Bad things happening to good people

[Meshuga]

This is a poll for the believer but I will include the atheists and agnostics in this with "other" as an option or even "shit happens" since we are all bound to the laws of nature.

One huge problem with religion and its beliefs is in its scripture where it rewards righteousness and punishes evil. But we see in our world today that bad things happen to the righteous at the same rate that it happens to evil people: terminal illness, freak accidents that cripples people, children suffering, tragedies, etc.

Let's say someday you feel weak, dizzy and fall making you go to the doctor and the doctor tells you that you have MS and you will eventually lose control of your muscles and lose control of your bowels and become an invalid. You are a good person and you don't deserve this but it happens anyway. What is God's role in this in your opinion?

[ClintonTyree]

1. Since I'm an atheist I suppose......

I'd have to go with "shit happens" but that would still bind me to the premise that there IS a god who is taking a hands off approach to to the world and it's inhabitants . There is no real choice for atheists or agnostics. No vote.

[Meshuga]

6. I see your point

Since the question would tie "shit happens" to the assumption there is a god. Perhaps "other - explain" would be a more appropriate vote where you could say "Other: shit happens since there is not god" or something to that nature in your response.

There should have been two choices for "shit happens". My apologies!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. Now see, I took that option to mean the absense of a god

in that it meant in the natural order of things, a certain amount of events that we view as "bad" are going to occur. Sort of like logical consequences, or the odds being in favor of something happening in a certain way (if you insist on driving on ice covered streets when there is a warning to stay indoors, for example, the odds are in favor of you having some sort of accident).

[cosmik debris]

2. Doesn't the book of Job cover this?

I don't remember because I don't care.(I'm an atheist.) But it seems like this has been covered. What is the story of Job from your perspective?

[Meshuga]

4. Book of Job

From my perspective the book of job is a fictional poem written by an anonymous author(s) and it covers three of these scenarios: god is all powerfull but let bad things happen even when we have no fault, god might not be all that powerful afterall given his final respose to Job, or Job deserved it.

It's a hard book to understand as it is a hard book to translate from Hebrew but the author seems to be trying to make a case for each of the three perspectives. To me it seems to be that god might not be all that powerful afterall although god's final response itself may be read in a variety of ways.

[barbtries]

3. i wonder

how anyone can still embrace the concept of a cognizant god given what goes on on this planet. if there is one, i've no need of its supposed benevolence - i've suffered the worse loss known to people, and my daughter - she lost her life after barely 21 years. and bekah's story is just a grain of sand on the wide sandy beaches of all that ails the humans on this planet.

so i guess the "other" i would offer, since your choices don't seem to include - it's moot, there is not god - is this:

Gawd don't give a rat's ass what happens to people.

[Meshuga]

8. I don't know if you have religious people

around you or in your family but many times or most of the time these people try to defend god to the bereaved by saying "this is a test" or even saying "you did something that caused this".

I read about a clergyman who said the following during an eulogy at the funeral for a 5 year old who died (I am paraphrasing it): "We should be glad that this child left this world early enough not to be corrupted by sin."

I am extremely sorry about your loss. As a parent I don't know if I would be able to go through this amount of pain you went and probably still go through.

[Zebedeo]

42. I am so sorry for your loss

My heart goes out to you.

[iamahaingttta]

5. Bad things happen to good people...

...because shit happens, and shit happens because there is not and there never was a "god."

It's all a bunch of made up fairy tale children's stories!

Good things happen to bad people too, ya know...

[trotsky]

7. The standard religious response - pick one or both:

1) Free will
2) "God works in mysterious ways"

And that's about as deep as you will get.

[Meshuga]

20. It is funny though...

How this thread addresses the questions and issues with believers of the God in Abrahanic scripture and most of the people who were willing to answer were skeptics of the biblical God. Not many believers wanted to share their opinion so far. Hopefuly that will change. It's a tough subject indeed.

Perhaps it is because these two options you mentioned were not items in this poll...

[cyborg_jim]

9. All kinds of things happen to all kinds of people

Life is not fair. You are not owed fairness by the universe. It does not give a crap.

[CJCRANE]

10. Where did God say

only good things happen to good people?

I thought the basic idea was that God tests your faith on Earth and if you pass the test you go to heaven. That's easy enough to understand.

I don't buy it myself - I go with the "stuff happens" option and you've just gotta make the most of it.

On edit: or another way of putting it is - some stuff you have control over and other stuff you don't.

