First off, I don't mean to inflame, just ask a question hoping for a response that makes some sense to me.
Let me state up front that I am not a "believer", but I do have a question that I've never understood.
For those of you that "believe", do you really believe that there is a being (good or evil) that is so powerful as to affect the lives of individuals above their own self-control, that would actually "care" to do so?
IMHO, if there was such a being, with that much power, that they would never get involved with the minutae of our everyday lives. It would be just too much of a waste of their time to be involved in such trivial matters.
It has always seemed like such a cop-out to me to hear people avoid taking responsibility for their (or others) actions by claiming "the devil made me do it" or "it was God's will".
MyRevelation - I'm going to assume for the moment that your question is sincere, though I could just as easily see your stated opinions as "offensive" simply because you assume that your opinion is the "correct" opinion. It does "cut both ways."
But since you asked a question about something that you claim you have never understood,
" For those of you that "believe", do you really believe that there is a being (good or evil) that is so powerful as to affect the lives of individuals above their own self-control, that would actually "care" to do so?", let me answer it for you from my perspective.
Yes, I really believe that God and Satan both exist as real live beings. Yes, I really believe they CAN affect the lives of individuals, though it is rare that they take "direct control." Yes, God actually does care about people. And yes, I believe that a lot of people are responsible for their own "messes" without anyone else being the "cause" of the mess. That is because all humans have a fallen sin nature and will most often do whatever they want to do.
"It has always seemed like such a cop-out to me to hear people avoid taking responsibility for their (or others) actions by claiming "the devil made me do it" or "it was God's will".Sure, a lot of people use all kinds of excuses for their behavior, that has very little to do with whether or not someone is a believer. Ever heard, for example, the expression "boys will be boys" to "excuse" bad behavior on the part of someone, even including "playing around outside of marriage?
Quote:
Just a little thing. You bet if there is a devil, he's involved in every minutae of an individual's life.
See this is where I get all "wrapped around the axle" on this issue. Most of the "believers" don't know what they believe or "why" they believe.
I agree, a lot of people don't know "why" they believe what they believe, and the "operative" word in your statement and the part that "wraps you around the handle" is really two things. The word is "most." The second part is that there ARE believers who know what and why they believe. But if someone is unwilling to discuss things with someone who does know what and why they believe, they are usually just more comfortable not actually seeking understanding and prefer to just make statements about faith that are offensive. That's not at all uncommon because most people don't like the concept that there could be anything "bigger" or "higher" than themselves, especially that thing has the inherent right to determine what is right and what is wrong regardless of any human opinion.
How can anyone say "IF" it is this, then it "HAS" to be this way ... it simply makes no sense to a non-believer or to a believer for that matter. You don't even acknowledge that its factual, but if it is, then you proclaim to "KNOW" how it works.
Well, I, for one, believe it's factual. When I use the word "if" in a conversation that doesn't connote disbelief on my part, it is a word usage intended to convey a logical train as in "if…then." It is most often used in discussion with people who do not, or may not, see things the same way that I do about either the existence of God, the reality of Christ, the fundamental concepts of Christianity, or even the existence of the universe. But, to illustrate, "IF the universe and all that is in it is due to some random cosmic accident and life arose through random chance, THEN religion is nothing more than a myth." Or, as another illustration, "IF Jesus Christ is not who he said he is, and if he did NOT rise from the dead after being crucified, THEN the Christian faith is in vain and a cosmic joke on people who believe in Christ."
I understand that people are very attached to their religious beliefs, and to them, all of this makes perfect sense, but it is all just mumbo-jumbo to a non-believer. Therefore, any time someone on these boards brings up religion, they just lost a good portion of the other posters, possibly even the one they are trying to help.
Of course it's just "mumbo-jumbo" to unbelievers, why would that seem to be surprising? For me personally, I don't care if a "good portion of other posters" get "lost" or stop posting. That is their choice. I don't even care if someone who said they wanted a discussion based on religion or Scripture decides that they don't want to continue a discussion. That, too, is their choice.
It's also why I tend to limit most of my posting to people who DO claim to know the Lord. It's why I try to help some unbelievers with JUST the MB methods and leave God out of it unless they have indicated a willingness to consider the concepts. It is also why I stop posting on a given thread with an unbeliever because at some point there will an "impasse." That's because the "worldviews" are different and it's usually best at that point to simply let others try to provide some help that may be better suited with the recipient's worldview.
