Explain this logically christians....

[Kathryn]

As they say, "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I am genuinely worried that if millions (billions?) of people convince themselves that horrible things are actually good, they will lose their motivation to correct these horrible things and the world will be a worse place because of it.

Most religions in the world strive to better both their communities and the individuals who believe and practice that faith.

Of course religion can be missapplied, as can any set of beliefs or dogmas. Regimes devoid of religion have no better track record than regimes which incorporate religion.

By the way, Christianity doesn't involve "convincing ourselves that horrible things are actually good." Christianity teaches that horrible things on earth are temporal, and only part of a big picture - not the whole picture, lest we lose ourselves in grief or anger or bitterness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most religions in the world strive to better both their communities and the individuals who believe and practice that faith.

And good for them. But imagine how much better things would be if every time a person convinced themselves that some unfortunate act was part of "God's plan" that they instead got themselves so angry at what happened that they were spurred to action to prevent it from happening again.

Of course religion can be missapplied, as can any set of beliefs or dogmas. Regimes devoid of religion have no better track record than regimes which incorporate religion.

The difference I see here is that it isn't just a matter of religious people who just happen to be bad doing bad things; it's often a direct logical consequence of the actual tenets of the religion.

If God is sovereign, then he's in charge. If he's in charge, he must have decided that event 'X' should occur. If God did it (or allowed it), he must have a good reason for it. If God did it and had a good reason for it, I shouldn't try to get in the way.

This might not describe every single religious person's beliefs, but I think it describes the beliefs of many. And given the teachings of many religions, it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

By the way, Christianity doesn't involve "convincing ourselves that horrible things are actually good." Christianity teaches that horrible things on earth are temporal, and only part of a big picture - not the whole picture, lest we lose ourselves in grief or anger or bitterness.

I disagree. I've heard many, many Christians over the years say that unfortunate events were part of "God's plan". I can't remember a Christian funeral I've been where it wasn't said that the deceased was "called to Heaven by God" or something like that.

In my experience, a huge part of how many Christians reconcile themselves with the existence of suffering in the world is to believe that this suffering has a good, divine purpose. This manifests itself in many ways across the Christian spectrum, in everything from Pat Robertson saying that the Haiti earthquake was a punishment from God for the country turning away from Christ to a grief-stricken parent consoling themselves that their daughter's death from cancer is because "God needs her as an angel in Heaven".

And in any case, I don't think your alternative, i.e. to merely minimize the importance of earthly suffering, is all that much better in its implication. It still kills motivation to stop suffering.

 

[Kathryn]

[QUOTEI can't remember a Christian funeral I've been where it wasn't said that the deceased was "called to Heaven by God" or something like that.

][/QUOTE]

Hey - everybody dies. So what's wrong with acknowledging that the particular date of a person's death is in God's hands? It's certainly usually not one of our own choosing.

I don't think your alternative, i.e. to merely minimize the importance of earthly suffering, is all that much better in its implication. It still kills motivation to stop suffering.

Well, tell that to all the religious charities and organizations around the world, with their rich history and current involvement in abating the suffering of mankind. I don't think that it's a fair generalization to imply that religious belief and practice kills motivation to stop suffering - when religious organizations funnel such vast amounts of help which directly alleviate so much human suffering.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey - everybody dies. So what's wrong with acknowledging that the particular date of a person's death is in God's hands? It's certainly usually not one of our own choosing.

It's important for the next time. A person who has lost a loved one to "God's holy plan" is powerless. A person who has lost a loved one to some unfortunate cause that, with enough effort, others can be spared from is not.

Well, tell that to all the religious charities and organizations around the world, with their rich history and current involvement in abating the suffering of mankind. I don't think that it's a fair generalization to imply that religious belief and practice kills motivation to stop suffering - when religious organizations funnel such vast amounts of help which directly alleviate so much human suffering.

While I'm glad they do it, I think it's somewhat logically incoherent, given the tenets of most of their religions.

However, I'm not complaining. I realized a while back that if I had a choice between someone being kind and somewhat inconsistent and him being unkind and fully consistent, I'd rather he be kind.

