Posted on 12/17/2012 10:06:40 AM PST by Perseverando
I think I have the Progressive/Socialist/Communist movement figured out, and the answer is God. Surprised? Read on.
Humans have an instinctive desire to believe in something bigger than themselves—something all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, that can make everything right when nothing seems to go right.
Ask any anthropologist or archaeologist, and he or she will tell you that pretty much every culture in the history or humankind has had a set of beliefs regarding a god or gods. We westerners are most familiar, of course, with the ancient Greek and Roman gods, but every civilization from the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians to modern-day tribesmen hidden deep in the Amazon jungle have complex and deeply-held religious beliefs.
Heck, even comic book super heroes are god characters. Think about it: Superman, Batman, Spiderman and their comic book comrades all have super powers that they use to fix the wrongs in the world that we mere mortals cannot fix. There’s no difference between that and any other religious belief. It is understood (by most) that these comic book super heroes are fictional, but in a minute we’ll see how some think people that ALL religious deities are fictional.
Now, there could be several explanations for this instinctive desire to believe in an all-powerful being. It could be that humans just can’t comprehend all of the evil that exists in this chaotic world, and the only way we can survive emotionally when we experience terrible things is to believe that somewhere “out there” is a being who is in control of things and who will eventually make things right.
On the other hand (and I will be up front here and tell you that this is what I believe), it could be that this instinct was planted in our souls by God Himself as a
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Conversely, if you start with the assumption that God *can't* be involved, you won't see Him.
No, I’m not humble at all. I just analyze what I can actually see and look for rational explanations that don’t involve the supernatural. Only certain types of personalities can do this, and you are not one of them. Oh well, right?
If you have to believe before you can see, there might be a problem with what you are looking at.
I've noticed that you, as a supposedly rational person, tend to leave out the possibilities that you are not comfortable with.
And by the way, you don’t have to start with the assumption that God *can’t* be involved. Just consider the possibility that he isn’t. Can you come up with a rational explanation without Him? I can. If I can come up with a rational explanation that doesn’t require a supernatural element, that is more efficient and more likely than an explanation that does.
There is nothing irrational in leaving out supernatural possibilities, especially one so inept that he cannot communicate with humanity without using a huge, rambling book and a human sacrifice.
Why do you place that restriction on your approach, and why do you assume that people who do not, can not?
But maybe not. I'm a little more careful about encouraging people to think for themselves since I noticed the number of Christians who admit that without God they have no sense of right and wrong, and no reason not to turn serial killer, etc...
I think the problem is not what you are looking at, but with you.
I can't imagine why I would want to. From my point of view, you're asking me to reject the colors I see and accept a world of only black and white. The colors may complicate the world (they make clothing more expensive, for example) but they are real and they add a dimension to live I would not willingly reject. But it is only my point of view that a supernatural world is more real than a natural one. I'm willing to engage with you if you are willing to engage with me. But I am asking you to explain yourself, not just assume the superiority of your argument.
But maybe not. I'm a little more careful about encouraging people to think for themselves since I noticed the number of Christians who admit that without God they have no sense of right and wrong, and no reason not to turn serial killer, etc...
Perhaps you would do better to accept each person as an individual and not start off with your prejudices. You don't know whether I have ever had a naturalistic view of the world. And I find your reduction of the Christian argument, both in your replies to me and to others, simplistic and absurd. It surprises me that you would satisfy yourself with that understanding of something you reject.
P.S. I have heard many Christians say to unbelievers, "If you would just try Jesus you would understand." I know some have come to Him that way, but I reject that as a primary approach to discussion. I would expect you to reject it, also. Do you find it is ever successful?
OK--so explain right and wrong without God. Explain whyright is right and wrong is wrong.
Explain, for example, why killing the woman who is sleeping with your husband is wrong, when (according to Darwin), it is merely preserving your genetic line.
Why is theft wrong if it means you "get ahead" in life? You're just adapting to circumstances and ensuring your family does better--thus continuing your line.
An itinerant preacher friend of mine tells the story of his life falling apart and his frustration with God. He talks about the night he cried out to God saying, "God, I am so TIRED of you being INVISIBLE."
He says he heard a clear reply from God that night. He says God told him, "I am not invisible, you are blind."
BTW: If you're interested in learning more about him or from him, check out http://www.mcleanministries.org/. Don't let his redneck Mississippi accent throw you.
As for a primary approach to discussion, in this last year I have, for the most part, abandoned discussion with religious people. I only commented on this thread because I hoped that some lurker who has considered my explanation would see it and know that they are not alone. Trying to discuss religion with the religious is like trying to discuss socialism with a liberal. It never leads to anything but a cul-de-sac.
You take one senetence from a whole chapter and use it to judge Christians? The message from the chapter is for Christians to withstand the judgement of the unsaved. It is an encouragement. He points out the rewards of God’s gospel so that persecuted Christians would realize God’s judgement is for them.
Those that “obey not the gospel of God” or unbelievers. The gospel is the good news. The first law is to love the Lord your God and have no other Gods before him. The gospel is that of God’s grace through Jesus. It is a call of love. It is that which makes us perfect, not our own perfection.
I use the law as my guideline. It works well enough for me.
I submit that he had a mental illness that went untreated and ignored. It strikes hardest young ment between 26 and 30 something and subsides somewhat with age. He exhibited classic symptoms. Medication intervention would have allowed him a chance and the people he killed a chance.
Something wrong with the chemistry in your brain is not evil. Look at the photos of him as a young boy before the illness manifested. He was overtaken by a cruel disease.
Where does the law come from?
Humans trying to figure out how to have a decent-running society where we don’t infuriate each other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.