Xavier Pacheco

5/15/2009 6:52:28 PM #

I agree.  With a beam in my own eye, I don't want to criticize passive pew dwellers in mainstream denominations too much.  I am finding the quest for discipleship a tough road, best supported in our church's small groups where there is accountability, not in our church's Sunday services.  

Offering simple 'fire insurance' to new believers is something persecuted house churches in China, Eritrea and elsewhere would find bizarre.

Joe Hendricks

5/16/2009 11:20:28 AM #

I have recently been thinking about similar things, albeit from a totally different perspective.

Only four in every ten Americans realize that human beings evolved from an earlier species of animals. Among countries we'd like to compare ourselves with, only Turkey showed more fanaticism and lack of education (75% of the people not aware of this fact).

Heck, there is even a group of Americans who believe life on Earth is only 6000 years old and that man walked with the dinosaurs!

Given the way American religious people have put their own religious beliefs ahead of science and human needs, I am surprised saints are not produced en masse. This comment concerns both North-Americans as well as South-Americans. It was interesting to see how the case in Brazil unfolded, where a poor 9 year old girl was raped by her step-dad. The Catholic bishops banned the doctors who performed an abortion on the twins. They would have preferred to let God decide if the little girl would live or die (the doctors were convinced she would die btw and I did not see anyone refute their diagnosis).

There is truly much evil around. Most of it seems to be concentrated around the more influential leaders of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Polytheistic religions play nicer most of the time.

With today's access to advanced scientific tools, there is little surprise you see news of old-school saints. We know a thing or two about prayer now. It can't heal. Old-school miracles don't happen. We're left with being thankful (to "God") a pilot is able to land an airplane on a river, while conveniently forgetting that "God" was the one who put a flock of Geese straight in the flight path of an airplane taking off from an airport. How hard would it have been for "Him" (or "Her") to temporarily move those geese out of the way? Sigh. Instead some people seem to forget the engineering effort that went into the construction of that airplane to make sure it would not sink as a rock.

Four out of ten Americans (of the Northern persuasion). Wow. The US education system has really failed. Unfortunately it seems to be contagious. The newest crusade against rabid Islamists has not helped.

There is a time and place for everything. When priests control our societies, we end up with burning witches. When priests control Islamic countries, we end up with countries like Iran.

Religion and politics just do not mix. Yet every elected President of the US heavily try to collect as many Christian votes as possible. Today's situation is far from good.

No, what we need are _less_ saints. Especially "saints" like Mother Theresa who advocated against birth control. That was a truly evil and horrible thing to do. Yet the Catholic church embraced her. Their stance on birth control is a crime against humanity.

Rune Moberg

5/17/2009 2:25:33 AM #

Rune, are you an atheist?

EKesto

5/18/2009 8:37:06 PM #

Rune:
Thanks for your comments and clearly you've thought a lot about whether or not God exists. I wonder, however, how you might know evil as evil? You state that "there is much evil around," but what measure do you have in seeing evil as evil?

I suggest that we can actually derive a good argument for God's existence based upon the existence of evil. Consider:

1. Evil exists and is a departure from the way the world ought to be.
2. If evil is a departure from the way the world ought to be, then there is a way the world ought to be.
3. If there is a way the world ought to be, then there is a master plan or moral design for the way the world ought to be.
4. If there is a master plan or moral design for the way the world ought to be, then there is a Master Planner or Moral Designer for the world.
5. This Master Planner or Moral Designer we call “God.”

Thoughts?

Paul

5/19/2009 12:12:17 PM #

Dear Rune:
One more thought. You intimate that religion, especially Christianity, has been the supreme cause of evil and injustices in the world. While it would be historically unconscionable to deny that there have been atrocities committed in the name of religion, it would be equally wrong to ignore the goods brought about by religion, especially Christianity. Consider this quote by Habermas.

"For, in the West, Christianity not only fulfilled the initial cognitive conditions for modern structures of consciousness; it also fostered a range of motivations that formed the major theme of the economic and ethical research of Max Weber. Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights,
and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk."  
    — Jürgen Habermas, Time of Transitions (pp 150-151)

Paul

5/19/2009 5:18:55 PM #

Paul,

The ancient Greeks were much more civilized than modern Christian society. And at least in one field, science, they were head and shoulders beyond what Christian society can dream of. Under Christian rule, scientists have faced ridicule and persecution -- certianly not love!

I completely fail to see how the concept of good vs evil proves or hints at anything. Would it not be more relevant to say that the concept of "good" proves there is a Santa Claus? I would say such a line of argument is a waste of our time. It is a nice parlor trick kind of reasoning, but... You are barking up the wrong tree.

The proof of burden is not on me. I don't have to prove there is no God. You could just as well ask me to disprove the flying spaghetti monster. And given space travel capability, I could then try to visit every planet in our solar system, while you say "oh, but you did not look over 'there'!". If there is a flying spaghetti monster then, then you should show me. Same with "God".

But OK, I'll stroll into the topic of good and evil.

In nature, a male lion that gains dominance in a pride will usually kill the offspring of his predecessor and mate with the females. Is that an act of evil? (the answer is: no, it isn't. It is unpleasant, but we should not intervene)

Humans are usually a bit different, because we can often do random acts of cruelty for no good reason whatsoever. About 4 percent of us are psychopaths. You could certainly view "evil" as a mental disease.