 

[Kathryn]

.

It's important for the next time. A person who has lost a loved one to "God's holy plan" is powerless. A person who has lost a loved one to some unfortunate cause that, with enough effort, others can be spared from is not.

Just because we accept the fact that everyone eventually dies, and just because we believe that we don't ultimately control the date of every person's death, doesn't mean that we are lackadaisical about the causes of human suffering. Just ask all the religious people who are active in MADD or the American Cancer Society or McDonald Houses, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, etc etc etc.

While I'm glad they do it, I think it's somewhat logically incoherent, given the tenets of most of their religions.

I respectfully submit that perhaps you don't really grasp the basic tenets of most religions. Not that I blame you - if you are basing your opinions on the actions of most people, your misunderstanding is excused. Most people don't meet the ideals of their religious faiths, though many strive toward those ideals.

However, I'm not complaining. I realized a while back that if I had a choice between someone being kind and somewhat inconsistent and him being unkind and fully consistent, I'd rather he be kind.

Yep, I'd rather everyone be kind too - including atheists, inconsistent and otherwise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because we accept the fact that everyone eventually dies, and just because we believe that we don't ultimately control the date of every person's death, doesn't mean that we are lackadaisical about the causes of human suffering. Just ask all the religious people who are active in MADD or the American Cancer Society or McDonald Houses, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, etc etc etc.

Personally, I think they do so in spite of their religion, not because of it.

I respectfully submit that perhaps you don't really grasp the basic tenets of most religions. Not that I blame you - if you are basing your opinions on the actions of most people, your misunderstanding is excused. Most people don't meet the ideals of their religious faiths, though many strive toward those ideals.

I'm not basing it on what anyone has or hasn't done in the name of religion; I'm basing it on things like this:

25"(AF)For this reason I say to you, do not be (AG)worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26"(AH)Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?
27"And who of you by being (AI)worried can (AJ)add a single hour to his life?
28"And why are you (AK)worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,
29yet I say to you that not even (AL)Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.
30"But if God so clothes the (AM)grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? (AN)You of little faith!
31"Do not (AO)worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'
32"For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for (AP)your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
33"But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and (AQ)all these things will be added to you.
34"So do not (AR)worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

If a person is not supposed to worry about what will happen tomorrow, they have no need to worry about what will happen to their fellow human beings tomorrow. If a person takes this passage fully to heart, then they lose the motivation for charity: God's on the case, so I don't need to be.

But what in "the basic tenets of most religions" do you think I'm missing? Do things unfold according to God's holy plan or not?

 

[Kathryn]

I think when you take passages and verses out of context, the meaning is skewered. That's why you balance the Gospels with the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think when you take passages and verses out of context, the meaning is skewered.

So in the larger context, what meaning do you take from the passage?

That's why you balance the Gospels with the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.

Frankly, I think it's impossible to build a consistent theology built on the entire Bible. IMO, the best one can do is a compromise, but at the end of the day, I think it's a matter of choosing which conflicting message to accept, not integrating all of them into a comprehensive whole.

Also, it's not just a matter of scripture. It's a matter of believers saying one thing or its opposite as its convenient: if the death of someone from disease or accident is a product of God's wisdom when it helps the survivors deal with their loss, then the responsibility is still God's when the question arises of whether anyone was to blame for the death.

If a premise is true, then it's true, period. It doesn't cease to be true when one of its implications is inconvenient.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, tell that to all the religious charities and organizations around the world, with their rich history and current involvement in abating the suffering of mankind. I don't think that it's a fair generalization to imply that religious belief and practice kills motivation to stop suffering - when religious organizations funnel such vast amounts of help which directly alleviate so much human suffering.

Kathryn, you are making an argument based purely on a Pollyanna principle. You can just focus on the good charities that religious organizations do, but that has to be counterbalanced with the spread of fear and hatred of other religions--the wars started and atrocities perpetrated. It is fair to say that lots of religious organizations do good things, but it is also fair to say that lots of non-religious organizations do good things. Charitable behavior is not the exclusive province of religion, just as uncharitable behavior is not the exclusive province of rejection of religion.

