Talking to God boosts self-control and emotional stability, claims study

[Prunepicker]

That was a tremendous amount of "out of context" writing where verses
were concerned. Where did you find this? It's not an accurate account
of Christianity.

Let's start here. What did the Spanish Inquisition do that was Christian?

[zookeeper]

That was a tremendous amount of "out of context" writing. Where did
you find this? It's not an accurate account of Christianity.

This tract has been around for YEARS. The "out of context" argument has been thrown at it for YEARS. Nobody can ever say what exactly is "out of context."

The "out of context" argument is funny when fundamentalist christians really do take tons of biblical text out of context!

But the tract above? There's nothing "out of context" -- it just makes you uncomfortable. As it should. I warned you straight up front.

[Prunepicker]

This tract has been around for YEARS. The "out of context" argument has
been thrown at it for YEARS. Nobody can ever say what exactly is "out
of context."

Not true. I can tell you exactly what is "out of context" as can most
who study the Word. It's not a difficult thing to do. Where do you want
to start?

I started with the question, "what did the Spanish Inquisition do that
was Christian?"

[Bunty]

Some of the above points posted by zookeeper are nothing but garbage, because left out is what came before or after the verses cited. But, granted, what is out of context is a matter of interpretation.

[RadicalModerate]

There is a way of misinterpreting the Word of God (as presented in The Bible) that is referred to as Text Proofing.
The Scribes and Pharisees were experts at it.
Jesus was a very good poet, in his own way.

"The Screwtape Letters" (C.S. Lewis) is probably available for free online.

[Prunepicker]

There is a way of misinterpreting the Word of God (as presented in The
Bible) that is referred to as Text Proofing.
The Scribes and Pharisees were experts at it.

Agreed

"The Screwtape Letters" (C.S. Lewis) is probably available for free online.

I think not. The STLs is an excellent book on spiritual warfare and is
very practical. But what written by C.S. Lewis, at one time a devout
atheist, isn't?

I have it on CD. My favorite is narrated by John Cleese. I
lent it to someone I thought was friend.

No, you can't borrow my copy.

[RadicalModerate]

Agreed

I think not, but I have it on CD. My favorite is narrated by John Cleese. I
lent it to someone I thought was friend.

No, you can't borrow my copy.

I've only encountered The Written Word (in this context).
(not to take anything away from John Cleese. heaven forbid.)

[Prunepicker]

I've only encountered The Written Word (in this context).
(not to take anything away from John Cleese. heaven forbid.)

I'm going to have to order the "Cleese" edition.

[RadicalModerate]

Uh . . . I meant the John Cleese audio version of the C.S. Lewis book "The Screwtape Letters" =)

Until the other version is produced, this Narrator might suffice:


(okay, okay, it's a repeat. so sue me. =)

[kelroy55]

People were killed, not murdered. They were given 120 years to repent
and didn't.

What's your definition of murder?

[kelroy55]

I'm very aware of the story. Read the bible more times than I care to remember. You are trying to make excuses for the murder of innocent children. I'm showing you that it wasn't beneath god nor Abraham to consider killing a child.

And I get nothing from any websites. I was being groomed for seminary. Went to St. Augustine Academy, homeschooled, studied Latin, Hebrew, and Greek and grew up in a Reformed Presbyterian home. I don't need any website to tell me what the bible says.

But I thought pp was against what he calls the murder of innocent children.... or is that just when God does it it's OK?

[hoya]

I should know better than to get involved with a religious discussion. But I don't.

The question of why do bad things happen to good people is one that religious people have struggled with for centuries. Why would a loving god allow people to suffer? However, it is justifiable if you believe in the concept of an afterlife. While the loss of a loved one, especially a child, may be traumatic and heartwrenching, if you take the concept of "they are in a better place" to be not just a platitude, but a fundamental truth, then floods and other disasters that an all-powerful god could have prevented lose a lot of their impact. If an infant drowns, and it spends the rest of eternity in heaven, is that a tragedy?

We have oppression and war because of the decisions of humans. Every person has free will, and sometimes the exercise of that free will leads to problems. But if we had a god who came in and negated any negative impact that our decisions had on our own lives, would we really have free will? If the wind suddenly blew out the match every time you tried to light a cigarette, would that be free will? We get to live with the consequences of our actions. That's part of the deal of being an intelligent being with the capacity to reason. If we don't like the choices we as humans make, is that cause to blame god?

Death is a part of nature. Christianity doesn't promise heaven on Earth right now. I'm not aware of a religion that does. Disease and hunger, suffering, all the bad stuff that just happens to us, that's part of life. It's always been part of life. Is it proof that there is nothing beyond it? I don't think so.

[Chadanth]

I should know better than to get involved with a religious discussion. But I don't.

