Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Alright hold up, ill continue reading the last page but before i do i want to address some of these issues before i forget when i get lost in the new discussion.
Of course God granted us free will, however dont abuse the context of this. Free will would be in accordance as to whether or not we are able to make our own decisions, believe in what we wish, and practice what we feel like (including but not limited to "sinning"). Realize this, MANY believe this life to literally be a test for us (as has been mentioned, reward and punishment, heaven and hell). Being omnipotent and out of time God must know who gets punished and who gets rewarded, which is your question correct? Why then would he allow the children he loves to suffer? First off you can use the simple and indirect answer that he is using the afflictions of this life as a test of our moral character and faith. Thats great. For the more involved thinkers though let me pose an idea.
Suppose there is no God, there is still problems and afflictions in this life that make us "suffer". What would logically, or rather genetically, be the best way to interpret this? To adapt and overcome, thus 'learning' correct? Applying this to a scenario in which God does exist it would be much like what parents go through when they see their child getting ready to make a mistake but let them do it anyway so that they LEARN. If God didnt allow suffering and decided that we would all live perfect lives then what would be the point? Love goes multiple ways, but more often if you truly love someone then you would want the best for them rather than having them get everything they ever wanted.
Including this into the 'heaven vs. hell' concept it is the same idea. Even if you know that someone is making a mistake, and a serious one at that, where without a shadow of a doubt you know the consequences and outcome, would you stop them? Well that depends, for someone that believes in giving someone the ability to make their own decisions you would have to let them incur the consequences. Why do it then? So we can learn.
As a quick side note, it has been said that Lucifer originally wanted to strip us of our free will and have us come to earth living perfect lives where we all knew of God's presence and glorified him for it. However he was rejected for this idea and because of his pride he left. On this subject, knowing that he would do this and continue on to tempt mankind to going away from God then why allow that? Well could you think of a better test of your character and moral fortitude than to have something so tempting pull at it? To put in my own opinion, i would say God knew it would happen and might have done it on purpose for the reason of our learning and worthiness.
It has been said many times (maybe not on this discussion board) that God created this planet from pieces from other planets. Please dont think so literally as to think he went 'yoink!' and grabbed a chunk from another planet and now it has a huge missing piece, but that would explain carbon dating and fossilized bones as well as the earths age. Just something i thought you should know about the religious side that isnt spoken of very often.
As far as the whole 'sinning being human nature' and 'if its our nature then why is it wrong' conversation goes, then the whole point is to make yourself a BETTER person and have standards rising above our nature to do 'immoral' things. Instincts are different then the whole sinning aspect though. Survival is inbedded in all living organisms with the needs to reproduce, feed, and continue living. However, the reason sexual instincts are looked down upon is almost the same reason why killing is looked down upon. We have instincts to get angry when something upsets us and pride that makes us think of ourselves first which can in extreme cases turn to murder. We also have instincts to reproduce, however satisfying those urges beyond the necessity of the situation is considered wrong for the same reason getting excessively angry and prideful is wrong. It leads to things that, regardless of religious orientation, is wrong. Also along those lines, you can see that satisfying the need to eat is not inherently wrong, however satisfying the want to eat excessively IS. Same concept. How then is a better way to relay that idea than to urge others not to participate in things that are certain to lead to worse things to begin with?
Alright hold up, ill continue reading the last page but before i do i want to address some of these issues before i forget when i get lost in the new discussion.
Of course God granted us free will, however dont abuse the context of this. Free will would be in accordance as to whether or not we are able to make our own decisions, believe in what we wish, and practice what we feel like (including but not limited to "sinning"). Realize this, MANY believe this life to literally be a test for us (as has been mentioned, reward and punishment, heaven and hell). Being omnipotent and out of time God must know who gets punished and who gets rewarded, which is your question correct? Why then would he allow the children he loves to suffer? First off you can use the simple and indirect answer that he is using the afflictions of this life as a test of our moral character and faith. Thats great. For the more involved thinkers though let me pose an idea.
Suppose there is no God, there is still problems and afflictions in this life that make us "suffer". What would logically, or rather genetically, be the best way to interpret this? To adapt and overcome, thus 'learning' correct? Applying this to a scenario in which God does exist it would be much like what parents go through when they see their child getting ready to make a mistake but let them do it anyway so that they LEARN. If God didnt allow suffering and decided that we would all live perfect lives then what would be the point? Love goes multiple ways, but more often if you truly love someone then you would want the best for them rather than having them get everything they ever wanted.
Including this into the 'heaven vs. hell' concept it is the same idea. Even if you know that someone is making a mistake, and a serious one at that, where without a shadow of a doubt you know the consequences and outcome, would you stop them? Well that depends, for someone that believes in giving someone the ability to make their own decisions you would have to let them incur the consequences. Why do it then? So we can learn.
As a quick side note, it has been said that Lucifer originally wanted to strip us of our free will and have us come to earth living perfect lives where we all knew of God's presence and glorified him for it. However he was rejected for this idea and because of his pride he left. On this subject, knowing that he would do this and continue on to tempt mankind to going away from God then why allow that? Well could you think of a better test of your character and moral fortitude than to have something so tempting pull at it? To put in my own opinion, i would say God knew it would happen and might have done it on purpose for the reason of our learning and worthiness.
It has been said many times (maybe not on this discussion board) that God created this planet from pieces from other planets. Please dont think so literally as to think he went 'yoink!' and grabbed a chunk from another planet and now it has a huge missing piece, but that would explain carbon dating and fossilized bones as well as the earths age. Just something i thought you should know about the religious side that isnt spoken of very often.
As far as the whole 'sinning being human nature' and 'if its our nature then why is it wrong' conversation goes, then the whole point is to make yourself a BETTER person and have standards rising above our nature to do 'immoral' things. Instincts are different then the whole sinning aspect though. Survival is inbedded in all living organisms with the needs to reproduce, feed, and continue living. However, the reason sexual instincts are looked down upon is almost the same reason why killing is looked down upon. We have instincts to get angry when something upsets us and pride that makes us think of ourselves first which can in extreme cases turn to murder. We also have instincts to reproduce, however satisfying those urges beyond the necessity of the situation is considered wrong for the same reason getting excessively angry and prideful is wrong. It leads to things that, regardless of religious orientation, is wrong. Also along those lines, you can see that satisfying the need to eat is not inherently wrong, however satisfying the want to eat excessively IS. Same concept. How then is a better way to relay that idea than to urge others not to participate in things that are certain to lead to worse things to begin with?
Comment