Whether you want to call that "other stuff" God, Fate, Karma, Nature, luck, the Universe etc is up to you.

[Berry Cool]

11. What's so wrong with free will?

The idea that people have a choice--they had to be given a choice--to love God or not, to do good or not--because no forced love is worth having, even if you are God--therefore they had to have free will to either love God and do good or not. And sometimes they choose not to love God and not to do good--and that choice is something God is powerless to stop--yet it does not mean God does not exist.

I think the idea that God "makes" bad things happen to generally good people (because "generally" is about as far as anyone gets), whether to test them or "because they can handle it," is a crock. And hearing other people say that kind of crap is exactly why there are so many disbelievers. Can you blame them, when they're always hearing that pain, suffering and misery are the rewards God "gives" the toughest people? Or with which the believer is "tested"? If I believed that garbage, I'd hate the very idea of God.

[CJCRANE]

12. But do we have to

love God to do good?

We can make the choice to "do good" without God entering into the equation.

[trotsky]

13. But what about the free will of people who are harmed?

It's all about the free will of murderers, rapists, warmongers, etc. But that defense is useless when talking about the violations of free will belonging to their victims. Unless one person's free will more valuable than another's?

[Meshuga]

14. Free will

I don't think free will fits in this discussion. You can easily say that free will caused the holocaust where nazis used their free will to commit atrocities but where does free will fit when a child is born with terminal cancer or when people die because of a freak accident or die because of acts of nature, when someone's child dies suddenly of a brain hemorrhage, etc.?

To a believer's pov where does God fit in those situations?

(edited to make it clear)

[Zebedeo]

44. This is not the Garden of Eden or Heaven

It is a fallen world, corrupted by sin. There is both good and bad in this world.

Where God fits in is that He provides us with the opportunity, in this world, to choose Him or reject Him. A lot of good and bad stuff happens in this world. But it is only temporary. This world is not our home. We are merely visitors. We should do our best to obey God and to do His will and to accomplish His purposes for our lives, because that is the right thing to do, and because doing it brings goodness and blessings to ourselves and others. But ultimately, what matters more is the eternity that will follow our short lives here on Earth.

JMHO

[maxsolomon]

52. from the gospel of thomas:

113. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

there is no need for an afterlife if earth is paradise.

[Zebedeo]

60. The "gospel" of Thomas is not Christian.

It is Gnostic. The Gnostics had a way of trying to turn major precepts of Christianity on their head. Very perverse. For example, they blame God, rather than man, for the Fall of mankind.

Even a cursory read of the book of Thomas reveals that it is inconsistent with the Gospels in many ways and that it is inauthentic.

If you follow the book of Thomas, what do you have to say about the verse that comes immediately after the one you quoted?

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

2 Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. 3For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."

[maxsolomon]

61. i don't "follow" any book

but the gospel of thomas WAS christian prior to the founding of the catholic church. there was no codified "christianity" prior to bible's editing.

i find the idea that heaven is in front of our eyes, that it is this earth, yet we don't see it, to be very compatable with buddhism. makes our rapacious consumption of the planet's abundance inexcusable. & i prefer it to the "put up with your lot & you'll get your reward when you die, complain & you'll burn forever" bludgeon used by the church & the wealthy for 2000 years.

but "inauthentic"? as in it isn't really BY thomas the disciple, or it is a forgery not actually part of the nag hammadi papyri? most of the sayings closely resemble those in the 4 gospels.

as to the last quote, it is misogynist & it sucks. i've seen it cited as "added later". we're talking about human beings 2000 years ago - i don't expect 100% enlightenment from them. if jesus said it, then its up to believers to reconcile it with their faith, not me.

[Meshuga]

65. To read Genesis...

...like this is like reading "My love is like a flower..." at the begining of a poem and all we can visualize is a literal flower in our minds instead of the person the poet is writing about.

In my opinion, the whole deal with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is not about a literal tree where these (fictional) characters actually ate from a forbidden fruit. I see this tree as symbolism for the author's explanation about what actually makes us different from the other animals.

All living beings eat from the Tree of Life but humans also eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We have to deal with issues other animals don't have to deal with. The animal kingdom is still in the "Garden of Eden". We humans reason and give meaning to everything around us so human beings live in this world of good and bad and that makes our lives painful and complicated. Other animals don't live in a world of good and bad.