The question of why do bad things happen to good people is one that religious people have struggled with for centuries. Why would a loving god allow people to suffer? However, it is justifiable if you believe in the concept of an afterlife. While the loss of a loved one, especially a child, may be traumatic and heartwrenching, if you take the concept of "they are in a better place" to be not just a platitude, but a fundamental truth, then floods and other disasters that an all-powerful god could have prevented lose a lot of their impact. If an infant drowns, and it spends the rest of eternity in heaven, is that a tragedy?

We have oppression and war because of the decisions of humans. Every person has free will, and sometimes the exercise of that free will leads to problems. But if we had a god who came in and negated any negative impact that our decisions had on our own lives, would we really have free will? If the wind suddenly blew out the match every time you tried to light a cigarette, would that be free will? We get to live with the consequences of our actions. That's part of the deal of being an intelligent being with the capacity to reason. If we don't like the choices we as humans make, is that cause to blame god?

Death is a part of nature. Christianity doesn't promise heaven on Earth right now. I'm not aware of a religion that does. Disease and hunger, suffering, all the bad stuff that just happens to us, that's part of life. It's always been part of life. Is it proof that there is nothing beyond it? I don't think so.

No more than a dead child is evidence of a loving god.

[ThomPaine]

Death is a part of nature. Christianity doesn't promise heaven on Earth right now. I'm not aware of a religion that does. Disease and hunger, suffering, all the bad stuff that just happens to us, that's part of life. It's always been part of life. Is it proof that there is nothing beyond it? I don't think so.

Nor is it proof that there is something beyond. Suffering in this life is much more palatable if there is the hope of a heavenly reward.

Some choose to believe that this is it. Make the best of your time here and hopefully make a positive difference for the world around you in your very short time on this planet.

[hoya]

You're never going to find proof of something that is, by definition, beyond human understanding. When you talk about an all-powerful creator being, you're stepping outside the boundaries of what may be proven. Through much of this thread I've seen people arguing that certain problems on earth disprove, or weigh heavily against, the existence of such a being. I don't think that's the case.

[hoya]

No more than a dead child is evidence of a loving god.

What is death? Is it a final end to existence or is it a transitional state? If death is simply a change in location, then a child dying is no more tragic than a child moving to California. They are simply in a different place. The family may miss them, but for the child there's been no great injustice.

[kelroy55]

Right. The position is that god is the judge. So our view of innocent and what we are enforce, isn't the same standard.

So since God doesn't actually do the killing himself we leave it up to people that say God told them to kill?

[ThomPaine]

You're never going to find proof of something that is, by definition, beyond human understanding. When you talk about an all-powerful creator being, you're stepping outside the boundaries of what may be proven. Through much of this thread I've seen people arguing that certain problems on earth disprove, or weigh heavily against, the existence of such a being. I don't think that's the case.

That's why those who choose to believe have faith. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of God.
If people could stop being concerned about the private beliefs of others (both sides), and not be self-righteous about their own beliefs (both sides), we would be much better off. However, history shows that we, as a species, are unable to do this.

Perhaps we will eventually evolve out this stage.

[kelroy55]

From the Fort Worth paper today, since we're talking about God and religion......

I guess nothing says “Christmas” like complaining.

If it’s not Frisco school parents griping about their vaguely festive “ winter holiday parties,” it’s xenophobes bashing Texas Wesleyan University over its prayer room for Saudi students.

“Submitting to Sharia!” screams one of 30 similar headlines on political or religious websites.

“Methodist university in Texas touts Islamic prayer room.”

Look, tiny Texas Wesleyan is not an ecclesiastical school. It is a university for the world, and a success at attracting international students.

Some online readers of the school newspaper, The Rambler, seem confused about that.

“Methodists have lost their way,” commenter “Mark” beefs on the newspaper’s Nov. 19 report about the prayer room.

A long-distance reader from the Citizens Militia of Mississippi, that renowned haven of religious tolerance, accuses Wesleyan of being “fully submitted to Sharia.”

Over a prayer room?

“Oh, for gosh sakes,” said Joe Brown, dean of freshmen, 36-year theater professor and faculty sponsor of the Saudi Students Club.

“I’m proud that little Texas Wesleyan is getting more international students now, and they asked for someplace of their own to pray. It’s a little meeting room in the fitness center. This is not any big deal.”

Most local universities have Saudi clubs. More than 70,000 Saudi students nationwide attend U.S. colleges under a 2005 goodwill scholarship program set up by President George W. Bush and King Abdullah after 9-11.

In July, Wesleyan President Frederick G. Slabach joined the Saudi students in fasting during the first full day of Ramadan, saying it’s important for the university to “embrace other cultures.”

Club President Mohammed Al-Shafei is from a Saudi diplomat’s family. In a Rambler video, he said the club’s goal is to showcase Saudi culture and encourage other students to mix with Saudis.

