Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry as the number of pirates does down... global warming goes up.


I believe in a flying spaghetti monster

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage yet?

You enter a 151 post thread with that? Weaksauce.

You know you love it

For anyone not familiar with my church... this was our first major address to the world

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Polonius wrote:As a basis for belief, of course it's awful. As a spring board to faith, I think it's compelling. I guess I would say that Pascal's wager makes taking a try at faith at least a worth while experiment. It might not work for you, but I think it makes for a good reason to do some serious soul searching and maybe figure out exactly how you feel.

Interesting distinction, basis compared to spring board. I'm not convinced, but if it helped you reach a place where you're happier and more content than you'd otherwise be, it's hard to say there's anything wrong with it.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:As a basis for belief, of course it's awful. As a spring board to faith, I think it's compelling. I guess I would say that Pascal's wager makes taking a try at faith at least a worth while experiment. It might not work for you, but I think it makes for a good reason to do some serious soul searching and maybe figure out exactly how you feel.

Interesting distinction, basis compared to spring board. I'm not convinced, but if it helped you reach a place where you're happier and more content than you'd otherwise be, it's hard to say there's anything wrong with it.

I'm not sure springboard was the best word, but I think it's pretty close. You can't fake or feign faith, but the point of Pascal's wager is that there's no reason not to try out a belief in god. I'm actually not horribly worried about the afterlife, I figure that'll take care of itself, but I find prayer to be calming.

Believing in something costs nothing. Even feigned and attempted belief. Pascals wager is based off of the fact that you stand to gain much if correct and lose nothing if incorrect. Though that sort of depends on which religion you choose to fair weather fan.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure springboard was the best word, but I think it's pretty close. You can't fake or feign faith, but the point of Pascal's wager is that there's no reason not to try out a belief in god. I'm actually not horribly worried about the afterlife, I figure that'll take care of itself, but I find prayer to be calming.

ShumaGorath wrote:Believing in something costs nothing. Even feigned and attempted belief. Pascals wager is based off of the fact that you stand to gain much if correct and lose nothing if incorrect. Though that sort of depends on which religion you choose to fair weather fan.

Yeah, but it's built around the ideas that we don't know if there's a God or not, but also the idea that if there is a God then he will care if we worship him. The problem is that if we accept God is unknowable, then we have no idea if worshipping him or not will pay off at all in the afterlife. For all we know God could be quite opposed to the idea of worship, and doesn't want sycophants in his heaven. There's just as much chance that choosing to believe in God decreases your chance of being admitted into the heaven of this unknowable God.

sebster wrote:
Yeah, but it's built around the ideas that we don't know if there's a God or not, but also the idea that if there is a God then he will care if we worship him. The problem is that if we accept God is unknowable, then we have no idea if worshipping him or not will pay off at all in the afterlife. For all we know God could be quite opposed to the idea of worship, and doesn't want sycophants in his heaven. There's just as much chance that choosing to believe in God decreases your chance of being admitted into the heaven of this unknowable God.

True enough, but in the absence of knowledge one has no choice but to go on feeling. Pascal was talking about a literal admission to heaven, but I think a better interpretation of his wager is to consider it in terms of the potential for inner calm. By choosing to participate in the worship of God the worshiper is effectively betting on the notion that inner peace is possible, and that the time spent at worship is a small price to pay for the potential of such a great reward. Assuming inner peace is something to be valued.

Another way to think of it is in terms of testing a hypothesis. Belief is not a choice, but an organic process. However, one cannot know what one believes without both learning and experience. I can learn about various religions, but I do not know if I believe them until I experience their teachings first hand. By choosing to worship the worshiper is gaining that experience, and thus testing the hypothesis that any given ceremony might produce peace in his being.

dogma wrote:True enough, but in the absence of knowledge one has no choice but to go on feeling. Pascal was talking about a literal admission to heaven, but I think a better interpretation of his wager is to consider it in terms of the potential for inner calm. By choosing to participate in the worship of God the worshiper is effectively betting on the notion that inner peace is possible, and that the time spent at worship is a small price to pay for the potential of such a great reward. Assuming inner peace is something to be valued.

Assuming inner peace is more likely by following religion. There’s plenty of angry, messed up religious folk out there. Religion does give calm and direction to millions, in this thread we’ve had plenty of testimonials to that very effect. I don’t want to diminish their experience, but whether or not it works is an individual thing.