I don't see this story as explaining that we are living in a literal "fallen world" or being literally punished because of Adam and Eve. Otherwise, some God that would be! Why punish us for something we didn't do?

[Zebedeo]

69. Agree and disagree

I strongly agree with your assessment that what differentiates us from the animals (or as you put it, the "other animals") is that we live in a world of good and bad, and they don't. In fact, I have asserted this position repeatedly on this forum, and until I saw your post, I never saw anyone else agree with me on this. In my view, it is absurd to suggest that a penguin is "good" or "evil" or even that a particular act of a penguin is "good" or "evil." But without a doubt, the acts of humans can be "good" or "evil."

Your post is thought-provoking in other respects. I personally do believe that there was a first man and a first woman, and that from them, the entire human race is descended. However, I understand your point of view, and it is not unreasonable. My own view is that we are not punished for the sin of Adam and Eve. Instead, we have inherited their sinful nature. The truth is, if I had been Adam, I surely would have eaten the forbidden fruit, just as he did. Therefore, how can I blame him for eating it? It would be just as accurate to say that Adam is subject to being punished for my sin, as to say that I am subject to punishment for his sin.

[Meshuga]

71. Adam and Eve

I don't believe there ever were Adam and Eve. Just like a Peter Pan never existed. To me the fictional story about the first man and woman is a story about human dignity. It says that no person could state that "my ancestors are better than yours!". It says that all human beings have equal claim to worth and dignity.

You and I see things differently because there is no such thing as sinful nature in my point of view. In my point of view we didn't inherited anything from anybody. In my take of the story in Genesis we humans are Adam and Eve. "Eating" from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil makes us human.

I was trained to read torah as one read poetry (as it is instructed in the Talmud) and it is not supposed to be read as one reads an owner's manual for a television. The Zohar (medieval mystical work) comments that "the torah has many layers and it says that the garment of the torah are its laws, the body of the torah are its stories, but the soul of the torah is found underneath the laws and the stories and woe to the one who confuses the body or the garment for the soul."

The fact of the matter is what the story is telling you. When a kid reads a good story he/she asks "what is this story teaching me about myself about my friends or about the world?" Not whether there was really a Peter Pan.

In my opinion, only science can answer questions about how the world came into being but I think the bible touches on what the implications are for us morally about the world coming into being.

If one restricts the facts to pure biology some of us are better looking or uglier than others. Some of us are stronger or weaker than others. Some of us are taller and more elloquent than others. So in fact, if you restrict yourself to physical facts then we are not all equals. Fiction sometimes tells us great truths that physical facts cannot. :-)

[cosmik debris]

15. I take exception to one statement:

"And hearing other people say that kind of crap is exactly why there are so many disbelievers."

I am a non-believer because of what people DON'T say rather than what they do say. For example I have never heard anyone say:

"Hey, look at this, I have found irrefutable proof of the existence of God!"

Nope, never heard that said. I've never even heard people claim to have strong empirical evidence for the existence of god. In fact all the reasons I've ever hear for the belief in God boil down to one idea, an emotional desire to believe.

The idea that atheism is a rebellion against theism is just plain wrong. Generally speaking, atheist dis-believe because they don't have the emotional desire to believe things that are not supported by evidence. At least that is my experience.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. Atheism is a different way of thinking than say

mysticism. :)

My first reaction to your statement of "I've found irreputable proof of the existance of God" was "Yes, well, I have experienced God."

But it is something personal that has happened. No, I can't prove it in a laboratory--because the nature of God (which by my concept is EVERYTHING) is something that can't be put in a laboratory to be tested and confirmed. It is a matter of being rather than thinking. And no, you don't have to follow any religious path to experience It. Eckhart Tolle was a scholar in England when he became enlightened. He'd never had a guru; he'd not been on a spiritual path, but it happened. When I hear him on audio CD, I get into that "being" space myself--it's like you've lifted the curtain and seen what transpires behind that which appears.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Atheism isn't "a way of thinking".

It's not a philosophy and it's not a religion.

Atheism is the absence of belief in gods.

[trotsky]

37. Couple of things

Though I know you'd probably rather not hear from me. But since I'm on a roll today pissing people off, why not.

1) Putting "the nature of God ... in a laboratory to be tested and confirmed" is not necessarily what others ask. Merely being able to consistently reproduce a claimed result would be a significant step in the right direction.

