My spirit is troubled..

[Hyena Dandy]

It bothers me that this has turned into a "Does God exist or not" debate.

We know we're not going to convince each-other on that. I think the question is about Mytical, and whether s/he (not sure) should go into some form of being a preacher/pastor/whatever.

Discussing whether God exists is not going to convince anyone, and just start to get on each-other's nerves.

Mytical, I think that if you feel called to the cloth (of any color, if you will) then you should try to find a way to make that happen. Perhaps it's not what people think of as traditional priesthood. Perhaps it's something unique to you. But if it's what you feel is your call, don't let it go to voicemail.

[Seifer]

If Mytical feels called to preach (in whatever way seems best), then I say, "Go for it."

[Gravekeeper]

I must admit, Panacea's entire post made me sigh wearily and give up on this whole thread. It came across as.....arrogant, and honestly demonstrated the core problem with preaching. -.-

Regardless of whether or not you believe in any higher power, there is no evidence for any higher power. Hence the term faith. To argue a higher power as a truth is a fallacy. To argue your personal higher power as a truth is the height of arrogance. I am not an atheist by any means, but I would never presume to declare myself correct simply because I believe it so.

[Mytical]

I really did not start this thread to get a debate about if there is a higher power or not going. As Gravekeeper said, that is a matter of faith. I know I can not prove there is something beyond our own existence out there, even though I think thinking that we are the peak of everything is a bit of ego on our part.

Some people say "I believe in only what I can see, touch, hear, and the like." Which is fine. To which I answer this. Consider the air we breathe. You do not always feel it, you can not always see it, only at certain times can you hear it..does that mean it only exists at certain times? At one time we could not see cells and atoms. Does that mean they did not exist until we invented something that could see them? We may not currently have any method of proving something supernatural exists, and we never will. Why? Because as soon as we do have a way of proving it, it is no longer supernatural. It is science.

Anyhow, didn't start the thread to get into that either. Yes I am seeking answers, and some have provided me with what I seek. I do feel a calling to preach, but not as a Christian, Muslim, or such..because I believe a lot different then they do. As I do believe that any man made scripture is a bit suspect. I want to thank those who have helped guide me, even those sharing why they do not believe..because I had to hear both sides. I believe because of my own experiences.

The spirit of the girl that walked through me, sitting and talking to what others saw as empty chairs. I've known bad things were going to happen before they did, and even told my parents something which they learned as true hours later (My uncle passed, I was miles away at the time had no way of knowing, but I told my parents he had died..and they found out later that he had..and no he was not in poor health at the time). So I know for a fact, first hand, that there are things we do not understand yet. Maybe one day we will, but until that time..I will keep my mind open to the possibility, and have faith. Of course I could just be crazy, in which case it is a moot point now isn't it?

[Andara Bledin]

Perhaps you could set up a YouTube channel and just do videos of yourself speaking your mind. Let it be off the cuff and aimed at those who are interested in hearing it.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Perhaps you could set up a YouTube channel and just do videos of yourself speaking your mind. Let it be off the cuff and aimed at those who are interested in hearing it.

^-.-^

Seconded. Just don't let the trolls bother you with their comments

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah. If you venture into the comments, be sure not to forget your protective gear.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Perhaps you could set up a YouTube channel and just do videos of yourself speaking your mind. Let it be off the cuff and aimed at those who are interested in hearing it.

^-.-^

That's a brilliant idea. You can also have a blog, they're free.

There's a lot of ways to preach that aren't standing behind a pulpit.

[Seifer]

Seconded. Just don't let the trolls bother you with their comments

This. A thousand times this. Any and all religion-based videos on Youtube will get an overwhelming amount of comments from people on both sides of the argument. A lot of them will be heartfelt, a lot of them will be trolls, and several will simply be the rambling of mental patients.

Personally, if you decide to make such videos, I'd recommend turning off the comments unless you have a very thick skin.

[Panacea]

Why believe in one thing without proof and scoff at others? A lot of religious people think Big Foot is a pile of bullshit, yet they accept that there's a God without a shred of evidence for it.