Even if you clear that "hurdle" and somehow associate good&evil with God (what is even the point of such an exercise? You are spending lots of time trying to prove something that does not exist?!?), you run into the next nasty conundrum: Is God evil or good? The old testament paints an ugly picture. This "guy" wrecks entire cities out of what can best be described as vanity.

So why did I mention lions? China's much criticized one-child policy demonstrates some of the difficult choices facing humanity today. We have a small planet, and we're packed together like cattle. The Chinese solution ensures that we have small tragedies now, rather than huge terrible disasters in the near-future. Imagine having to kill one billion people so that the other billion will have a chance of surviving. The one-child policy becomes a walk in the park in comparison. But is it evil? Opposing contraception could be considered evil, because that forces us humans to make such choices.

But OK, an example closer to home: Noah cursed the off-spring of one of his sons. They and their bloodline would have darkened skin and were to become servants of Noah's other sons. This was used as an excuse for justifying slavery prior to the civil war in your country.

I can't help but notice the missionaries in Thailand. The Thai are the most peaceful people imaginable. Their religion (Buddhism) is so peaceful and filled with wisdom that it would make your ears bleed. Yet... There they are... Christian missionaries playing guitars and spreading the "good" word. That is a crime. Plain and simple.

Yes, their intentions are good. But the result is not.

But philosophy aside... Some Christians believe, in earnest, that life on Earth dates back 6000 years. The "good" book says something to the effect that God created man first, followed by animals. Is this not so?

Yet... All the evidence _proves_ things did not happen in this order. Not by a long shot! The earliest organisms found are 3.5 billion years old. For the next 2 billion years, those simple bacterias were all there was. The bible could not have been more wrong. Of this there can not be any doubt. A God that can amuse himself by playing with bacterias for 2 billion years does not sound very bright to me. (but, I have to admit, this "playful idiot" God could certainly account for all those nasty acts of God portrayed in the old testament)

I guess you could then choose to become a prophet yourself, and claim that God created bacteria first. Although forming a new sect is a good way to meet women, it doesn't mean you are any closer to the truth. If good&evil serves as an indication of the presence of God, then truth serves as proof there is no God. (as much relevance as your 5 bullet points)

Personal beliefs are OK. If blind faith makes life more bearable for you, then go ahead. But... When adding money and politics into the equation... That is where I feel obligated to butt in. Plus... Pick a nicer God? Hinduism (older than Judaism btw... People believed in stuff long before the Jews) has some nice deities. Why not devote prayer time to them instead? The old polytheistic religions has one advantage: they account for how the Gods could secure entertainment while waiting 2 billion years for the bacteria to do something interesting.

If you take one step back, and look at this, completely unbiased, I challenge you to not find the whole concept of "God" (or "Gods") silly. The Earth is no longer flat. The sun no longer orbits Earth. Man has a profound connection with all other animals (common ancestors). We have learned so much recently, that old beliefs cannot keep up. We have visited the moon (no God there). We have looked at the tiniest atoms (no God there either). What more does it take?

It is, quite frankly, time for mankind to move on.

Unfortunately, it seems the average man is not educated enough yet to take the path of enlightenment. (I hope I will be proven wrong about this) What utterly surprises me is that there are so many educated people in the US who takes these things as given. They fail to question their outdated beliefs. Considering that we Europeans exported most of our religious fanatics some centuries ago (cough, cough), that is perhaps only to be expected, but still... It genuinely worries me. And talking about modern saints positively scares me.

Rune Moberg

5/20/2009 5:08:16 PM #

Paul, Rune, good conversation going on. Thanks to you both.

Rune, I do have a question for you that I couldn't see from your post.

Simple question:  What is the basis for determining what is good and what is evil in your view?

--- x

Xavier Pacheco

6/7/2009 8:32:43 PM #

(sorry for the delay -- was on vacation)

Something hurting others is probably not a good thing.

Example: Blaming floods on gays is an act of evil (www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...iety-say-bishops.html).

Question: Do you, like that English bishop, believe in (an) intervening God(s)? If so, how do you determine which acts are the act of God, and which aren't? If God performs evil (flooding in England, Sodoma and Gomorra, etc...), then why bother with him/her? He/she is clearly a maniac and should be dealt with as swiftly as possible.

Why introduce this complexity (the concept of an intervening God) when trying to explain a phenomena (be it why there is daylight or why women don't fart)?

When someone tells you they have discerned God's will, what makes you trust or distrust them? Because they can define good and evil..? Or because they alienate people who you do not feel compelled to associate with? (in the dark ages the bishops would burn witches, now they want to burn the gay people -- there's some progress there somewhere)

As I said... Life on Earth is old. Our species have been around for a very short period of time. Even if there was a God (or Gods) at one point, they would have been bored and left this galaxy a long time ago! They certainly would not hang around listening to people whine about their sick relatives and the sins they've committed.

In any case... Using religion as the foundation for political opinions on topics like abortion and gay rights, is bad. I'd go as far as saying that it is evil. Don't let a priest dictate laws. We will all end up in caves wearing long beards.

Or to sum up differently: Praying to an intervening God who causes floods, famine and other acts of Evil (with capital E) is Evil. Of this there can be no discussion.

What we need is better education. What we don't need is more religion. Higher education tends to eradicate religion, so by strengthening our schools, we should be on a good and constructive path to enlightenment.

Or we could all start believing in the rapture and don't do diddly squat. (which again would be quite an Evil thing to do)

Just go and see "Religulous" with Bill Maher, OK?

Rune Moberg