[oxymoron]

Even though I do not believe in God--at least in the way God is generally understood by most posters on this message board--I never ever deny God's existence. I never claim "there is no God."

This is because I do not believe that I am in a position of privilege with respect to my beliefs. I do not wish to claim that I am right and others are wrong. My main concern is not "what is true?" How could I know for sure? Clearly, we don't all agree and I am not so egocentric as to think that only I am right.

Rather, my concern is what is the better way for us to live our lives, both individually and as a community. What can "actually" be determined about a fundamental belief is not whether it is right or wrong--humankind has spent thousands of years and can not reach agreement. What can be determined are the consequences that result from believing a certain way. Ultimately, that determination is made by history.

For this reason, I believe it is important to attempt to understand what are the implications of holding a particular belief. What is the impact of a belief upon our actions? How might it effect the way we go about living our lives? How might it effect others?

My view is that belief systems based in an "I am right/If you disagree you are wrong" structure are inherently authoritarian, exclusionary and divisive. I know in pointing this out I am often quite sharp in my method. But I am only sharp because I am concerned about beliefs that I perceive as leading to dominance and exclusion rather than dialogue, mutuality and respect. I believe that these negative characteristics are generally inherent in the nature of the belief itself and/or subconscious of the believer rather than in any conscious intent.

Although it is not for me, I have great respect for Christianity. I have seen it be a powerful and productive force in many lives. It is, however, when Christians or others attempt to make a claim on behalf of God, attempt to tell us all what is God's truth, that I believe they are attempting to exercise power over others. They forget the subjective basis of their faith and begin to make claims toward objective truth.

This, as I see it, is not having faith in the truth of God, but staking one's own claim to that truth. And I am not comfortable with human beings owning God.

Peace.



Note: I reserve the right to change my standpoint

[The Daywalker]

Originally posted by oxymoron Note: I reserve the right to change my standpoint

Last night, for an instant,... I believed in a god. We beat the Yankmes back like the mindless barbarians they are,... and i thought, wow, there must be a god, cuz there is no other way to describe it. Then,... like an epiphany,... I had a flash back to the movie Major League when The pitcher Harris said "are you trying to tell me Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball?" heh, and i laughed, cuz he was right, jesus Christ can't hit a curveball.

[Ambular]

Chris: What?

Being one of the Christians that you are talking about, I will respond with my standpoint as well. Or I should say, being a Christian; I don't know if I am of the particular group you are speaking of that attempt to use their 'religious integrity' as authority over someone, or as a means of justifying their telling someone else how to think. If I am, then I'll explain how I feel. If I'm not, then please don't feel like I'm directing my argument at you personally.

If I misquote or misinterpret what you are saying in any way, please let me know, because I don't want to take it the wrong way.

Originally posted by oxymoron This is because I do not believe that I am in a position of privilege with respect to my beliefs. I do not wish to claim that I am right and others are wrong. My main concern is not "what is true?" How could I know for sure? Clearly, we don't all agree and I am not so egocentric as to think that only I am right.

First of all, I think it is very commendable that you think so. And I appreciate someone who can put their beliefs out there without inflicting them on someone else, or giving the impression that others must accept theirs as the truth.

Rather, my concern is what is the better way for us to live our lives, both individually and as a community. What can "actually" be determined about a fundamental belief is not whether it is right or wrong--humankind has spent thousands of years and can not reach agreement. What can be determined are the consequences that result from believing a certain way. Ultimately, that determination is made by history.

But the fact still remains that when people consider what is the proper way to carry out both our personal, individual lives and constructive, supportive communities, their beliefs will always come into play. And since there are so many differences between them, it's always going to come down to what's right and what's wrong, especially when you're dealing with community issues. There's respectful ways of talking about it, and there's destructive ways of talking about it, I absolutely agree. But being that it is impossible to integrate every aspect of the different kind of beliefs out there, at some point someone is always going to feel like they are being influenced by what someone else says is right. I do completely agree that it's more important to shift the focus to a "what can come of this" sort of mentality, but it's hard for me to dismiss the reality of "right v. wrong" ultimately becoming a substantial part of it.