Science does not investigate the supernatural. God is an issue of the supernatural. Bigfoot is believed to exist in the natural world. You can demand scientific proof for the existence of Bigfoot. You can't for God; you either accept it or you don't. However, lack of evidence is not proof that the claim is a fallacy.

No one would have believed a thing such as the platypus could exist . . . until they were discovered. I find the existence of Bigfoot to be highly unlikely . . . but not impossible.

I can't prove God exists to you; you've closed your mind and are unwilling to explore issues of spirituality because they are not empirical. And that's OK.

People want to believe that there's a purpose in life, and they want to believe that they aren't simply being tossed around in the waves of life -

It is only natural for people to ask these kinds of questions; to wonder what our higher purpose is or even if we have one. That's not only the core of religion, it's the subject of the study of metaphysics and philosophy.

It doesn't mean people who choose the religious answers are wrong.

Again, what's the point of God, then? If a world with God and a world without him/her/it would be exactly the same (everyone has free will), then why cling to the idea of a god?

I've tried to explain it to you, but you aren't interested in exploring the idea. It's about relationships: our relationships with God, with each other, and with ourselves.

A world without God isn't the same as a world with God. I've never indicated that was a possibility.

9/11 was the fault of everyone who participated. The existence of a god doesn't justify anything, and a god who advocates murder wouldn't be worth praising, anyway.

God doesn't advocate murder. 9/11 is the fault of Bin Laden, his cronies, and the terrorists who took over those planes. Period.

Actually, my reasoning is that it's naive to believe in something when there is no evidence for it, simply because believing is easier.

We believe in lots of things without having evidence for them. Example: the "God" Particle. Only very recently did we get any idea that they might actually exist. Another example: exoplanets. Until we developed the right tools, we had to way to detect them. Until then we couldn't even be sure they existed.

People who believe in God don't believe because it is "easier." It is actually quite hard to follow in the path of religion.

God does give us what we need. That doesn't mean always what we want. And it doesn't mean life is easy; in fact, the Bible makes it quite clear that following in the path of Jesus is quite hard.

More like, "What has God done for me that can't also be attributed to living life as normal?"

Another common oversimplification. Most of what happens for us in life is life living as normal, even the good stuff. God doesn't exist to make life easy for us; building the relationship is actually very difficult. If I thank God for something good that happens in my life, I'm not assuming that God directly intervened in my favor because there is no way for me to know for sure that's what happened. I simply am grateful for the good in my life.

This is literally how religions start. People associate good or bad things in their lives to something (such as a god or even something like the sun), and start to think that if they worship that thing, they can somehow control what happens in their lives.

NO. This is not how religion starts. It starts by asking questions, by seeking to understand the world we live in and what life means. God reveals himself to people, and the stories of how those things happened become part of a tradition that shapes and defines the religions philosophies.

So God created Satan (even though he knew Satan would be an evil douchebag), then created Adam and Eve and made them completely naive, innocent, and dumber than a bag of hammers.

<sigh> First of all, the stories of Adam and Eve shouldn't be taken literally as history. While some fundamentalists like to do this, it is not the original understanding of those stories by either Judiaism or Christianity.

Satan means adversary. He is a servant of God, who tests mankind. The story of Job (where he first appears) is a parable. It is a folk tale, to teach a moral lesson, not a true tale. Most of the rest of what we believe about Satan came much, much later.

The real punishment is separation from God. The lake of fire is a metaphor.

I do believe there is a Hell. I don't know that there is ANYONE actually there. I don't even know for sure that Judas, Ted Bundy, Hitler, the worst of the worst are actually there. Satan is there . . . as a prisoner, not a ruler. All the ideas we have about Hell from Dante are fiction, not theology.

Firstly, let me just say that no one even knows who wrote the first few books of the New Testament.

Now, this is the first correct thing you've said so far about religion.

There is literally no mention of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as Jesus' apostles anywhere outside of the Bible.