2) Funny thing, as I read "Eckhart Tolle was a scholar in England when he became enlightened..." the first thing that came into my mind is, I wonder what he's selling. Lo and behold, two sentences later, you mention his lovely CD. A visit to his website of course features a big ol' STORE button. Sure, everyone has to earn a living, but isn't it funny how the self-proclaimed gurus seem to be so darn good at bringing in the bucks, when they usually tell their followers that possessions aren't important?

[beam me up scottie]

38. Another inconvenient truth.

:spank:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

46. And isn't it funny

that all the Eckhardt Tolle information I have I got free? :)

But then I do believe your post has confirmed my contention that atheists/agnostics and mystics think and view the world differently.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Oh? And exactly how do we "think and view the world" ?

Do go on, I'm fascinated by your "contention" and its resemblance to religious bigotry.

[trotsky]

48. Oh, he gives away the CDs?

Strange, that's not what the website says. Books, CDs, etc. all at significant prices. Congratulations to you on getting them for free - but apparently you are the exception rather than the rule.

I agree with you that we view the world differently, though. Consistency and evidence are pretty important to me.

[greyl]

66. Eckhart Tolle is a general plagiarist.

I've got a copy of his Power of Now and can attest to the fact that it's a clear remix of previously good selling books in the New Age industry. Ken Keyes, Shakti Gawain, Deepak Chopra, Gary Zukav - all mimicked shamelessly.

[trotsky]

70. Well color me five different shades of surprised. n/t

[blonndee]

68. Here is a counter-experience

I for one found it much more comforting and easier to believe in God than to gradually lose my faith and eventually not believe, as I do now, emotionally. My emotional needs have been squelched by my intellectual realizations, and it's extremely painful. I suspect I'm not the only one to feel this way.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. If you don't offer blood sacrifices to the gods, they get pissy

There are plenty of stories where Artemis strikes down sinners with madness, and Homer makes it plain that in addition to being a god of healing, Apollo's arrows can bring disease and death. Sacrificing a ram might appease Apollo's anger, but you....

Oh, wait, you were presuming the Christian god and only the Christian god. My mistake, you atheist. :hi:

[Meshuga]

17. No

I am not presuming only a Christian God but a monotheistic idea of God from Abrahamic religious scripture and whatever idea of God is which derived from that (which also includes the Christian idea of God).

On edit: although it would be interesting to see people who believe in polytheistic or other non Abrahamic ideas of god(s) vote for "other" and give us their point of view.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. Any monotheistic god?

You do realize that the god of the Christians, the god of the Jews and the god of the Muslims are all different, right? Jews and Muslims reject the Christian Trinity as abject heresy and the total denouncement of monotheism; Christians and Jews reject the idea that Muhammad was a prophet and hold the Koran as a work of evil rather than the word of God.

And I remain with my original statement. The gods and goddesses of Olympos are real. The reason why bad things happen to good people is because the Olympians are a tad cranky at not getting their due.

[Meshuga]

19. I do realize that

god of christians are different than god of muslims than god of jews. Who said they are the same thing? I'm a jew and god in my religion takes different forms and the christian idea is very different from all of the jewish forms but we still use the same scripture with the same difficulties of explaining that there is an all powerful, caring, just, god who loves humans but lets these horrible things happen to them.

Like I said in the op, the question is to believers and it is using the abrahamic scriptures as a basis. I tried to include "others" for those don't who don't see a fit to explain their pov.

On edit: You said, "And I remain with my original statement. The gods and goddesses of Olympos are real." - I think you are barking at the wrong tree, dude.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. Shema Israel

Adonai elohenu, Adonai e Hud (pardon if there is misspelling-I know the Shema verbally rather than in written form).

The Lord is One--how is this different from

La illaha il Allah (there is One God)?

Oh, I will agree there are vast differences in the particulars in the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim concept of God, but on this fundamental basis, are they not the same? So I would say your concept of God is different than mine-but God Itself is God.

[Meshuga]

29. God is one

in Judaism but the idea of that one god could be different for every jew. It could be the force behind everything or it could be a personal god or whatever. For example, we have Reconstrucionalist Judaism which has an idea of God that falls under the Jewish requirement but I don't know if it fits in the Christian camp.

By the way, there is no way you could mispell a transliteration. I would spell it "Adonai eloheinu, Adonai ehad" but we are both correct since it is a transliteration. :-)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. Thank you!

I agree with you when you say that each jew can have a different idea about God. I think you can say the same thing about Muslims, Christians, and most any faith.