For this reason, I believe it is important to attempt to understand what are the implications of holding a particular belief. What is the impact of a belief upon our actions? How might it effect the way we go about living our lives? How might it effect others?

For me, as a Christian, this is a very crucial part of being vocal about my beliefs. And it's definitely not something I always succeed in, which I'm sure is obvious. My faith guides me in almost every conscious decision I make in how I choose to go about living my life. That doesn't mean I always make the "right" one, but I try as much as I can. And I have to try very hard to uphold the kind of behavior or speech that represents the moral values that I am always talking about. I believe that God says we are supposed to testify these beliefs to other people.

My view is that belief systems based in an "I am right/If you disagree you are wrong" structure are inherently authoritarian, exclusionary and divisive. I know in pointing this out I am often quite sharp in my method. But I am only sharp because I am concerned about beliefs that I perceive as leading to dominance and exclusion rather than dialogue, mutuality and respect. I believe that these negative characteristics are generally inherent in the nature of the belief itself and/or subconscious of the believer rather than in any conscious intent.

Everyone thinks that what they believe in is right, and what others who contradict it believes in is wrong. That's what it comes down to. I truly believe that, no matter what your belief is. However, it is how you choose to handle other's "truths" that make all the difference. For example, even though I happen to think that my belief is the truth, I also acknowledge the fact that many others will not necessarily accept it as their truth. Everybody has their own idea of what that is, and I respect that. People who force what they have to say on others and chastize them for choosing to challenge it are only going to make matters worse, I agree.

I think I might disagree on "conscious intent" in every case, though. Yes I know that sometimes I get carried away in the way I share my "truth" with other people, just like everyone does about subjects they are passionate about. But I know many people, Christians included, who are pushy, agressive, and dominant by nature, and feel that anyone who is "wrong" doesn't deserve that respect. And I've experienced it in this forum. That's not to say I don't sometimes fall victim to that; I do. But there are some that I would argue are unaware of what the nature of their belief truly is, and instead wants to act upon the combative and impulsive parts of their own character.

Although it is not for me, I have great respect for Christianity. I have seen it be a powerful and productive force in many lives. It is, however, when Christians or others attempt to make a claim on behalf of God, attempt to tell us all what is God's truth, that I believe they are attempting to exercise power over others. They forget the subjective basis of their faith and begin to make claims toward objective truth.

I'm very appreciative of that respect, and I hope that I always do my best to uphold the same. And in the same way that you recognize, as a non-believer, the power that it can have in people's lives, I can also recognize, as a believer, how easily it can tear people apart. The reason that both things sometimes happen is where I think the one expressing the beliefs (or lack of) take responsibility, not necessarily the belief itself.

What I can tell you is that, in my church, we are taught that as believers we have an obligation to share our truth with others. If they choose not to accept it, that is their choice, and that is perfectly fine. But I go back to my previous comment that, even though people can still be accepting and open-minded to other's beliefs, they will most likely always think that theirs is objective truth, while everyone else's falls into the category of subjective faith. It's a natural, subconscious response.

For example, if you truly don't believe in God, you can think that I am wrong when I try and tell you God exists, while at the same time being respectful of my belief and believing that I obtain the right to think so. However, you would still think that you hold the objective truth, because in your mind you know God does not exist, and to you, I am expressing a faith that you think only exists in my mind. Does that make sense to you? I'm not saying that you do; I'm just using it as an example to illustrate what I'm trying to point out.

To conclude, I feel as though it is my spiritual obligation to try and share the truth about God and what he says in the Bible. I will not force my beliefs on someone who says they are completely uninterested in hearing about God. If someone disagrees with me but is still open to listening to other views, I will always be willing to put it out there. I will not ingore a chance to tell people about God. That said, I will never try to tell someone they are wrong - even if I may think it. I am not authoritive over people and I will still be willing to listen to their points of view as well - even if mine cannot be changed.

What's important for non-believers to remember is this: being a Christian is Who I Am. And I can't be expected to avoid bringing it up, because it would be compromising what I stand for. But I will always try my absolute best not to forceful, I will always listen to what you have to say in return, and I hope that people will not immediately assume that I am simply because I challenge what you say.