Penguin has a point. Religion can be an excellent coping tool, but it only works if you do not examine its rhetoric too closely. The same rhetoric that uses "God's Plan" to comfort a grieving survivor can also be used to condemn victims. It is a small step to jump to the conclusion that God had something against them and their grieving survivors.

 

[Kathryn]

.

Kathryn, you are making an argument based purely on a Pollyanna principle. You can just focus on the good charities that religious organizations do, but that has to be counterbalanced with the spread of fear and hatred of other religions--the wars started and atrocities perpetrated. It is fair to say that lots of religious organizations do good things, but it is also fair to say that lots of non-religious organizations do good things. Charitable behavior is not the exclusive province of religion, just as uncharitable behavior is not the exclusive province of rejection of religion.

Nope, no Pollyanna here. I am not arguing, nor do I believe, that religious belief is all good, or that evils done in the name of religion are somehow counterbalanced by the good that religious organizations accomplish, or even that all charitable endeavors are fueled by religious beliefs. So - though I agree with your explanation of the Pollyanna principle as applied to this debate - that wasn't at all what I was saying.

I am saying though that it is erroneous to say that religious beliefs and dogma create a mindset which is lackadaisical about human suffering because "God is in control and we aren't." If that was the case, simply put, there would be very little religious involvement in charities and charitable work - when the reality is that most charities are funded predominately by people who espouse religious beliefs.

If religious beliefs undermined our efforts to make the world a better place and attempt to alleviate human suffering as much as possible, this wouldn't be the case. Au contraire - the sheer number of institutions created BY religious organizations in order to try to help humanity is an indication that religious belief often spurs people forward to do all they can to help their fellow man.

Of course - OF COURSE - religious dogma can be misapplied, or twisted to harm others. So can non religious beliefs and doctrines.

Penguin has a point. Religion can be an excellent coping tool, but it only works if you do not examine its rhetoric too closely. The same rhetoric that uses "God's Plan" to comfort a grieving survivor can also be used to condemn victims. It is a small step to jump to the conclusion that God had something against them and their grieving survivors.

See above. My particular faith doesn't condone this mindset. Not at ALL in fact.

And religion doesn't have a monopoly on this mindset in this sense: How many even non religious people do you hear assert "Well, they got what they deserved, didn't they?" when bad things happen to someone? This mindset can stand with or without religion as the fuel.

My gosh, we even list in newspaper accounts of wrecks whether or not the victims were wearing seatbelts! How is that even relevant unless it points to the possibility that people's actions and decisions negatively impact the outcome of events in their lives?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Just because we accept the fact that everyone eventually dies, and just because we believe that we don't ultimately control the date of every person's death, doesn't mean that we are lackadaisical about the causes of human suffering. Just ask all the religious people who are active in MADD or the American Cancer Society or McDonald Houses, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, etc etc etc.

But does everyone eventually die? -Matthew 25vs31,32,46

The sheep-like people at the time of Jesus 'glory' can remain alive and keep on living right into the start of Jesus peaceful 1000-year reign over earth with the prospect of gaining everlasting life on a paradisaic earth.

If we are alive at that time of Jesus involving himself into mankind's affairs we have the opportunity to be separated as one of Jesus sheep-like ones to be saved alive or rescued - Rev 7v14.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am saying though that it is erroneous to say that religious beliefs and dogma create a mindset which is lackadaisical about human suffering because "God is in control and we aren't." If that was the case, simply put, there would be very little religious involvement in charities and charitable work - when the reality is that most charities are funded predominately by people who espouse religious beliefs.

Sure... if they were behaving consistently. I'm saying they don't behave consistently with the beliefs they claim to hold.

At the very least, they don't appreciate that certain tenets in one area have implications in other areas that they fail to acknowledge.

If religious beliefs undermined our efforts to make the world a better place and attempt to alleviate human suffering as much as possible, this wouldn't be the case. Au contraire - the sheer number of institutions created BY religious organizations in order to try to help humanity is an indication that religious belief often spurs people forward to do all they can to help their fellow man.