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. You quote the Shahadah incompletely

أشهد أن لا إله إلاَّ الله وأشهد أن محمد الرسول الله
La ilaha il Allah, Muhammad-ur-Rasool-Allah
"I testify that there is no god (ilah) but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

If you do not accept that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, then you do not accept the God of Islam. If you reject the Koran, which was recorded by Muhammad at the command of Allah, then you reject the God of Islam. There is no wiggle room. I would say this is a fundamental basis which distinguishes Allah from the Trinity and Adonai.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. Are you a Muslim?

I know the Shahada. I was quoting the first part because it was saying, in other words, the same thing the Shema was saying. I also translate the last part as "Mohammed is a Messenger of God".

If you are Muslim, what sect? I am curious because of the language you use when talking of Islam and speaking to a sister.

I am Sufi Order International and Helveti-Jerrahi Order. Other sects of Islam often call us heretics for our beliefs, among which is that all paths lead to God.

[TechBear_Seattle]

39. I am a student of religion

When discussing religion in general, or a specific religion such as Islam in general, convention holds that, absent specific parameters, one discusses the orthodox doctrines and views of that religion.

The original post was about "God." This was modified after the fact to mean God as derived from the legends of Abraham, ie the god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. In mentioning Islam, I stuck to Islamic orthodoxy. While the various Sufi orders have had an impact on Islamic thought, the fact remains that they are outside the bounds of orthodoxy. I do not mean this as a negative thing: at a lecture I attended in college, a Sufi teacher said that expanding the boundaries of orthodoxy to be more inclusive is one of the main goals of the Sufi orders and why fundamentalist Muslims hate Sufism so much. But again, when speaking of Islam in general, one sticks with existing orthodoxy.

And as for your gender, it was never a consideration. Until you mentioned it, I didn't even know.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

43. Thank you for your response

The tone of conversation had nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with religion. The reason I asked is because my husband and I have sojourned on Islamic message boards, never making our affiliation with Sufism a secret. My husband got into a very hot and heavy discussion with some fundamentalist Muslims about music in Islam--although they totally disagreed with him on his interpretation of hadiths on music, they always had a way of speaking that showed respect and a tone of politeness that is not often seen here on R/T. Sunnis and Shia my husband and I have met have always been the same way--and he has been overseas. When I am amongst Muslims there is not the feeling of judgement that I often had when I was a Christian and talked to Christians of other denominations.

Since the opening post was about God in general and not orthodoxy specifically, I feel that my opinions and threads were permissable.

I would kindly disagree with you when you say in a general discussion of Islam, only "orthodoxy" should be discussed--whose? Sunni? Shia? Do you mean by "orthodoxy" fundamentalism or moderate Islam? I find it interesting that my Murshida has been invited to interfaith seminars as a representative of Islam. I feel that Islam may be more complex and also that many are more tolerant than your views would have others believe.

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. Who said they are the same thing? You did.

You stated "I am not presuming only a Christian God but a monotheistic idea of God from Abrahamic religious scripture and whatever idea of God is which derived from that (which also includes the Christian idea of God)." You appear to be saying that the word "God" can be accurately used for every monotheistic deity deriving from Abrahamic roots. In that, you imply that there are no important differences between the gods of Christians, Jews and Muslims and, thus, the same proper name can be used for all of them.

So you are Jewish. Is your god the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Do you hold that Jesus Christ is "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God... of one being with the Father, through Him all things were made?" No? Then you have totally rejected the god of the Christians. Did your god speak to Muhammad through the archangel Jabril and command all believers to pray five times a day while facing Mecca, to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in your lifetime and to hold the doctrine "And Muhammad is His Prophet" as a solemn, unshakeable and unalterable tenet of belief? No? Then you have totally rejected the god of the Muslims. While the declared goals of these three deities is similar, they can not be the same being if the respective religions have any truth to them whatsoever. I have a similar outlook on life as many of my friends: does that mean there is only one person and not half a dozen?

In your original post, you made no mention at all of limiting the poll to those views of deity derived from the legends of Abraham. I weighed in to mock your baseless presumption. And if you think I am "barking up the wrong tree," you will have to provide better evidence for your point of view than just making unfounded assertions. WHY am I barking up the wrong tree, and what do you have to offer to prove it?

[Meshuga]

41. Oh my fucking word!

I'm not going to spell out all the differences about the nature of God for every religion in order to post a poll. I did try to leave it open for others to give their opinion like many did. They didn't feel the need to be childish about it.