I hope that I explained myself well enough ... Sorry if I rambled on so long!

[oxymoron]

Thank you for your response Ambular. My initial observation is that you seem to have very strong conviction and beliefs while being able to be respectful of others, or at least holding that as a value.

For the most part, I agree with what you say. However, I would like to point out the difference in thinking that is based on right/wrong vs. better/worse. While I agree that it is impossible to hold a position that someone thinks is wrong, I do not believe that it is essential that one hold a position that they think is "right" at least in an absolute sense. Looking at views as right and wrong assumes a common authority to which parties can appeal in order to determine a "correct" position. While I acknowledge this is possible on questions where a context is available, I do not see how it is possible in an absolute sense? To what authority do we appeal?

Thus, I prefer to ask the question that is answerable. What is the better way to live our life. I believe that this presents two distinct advantages over the question what is the "right" way to live our lives. In the first place, it does not degrade the position of someone who chooses another option. If I am choosing the "right" way to live my life or the "right" position on abortion, then the person who chooses another option is necessarily wrong. On the other hand, if I choose the "better" position, I am able to acknowledge the validity in another's position. The second advantage of this approach is that it is open to constant revision and improvement. If I choose, the right approach then the discussion is over. The alternative is wrong. Of course, I can maintain a posture of open-mindedness, but the way that I express my view is not in that form. Conversely, if I maintain a position based on what I believe to be better, I leave a greater deal of openess to finding an additional position that may be even better still.

If you take the example of the debate on abortion, I do not find taking positions of "right" to be useful. People who feel differently are alienated and there is then no ground for discussion. That is not to say that I believe one should approach problems are purely practical grounds. I do, however, believe that the force of a moral argument is binding only in relation to its acceptance. Therefore, an appeal to authority, a claim that abortion is "wrong" do little to advance the discussion. Instead, they are offputting because they disrespect the values of the person who feels otherwise. I believe what we must do in questions such as these is look at the issue as a consequentialist? What is the impact of legalizing or criminalizing abortion? How will it effect society? How will it effect me? How will it effect others? Certainly, one of the questions to be answered is how does it effect the values that we hold? But just claiming it is wrong by virtue of an authority that is not universally accepted is not a useful tactic and does not respect the values of the person who does not accept the same authority.

I am sorry I am rambling a bit. I am quite tired and hope I am clear. I very much enjoy discussing issues with a certain type of Christian. I find it interesting to talk with those who have a view that is quite different than my own. However, I find that those Christians who are biblical literalists tend to confuse their own opinion or belief in God with the truth of God. In these cases, I get quite frustrated.

It is my belief that morality is actually not based on ends but means. That is, that it is how a choice is made that determines whether it is moral. Rather than what choice is made. Thus, we can have two people who arrive at the opposite conclusion, but both making moral choices. That is because I believe that morality requires responsibility for one's choice and the only way to be responsible is to be free. It is my belief, however, that freedom is an unnatural state of human beings. Most all of our choices are conditioned, primarily by our socialization. I do not believe that an absolute freedom is possible. But I do believe in relative degrees of freedom. These occur when one fully understands that they have a choice, rather than following rote. It requires that one consider what it would be like to make the opposite choice. It requires as deep an understanding as possible of the decision that each person might make. These things can not be judged externally as on a scorecard. But they can be made ideals that individuals strive for. It is my sincere hope that human beings will recognize the shackles that society, marketing, the media, religious dogma and other forces impose upon our will and try and find that which in each of us is truly free. I doubt the effort can ever truly succeed. But I believe that it is in striving for our free will that we reach our highest epogy as a human being.

Sorry for the length and disjointedness of my post.

[Ambular]

Oxymoron, I apologize for the lengthiness. I just had a lot to say That was an incredibly insightful and profound post. It took me a long time to really wrap my mind around it and come up with the appropriate response, and I'm not even sure this is it, but I'll go with it.