Of course - OF COURSE - religious dogma can be misapplied, or twisted to harm others. So can non religious beliefs and doctrines.

I don't think that people like Mother Teresa are religious outcasts. She's an example of the problem I describe: out of a misguided notion that suffering is a test from God that leads to holiness, she'd do things like deny patients in her hospital normal painkillers. From the idea that physical needs of this world are minor compared to spiritual needs of the next, she applied funds donated to her organization toward a network of convents instead of to the medical needs of the patients in her hospital.

Despite all this, she isn't disavowed by religious people. On the contrary; she's generally held up as an ideal to aspire to. People don't condemn her; they call for her to be declared a saint.

See above. My particular faith doesn't condone this mindset. Not at ALL in fact.

So you don't trust in God? Not even a little bit?

And religion doesn't have a monopoly on this mindset in this sense: How many even non religious people do you hear assert "Well, they got what they deserved, didn't they?" when bad things happen to someone? This mindset can stand with or without religion as the fuel.

I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious person say something like that. All the non-religious people I know would say something like "that's too bad" or "I'm sorry"... or if they really did dislike the person, "good".

My gosh, we even list in newspaper accounts of wrecks whether or not the victims were wearing seatbelts! How is that even relevant unless it points to the possibility that people's actions and decisions negatively impact the outcome of events in their lives?

Are you saying that when you hear of a crash, you don't think it's relevant to know whether the cause was:

- a problem with the vehicle (which might be shared by your own car)
- a problem with the road (which you might drive on yourself)
- the driver's behaviour (which doesn't have implications for you)

Personally, I think it's very relevant.

 

[Kathryn]

.

[QUOTESure... if they were behaving consistently. I'm saying they don't behave consistently with the beliefs they claim to hold.][/QUOTE]

So what you're saying is that when I believe that God is ultimately in control, but I do walk in the Susan Komen relay for life I'm acting inconsistently?

Wow.

At the very least, they don't appreciate that certain tenets in one area have implications in other areas that they fail to acknowledge.

Oh no. I understand that God is ultimately in control. I also understand that He works THROUGH us to alleviate suffering in the world, and that it is our obligation to step up to the plate.

I don't think that people like Mother Teresa are religious outcasts. She's an example of the problem I describe: out of a misguided notion that suffering is a test from God that leads to holiness, she'd do things like deny patients in her hospital normal painkillers. From the idea that physical needs of this world are minor compared to spiritual needs of the next, she applied funds donated to her organization toward a network of convents instead of to the medical needs of the patients in her hospital.

Despite all this, she isn't disavowed by religious people. On the contrary; she's generally held up as an ideal to aspire to. People don't condemn her; they call for her to be declared a saint.

Some people. Most people don't know much about her oddities and inconsistent behaviors. They simply equate her with charity work in India and a lifetime of austere living.

[QUOTE
So you don't trust in God? Not even a little bit?
][/QUOTE]

Not even sure what you mean by this. I trust God and I also accept my responsibility to be used by Him to accomplish His will.

I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious person say something like that. All the non-religious people I know would say something like "that's too bad" or "I'm sorry"... or if they really did dislike the person, "good".

Well - that's pretty much the same thing ("good.") I've heard all sorts of people, religious and otherwise, say that someone got what they deserved when something bad happened to them after they lived recklessly, wrongly, or irresponsibly.

Are you saying that when you hear of a crash, you don't think it's relevant to know whether the cause was:

- a problem with the vehicle (which might be shared by your own car)
- a problem with the road (which you might drive on yourself)
- the driver's behaviour (which doesn't have implications for you)

Personally, I think it's very relevant

Sure I do. But in a sense, when we've ruled out a problem with the car, and a problem with the road - in other words, when we've reached the conclusion that if the driver had been acting more responsibly, he/she would not have been so severely hurt or killed - in that sense we are saying that their behavior is what caused their injuries. In other words, they are responsible for their own injuries.

