I said, you'd think that the major religions wouldn't want to be as closely related to those cults.
I see, but in your first post, there wasn't much discussion outside Christianity, which is why it might lead to Christian bashing or Christian flaming (or both).
I was only explaining why the extremists do what they do. I'm not an extremist, but it might appear that way from my post. I sometimes jump in on points even if I don't fully agree with the side I'm jumping in for.
Ahh it seemed like you were defending them, but nah it's cool. Nah, you're not too bad. If you were an extremist you wouldn't even put up with logical debate, lol.
I see, but in your first post, there wasn't much discussion outside Christianity, which is why it might lead to Christian bashing or Christian flaming (or both).
Ehh..ya you're right. Next time I'll have to make sure I mention more that one, or keep it more general.
I want to say that I was not making an attempt at Christian bashing when I made a comment about Eve and the apple, I was just expressing a though brought on by Green's post starting the thread. The word cult in modern english is usually used to descibe a religious sect that participates in morally questionable practices (I know it's just defined as religion what I refer to is the way it is used). I think that most major religions try to seperate themselves from "cults" and extremists. Unfortunately a number of people associate things like long robes and elaborate ceremonies with "cults" because thats the way they are portrayed in the media but these things are long standing traditions of many religions.
Agreed. i remember going to a teen's christian club thing with my friend at his church. (he also doesn't really believe either, he just ends up going because his mom thinks it'll make him a better person, and they have dew and lulz there for under 50cents) He invited me just to show me how humorous it was to see how "cool" they were trying to make religion seem. It was pretty lame... xD I put up a solid argument though, and I actually got the pastor to say "because god said so" once or twice. That's pretty much when my friend admitted i won the game.
This idea is hardly original and has been debated for a long time; if some Christian on Yahoo Answers gave a poor impression of how Christian theodicy actually works, then please attribute that to him and not to Christianity at large. It's still poor form to accuse all religion of being cult-like (especially based on one religion's one member) when the definition of "cult" is widely debated in respect to religion. How do you tell if a religion is valid or a cult? This is actually an example of Sorites' paradox, in which there isn't a "line" that can be drawn.
As a Christian and as a theologian (my career), the notion that God created a "erfect" world is undeniably false; there are a lot of philosophical theories, however, that attempt to answer why God would create the world in such a way as to produce ours. What the Christian on Yahoo Answers ought to have known is that there is a popular theory called the best-of-all-possible-worlds theory. If we outline the argument, it goes something like this:
1. Assume God exists (a given for those trying to prove why this world would be created to still contain suffering, and it is allowed because you have given them the burden of proof; they do not need to prove this point to explain their view of how a perfect being could create an imperfect world. This is in part because your original post is too broad -- we can either discuss God's existence, or we can discuss this actual theological issue; they are not one and the same, and no serious philosopher, theist or atheist, has claimed such). 2. Assume that suffering is necessary. This can be for a number of other theological reasons, including experience, to prove that humanity can overcome, to prove humanity's love for God despite trials, etc. Some of these reasons are weaker or stronger than others. If suffering is necessary, then God cannot create a world that is only good, because then we are just a pile of automatons and not people. 3. If 1 and 2 are true, then God must create a world that contains suffering, not only for God's good, but for the (generally philosophers assume greater) good of humanity. God would not create a "erfect" world in the sense that it is only nice, but that it has the best possible mix of good and evil to allow humanity to be free and to choose what they will do with their lives. So no, babies aren't born with disabilities because somebody has displeased God, but yes, a Christian would assume that babies are born with disabilities so somebody can be impacted by it; so that somebody can understand suffering, or learn patience, or question God's existence, or any number of things.
This theory is arguable, yes, but it isn't one that can just be dismissed with some flippant remark about it belonging to a cult. If you're debating priests or pastors who answer theological questions (if they're valid and not just stupid questions you're coming up with to feel smart) by saying that "God said so," find someone who knows what they're talking about and stop judging Christians based on the lowest common denominator. Don't we also know ill-informed atheists?
If you're debating priests or pastors who answer theological questions (if they're valid and not just stupid questions you're coming up with to feel smart)
Do you mean that the questions are really stupid, or that those of faith have trouble answering them, and as such, is disrespectful to your faith & people shouldn't be asking them?
Don't we also know ill-informed atheists?
Sadly. I dislike them more then those that are fanatically religious.
Do you mean that the questions are really stupid, or that those of faith have trouble answering them, and as such, is disrespectful to your faith & people shouldn't be asking them?
I mean that often the questions posed to theists are of the variety that don't follow any standards for argumentation or debate, and sadly are not answerable. For instance, if someone were to rationally ask me why I believe human beings suffer, I could talk rationally about it in some depth; if, however, someone were to ask why I believe something stupid and obviously untrue, I cannot really answer. This is the sort of question that is being posed to theism quite a bit these days; questions that are simply unanswerable because they make judgment claims. Other problem questions are those that have the conclusion before the premises -- such as claiming that a religion is a cult essentially because it is a cult. A lot of questions regarding religion are not well thought out or contain circular reasoning. (DISCLAIMER: I feel that the question about cults here was very tasteful, and not of this variety).