I can definitely understand where you are coming from in the intial paragraph. And I see how you are saying that there is a difference between just how productive a "good or bad" mentality is in comparison with a "better or worse" mentality. I know that, ideally, it is more important to be optimistic about ways of improving your own view (even in the midst of recognizing someone else's as a fallacy) instead of denouncing other's as infinitely wrong and claiming that yours is the ultimate answer. For just about every possible subject we could think of, I would probably agree that there is always another side to the story, other facts we have not discovered, or alternately influencing points of view that can sometimes lead someone to believe that maybe they aren't 'right' in an absolute sense, as you said. But in the case of religion, I feel inclined to argue that it is different.

If you really look at the differences between the vast numbers of different faiths that are out there, it would appear that there are so many contradictions between them that they cannot all be valid. Even though many of them are just variations of the same belief, and may be the same at the very core, others faiths hold the opposite claims to be true. I know I'm being very vague; I suppose that if you look at two different belief systems, Christianity and say, Muslim, they obviously have polar ideas of what "religious" truth is. Christians will believe that Jesus is the son of God, manifested in a human form, and considered to be the same person. Muslims believe Jesus is simply a prophet. To Muslims, Mohammed was the last messenger of God, who was given divine powers to perform miracles. To Christians, they believe a wide range of opinions varying from Mohammed simply being a liar, to being influenced by the Devil. They also believe there is no such thing as Original Sin, while Christians believe there was.

I don't mean to rattle on about the differences between those specifically, because it's irrelevant, but it just goes to show that, whatever you believe in, one or the other or neither, they cannot both be true at the same time. They contradict each other in every sense of the word. So although everyone has their own idea of which idea may be "right", the fact is, there has to be a "right" one, doesn't there? Even if the truth is that there is no God, that still means that someone (in this example, athiests) believes in the truth and everyone else sees a different variation of it. Everyone can't be correct at the same time.
To me, the authority that I attempt to appeal to is God's. I feel that I have every spiritual obligation to try and uphold that truth in the face of those who will oppose it, as will those who think that their views are the truth. While I don't think it's as though we all feel the need to submit to each other's impressions or acceptance of one another (because some don't feel that it's important), we all have someone of a higher calling to answer to. There's some people who deny that existance, and some who form their whole belief systems around it. In either case, there is an authority to be answered to.

I'm not sure if that made any sense at all, I hope it did. I can try to explain it in a different way if it's too confusing.

I think your views on how the advantages of a "better/worse" philosophy greatly outweigh the "right/wrong" one are absolutely true. If someone's right, logically it can only mean that the other person is wrong. There's no disputing that. But I think it's the way that you present your own truth and perceive someone else's to be the most imporant factor. Since I don't know how other Christians feel and would not presume to speak on their behalf, I just want to ascertain that this is strictly my personal belief and that I don't mean to represent anyone else's but my own:

I believe in what the Bible specifically says about abortion, homosexuality, murder, idolatry, etc. to be absolute truth. For me, there aren't any "if, ands, or buts", if you will. I think maybe there are a few cases where there are considerations (such as murder out of self-defense, as an example). But I don't think that the types of excuses people use serve as enough justification to break these written moral laws.

I feel, personally, that if I am willing to take the views of somebody who contradicts my very belief system with their claims, and accept that as a distinct possibility, then I am compromising my faith. If someone says to me, "Jesus is not really God himself; he was a real human being just like me that had divine inspirations from God", well, I can respect that they obtain every right to think that, and appreciate that there is more than one way of looking at the same idea, but I can't very well accept that as potential truth. I mean, I can, but it would make me feel as though I am betraying what I hold to be true of the Bible, and admitting that what it is in the Bible and what has been taught in Baptist churches for so many years is probably not true. How could I do that if I am a devout born-again Christian who is firm in my beliefs and values? It sounds like a nice idea to be able to do that, but it's a little beyond what some are capable of when they are as unwavering about their beliefs as I happen to be. I feel that God has led me in so many decisions I've had to make in my life, and He has been uncompromising in his love and committment to me, so what right would I have to turn my back on that and suggest that his Word is probably not "The Way"?

If we weren't talking about religion, but rather, "Who should we elect for President", or any other topic that allows more ideas to be open for discussion, I would wholeheartedly agree.