Let's not get all sidetracked with that scenario though - that's not my main point. I was just using that as an example that in a sense, all of us use deductive reasoning to determine whether or not people's actions caused negative ramifications in their lives. Some people - religious and otherwise - call that "getting what they deserved."

"If someone is stupid enough to drive in this blizzard, they get what they deserve!"

"Well, he smoked two packs a day for 40 years - he earned that lung cancer, no doubt about it."

"Well what do you expect to happen when you drink a bottle of wine a day throughout your whole pregnancy?"

"Well, don't be mad when you can't fit into your bikini in a few months..."

I'm not JUSTIFYING that sort of statement - just saying that it's a fairly common human reaction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what you're saying is that when I believe that God is ultimately in control, but I do walk in the Susan Komen relay for life I'm acting inconsistently?

Wow.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Why would you do that if you weren't worried for the future of people with cancer? And why work to save their earthly lives, anyhow?

If God's in control, then he's got the situation covered. As the Bible tells us, he'll give those people (just like everyone else) everything they need... and if God doesn't give it to them, they don't really need it.

And if they die, what's wrong with that? If death is merely the transition from this life to another eternal, perfect existence, then why would you try to delay it?

I'm glad you help out the way you do, but I think that it comes from an inherently atheistic (or at least deistic) mindset: "we need to help people" implies that you can't rely on God to help them. "We need to save people's lives" implies that Earthly life is precious in its own right and isn't just a throwaway test for the real life that's to come.

Oh no. I understand that God is ultimately in control. I also understand that He works THROUGH us to alleviate suffering in the world, and that it is our obligation to step up to the plate.

I just can't parse this statement in a way that it's meaningful and not contradictory.

Some people. Most people don't know much about her oddities and inconsistent behaviors. They simply equate her with charity work in India and a lifetime of austere living.

Why do you say her behaviour was inconsistent? I think it's entirely consistent with the virtues you've espoused in this thread.

Not even sure what you mean by this. I trust God and I also accept my responsibility to be used by Him to accomplish His will.

If you don't rely on God, then what do you mean when you say you trust him?

Well - that's pretty much the same thing ("good.") I've heard all sorts of people, religious and otherwise, say that someone got what they deserved when something bad happened to them after they lived recklessly, wrongly, or irresponsibly.

Well, you didn't hear it from me. My general view can be summed up in a quote from Unforgiven: "deserve don't mean ****". Outcomes are either good or bad, but I don't generally approach life with the mindset that our prior actions mean that we're "owed" something (good or bad) from the universe.

Sure I do. But in a sense, when we've ruled out a problem with the car, and a problem with the road - in other words, when we've reached the conclusion that if the driver had been acting more responsibly, he/she would not have been so severely hurt or killed - in that sense we are saying that their behavior is what caused their injuries. In other words, they are responsible for their own injuries.

Let's not get all sidetracked with that scenario though - that's not my main point. I was just using that as an example that in a sense, all of us use deductive reasoning to determine whether or not people's actions caused negative ramifications in their lives. Some people - religious and otherwise - call that "getting what they deserved."

I think that anyone who uses the concept of "deserving" who doesn't believe in either a deity running the show or some concept of divine balance like karma isn't thinking too clearly.

 

[Copernicus]

Nope, no Pollyanna here. I am not arguing, nor do I believe, that religious belief is all good, or that evils done in the name of religion are somehow counterbalanced by the good that religious organizations accomplish, or even that all charitable endeavors are fueled by religious beliefs. So - though I agree with your explanation of the Pollyanna principle as applied to this debate - that wasn't at all what I was saying.

It struck me that way, because you were using religious charities as a general argument that Penguin's point was wrong. The point was that it was logical to argue against charitable and merciful behavior if everything was "God's Plan". Indeed, there are a great many people of faith who promote that logic, especially faith healers and their followers.

I am saying though that it is erroneous to say that religious beliefs and dogma create a mindset which is lackadaisical about human suffering because "God is in control and we aren't." If that was the case, simply put, there would be very little religious involvement in charities and charitable work - when the reality is that most charities are funded predominately by people who espouse religious beliefs.