In the first sentence you say that one has no choice but to go on feeling. I think that Pascal’s wager and similar arguments are getting in the way of something more fundamental, that feeling. If you have that feeling, then Pascal’s wager isn’t needed because that feeling is justification enough, but if you don’t have that feeling then no logical argument is going to make any difference.

Another way to think of it is in terms of testing a hypothesis. Belief is not a choice, but an organic process. However, one cannot know what one believes without both learning and experience. I can learn about various religions, but I do not know if I believe them until I experience their teachings first hand. By choosing to worship the worshiper is gaining that experience, and thus testing the hypothesis that any given ceremony might produce peace in his being.

Yeah, that’s a really valid point. It is moving away from Pascal’s wager though, and into terms of ‘you should give this a try, it might feel right for you’. It also works for all kinds of belief. People should explore everything.

To me, following a Religion, or putting a lot of stock into faith is the ultimate placebo.

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not your faith is making a difference to your mental strength, but you do tend to interpret things that way.

It's similar to those people who claim to be psychics and predict the future. If I buy into their claims (and many do) then when I am told I'm going to have a lucky day, I'll be looking out for proof. And when you look for something the chances of finding it are increased. That, and you tend to ignore badluck.

Charlatan or not, these psychics give many people strength and reassurance when they feel they need it most. Although the practice is different, the result is the same, and generally it is positive.

If you're having a hard time in life, and you find something, anything which helps you have a more positive outlook, then more power to you, regardless of it's source. This is why I say Faith is a good thing for the world. It helps us to face up to adversity and overcome it, generally with little more than positive thinking.

However, the attempted exploitation of such thinking for personal gain is inexcusable. As I said before, I feel we have pretty much outgrown the need for a clergy to lead us in worship. And why do we need Temples? I believe even Jesus said you can worship the Lord absolutely anywhere, as it is the thought and not the location that matters most.

Now, I would like to ask an honest, open question. Before I do, I must warn you it might seem insulting to some, but please do your best to answer it in the same spirit that I ask in.....

It is my understanding that the Mormons, and other more modern sects of Christianity, aren't taken particularly seriously by the more 'old school' Christians, and indeed, few Christians put any real stock into the claims of a third testament. The question here is, have you ever stopped to consider whether your scepticism of The Book of Mormon, or the beliefs of another sect, should be applied to your own?

I honestly like to think that most Christians, and indeed people of any faith, occasionally feel the need to stop and take account of their beliefs, as I find blind faith extremely disturbing. (and as an aside, would you ever consider Blind Faith to be Faith at all? Is it more akin to Fear of God than Faith in him? Do you genuinely need to question your beliefs to believe in them?)

Right, hope that wasn't too loaded a question (of course it's loaded to some degree, but with any luck not to the point that people feel I'm trying to trap them in a theological minefield!)

I have often toyed with the notion of Deism but can't bring myself to believe in a universal creator similarly with Christianity I like the idea of Jesus the man (as opposed to Jesus the god) but find Christians a little odd.

My favourite character from the Bible is the sidelined civil servant stuck in some backwater of the empire surrounded by religious zealots - Pontius Pilate.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To me, following a Religion, or putting a lot of stock into faith is the ultimate placebo.

You know, you keep making the assumption that absent proof either way, religion is clearly false. Religion might be a placebo, or it might actually work.

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not your faith is making a difference to your mental strength, but you do tend to interpret things that way.

Well, correlation does not imply causation, but when I need mental or moral strength, I care more about what works, not about why it works. See above comment.

It's similar to those people who claim to be psychics and predict the future. If I buy into their claims (and many do) then when I am told I'm going to have a lucky day, I'll be looking out for proof. And when you look for something the chances of finding it are increased. That, and you tend to ignore badluck.

Charlatan or not, these psychics give many people strength and reassurance when they feel they need it most. Although the practice is different, the result is the same, and generally it is positive.

Observer bias is well recorded.

If you're having a hard time in life, and you find something, anything which helps you have a more positive outlook, then more power to you, regardless of it's source. This is why I say Faith is a good thing for the world. It helps us to face up to adversity and overcome it, generally with little more than positive thinking.

However, the attempted exploitation of such thinking for personal gain is inexcusable. As I said before, I feel we have pretty much outgrown the need for a clergy to lead us in worship. And why do we need Temples? I believe even Jesus said you can worship the Lord absolutely anywhere, as it is the thought and not the location that matters most.