I don't mean for my views of be offputting, disrespectful of other values, or unaccepting. I hope that I don't come across that way to others. I'm sure that some might not help but take it that way, since it is pretty point-blank about what I feel is right or wrong.

I guess I might say that someone who can be convinced of another way of looking at religious interpretation is probably not firm enough in their faith that they can still change their minds. This doesn't mean that said-person should not be open-minded towards other's beliefs; I don't mean that to suggest that I am not going to listen if someone says that they translate the text in the Bible to mean something a little differently, I just mean that when it comes down to the core values that are expressed in the Bible, it takes a lot more than a few translated words to make me rethink my beliefs, and probably won't happen. If someone could come up with substantial facts that the Bible is a falsehood, I might be forced to reconsider, but I don't think that that kind of evidence exists or is substantial enough to stand up to the enormity of the kind of committment and faith that some people have.

To answer your specific question: What is the impact of legalizing or criminalizing abortion; how will it affect society; how will it affect me/others?

I think the consequences on both sides are hard to handle. If I personally was in the position to keep abortion legal or to abolish it, I would think I would choose to abolish it. Should there be a case where proceeding with birth could potentially be fatal to either the child or the mother, then that may possibly be a situation where I might say that aborting it would be acceptable, but I just don't know. If I was personally in the position of the mother, I would take the chance of going through the birth instead of eliminating all possibility and choosing instead to get rid of the baby. And being that I know in my heart that everything goes to God's plan and if I was meant to die, then it shall be. That isn't to say everyone else is that secure and would be OK with it, which is why I might allow it in those cases. But I don't know how God feels about abortions within those lines.

I think that since it's so easy for women to get abortions these days, it's almost seen as a casual event. I've heard from personal accounts of Planned Parenthood patients that they are seldomly told that there is a baby beginning to form inside of them, and sometimes, are downright insistent upon the abortion. I've seen in the news that women can buy t-shirts from PP that say "I had an abortion!", which seems to signify just how everyday it is. And I've also heard countless stories of young girls who are pressured into abortion by their boyfriends, parents, or the rest of society as a whole. And these girls grow up to be emotionally traumatized because they were forced into something so life-changing at such an early age. And these are the kind of effects that I think it has on society.

I also think that by legalizing it, we are allowing impressionable youth (as well as adults) to let go of important values. We begin taking advantage of the legal freedom to do such things. We can lose the emotional connections that we may have had with our child, or may have with future children. We can lose respect for ourselves. We become so wrapped up in what society says is acceptable that we find ourself having to redefine what "murder" really is. We start making excuses. We take what we perceive to be the easy way out, the "better" choice, and then spend the rest of our lives wondering what may have been, and then torture ourselves for it. Even though the disapproval of God is ultimately the deciding factor for me, all of these considerations would have to do with my stance against the issue. I'm sorry if I was unclear about my entire reason, and I don't mean to narrow it down to simply "God says it's wrong", because I have all these feelings about it too.

I very much enjoy talking about these kinds of things too, even moreso with someone who holds the opposite belief than someone who agrees with me. Even if I may be stubborn in my beliefs, it's still interesting to hear a challenge to it.

Because of all the consequences that often go unthought of when it comes to these kinds of decisions, sometimes I question how much freedom anyone truly has. I would agree that absolute freedom is very difficult to obtain when we are so heavily absorped in the way that society "conditions" us to respond. I think many people confuse the freedom that comes along with basic rights as a civilian. There's that, but there's also the kind of freedom you can acquire only from seeking religious enlightenment and the overall expansion of knowledge about the world around you, and letting go of the type of ideals that society says you have to conform to.

Whew. Sorry about the length. Hope I made my points understandable

[oxymoron]

Ambular,

I have only gotten through the first section of your post and will respond to the rest later. I must say, however, that I completely disagree with your view that one religious belief need necessarily be right and another wrong. These are beliefs of human beings. They are ways of understanding and making sense of the world. Just as religion, science, art, and love are differeing ways of making sense of our world. Need it be that one of these is absolutely right and another wrong?