Again, that is irrelevant. Religion can promote suffering as well as alleviation of suffering. I see religion as neutral with respect to merciful behavior. It can motivate people to be extremely charitable or extremely cruel, depending on their personal proclivities. You even have one religious group (thankfully a small cult) that goes around abusing grieving families and friends at funerals. (They were recently denied the right to picket funerals of victims in the Arizona tragedy.)

If religious beliefs undermined our efforts to make the world a better place and attempt to alleviate human suffering as much as possible, this wouldn't be the case. Au contraire - the sheer number of institutions created BY religious organizations in order to try to help humanity is an indication that religious belief often spurs people forward to do all they can to help their fellow man.

Again, that strikes me as the Polyanna Principle at work. You are not refusing to see all of the worse that religion has had to offer, but you are seeking to minimize it on the basis of your gut feeling that religion is inherently good. I would agree that it plays a strong role as a coping mechanism, but all too often it teaches people to cope with their personal frustrations by vilifying and demonizing other people.

Of course - OF COURSE - religious dogma can be misapplied, or twisted to harm others. So can non religious beliefs and doctrines.

But the discussion is about the logic of seeing tragedy as part of "God's Plan". You have a gut (Polyanna) feeling that religion is being misapplied when it causes harm to others, but there is no inherent proper or improper way to apply religion. It is a phenomenon that amplifies both the best and the worst of human nature. You just don't want to see the other side of the religious equation.

See above. My particular faith doesn't condone this mindset. Not at ALL in fact.

As long as you see it as your "particular" faith, I have no problem. When you start to generalize your attitude to religion in general, I just disagree. I see religion as an amplifier of emotion. It can be positive or negative, but its net effect (IMO) is neutral. During our Civil War, it was used to defend and attack slavery. Armies decided which side of the religious argument prevailed.

And religion doesn't have a monopoly on this mindset in this sense: How many even non religious people do you hear assert "Well, they got what they deserved, didn't they?" when bad things happen to someone? This mindset can stand with or without religion as the fuel.

Yes, I hear that all the time, but I know a lot of atheists who give generously to charities. One atheist friend of mine has been to Darfur a few times as part of Doctors without Borders. His altruism is not driven by lack of faith but love of humanity.

 

[Kathryn]

.

It struck me that way, because you were using religious charities as a general argument that Penguin's point was wrong. The point was that it was logical to argue against charitable and merciful behavior if everything was "God's Plan". Indeed, there are a great many people of faith who promote that logic, especially faith healers and their followers.

Look, for starters, I can't argue for or against this point as applied to ALL religions - that's simply too broad a category to generalize when it comes to this concept.

So - as a Methodist, I consider myself mainstream when it comes to Christianity, and that's what I am addressing.

Please explain to me the "logic" of NOT being merciful or seeking to minimize human suffering using the concept that God is ultimately in control - and don't bring in snake handlers and that sort of fringe behavior.

Mainstream Christianity teaches us to treat others as we want to be treated, to give someone our shirt AND our jacket if they are cold, to take care of widows and children, etc. etc. Mainstream Christianity (as well as many other religions) teaches that God accomplishes His will THROUGH us - through our obedience to His promptings and commands.

Religion can promote suffering as well as alleviation of suffering. I see religion as neutral with respect to merciful behavior. It can motivate people to be extremely charitable or extremely cruel, depending on their personal proclivities. You even have one religious group (thankfully a small cult) that goes around abusing grieving families and friends at funerals. (They were recently denied the right to picket funerals of victims in the Arizona tragedy.)

This is all certainly true - and a salient point which I have never denied. I've never denied it because I agree with it! :yes:

Again, that strikes me as the Polyanna Principle at work. You are not refusing to see all of the worse that religion has had to offer, but you are seeking to minimize it on the basis of your gut feeling that religion is inherently good.

Nope, not me. I just didn't happen to be ADDRESSING the misapplication of religious principles which can harm others when I was responding to that particular argument given by Penguin. Obviously, it's happened repeatedly throughout history, and I'd have to have never cracked a history book not to know that.