MDG, with all due respect, you're crossing a line between merely sharing your views and advocating your views, and frankly I'm finding your entrenched refusal to admit any possible reason to have clergy or houses of worship bizarre. People like to gather to discuss their views, worship is often as much social as spiritual, and clergy perform many para-psychological and social tasks in a congregation. Bear in mind that you're more or less one of the only people that thinks that a translated book written over a period of hundreds of years with dozens of authors and set principally four to two thousand years ago can be read with no difficulty by the common man.

Yes, we get it already. Some churches and organized religions are bad. Surprise, humans are fallible. In other news, power corrupts!

I think that anybody that abused their children are awful. That doesn't mean all parents are bad. As I've commented before, you're insistence on making these claim, no matter how polite you make them, is becoming insulting, if only because you are judging all clergy and all churches by a combination of your own standards and the worst sins of the lot.

Now, I would like to ask an honest, open question. Before I do, I must warn you it might seem insulting to some, but please do your best to answer it in the same spirit that I ask in.....

It is my understanding that the Mormons, and other more modern sects of Christianity, aren't taken particularly seriously by the more 'old school' Christians, and indeed, few Christians put any real stock into the claims of a third testament. The question here is, have you ever stopped to consider whether your skepticism of The Book of Mormon, or the beliefs of another sect, should be applied to your own?

I think nearly all people do. Even the bible itself includes examples of doubt that turned to faith.

As for the Book of Mormon... well, that's a tough wicket. I don't want to say too much without offending any Mormons, but there are essentially three reasons most Christians have ignored the book of mormon: tradition, credibility, and internal consistency. The bible as we know it is about 1700 years old, and has been in use roughly as long as there has been an established catholic church. It was edited and chosen by a blue ribbon commission of the Emperor of Rome, while the book of Mormon was written by a single man under peculiar circumstances. Finally, the OT and NT aren't exactly air tight, but there hasn't been much that has been historically or archeologically utterly disproven. The book of Mormon speaks of large pre columbian civilizations in the Americas, that would be very difficult to miss.

It's important to judge a group by it's actions, and not just by it's scriptures. I don't agree with all the policies and tenets of the LDS churches, but they're in general good people.

I honestly like to think that most Christians, and indeed people of any faith, occasionally feel the need to stop and take account of their beliefs, as I find blind faith extremely disturbing. (and as an aside, would you ever consider Blind Faith to be Faith at all? Is it more akin to Fear of God than Faith in him? Do you genuinely need to question your beliefs to believe in them?)

Not to get too cheeky with you, but does this sort of questioning of blind faith apply to you as well? I mean, from what I've seen, you are one of the most inflexible and entrenched in his beliefs of all the people in this thread.

Faith needs to be examined, and it needs to be pondered, and questioned. My beliefs and faith have grown and changed and altered over the years.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To me, following a Religion, or putting a lot of stock into faith is the ultimate placebo.

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not your faith is making a difference to your mental strength, but you do tend to interpret things that way.

Respectfully..That is an opinion that is not based on fact and it is based purely on what you think is going on in a believers life. I can most assuredley confirm to you, that I am completely aware of the difference between my pre faith "mental strength" (as you put it) to my now faith "mental strength".

Mad doc, and I'm saying this as an attempt to help you, you really must be carefull with absolute statements like that. :-)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now, I would like to ask an honest, open question. Before I do, I must warn you it might seem insulting to some, but please do your best to answer it in the same spirit that I ask in.....

It is my understanding that the Mormons, and other more modern sects of Christianity, aren't taken particularly seriously by the more 'old school' Christians, and indeed, few Christians put any real stock into the claims of a third testament. The question here is, have you ever stopped to consider whether your scepticism of The Book of Mormon, or the beliefs of another sect, should be applied to your own?

As an "old school" Christian I have no problem with people being skeptical. In fact I encourage exploration and testing. The very act of being skeptical and testing is what has led to many skeptics,agnostics, and athiests to find God. I'm living proof of that fact. Jesus said him self, "if you seek you will find".

I recomend a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh Mcdowell. He started out on a mission to prove that the bible and Christianity were myths and legends and lies and bunk, and in the process found Jesus Christ and accepted Him as his Lord and Saviour.

As far as Mormons go. I will try to stay as respectfull as I can by explaining what the majority "orthodox Christian" view on Mormonism. Mormonism is viewed as a cult and not as a "modern sect" of Christianity. If you get a chance to actually study what they really believe and not just the "Christian face" that you see portrayed, it becomes apparant that they have a totally different god that they worship and one that is not the Christian God of the Bible.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I honestly like to think that most Christians, and indeed people of any faith, occasionally feel the need to stop and take account of their beliefs, as I find blind faith extremely disturbing. (and as an aside, would you ever consider Blind Faith to be Faith at all? Is it more akin to Fear of God than Faith in him? Do you genuinely need to question your beliefs to believe in them?)