From my perspective, "IF" this board is going to allow the use of religion to help cure these real life problems, then its probably not the place for a non-believer (or non-christian) to seek help, because we see very "real" problems trying to be fixed with myth.
That is not to inflame, just point out how I see it.
That's seems like a ridiculous statement and very judgmental. You conclude for yourself that faith in Christ, and possible all religion, is "in reality," just a "myth."
My contention would be that life arising from non-life is a "myth." I can show you one example that is NOT a myth and that is Jesus Christ. But can you show me one example of life that arose from non-living mixtures of chemicals?
Your contention would argue that all religion is merely a construct of someone's mind and merely a "crutch" to get them through the day, or get them through life, without having to rely solely on "reality." My contention would be that all belief in life arising without a Creator is a myth in the same way, and that it relies of faith in something that has no basis in fact.
I suppose the best practice for me is to read and study the parts that make sense and then bow out of any discussions involving the supernatural as a means to address these very real issues.
A sensible conclusion. It also allows people to avoid having to really address the question "is Jesus Christ really who he says he is?"
Mimi, I didn't intend to thread/jack, I've asked my question and will now leave your discussion to the believers.
That magnanimous of you, but not before you attempted to label all believers who do NOT believe as you do to be gullible fools who believe in a "myth," as if your view has been "proven" to be the correct view.
Would you have me to HOLD BACK what I believe in?
I'm not judging you because you don't believe as I do..I am stating MY TRUTH..I am sharing WHO I AM...
________________________________________________________
OK, one more response, since you asked me a question.
I see two different scenarios with different answers:
1. If it is your thread, and you are seeking guidance based on your religious beliefs OR if another posters is seeking guidance on what to do while staying true to their religious beliefs, then I think your religious perspective is very pertinent.
Again, very magnanimous of you.
HOWEVER,
2. If it is someone else's thread that has no mention of religion, then I think you are imposing your beliefs onto someone else by bringing up any religious beliefs or direction.
So you think SAYING what someone believes is somehow the equivalent of "imposing" their beliefs onto someone else? By that logic then anyone who is not a believer should not post anything on a believer's thread because they would be "imposing" their secular worldview on a believer. The discussion and/or exchange of ideas
imposes nothing on someone else. Someone else can accept or reject what was said, but if they accept it that was a Free Will choice and not a "forced imposition" of someone else's belief.
It's all about respect for others. You'll notice that on this thread, I did not criticize your beliefs.
Au Contraire. You DID criticize the beliefs of all professing believers when you categorically called those beliefs a MYTH, elevating your opinion to the level of proven fact and, therefore, indisputable. That would seem to be a tad bit below "respectful" of others, but perhaps that's just my opinion.
I said I didn't understand them and then gave instances where I saw contradictions, but I never said you were "foolish" or "sheep" for believing as you did, and you returned that respect by acknowledging my lack of beliefs, although you didn't agree with them.
You didn't have to use the terms "foolish" or "sheep" when MYTH covers all of the bases quite nicely. MR, you have every right to believe whatever you want to believe and to post those beliefs, and comments and advice that devolve from those beliefs, on any given thread. Your usage of the term "respect," is what I most frequently refer to as "civil discussion."
Actually, I thought your initial response (paraphrasing) "I don't discuss the basis for my religious beliefs. They are my beliefs and I don't need to defend them", was great. That's the way it should be.
My problem comes from a few that want to impose their beliefs into most threads that they post to, or bring up religious aspects where the original poster never even opened up the subject.
It's all about taking the lead from the one seeking help. Surely we are all capable of talking about subjects in a non-religious manner, so why not help in a non-religious way if that's not part of the discussion, and then offer up our religious perspectives when there is a religious tone to the discussion.
Okay, then why not also help in a religious way if faith is part of the discussion and refrain from offering up non-religious perspectives when there is a religious tone to the discussion?
That way you can stay true to your beliefs and who you are, without clouding the discussion with controversial material that isn't pertinent to the discussion.
Agreed. But it "cuts both ways" would be my "rebuttal" contribution. That would seem to include your comments on Mimi's thread, who is herself known to be a believer.