It is my opinion that your viewpoint is based on a confusion between truth and understanding. Christianity itself, as with any human idea, is not truth itself but a way of understanding truth. Now if you subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth you can attempt to make an argument that Christianity or another religion more accurately correspond to the nature of reality (or God). But, this argument is based in an infinite regress. In order to make this judgement, one must first be able to identify that reality (or God) upon which we are to judge the correspondence in the first place. And that judgement itself will not again be reality (or God) itself, but merely an interpretation based upon our understanding.

Honestly, I think it is quite foolish to believe that one religion is true and others are necessarily false. As foolish as to believe that science is absolutely true and religion or art are not. As human beings, we make sense of the world into which we are thrown. Religion, science, art are ways that we give meaning to that which is ineffable.

Each of us is entitled to and should find our own way to make the world meaningful. If we are to live together, there must to some extent be shared agreement. But what I find profoundly dangerous is those who represent their own meaning as "the" truth rather than a truth or an understanding of truth. Because these people necessarily find the meaning that others find as falsity. And this is the beginning of disrespect for it raises the belief--and it is only the belief unless one claims to be God--above the beliefs of another. It is the attempt to exercise authority over others. And the worst part is that it is done in the name of God.

[86amanda86]

I understand what you are saying. That one thing being true does not make another thing false and I agree as far as to say that yes, religion is one person's interpretation of truth, but that doesn't mean that a certain religion isn't the true one.

[*Ledi*]

Originally posted by 86amanda86 I understand what you are saying. That one thing being true does not make another thing false and I agree as far as to say that yes, religion is one person's interpretation of truth, but that doesn't mean that a certain religion isn't the true one.

And how are you going to prove which one is the "true" one?

[86amanda86]

You're not interested in proof, you're interested in making me wrong. The proof I can offer you is not something you'd even hear.

[*Ledi*]

Originally posted by 86amanda86 You're not interested in proof, you're interested in making me wrong. The proof I can offer you is not something you'd even hear.

I don't need proof. What proof? What for?? I don't even know what you're talking about.

I simply asked a question as to how anyone would ever figure out which religion is the "right" one.

You can't answer my question.

[86amanda86]

You don't know what I'm talking about? You just asked me "how are you going to prove which one is true?" Then you deny ever asking me this by saying "you don't know what I'm talking about." Then you you repeat what you asked in the first place. I must admit I'm a bit confused.

I can answer your question and I will if that is what you want, but I don't think it is.

To someone who wishes to know which religion is the true one, I would tell them to find a copy of the Book Of Mormon, ( oh no not the 'm' word) set in in front of them, then get down on their knees. I would tell them to pray to the Lord with an open heart and say, "Lord, I want to know which church is true. I will read this and I want you to let me know if it is true when I am through." And he will.

You can dismiss this as whatever you want, but you asked and I gave you my honest answer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1: 5

[Ambular]

Whether or not it is a favorable idea that all religions contribute to the same truth, or be equally valid, it simply can't be possible. Regardless of what we as human beings believe to be true of the supernatural, whether it is the existance of it, or the complete lack of it, we all believe in completely contradictory ideas. And no matter what we argue is the "real truth", we cannot all be right. Either God exists, or he doesn't, or there are multiple lesser gods, or some of us or just divinly inspired, or whatever. It cannot be all scenarios at the same time. That means that, no matter which faith has the correct notion, someone is right, and someone is wrong. It just does not make sense (in my mind) to think otherwise. No one will ever know what the truth of it is until we die, and find out for ourselves, but the fact remains that not everyone's religious ideas are going to turn out to be true. Even if I am completely wrong about Christianity and no God truly exists, it still means that athiests, then, had the best interpretation about spirituality and the supernatural. That makes them right, and me wrong. If I say something is black, and you say something is white, it cannot be both. So either one of us is right and one of us is wrong, or we are both wrong. It can't be any other way. That's common sense.