Right, hope that wasn't too loaded a question (of course it's loaded to some degree, but with any luck not to the point that people feel I'm trying to trap them in a theological minefield!)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "blind faith". I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself in that I have a "real faith". I have a tangible relationship with God. He is not an imaginary friend that some skeptics would call it. But a real relationship that is impossible to explain to an unbeliever in a face to face conversation, let alone over an internet forum. It's that lack of relationship with God that makes unbelievers skeptical, because they have no idea why Christians believe what they do when they have never experienced God for themselves. Explaining a relationship with God to someone that has never experianced God, is like trying to explain what it feels like to experiennce 0 gravity to someone that has never experienced space flight and 0 gravity.

GG

generalgrog wrote:If you get a chance to actually study what they really believe and not just the "Christian face" that you see portrayed, it becomes apparant that they have a totally different god that they worship and one that is not the Christian God of the Bible.

Why is there an obsession with certain groups of Christians in trying to separate the ‘one god’ followed by other branches of the same root religion from their ‘one god’. This usually crops up with Christians and Muslims but it’s the same thing here.

On a similar vein attributing belief or tradition x to coming from a pagan source and therefore proves that the other sect or religion is false while not applying the same logic to themselves e.g. Islamic crescent is pre- Islamic but skip over the significance of pagan Roman religion culture and its shaping of Christian festivals.

generalgrog wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "blind faith". I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself in that I have a "real faith". I have a tangible relationship with God. He is not an imaginary friend that some skeptics would call it. But a real relationship that is impossible to explain to an unbeliever in a face to face conversation, let alone over an internet forum. It's that lack of relationship with God that makes unbelievers skeptical, because they have no idea why Christians believe what they do when they have never experienced God for themselves. Explaining a relationship with God to someone that has never experianced God, is like trying to explain what it feels like to experiennce 0 gravity to someone that has never experienced space flight and 0 gravity.

GG

While not to take away from your point, you can never experience 0 gravity. Well to be more precise, you need to decide on a reference frame in which to base this on. In an accelerating reference frame, noninertial, you can exerience 0g's, but you will still experience gravity if your reference frame changes to an interial one. You need to define your reference frame before saying this.

Again though, you're point was still valid.

Again without reading any other posts, I think it's very important to seperate "religion" and "beliefs." We can use politics as an example. Typically an American will vote either Democrat or Republican more often than the other. Does that mean you agree with everything those parties do 100%? I can say that I believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. but that doesn't mean I support the church as an organization. As a bunch of people who believe simialr things to me, sure; as people who are also passionate towards others, sure; as a group of people (elders, pastors, etc.) who command authority over your direct beliefs, no. I'm fine with church leadership as long as it's 1) by example and 2) non-tyrannical. I believe that no two people's relationship with God will be the same, and I also believe that no two people will EVER see things exactly the same way. I refuse to point at anyone and tell them they're going to hell. I'm supposed to do two things: love God and love others. Should whatever I'm doing cause me to fail at either of those, please slap me. We hear about the holocaust and Saddam and Castro, but how much do we hear about the Inquisition, who killed at least 1.5 times the numbers the holocaust did that we have confirmed (there are tons more documents sealed in the Vatican we'll never get to see). If you can't tell that "religion" as a movement controlled by a few people is a bad idea from that, I pray for you not because I'm judging you, but because you'll never be free yourself and never get to experience God in the way you were meant to (just how some person says you should). I believe scripture but I also believe that other of the dead sea scrolls are valid scripture too, because man, who is fallible, picked which scriptures to include. My 2 cents: if anyone is ever judging you or telling you you're not good enough based on some higher authority without also showing love, ignore them.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable: You made some nice valid strong points. But as a fellow beliver sometimes you must take a stand and voice what is right or wrong.

Lots of Christians today will use a "don't judge" stance when erroneous teachings and ministries in the church are examined. In fact, many false prophets are using Scripture references like "touch not my anointed" and "do my prophets no harm" in order to protect their doctrines and actions from exposure.
The word judge has been so perverted that to judge anything is now considered by many to be anti-Christian behavior, and anyone who does so is likely to be labeled as an "accuser of the brethren."