Theologians are pretty sure none of the Gospel authors actually knew Jesus, especially Luke, who was a Greek follower of Paul (who also never met Jesus). Paul was not an apostle. The apostles were Jesus's original followers. Paul and Luke were disciples, as are all Christians. Beyond that, we're not really sure who the Gospel authors were, if they actually knew Jesus, or were the actual apostles or other disciples with those names. This is a well known fact and not in dispute by Christians.

There is no original manuscript to look at, no first-hand accounts of people meeting these men, nothing. We don't even know if more than one person wrote each particular book, or if one person wrote all of them. With written text as old as the Bible (and with it having passed through so many hands), it's ludicrous to think it's come out unscathed.

It depends on what books in the New Testament you are talking about. We don't know for sure who wrote the four Gospels, though we're pretty sure Luke wrote both Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. We don't have original copies of the Gospels, but we keep finding earlier and earlier documents, so we may find one eventually (or possibly the Q Document, or a collection of the sayings of Jesus believed to be the foundation of Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

We do know that some of the Letters of Paul were actually written by Paul (some are contentious, and were not actually written by him).

No one believes the Bible as we have it is the original document. There is a well documented history of translation and copying errors, and outright editing of the Bible in the Church's early history. Some editing comes from uneducated scribes who thought the original text didn't make sense, and "fixed it." Other editing comes from efforts to combat heresies like the Gnostics. Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" is a great intro to these issues.

So, since we can't say with any accuracy if God's "guide" (i.e. the Bible) is true, what's the point? Why would God choose something as easily lost/changed as written word, anyway? It seems like he chose the worst possible way to get his words to his people, then punishes those who have no idea which path is the "correct" one.

Not all Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that it should be taken literally. It shouldn't. It has a lot of great examples of how to build a relationship with God, and with others, and how to live a good and moral life. But you do have to take the time to understand the deeper meanings. Both fundamentalists and atheists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that's where both sides make mistakes.

Again, if everything God does can be appropriated to simple chance (or just life), then why justify a god?

Again, I don't believe this. I believe in consequences; most of what happens to us is a consequence of some action, taken by someone. Very little happens by random chance. And it's not about justifying. It's about a relationship.

Just like with Adam and Eve right? Oh wait, they only got one chance, and now we all have to suffer for their mistake.

That's the Protestant view of the story. The Catholic view is we are not being punished for what Adam and Eve did. We merely live with the consequence of the loss of innocence, which is the capacity for sin. Just because we are capable of sin doesn't mean we will sin.

It's pretty suspect that now, when we have the tools and resources to verify that something is in fact a "miracle", they don't seem to happen anymore. At least not on the scale as what's told in the Bible.

No, not on the scale of what happens in the Bible. But miracles can't be verified by science by their very nature; it is impossible to duplicate a miracle.

I must admit, Panacea's entire post made me sigh wearily and give up on this whole thread. It came across as.....arrogant, and honestly demonstrated the core problem with preaching. -.-

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think it's arrogant to explain my point of view on the issue of religion, any more than it is for Seifer to do so.

Regardless of whether or not you believe in any higher power, there is no evidence for any higher power. Hence the term faith. To argue a higher power as a truth is a fallacy. To argue your personal higher power as a truth is the height of arrogance.

I never said there was evidence. Only experience. There are many kinds of truth. There is scientific truth, and then there is moral truth. I can apply the scientific method to issues like evolution. It doesn't work with moral values. I think we'd both agree that murder is immoral, but you can't apply the scientific method to that assertion and prove it.

To argue that science can answer every question is just as arrogant as claiming that a personal higher power can be a truth.

Notice I said "a truth." I haven't said that my religious faith, or any religious faith, is the only truth. I've said it's real. That's it.

I am not an atheist by any means, but I would never presume to declare myself correct simply because I believe it so.

Yeah, but GK . . . you just did, when you claimed believing in a higher power is a fallacy.

I really did not start this thread to get a debate about if there is a higher power or not going.

I know. But that's the risk you take when you start a thread on religious issues in Fratching; it's kinda the whole purpose of this site. And certainly, if I see someone make erroneous claims about what religion is, I believe I have a right to debate the point.