I do not feel that anyone strong in their faith feels that respectful questions are disrespectful; but it is true that anyone with any belief will find disrespectful questions to be exactly what they are.
For instance, if someone were to rationally ask me why I believe human beings suffer, I could talk rationally about it in some depth; if, however, someone were to ask why I believe something stupid and obviously untrue, I cannot really answer. This is the sort of question that is being posed to theism quite a bit these days; questions that are simply unanswerable because they make judgment claims.
I'd agree. Questions that the person asking the question has answered for themselves prior to asking the question.. well, it's not really a question at all.
The validity of the question still stands though, without the pre-conclusion. I would ask the question you offered as an example, but in a different manner - say:
"Why do you believe in something that has no scientific basis?"
It's an appropriate question; I've asked it before of people of faith. It is important to be able to answer such questions though.
A lot of questions regarding religion are not well thought out or contain circular reasoning.
I'm compelled to point out your previous post:
find someone who knows what they're talking about and stop judging Christians based on the lowest common denominator.
I would suggest you do the same. There are many people I have discussed religion with; and there are plenty of circular arguments *for* religion also - i.e. God wrote the bible and it says in the bible god wrote it, so it must be true. Usually those get slung by people with no talent in debate though.
Wow a lot of text in this thread... any way to the topic. Global religions and small town cults are in essence the same thing. The similarities: 1. Both imply that there is a heavenly deity that created you and the universe. 2. This deity resides in heaven: a place which doesn't exist in your realm. 3. When you die you wait to be judged by this deity, who deterines whether or not you go to heaven, get reincarnated etc., or face eternally damnation. 4. The head of the society is affiliated with this deity/ is the god. 5. You should give money to the society, and beLIEve every word that comes out of the leaders mouth. 6. Have everlasting trust in the leader. The differences: 1. Christianity for example, has hundreds of millions of followers, compared to Scientology that maybe have about a million or so. 2. Mass religion demands less money to be given.
You make an extremely valid point, and one that I hope I implied agreement with in my post. One of my main concerns was that the initial Christian statement that began this thread was that this world was perfect because God was perfect, despite the logical inconsistency present therein. The thread dealt with that question, and also tangentially the issue of Christianity being a cult. So my answer was focused on 1- Answering the question of the perfection versus the corruption of the world if a perfect being created it, and 2- That when confronted with lowest-common denominator Christians (with whom my comment dealt -- it had nothing to do with atheists or agnostics, but failed Christian arguments), one should not be quick to determine that Christianity had much to do with their answer.
I think that we have had a miscommunication, and for my part in it, I apologize. I did not mean to imply in any way (nor looking back do I feel I did) that atheists need to improve their side of the debate; I was responding to a failed Christian argument.
"This is the sort of question that is being posed to theism",
As such, I took the terms 'osed to theism' as those questions being asked from the other side of the fence; so to speak.
Your original post was exemplary on the subject matter; I do think however with the final sentence being on the subject of ill-informed atheists & the suggestion to find someone who knows what they are talking about, it swayed the message of your last paragraph away from christians asking those questions, rather then those who do not share the faith.
1. Assume God exists (a given for those trying to prove why this world would be created to still contain suffering, and it is allowed because you have given them the burden of proof; they do not need to prove this point to explain their view of how a perfect being could create an imperfect world. This is in part because your original post is too broad -- we can either discuss God's existence, or we can discuss this actual theological issue; they are not one and the same, and no serious philosopher, theist or atheist, has claimed such). 2. Assume that suffering is necessary. This can be for a number of other theological reasons, including experience, to prove that humanity can overcome, to prove humanity's love for God despite trials, etc. Some of these reasons are weaker or stronger than others. If suffering is necessary, then God cannot create a world that is only good, because then we are just a pile of automatons and not people. 3. If 1 and 2 are true, then God must create a world that contains suffering, not only for God's good, but for the (generally philosophers assume greater) good of humanity. God would not create a "erfect" world in the sense that it is only nice, but that it has the best possible mix of good and evil to allow humanity to be free and to choose what they will do with their lives. So no, babies aren't born with disabilities because somebody has displeased God, but yes, a Christian would assume that babies are born with disabilities so somebody can be impacted by it; so that somebody can understand suffering, or learn patience, or question God's existence, or any number of things.
This is quite interesting reasoning, though I do have one gripe with it: assuming God exists and is completely all-powerful as is said so in the Bible, wouldn't God be able to create a world both with and without suffering simultaneously? Applying any logic to God would be fallacious and unnecessary, because if God is all-powerful, he isn't bound by logic, so logic wouldn't apply.