It doesn't make sense to me to compare the validity of one religion against another to that of science and art .. Religion, science, and art are different in their own respect. For one thing, science and religion are completely different. Science is based upon physical, factual evidence, and religion is based on faith and beliefs. One can argue that religion is false, because everyone will have a different faith in something, but how can you argue science? There are theories, of course, but if there's compelling physical evidence to prove it, which is what science is always seeking to do, then that tells us it exists. If I suddenly one day started to dispute the idea that gravity exists, I would not get very far with such an idea, because I could be proven of it. There is no possible way that gravity can't exist. So how can that be the same as claiming one religion is true or false over another?

Human beings will never be able to live together and share agreements based on these kinds of ideas. Unless we live in a Utopian society, or we are all completely lobotomized. Everyone has their own passions, their own thoughts, their own values, their own opinions, and their own beliefs. This is what makes us individuals. To believe that it's possible for us to attain a universal acceptance of one another is a beautiful idea, and one I would love to believe in, but it's impossible to happen. We are too different. You and I can respect each other's right to hold whatever values we may have, but we are not going to agree that we can both hold the truth to something. We have different ideas of what truth is.

Just because someone finds the other person to believe in what they perceive is a "false idea" does not automatically mean that disrespect immediately goes along with it. Wanting to share their truth with others does not mean they are attempting to exercise authority over them. These people certainly exist, of course, but it not to just be assumed that someone would naturally begin to force these beliefs or completely disrespect another person for holding a different idea.

It would be impossible for someone to convince me of the possibility that God does not exist. They should feel free to express that view if they so choose, but it will not make me change. You are talking about a God that has guided me in finding the right answer to the most difficult life questions I have had, a God who has led me down the right paths, a God that has given me comfort and assurance in the most confusing and unassured situations, a God that is there for me even when I feel my loneliest, a God who I know is always protecting me, a God that will be my best friend, a God that promises me a life of eternal happiness ans saved me from an eternal life of darkness. You can argue that our ideas are not "right or wrong" so much as "better or worse", but can you tell me what "better" ideas can offer me more than this?

[*Ledi*]

Amanda, I still don't know what you're talking about cause it doesn't make sense.

As Ambular said, no one will ever agree on these things, so you can never really find out which religion is the "true" one. Or even if any of them is true at all.

[oxymoron]

Originally posted by 86amanda86 I understand what you are saying. That one thing being true does not make another thing false and I agree as far as to say that yes, religion is one person's interpretation of truth, but that doesn't mean that a certain religion isn't the true one.

If you make that statement, you actually do not understand what I am saying at all. Religions, just like science and art, are ways of understanding the Truth. But religions are nothing more than the beliefs and practices of human beings. They are ways that human beings attempt to make sense of their worlds. A religion can seem to be more consistent with facts, a religion can seem to be more internally consistent, a religion can be more effective at winning the absolute allegiance of its followers.

But claiming truth for one religion is both unknowable and irrelevant. And those who claim such are merely trying to deify their own beliefs and opinions.

[oxymoron]

Religion, science and art each use their own logic to understand the world. So do each different religion. In fact, many would suggest that religion is a lot like literature in that it functions as mythology. Now, would we say that the Greeks mythology is true and the Egyptians false? To me, that is patently absurd. Mythologies are neither true nor false. They are ways of making sense of the world.

You are trying to fit the world into a simple system of binary opposites, where the world is not nearly so simple. As such, I believe you are confusing "the world" with "concepts about the world."

It is true that concepts about the world can not be self-contradictory. But that is a rule of logic and human understanding. It is about human cognition and the way language operates, not about Truth--which is, of course, a human convention in itself. Does not Christianity teach you that you are an imperfect human being? Why then would you be so presumptuous as to believe that imperfect human perception would be able to make a claim upon absolute truth?

Whether God "actually" exists is both unknowable and irrelevant. You live your life as if God does exist. As such, God has a meaning for you. Others live their lives as if another God exists. As such, it gives meaning and structure to their lives.

Things happen in the world. They may happen according to God, fate, mechanism, ontology, or even blind chance. What matters is not which of these is the case, but which we "believe" to be the case. Because it is that belief that conditions the way we respond to the events of our world.

Are you familiar with the Kantian distinction between the world of appearance and the thing-in-itself?