Yes I am seeking answers, and some have provided me with what I seek. I do feel a calling to preach, but not as a Christian, Muslim, or such..because I believe a lot different then they do.

OK, you feel a call to preach . . . as what? You see, you can't really answer this question, and until you can, you shouldn't start preaching anything . . . because you don't really have a message.

Jesus didn't just wake up one day and start rambling. He prepared for years before he began his ministry. So did Mohammed. So did the Budda.

If you really feel you should be doing something on a spiritual level, you need to really explore what that means. I didn't just wake up one day and decide to join the Catholic Church. I spent years exploring and investigating other religious ideas, including paganism, Ba'hai, Islam, Buddhism, and so on. While I could feel a connection to the spiritual in most of them (except paganism), there was a sense of it not being right, so I returned to Christianity. But not any Christianity would do, and I felt an incessant pull to the Catholic faith.

It has taken me nearly thirty years to make this faith journey. And I don't even want to preach (I'm not preaching here; I'm explaining my religious point of view. Not the same thing).

I'm not convinced you've done that kind of spiritual exploration; at least, I don't see any evidence of it. I don't think you should try to make it up on your own (though I do know many people who do that). I think you should explore the world's religions up close and personal, and try to experience them first hand. You'll find most don't work for you, but you'll understand the spirituality of others better for it. Then when you do find your place, you'll be better able to relate to those of other religious faiths.

The spirit of the girl that walked through me, sitting and talking to what others saw as empty chairs. I've known bad things were going to happen before they did, and even told my parents something which they learned as true hours later (My uncle passed, I was miles away at the time had no way of knowing, but I told my parents he had died..and they found out later that he had..and no he was not in poor health at the time).

Something similar happened to me when my grandfather passed away. On a normal school morning, I'm getting ready for school when the phone rings. Immediately, I knew it was my aunt calling to tell us Granpa had passed, though Dad didn't say so; he just handed the phone to Mom who began to cry.

So I know for a fact, first hand, that there are things we do not understand yet. Maybe one day we will, but until that time..I will keep my mind open to the possibility, and have faith. Of course I could just be crazy, in which case it is a moot point now isn't it?

I don't think you're crazy. I think you've had a spiritual experience and you don't know what to make of it. It's an opportunity for you, and it could take years to unravel. And that's OK. Sometimes the journey is more important to the destination.

[Gravekeeper]

Science does not investigate the supernatural. God is an issue of the supernatural. Bigfoot is believed to exist in the natural world. You can demand scientific proof for the existence of Bigfoot. You can't for God; you either accept it or you don't. However, lack of evidence is not proof that the claim is a fallacy.

Wow, so you just made up a rule that makes your position unchallengable? That is beyond arrogant, as is much of your post even if you don't or can't see it that way. Science investigates the supernatural all the time. Thats why so much of it has been reclassified as natural.

You can spout about God all you want, but if you claim God exists and has any affect whatsoever on the natural world or the people in it, you have tread into the realm of science and must prove it. End of story, really.

Yeah, but GK . . . you just did, when you claimed believing in a higher power is a fallacy.

I said nothing of the sort. Read again.

[Seifer]

Science does not investigate the supernatural. God is an issue of the supernatural. Bigfoot is believed to exist in the natural world. You can demand scientific proof for the existence of Bigfoot. You can't for God; you either accept it or you don't. However, lack of evidence is not proof that the claim is a fallacy.

Science can try to investigate the supernatural, the problem is that when they do, they can't come up with any significant evidence. Supernatural means just that, something outside of nature. Anything supernatural wouldn't adhere to the rules of this reality, so trying to investigate them with science is pretty useless.

My point was that people shouldn't accept/believe in something without actual evidence that it exists. Since no one can show evidence of supernatural things, then people shouldn't blindly accept that those things exists.