To me the differences are obvious and I expect people here to understand that these differences exist and that they are not a novel idea. You are making such a fuss about nothing.

Even in Judaism there are several different names and ideas for the same god and when I talk about god, using the term "God" with jews, we know what we are talking about even when we all have totally different opinions of what that one god is. With muslims, christians, or jews we don't need to spell things out when talking about god at least with Christian or Muslim friends of mine. It's comical how a "none-of-the-above" gets so touchy about it here in a message board.

When I said, "God but a monotheistic idea of God from Abrahamic religious scripture and whatever idea of God is which derived from that (which also includes the Christian idea of God)." I thought you would get the point since, regardless of these religions having total different natures of god, these natures of god come from the same god of Abraham (so the three religions like to claim) and they all claim to be monotheistic. The gods are different but they were all derived from that god. Again, at least they like to claim that. How would my claim quoted above only fit the Christian god like you accused me of doing? Seriously!

I know my god is not the trinity and that is so fucking obvious I don't need to mention. The other person don't have to be christian or a muslim for me to reject his/her nature of god. I could reject the belief of a Jew and his idea of a personal god. So fucking what? Do I have to spell that out so you won't need to make your own presumptions and make a childish remark?

It's better to ask questions before mocking so you don't sound like a buffoon. You probably thought I was a Christian based on your accusations.

I'm not declaring that the idea or the nature of god for these religions are similar or the same, I'm just saying that they have the same root: the god of Abraham.

But I understand and declare that the God of Abraham (who was a problem solver for a semi-nomadic society) is not the same God for a Jew today. That god of Abraham doesn't serve the purpose of the Christian or the Muslim today either. The God of Abraham wasn't even the same God of Moses (a God who solved the problems for the Hebrews in the wilderness) or the same God of the later prophets (who demanded good deeds from the israelites in order to avoid god's wrath) or the same God for the priests (who demanded animal sacrifices at the temple of jerusalem to bring on a good harvest and protection) or the same god for the Pharisees (who brought on the twofold law), to the God of the early Christians (who replaced the twofold law to require salvation via Jesus Christ) and the list goes on and on.

Your demands for me to spell out of gods names is ridiculous.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. One small correction, please

In Islam, it is believed that the God of Abraham and Jesus and Mohammed is, indeed, the same God. (Sufis go beyond this and say everything is God)

Interesting that you say Christians and Jews reject Mohammed -- I must tell Brother Joe and the many Reform rabbis that the next time I see them and join them for their services as they join us for zkr.....

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. Islam also teaches that nearly every Christian is a heretic

At the time Muhammad lived, most Christians in Arabia were Monophysites. They believed that Jesus had one human nature (the word means "one nature") which was "overshadowed" by the divine Spirit. It was a complete rejection of the Trinitarian view, which holds that Jesus had two natures, one human and one divine, which were co-equal and existed without contention or confusion. The Koran makes a very clear split between "proper" Monophysite Christians and heretical Trinitarians. Only the first group is counted as People of the Book; the second group, which includes the vast majority of Christians, are classed as polytheists and heretics.

And I contend that Christians and Jews who claim to accept Muhammad are not being truthful, as they would be Muslims and not Christians or Jews.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. Might depend upon which Muslims you talk to

Just as there are different sects in Christianity and Judaism, there are different sects in Islam. In Sufism, for example, ALL are considered "People of the Book"...including my Christian mother who is a Unitarian.

Edited to add: Wahhabists and fundamentalist Muslims consider Sufis heretics, so if those are the folks you are referring to, those Christians are in good company with us, or we are in good company with them....:)

[TechBear_Seattle]

36. Sufi is Islamic mysticism and not exemplary of Islam in general

A close parallel would be trying to define Judaism solely in terms of Qabbalistic tradition. A poorer analogy would be to hold up the Unitarian-Universalist Association as representative of Christianity as a whole.

Yes, Sufi thought has diffused through Islam in general, just as the Qabbalah has diffused through Judaism and belief in a universal salvation has diffused through much of Christianity. But that doesn't mean that Sufism, Qabbalism or universalism are representative of their particular religions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. Any more than Wahhabism is representative of Islam

but the Western press would often have you believe it is so.