All religion is NOT inherently good. I think that's pretty obvious. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some religions seem inherently evil.

I think you may just be trying to fit my words into the Pollyanna Principle because that fits what you'd like for me to be saying. Taken out of context, you could twist my words. But taken as a whole - I'm not saying anything of the sort.

I would agree that it plays a strong role as a coping mechanism, but all too often it teaches people to cope with their personal frustrations by vilifying and demonizing other people.

Yeah, you're right. So does Nietzche. So does Freud.

The bottom line is that anyone can missapply just about any teaching from any belief set - based in religion or otherwise - to justify their actions. Unfortunately, this seems to be human nature.

But the discussion is about the logic of seeing tragedy as part of "God's Plan". You have a gut (Polyanna) feeling that religion is being misapplied when it causes harm to others, but there is no inherent proper or improper way to apply religion. It is a phenomenon that amplifies both the best and the worst of human nature. You just don't want to see the other side of the religious equation.

Once again - ALL religion is too broad a subject. So I am not speaking for all world religions with my next comments -I'm simply speaking about mainstream Christianity, though these concepts could well apply to other religions as well.

Tragedy can be USED by God. That doesn't mean that we're puppets in the hands of a deviant Puppeteer. Tragedy and glory can be knit together in our lives, but we need to be open to whatever it is that God can teach us through both extremes. We can make bad choices which cause tragedy in our lives, or OTHER people can make bad choices which create tragedy in our lives - or a limb can fall on our car and kill our grandchild sitting in the back seat - it doesn't matter - God can and DOES use ALL circumstances in our lives, if we allow Him to, to give us more wisdom, and even to bless us in the long run, in ways we never expected.

Yes, I hear that all the time, but I know a lot of atheists who give generously to charities. One atheist friend of mine has been to Darfur a few times as part of Doctors without Borders. His altruism is not driven by lack of faith but love of humanity

I never said that atheists aren't or can't be altruistic. Of course they can be and I'm sure many are. More power to them.

The religious are also motivated by profound love for humanity. I think that trait is common in the human race - right alongside the propensity for violence and cruelty.

We're complex creatures.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look, for starters, I can't argue for or against this point as applied to ALL religions - that's simply too broad a category to generalize when it comes to this concept.

So - as a Methodist, I consider myself mainstream when it comes to Christianity, and that's what I am addressing.

Please explain to me the "logic" of NOT being merciful or seeking to minimize human suffering using the concept that God is ultimately in control - and don't bring in snake handlers and that sort of fringe behavior.

Mainstream Christianity teaches us to treat others as we want to be treated, to give someone our shirt AND our jacket if they are cold, to take care of widows and children, etc. etc. Mainstream Christianity (as well as many other religions) teaches that God accomplishes His will THROUGH us - through our obedience to His promptings and commands.

Here's an example: I've heard it argued by a number of prominent mainstream Christians that we don't need to worry about climate change, because God won't allow humanity to muck up the planet. I've even heard a couple of televangelists argue that worrying about climate change implies lack of faith in God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Here's an example: I've heard it argued by a number of prominent mainstream Christians that we don't need to worry about climate change, because God won't allow humanity to muck up the planet. I've even heard a couple of televangelists argue that worrying about climate change implies lack of faith in God.

People who say as you suggest, are certainly not "Mainstream Christians."
They might be prominent American Christians,
But that is another matter.
What you relate there, is simply an extreme view made by some anti Green right wing fundamental Christians.

 

[tarasan]

Here's an example: I've heard it argued by a number of prominent mainstream Christians that we don't need to worry about climate change, because God won't allow humanity to muck up the planet. I've even heard a couple of televangelists argue that worrying about climate change implies lack of faith in God.

can we have names?

 

[tarasan]

People who say as you suggest, are certainly not "Mainstream Christians."
They might be prominent American Christians,
But that is another matter.
What you relate there, is simply an extreme view made by some anti Green right wing fundamental Christians.

ditto, completely agree