"Lack of evidence is not proof that the claim is a fallacy" is a fallacy within itself. It's an excuse to believe in something when there is no evidence available. It's why people constantly search for Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, ghosts, etc. They want it to exist so badly, they don't accept, "There's no evidence" as a reason to abandon their beliefs.

No one would have believed a thing such as the platypus could exist . . . until they were discovered. I find the existence of Bigfoot to be highly unlikely . . . but not impossible.

And they SHOULDN'T have believed it. That's the point. Blindly accepting and believing in things can be dangerous. It's what we call "gullibility."

I can't prove God exists to you; you've closed your mind and are unwilling to explore issues of spirituality because they are not empirical. And that's OK.

I haven't closed my mind to anything. I don't accept the belief in a god because there is no evidence that a god exists. I'm not sitting here saying there definitely 100% isn't possibility that a god exists, I'm saying I don't accept the belief in a god at this moment. If evidence arises that there is a god, then I will do the rational thing and believe it.

Just like with the platypus, you shouldn't believe in something until it's actually proven.

I've tried to explain it to you, but you aren't interested in exploring the idea. It's about relationships: our relationships with God, with each other, and with ourselves.

I'm not interested in praying to something that hasn't been proven to exist. A relationship with God means nothing to me, because God hasn't been proven to exist. To me, a relationship with God is when I talk to myself in the hopes that a "god" figure is listening and will use it's magic to meet my needs. I might as well use my time more wisely and meet my own needs, rather than wishing upon a star and hoping it happens.

A world without God isn't the same as a world with God. I've never indicated that was a possibility.

A world with God:

1. Pray to God and ask for a child. You may or may not receive a child.
2. Pray to God for health. You may or may not be healed.
3. Pray to God for wealth. You may or may not win the lottery.

A world without God:

1. Try to have a child using all available methods. You may or may not have a child.
2. Go to the doctor and take care of yourself. You may or may not stay healthy.
3. Play the lottery. You may or may not become wealthy.

Both worlds looks exactly the same to me.

God doesn't advocate murder. 9/11 is the fault of Bin Laden, his cronies, and the terrorists who took over those planes. Period.

The old testament God was all about murder. There are way too many examples to list, so here's a website that already did it.

We believe in lots of things without having evidence for them. Example: the "God" Particle. Only very recently did we get any idea that they might actually exist. Another example: exoplanets. Until we developed the right tools, we had to way to detect them. Until then we couldn't even be sure they existed.

Actually, scientists don't accept anything until it's proven. They may hypothesize and experiment, but nothing is accepted until proof and evidence is found. Something "might actually existing" is not the same as something "actually existing."

People who believe in God don't believe because it is "easier." It is actually quite hard to follow in the path of religion.

I'd assume it's easier going through life if you think some higher force cares about you and is willing to help you. I'd assume it's easier to deal with death if you think you or your family member will live forever in paradise. I'd assume it's easier dealing with assholes if you think they'll "get there's" in hell. (I've met people who like that idea.)

NO. This is not how religion starts. It starts by asking questions, by seeking to understand the world we live in and what life means. God reveals himself to people, and the stories of how those things happened become part of a tradition that shapes and defines the religions philosophies.

No. Religions started back in the day when no one understood the world and were frightened by every natural event that occured. Putting a face on a natural disaster and giving it reason made everything less scary. "That Tsunami didn't just happen randomly, someone did something to anger the god of the ocean! If everyone prays really hard and tries to appeal to it, the god might not send another Tsunami!"

Ancient Egyptians believed in a sun god because they didn't understand why the sun would rise in the morning and set in the evening. The Greek's had a god who did the same exact thing. If you look back at the ancient civilizations, you'll find many similarities.

First of all, the stories of Adam and Eve shouldn't be taken literally as history.

Satan means adversary. He is a servant of God, who tests mankind. The story of Job (where he first appears) is a parable. It is a folk tale, to teach a moral lesson, not a true tale.

What's the moral lesson, exactly? The story reads like this: God sets up Adam and Eve to fail, then punishes them when they do. It's also humorous that God was the one who lied to Adam and Eve, and the serpent was the one telling the truth.