As for Sufis not being representative--most Muslims in Turkey belong to a Sufi order of some kind, most Muslims in India are Sufis (a lot of them of the Chistia lineage)-there is a sizable number in Iran, and even some in Saudi Arabia, even though Sufi practices are suppressed there.

I feel your analogy of Sufism to Unitarian-Universalism is a bit flawed. UU is one denomination within Christianity, with members worldwide at about a half a million; Sufism is divided into many different orders, each with its own practices and traditions; in a brief visit 'round the internet, I found listed dozens of the major Sufi orders, and I know of minor ones as well. I could not find an estimate of the number of Sufis in total, but I would hazard that it would surpass the number of UUs.

[CJCRANE]

40. I tend to agree with the Monophysites

and I would guess that many Deists (including most of the Founding Fathers) share that view.

Conversely I find that many muslims also revere Prophet Mohammed too much. From my (cursory) readings of the Koran and Hadith it seems clear that he is just a man, and though wise not perfect by any means. Perfection is reserved for God.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. Here's something to think about

being monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time! :)

I think what traps many people when they think of religion and God is that they have only one concept of God, beit a "Mighty Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin" :) I've noted sometimes in talking with people who say they don't believe in God or aren't sure that they are talking about a particular God concept, one that puts God as other than everything else, usually something more powerful, and often with human characteristics.

But what if the nature of God is other than this? I have done both Lakota and Hindo ceremonies, and in both the idea of God is one that is represented by multiplicity rather than monotheism. In Lakota, there are the Four Directions, Grandmother Earth, and the animal kingdoms, all of which are prayed to; in one sweatlodge song it is said "all things are sacred"--the concept of Wahkan Tonkah is one of the Mystery beyond all that one sees in the material world.

In the Hindu traditions I am familiar with, each God and Goddess is an embodiment of a quality of the Divine-Hanuman is the embodiment of Service; Ram, the perfect Man; Sita the perfect Woman; Krishna, the playful yet wise; Genesha the remover of obsticles. But in my experience, although a particular God is revered, it is acknowledged that there are other gods that embody other aspects of what the Upanishads call Bramin. The ways of this world are many--but this world is Maya, or illusion; Bramin is That which is beyond and yet includes everything. Tatsam Asi--You are That--shows the connection between the individual and Bramin.
I've just touched the surface here, but I hope I have given you a glimpse into another viewpoint about God and God's nature.

I would close with what the Dalai Lama told a group of visiting Sufis, when asked to explain the difference between Buddhism and Sufism:

In Buddhism,nothing is. In Sufism, everything is. Same thing, no difference.

[Meshuga]

49. I was going to let this one go

But here it goes...

You said: "Oh, wait, you were presuming the Christian god and only the Christian god. My mistake, you atheist."

You calling me an atheist there may sound clever to you but it sounds to me like a moronic statement and not well thought out. But I don't blame you since you borrowed the little joke from someone else. I know it's not original. You demand accuracy and clarity from others at all times or you mock so I am posting this to keep the one standard going.

I thought atheism was the state of disbelief or non-belief in the existence of a deity or deities or the simple absence of belief in deity(ies). One who believes in a specific deity but does not believe in another is not considered an atheist. It might make this person into an infidel to another religion or this person might consider members of another religion as infidels but not atheists. At least I couldn't find a definition that says that a person who believes in at least one deity is an atheist just for not believing in another deity.

A person who does not believe in deities at all is an atheist. However, by definition, this person seizes to be an atheist once he/she decides to truly believe that Elvis is a deity who needs to be worshiped since currently this person had a change of mind and now believes in at least one deity.

I woundn't consider native polytheistic tribes that believe in several different gods to be atheists just because they don't believe in my god. That's stupid talk since they are theists. They are not using the same deity or theology as mine but they are still theists. :hi:

[cosmik debris]

51. Have you met our friend bloom

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=92011

Apparently she believes that she can be an atheist and believe in a goddess. It defies all definitions. But it does make for interesting discussions.

[Meshuga]

57. How does that work? :-)

:crazy:

[cosmik debris]

58. I haven't figured it out either.

Perhaps next time she posts here you could open up that subject. It will be interesting. But you should expect a certain level of frustration.

[TechBear_Seattle]

55. You are as much an atheist as I am; I just believe in one few god than you

Why should atheism only be used when someone rejects one of the Abrahamic deities? Atheism was one of the charges leveled against early Christians and the chief reasons for the persecutions. They were charged -- and routinely convicted -- of atheism because they rejected the gods of the Empire; that they worshipped their own god was irrelevant.