Well, lets see what God has to say on this subject? Is it true that Christians are told not to judge? The simple answer is NO! In fact, according to Scripture those who do not judge are more likely to be led astray by false doctrines and are less effective witnesses for Christ.
The problem arises because judging can be subjective. In other words, your judgements are based on your perceptions, motives, and understandings. So lots of christians stay quiet when comes to rebuking or righting a wrong.

"For The Emperor!!!"

George Spiggott wrote:

generalgrog wrote:If you get a chance to actually study what they really believe and not just the "Christian face" that you see portrayed, it becomes apparant that they have a totally different god that they worship and one that is not the Christian God of the Bible.

Why is there an obsession with certain groups of Christians in trying to separate the ‘one god’ followed by other branches of the same root religion from their ‘one god’. This usually crops up with Christians and Muslims but it’s the same thing here.

On a similar vein attributing belief or tradition x to coming from a pagan source and therefore proves that the other sect or religion is false while not applying the same logic to themselves e.g. Islamic crescent is pre- Islamic but skip over the significance of pagan Roman religion culture and its shaping of Christian festivals.

I agree with your premise that you need to be real carefull when your dealing with people/denominations/sects that make a claim to be Christian. You have to be so carefull in fact that you must use scripture to "weed" out the false doctrine. I'm not very good at explaining this on the internet but what I am basically saying is that just because a sect or denomination puts up a banner and claims they are for Christ doesn't mean that it is true. The Waco TX, incident with the Branch Davidians and David Koresh is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The teachings of David Koresh where not "orthodox" and he ended up creating a cult and we saw the results of that.

Just a short rundown of what I mean by "orthodox". These are doctrines that are essential teachings of the Christian faith such as the belief in the trinity, the resurection of Christ, orignal sin.

I may be forgettting some things. But basically a "cult" or "unorthodox" sect will usually leave out some or all of the above "essential" tenents of Christianity. Thus making them essentially have a different belief system and therefore worship a different god than the one described in the Bible.

A good book that explains cults and unorthox religions way better than I can is "Kingdom of the Cults" by Doctor Walter Martin. Excellent book by the way. :-)

http://www.waltermartin.com/cults.html

GG

Generalgrog: Very good points made.
I know that most people join cults when their real intention is to gain spiritual perspectives with a group of like minded people. As suggested in your post. The search for "quick answers" can sometimes be unwise. True spiritual growth in my opinion involves a lot of thinking, questioning, praying and time. I would suggest to read the bible for yourself, and let it speak to you. Remember that all scripture in the Holy Bible is God's breath.

Gach this is a long thread. We doing ok here? anyone need banning yet? No Dakka thread has gone over 40 posts without someone needed a good old fashioned banning...

I'm not trying to indicate that someone is wrong for standing up for what they believe in or that they shouldn't. I just know that I've been wrong too many times to feel like I know everything. I can tell my friend who smokes that he is going to possibly get lung cancer, but I can't tell my friend who claims to be gay that he's going to hell. I don't know that he is. Who am I to cast the first stone? I can say whether or not I agree that he's really gay, but if I step into any sort of bounds that prevent me from loving God or loving others I'm automatically wrong.

Eh, religion is a fun topic. It seems that no matter what,everyone gets burned.

I'm religious but it doesn't guide the majority of my actions. I don't care about abortion and gay marriage so whatever happens I'm cool with it.

However, I don't believe in murder or adultery.


An interesting concept on religion is pascal's wager. In essence= faith is a gamble.

If you believe and are correct-you go to heaven forever, if there is no god then you led a "moral" life and didn't "sin" as much as you may have.

if you don't believe and are correct-you live life to the fullest and forget "sin" and if your wrong you go to hell forever.

Dogma is confusing.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable: I understand completly.

It does take faith and a measure of knowing a persons true character, but the Holy Spirit is faithful to show us how to do this with out being totally judgemental. With the help from God, speaking to someone about strong issues becomes less difficult,and less judgemental. Because no one wants us to be honest more than God Himself.

Being honest with God is not a matter of justifying our sins and failures. No. We must never do that. When we confess to others about God, and what we think and feel he has done for us, it must be in an attitude of surrender. That kind of honesty speaks of true humility. And it is what God wants. He desires Truth in the inward parts.

You can't really argue that everyone who is religious does it for the sake of the afterlife though. Some people just believe in God and would like Him to be their friend. It's not about what you do or don't do, though that certainly is affected one way or another, it's about having a celestial pal.