God tells Adam and Eve that they will die if they eat the fruit, the serpent says they will gain knowledge. They eat the fruit and don't die, but gain knowledge. God lied.

And NO, God didn't mean a "spiritual death." That's an excuse so the story doesn't make God look like an asshole.

It's also strange that the tree of knowledge gave knowledge of good and evil, so therefore Adam and Eve didn't know what they were doing was evil until after they ate the fruit. Why punish them for doing something they didn't know was wrong because they should have known it was wrong? If a toddler steals you don't toss them out of the house and continue to punish their children and their children's children. You explain why it was wrong, forgive them, and hope the lesson stuck.

I can apply the scientific method to issues like evolution. It doesn't work with moral values. I think we'd both agree that murder is immoral, but you can't apply the scientific method to that assertion and prove it.

Morality is dubious. It changes from person to person, and no one person's morality could ever be considered 100% correct. However, we can look at morality from a view of reason. In a society, murder is looked down upon. This is because people in a rational society can see that erroneous murder is harmful to everyone, not just those involved. The same goes for stealing.

[Gravekeeper]

Science can try to investigate the supernatural, the problem is that when they do, they can't come up with any significant evidence. Supernatural means just that, something outside of nature. Anything supernatural wouldn't adhere to the rules of this reality, so trying to investigate them with science is pretty useless.

Not exactly. Anything that has any affect on reality as you put it would create a measureable effect. Period. There's no way around it. The universe is such an amazingly complex interdependent network of systems that it is impossible to alter a variable *anywhere* without creating a cascade of changes. A butterfly effect. That is the entire problem with the scenario of any sort of active supernatural being. The universe is the answer to the proverbial question "Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't move it?" and that answer is yes.

Its actually rather ironic that Panacea is the one accusing you of being close minded, when it is the total opposite. Except Panacea has closed their mind to science. Perferring instead to pencil in a self created illusion they would know nothing of had they not learned of it as a child. If Christianity miraculously sprung up in groups of people that were completely isolated from any and all religious / cultural influence, I might buy it. But we know full well it doesn't and that it has only achieved the reach it currently has through aggressive expansion, often at the end of a weapon or under the boot of a tyrant.

Christianity is a proleytizing religion. Its foundation is preaching and conversion. In fact, it's a central feature of the two major Abrahamic religions. Which is why they have spread. With the exception of Judaism. Which you'll note has not spread. Every other religion either does not attempt to convert ( or sees the act as outright offensive and appalling in the case of many Eastern religions ) or hasn't tried to convert anyone in a couple thousand years. Hence that have stayed largely in their countries of origin.

Even Islam isn't as big on proleytizing as Christianity. The Quran does not permit force to be used to convert anyone. The Bible, not so much.

[mooncat]

Mytical, maybe what you are being called to do (and I accept that some people feel what they interpret as a call, regardless of where it might have come from) is to talk about love and kindness and compassion...the things that a lot of religions claim to represent but in practice often fail to do. Which is human nature, really.

You are a kind, loving person, and maybe the reason you don't feel drawn to any one particular religious path is that no one path has any monopoly on the good things in life. Love, kindness, compassion, mercy, magnanimity are things that we are all capable of. The world needs a little more emphasis on the positive and a lot less on the "what's in it for me?" theme.

I don't mean you should ignore that there are bad things going on, or be sickeningly sweet and Pollyanna-ish. But you might be a counter to the negative crap being thrown out by people like the Westboro nutcases. Sometimes we all need a little reminder that we can be the change we'd like to see in the world. Just a thought.

[HYHYBT]

A world with God:

1. Pray to God and ask for a child. You may or may not receive a child.
2. Pray to God for health. You may or may not be healed.
3. Pray to God for wealth. You may or may not win the lottery.

A world without God:

1. Try to have a child using all available methods. You may or may not have a child.
2. Go to the doctor and take care of yourself. You may or may not stay healthy.
3. Play the lottery. You may or may not become wealthy.

Both worlds looks exactly the same to me.

Only the same on the outside, so to speak.