Epitome

Mel:[b]To convince me otherwise, you would have to show me a God with consistent attributes and activities that can be observed in life. In my experiences, such a God does not exist.

[B]

I can't convince you with theories or stories, and I never claimed I could or expected that I would... but perhaps God could convince you if you tried to hear him for yourself...

If you are sincere, he will know it... and if he does want to communicate with you, wouldn't he work with you? Couldn't hurt...

Epitome

emur

Been there. Done that. Until several years ago I was an evangelical Christian with all the trimmings. I did try to hear, and I was sincere. I reached out for bread, and all I got was a stone.

Stories aside, my above questions need to be answered by someone before I would even consider other alternatives. Until then, my option 3 stands.

I believe that for those interested in encountering the divine, option 3 is best because:
1) It allows them to meet God one on one based on their own uniqueness as an individual.
2) It removes the authority of other fallible humans from the equation.
3) It provides a basis for morality that is built not on the bible (too much genocide and other primitive stuff there) or on the proclamation of others, but on their own encounter and their experience of life.
4) It results in humility and grace toward others. Encountering the divine doesn't become a way to try to "fix" others or push your moral views on society or individuals. The individual learns to look inwardly, not outwardly.
5) It provides the experience of personal blessings in encountering God without the trappings of God told me to tell you...

From the Christian perspective, this is built on the foundation of loving God and loving others. Loving God has to do with the personal encounter. Loving others has to do with how you treat them.

I believe that this model would provide the best foundation for a religious based morality. Best for the individual and best for society.

Mel

brighid

Epitome,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I haven't forgotten about you, but I would like to reply thoughtfully and today's activities might not allow me to do that. I just wanted to let you know. Thank you for your continued participation and patience.

Brighid

brighid

Epitome,

I am going to have to put our discussion on hold for the time being. My husband fell quite ill this weekend and I am not sure when I will have time to judiciously address anything substantive over the next few weeks. I apologize, but I would like to revive this thread at a later date.

Thank you,
Brighid

hinduwoman

In early society religion was very useful. Most men simply would not be moral then without fear of hell or hope of rerward: many still now are that way. This is implicit in the use of prisons. But the point is it is a primitive guidancer system; in modern society it should disappear.
Also no religious society had been very much better than the others. Every society, no matter, what religion they followed had engaged in wars.


Epitome, it is only when people are convinced that they have a personal relationship with God that they also become convinced that they know God's will and so carry them out zealously; an impersonal God does not give instructions to its followers.

Herbert Von Karajan

Goodness me, it's a hell load of posts here, and do you mind if we shift attention from epitome vs secularists for a moment?

Basically, the idea of serving God for humanity nowadays is a total rotten ideology, as Abrahamic religions have shown us. An omnipotent, benevolent God strives Mankind to take care of themselves and His Creation, not commanding their submission to satisfy Him. Abrahamic religions boast their God is Perfect, but His demands contradict His character of Perfection.

If there is no killings in the name of god (skip the True Scotsman crap here) by Scriptures, and the fact that we don't know which religions are valid based on our subjectivity (and Abrahamic religions worship Objective Gods), then we can talk of serving Him. It seems that we have to "please" Man (fulfilling morality) rather than "pleasing" God. So, religious morality here is bunk.

Now, what about "religion" in a sense like Einstein talked about, perhaps Pantheism as an example, as a way of "religious morality"?

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Herbert Von Karajan ]</p>

Herbert Von Karajan

Of course, the problem is there is no set of morals determined by Deity, but the fact morality emerges from sense of appreciation and love for our fragile environtment?

emur

I strongly agree with this. People take their personal experiences of God and then justify their belief system with them. The thinking is along the lines of "God speaks to me so my doctrine must be correct".

For example, within Christianity, the charismatic believes he experiences God and thus believes his views about ecstatic utterances must be right. Or the baptist believes he experiences God and thus believes his views about baptism must be right. And on it goes.

This would apply across religious boundaries as well. In evangelism, one of the motivating forces is the reality of the Christ experience with the evangelist. He believes he experiences Christ personally and based on that, believes Christianity is the only true religion and preaches accordingly.

Of course experiences of God are highly variable, and hardly justify anyone's belief system, but they do provide the emotional punch to carry out God's "will".

Thanks for your comments hinduwoman.

Mel

Herbert Von Karajan

Where is some comments at least when you need em'?