Halonachos: I see your point, so how or where would you place or gamble your chips?






"Stay in the Light of the Emperor,and he will guide you through the Shadows" 108th Crusaders 999.M-41

generalgrog wrote:I agree with your premise that you need to be real carefull when your dealing with people/denominations/sects that make a claim to be Christian. You have to be so carefull in fact that you must use scripture to "weed" out the false doctrine. I'm not very good at explaining this on the internet but what I am basically saying is that just because a sect or denomination puts up a banner and claims they are for Christ doesn't mean that it is true. The Waco TX, incident with the Branch Davidians and David Koresh is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The teachings of David Koresh where not "orthodox" and he ended up creating a cult and we saw the results of that.

Just a short rundown of what I mean by "orthodox". These are doctrines that are essential teachings of the Christian faith such as the belief in the trinity, the resurection of Christ, orignal sin.

I may be forgettting some things. But basically a "cult" or "unorthodox" sect will usually leave out some or all of the above "essential" tenents of Christianity. Thus making them essentially have a different belief system and therefore worship a different god than the one described in the Bible.

A good book that explains cults and unorthox religions way better than I can is "Kingdom of the Cults" by Doctor Walter Martin. Excellent book by the way. :-)

http://www.waltermartin.com/cults.html

GG

Sure, Mormonism has enough variation from basic Christian doctrine that it could legitimately be called heretical. But you didn’t that, you called it a cult. A cult is a far more sinister thing, and is generally used to describe a group built around worship of a central figure, with all the brainwashing and control that requires.

It’s controversial enough to call Mormonism heretical (I’d agree with you but plenty wouldn’t). But calling it a cult is over the top.

halonachos wrote:An interesting concept on religion is pascal's wager. In essence= faith is a gamble.

If you believe and are correct-you go to heaven forever, if there is no god then you led a "moral" life and didn't "sin" as much as you may have.

if you don't believe and are correct-you live life to the fullest and forget "sin" and if your wrong you go to hell forever.

Dogma is confusing.

Dude, we just spent like two pages talking about Pascal’s wager. It wasn’t even buried back at the start, it was about page ago. It’s cool that you want contribute to the discussion but at least skim the recent pages so you have a frame of reference for what’s been discussed.

I'm addressing the original post.

I belong to a religious (spiritual) community. It is conciliarly organized and could be catagorized an "organized religion". However, it is in actuality more a mystical praxis than a religion (depending on how you define religion).

Suffering is viewed in several ways. There are many great books in our tradition that cover it better than I could here.

I once dragged my four-year-old son out of our home to a place where strangers restrained him, pricked him with sharp objects, bled him, inserted things in his orifices and drugged him. The whole time his screaming broke my heart. He didn't understand why this was being done to him or why I would let them. You see, they were medical professionals

He was very sick and I had brought him to the hospital for treatment. He will understand one day why this was all necessary and how in the long run it was better that he suffered these things at the time rather than suffer worse things later.

@ Greenlight, I believe there's a place in New Jersey that takes bets, but it might of closed down because it wasn't really a lucrative business.

Okay sorry about that, but I LOVE the wager.

I know one thing though that I do not think was mentioned. There is an argument out there that has yet to be disputed and is perhaps the greatest argument in the history of theism vs atheism. That argument is pro theism, so we win. lol.

But seriously, like I said no one really wins this. The truth lies with yourself, if you want to believe then do so. If not then don't. Either way I don't care as long as you try to convert me, all sides have a valid point and each point can be argued, its just a matter of finding them.

Example:
Theist- Well, how did the matter that created the big bang come to be, obviously it was god.
Atheist- Well if that's so, then who created god? Then if god was created who created that creator? So the big bang is the most logical theory.
Theist- Well according to logic and science matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, it can only be converted. So how do you explain, with science, that all of a sudden a ball of dense mass just suddenly appeared?
Atheist-Well how can you assume that god just was there.
Theist- Go to hell!
Atheist- Hah, jokes on you. I don't believe in hell.

I believe in god and give reason to many things that are bad.

Sure god may know how we die and what will happen to us, but scientists know how experiments should end. Still they carry out experiments to see if they are correct, god goes the same way.

Also, I've never seen anything in the bible that would determine god as "all-good", he's good but willing to get vengeance. Ask the egyptians.

Halonachos: I think you have your bets and all of your chips in order. Stay with God and let it "Ride" How can you loose.