Do you mean to say that centuries of Roman jurisprudence is wrong?

[Meshuga]

56. Then we are talking about two different things here

the term atheism as we know today originated in 16th-century and does not share that attribute in its definition. Just because in the Roman Empire "other belief" meant "non belief" and this was used as "atheism" it does not give the term "atheism" this attribute. You are only trying to connect the dots too closely.

Using the term "atheist" in latin would be clever and would get a "ha ha" out of me but the way you use it is a stretch. ;-)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

72. "I believe in one fewer god than you do"

Great line. Comes from Mark Twain, "Letters From the Earth", probably.

Excellent book.

Twain also said you could have "no other gods before me", so you could have co-equal gods, or subordinate gods. Interesting idea.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. My God concept is different than this

in that I don't see God as a being apart and seperate from me. God is everything-the Only Being. Because of that, of course God is what we consider "bad" as well as that which we consider "good". Those terms are what we see solely from our own perspective. I see our lives as a great adventure, one that we co-create. Why do "bad" things happen to an individual? It is for them to figure out.

Case in point: A woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, has a double radical mastectomy. A horrible thing, right? According to that person, it was the right thing to happen to her--it shook her and her assumptions about her profession to the core. She is a doctor, and moved from traditional to holistic medicine. She says that because of her ordeal, she has greater compassion for her patients, and is willing to try not to patch up a person but try to help them heal on all levels.

[varkam]

24. If I believed in God...

for me, the only way to reconcile the fact that so much evil exists in this world is to believe that God has a mean streak. I think it's less likely that God is not all-powerful; after all, he did create the universe and everything in it, right? So he can do all that, but not stop the genocide in Darfur? Right. One could argue that he's not all-knowing, and so he would stop it if he knew about it. However, all one has to do is pick up a newspaper any day of the week and see at least half a dozen examples of carnage and chaos in our world that could be stopped given a loving and all-powerful God.

But then again, I don't believe in God. Therefore, the evil in the world is a result of our own existence. We are still essentially poop-flinging monkeys, just with larger brains and AK-47s.

[maxsolomon]

50. God is not a Being

this is the primary mistake of popular religion, particularly monotheisms. they're on the right track, but its dumbed down for the masses.

"god" is the energy that makes subatomic string particles vibrate to create all that is. this mysterious force has shit to do with daily events.

[cosmik debris]

53. Is this an original idea?

Or could you be kind enough to cite a source for reference?

Thank you.

[maxsolomon]

54. yeah, like i have proof of god's nature.

or even a citation.

its just what i think about when i've done mushrooms. :smoke:

i apologize for the snark.

[greyl]

67. That which animates this place, iow? ;) nt

[zeemike]

59. Other

Because all of creation is dualistic containing both good and evil, positive and Negative light and dark and were it not so there would be no creation.
Without evil there would be no good and vice versa. Good is defined by evil, just as dark is defined by the light.
And a better source for understanding this in the bible is Ecclesiastes.

[NMMNG]

62. Could be "sh*t happens"

Could be predisposition due to genetic markers.

[Meshuga]

63. Yep, some of us humans who have

history of certain diseases in our family histories still reproduce and a chance for a problem to arise with one of your children is a possibility. For some this is more of a chance than for others. It cannot be considered a punishment or a test from a deity. You are right, shit happens!

As far as people having fatal or crippling accidents that is something we have to deal with because we are all bound to the laws of nature. In a car crash (your fault or not) your bones might break, you may bleed, you may suffer, you may die, you may survive but cannot walk or live with pain for the rest of your life but it is all a matter of chance or carelessness by a party coupled with the laws of nature that keeps our shit working here.

The people who try to explain these sufferings as attributes from a "fallen world" are just dumbing it down.

Pain is a neat thing to have and we need it in order to survive. Pain tells us that something is wrong with us. The thing is that we humans try to find meaning in our pain.

[NMMNG]

64. One of my sisters has MS

It is my fervent hope that she slaps anybody who tries the "God has his reasons" line on her (and she just might because she doesn't buy into that BS). :evilgrin:

[zonmoy]

73. shit happens because god is nasty and evil.

[MistressOverdone]

74. Actually, shit is one of God's greatest

gifts to us: both literally and figuratively. Without, we'd be in deep trouble.

[Meshuga]

75. We'd be in deep shit!

:-)