Some Questions for Believers

[comet]

Did you get everything else?

Yeah.

.... Or 'He's jerking off' to the thought of blaming religion for genocide.

It's real simple. If a religion commands genocide then genocide can be attributed to said religion. If not then it does not, then no matter what people claim To do in the name of a deity, it has nothing to do with said deity.

Would you argue that a religion that doesn't explicitly instruct genocide (or any murderous act) cannot be blamed as a contributing factor even if it propagates vitriol against an entire group as the actual event of a genocide or a violent oppression is nearly always preceded by the dehumanization of that group? Even if that religion's most important texts easily lend themselves to be used as hate-filled propaganda?

key wording here "can be used by sick people". what can't be used? take out country, flags, color, religion we will come up something else. When humans do not need a "set of rules" for group interactions then religion's control component will go away.

[Mudhammam]

@ronedee

Spirituality doesn't require God or religious mythology. But that's why it works for people of all faiths and practices. I respect your acknowledgment that faith is antithetical to logic, and for that matter, science, but it is for that reason I can't in earnest draw a religion out of a hat and run with it as if it offers any security and comfort, especially that which the entire world would benefit to recognize. Aside from the well-being of society and the planet, I'm rather concerned about what's truth.

[ronedee]

@ronedee

Spirituality doesn't require God or religious mythology. But that's why it works for people of all faiths and practices. I respect your acknowledgment that faith is antithetical to logic, and for that matter, science, but it is for that reason I can't in earnest draw a religion out of a hat and run with it as if it offers any security and comfort, especially that which the entire world would benefit to recognize. Aside from the well-being of society and the planet, I'm rather concerned about what's truth.

Understood. But even as a Catholic I need to rely on God, discernment and my "true" conscience as my guide. God doesn't live in a Religion, nor in a church, or a book. To really start to understand, we need to transcend all things human. And that means ALL humans. Everything man touches is suspect. There is a path to Him.... but not an easy one. And I personally feel that is by design.

You seem like a "spiritual" being in the sense of your earnest search. I hope you find your truthful answers. Ron

[Neo-Scholastic]

If you are going to use your logic to look for God be prepared to be constantly challenged and confused. The brain is last in the order of human spirituality.

Aren't you being a little hard on the intellect as a means of knowing God. While I agree that an openness to the Holy Spirit is essential to coming to faith, intellect can lead to and sustain religious faith. I know that to be true in my case.

[ronedee]

If you are going to use your logic to look for God be prepared to be constantly challenged and confused. The brain is last in the order of human spirituality.

Aren't you being a little hard on the intellect as a means of knowing God. While I agree that an openness to the Holy Spirit is essential to coming to faith, intellect can lead to and sustain religious faith. I know that to be true in my case.

Heya Chad! Yup! Actually I consider myself to be very logical. My wife is very intellectual. And several of my Godly friends are also. I have no qualms over it. I just believe that it isn't necessary to find God. And it actually stands in the way of true spiritualism. Because obviously, God inspired spiritualism doesn't relate to any earthly logic.

Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

Personally, I had to leave my intellect behind when first searching for my Faith. After I received strong Faith, I was able to slowly make the connections. And I try to use "logical reasoning" in any arguments defending my Faith. Actually I love it when I am able to "use" logic to explain God. It makes a stronger case to the non-believer, and is much harder to dismiss!

But.... I am waning on the arguing front. I have come to the realization that the Holy Spirit is the ONE who teaches. I just try to support the "fence sitters" that are looking for answers. I'm through bible thumping! Its really fruitless here. But, thousands do visit this site! I put the "Word" out here hopefully for someone to stumble upon.

I would love to say I've seen it the other way around (logic first). But, I haven't. If it worked that way for you, I would love to hear your story! Ron

[genkaus]

And [logic] actually stands in the way of true spiritualism. Because obviously, God inspired spiritualism doesn't relate to any earthly logic.

...

Personally, I had to leave my intellect behind when first searching for my Faith.

You have to be one of the most honest Christians I've seen here.

[Mudhammam]

I think where you guys would differ from me is that--consistent with a view of the intellect as a product of Darwinian processes (here comes the the crucial point)--the concepts we possess must derive their content and context from our experiences. Inferences that go beyond our senses have, throughout history, especially before the immensely accurate and helpful guidance of a more fundamental understanding of nature, generally been proven wrong. Self-delusion and irrationality are innate to us bipeds. So, when you speak about using logic to establish any kind of conception about God proper, I feel that you've not simply jumped the gun, but taken a quantum leap... in the wrong direction. If nature is as mysterious and incomprehensible as modern science has revealed it to be, what business have we defining something like God? However, I do sense that self-delusion and irrationality can entail personal benefit, and that's why the believers I can relate to are the mystics and not the philosophers; it's not the specific ideas that a mystic invokes to convey his or her interpretation of a transcendent experience but the sense they capture. But I don't make any mistakes about it: truth has the greatest potential and probably most often proves more advantageous than error, even if it requires that in exchange we surrender our comforts and are willing to modify our values.