The Rambler quotes the campus chaplain, the Rev. Robert K. Flowers, saying that the interfaith prayer space is meant to “show hospitality” and that Wesleyan is “open and tolerant of other faith traditions.”

Brown said he’s sad about the online comments but not surprised.

“I’ve been here a long time,” he said, “and I’ve seen a lot of nasty things said by Christians to other Christians, or even between Methodists.

“I just hope the international students don’t take the comments seriously. These are all nice young men and women here enjoying their freedom.”

That includes the freedom to complain.

Read more here: Muslim-bashers’ latest target: Texas Wesleyan | Bud Kennedy | Fort Worth, Arlington, N...

[RadicalModerate]

That's why those who choose to believe have faith. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of God.
If people could stop being concerned about the private beliefs of others (both sides), and not be self-righteous about their own beliefs (both sides), we would be much better off. However, history shows that we, as a species, are unable to do this.

Perhaps we will eventually evolve out this stage.

Re: The concern about others and, by extension, the apparent need to "share the faith"

I think that it goes back to The Great Commission (in the Bible). Unfortunately, what many "proseltyzers" [sp?] forget is the fact that "what one does speaks so loudly I can't hear what one says."

I've met a few Christians--in the best sense of that term--and they helped make a Believer out of me.
(still, when it comes to my part in the big picture, i feel (as I've said previously) like Clark Griswold's idiot brother in law or whatever)

[onthestrip]

What is death? Is it a final end to existence or is it a transitional state? If death is simply a change in location, then a child dying is no more tragic than a child moving to California. They are simply in a different place. The family may miss them, but for the child there's been no great injustice.

Probably so. I cant imagine why it'd be any different than it was before I was born...which was nothing.

[ThomPaine]

Re: The concern about others and, by extension, the apparent need to "share the faith"

I think that it goes back to The Great Commission (in the Bible). Unfortunately, what many "proseltyzers" [sp?] forget is the fact that "what one does speaks so loudly I can't hear what one says."

I've met a few Christians--in the best sense of that term--and they helped make a Believer out of me.
(still, when it comes to my part in the big picture, i feel (as I've said previously) like Clark Griswold's idiot brother in law or whatever)

No problem with offering to share the faith, as long as it is not "shared" against my will. That's been done countless times by most religions (and continues).

[hoya]

Probably so. I cant imagine why it'd be any different than it was before I was born...which was nothing.

I can't remember being in the womb either.

If there's nothing, and religions that promise an afterlife are wrong, then you can't judge their gods for those poor departed children. The "what about the dead kids" argument tries to disprove a divine being by showing that said being is not all-loving, and has failed at preventing tragedy. It's not a moral failing if said divine being does not exist.

However, if religions that promise an afterlife are correct, then death is simply a transition, like moving to another city or getting a different job. You don't come back here (unless you believe in reincarnation) but that doesn't mean you cease to exist. Therefore there's no moral failing of said divine being because death is only a change of state.

We're looking for logical consistency here. And I'd argue that afterlife-promising religions can be internally consistent by promising both a loving deity and a continuation of existence after death.

[RadicalModerate]

No problem with offering to share the faith, as long as it is not "shared" against my will. That's been done countless times by most religions (and continues).

And that is nothing but the antithesis of The Great Commission to share The Gospel of [Jesus (the) Christ].
At least as far as I understand it according to The Bible and truthful, living, representatives of Faith.
Christianity is something that can never be forced on anyone. It is a choice. Beyond that, it is an irresistible force if presented correctly and in harmony with The Will of God. (and that has nothing, whatsoever to do with money-grubbing weasels.

Well . . . Ain't it?

[ThomPaine]

I can't remember being in the womb either.

If there's nothing, and religions that promise an afterlife are wrong, then you can't judge their gods for those poor departed children. The "what about the dead kids" argument tries to disprove a divine being by showing that said being is not all-loving, and has failed at preventing tragedy. It's not a moral failing if said divine being does not exist.

However, if religions that promise an afterlife are correct, then death is simply a transition, like moving to another city or getting a different job. You don't come back here (unless you believe in reincarnation) but that doesn't mean you cease to exist. Therefore there's no moral failing of said divine being because death is only a change of state.

We're looking for logical consistency here. And I'd argue that afterlife-promising religions can be internally consistent by promising both a loving deity and a continuation of existence after death.

When discussing whether or not there is a "loving god" I have never really cared about death. The "going to a better place" is very easy and comforting to believe. My problem is why a "loving God" who is all knowing and all seeing, allows so much brutality to be thrust upon innocents without taking them to their great reward.

Child molestation, rape, torture, slavery, etc., etc. That is not the primary reason for my non-belief, but it is a reason for me to disagree with the "loving God" construct.