What does the Christian God want from us?

Pie! Oil rubbing smurfs! Dodo birds! oooooohhh, sign me up, sign me up! Can I have Oompa-Loompas bring me chocolate on a hourly basis too??? *bounces up and down*

See, here I'd have to argue. I will provide following examples of strange and bizarre killings that occurred either by teens, adults, but whomever, people that were provided ample helpings of God in school.

Charles Manson and crew: It could be debated that Charlie, with his constant ins and outs of juvie halls and Boystown type places did not receive a formal education enough to have a "God-helping" in the right amount. However, Susan Atkins, Tex Watson, Patricia something or other, Leslie Van Houten (I think), they all came from middle class homes, where they _did_ have normal schooling, with ample helpings of prayer in the classroom. They still went ahead and bizarrely murdered.

Side note on Manson Family--Squeaky Fromme, tried to assasinate Ford in 1975. Her family was actually upper middle class and she too obtained a fairly regular upbringing complete with prayer in classroom.

Charlie Starkwether: I can't remember the name of the girl that helped Starkwether on his killing spree in Nebraska, but she was only 14. Now, at the time of the murders, this was the 50s or 60s. She still avidly and rabidly went along with Charles as he murdered her family and others on a killing spree. It could be argued that Charles himself also received a formal education complete with prayer in the classroom.

Lizzie Borden: She came from a time when _everything_ was interrelated with religion. She still killed her entire family.

Jeffrey Dahmer: He attended school I'm assuming around the 60s and 70s. A time when prayer was still an active role in public education. He cut men up and put the parts in his freezer.

Arlene Wuorlos (I spelled this wrong, but the woman serial killer immortalized by Charlize Theron in Monster), she attended school, again assuming during the 70s. A time when prayer in the classrom was still prevalent. She still went on to murder multiple times.


I could continue on and on. However, I think this highlights what I wanted to say well.

I think that the reasons for the upswing in adolescents murdering cannot be found in the absence of prayer in a classroom. As someone with an education degree (which I didn't use because of items similiar to this), it sickens me when just one party is blamed for a child going bad. A child's upbring has a ton of different factors in it. It is not the parents' fault necessarily, nor the school's fault if something happens and the adolescent acts out and does something insanely crazy. It's just not and to place the blame for something solely on one factor, is silly and partially informed at best.

Also, an interesting side note, in re: to Manson and Starkwether cases. Both of those cases involved people that followed both Charlies as God figures. Interesting huh? Maybe that could be directly related to prayer being in the school.

Kevn,

It's impossible to prove the non-existence of God, in exactly the same way it's impossible to prove the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy, or Baal, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. However, it is possible to say why one finds the notion so unlikely as to be for all intents and purposes impossible.

1. God is a recent invention in human history.

2. There are, and have been, many religions with many Gods.

3. All the adherents of all these religions with their own deities, are of the belief that their particular deity is the only true one.

4. God has no noticeable effects on the running of the world. When people pray for something and it happens, they proclaim a miracle. In fact most of the time when people pray for something it doesn't happen.

5. The phrase used to explain the above is 'God moves in mysterious ways'. What this actually means is 'Don't expect God to have any effect whatever on earthly life'.

6. The morality of the Christian Holy Book coming as it does from over 2000 years ago, does not accord with modern morality. Therefore there are contradictions between the old and the new testaments. At the same time we are told that the Bible is the Word of God.

7. People will have a very pleasant, or very unpleasant time after death when they are judged by the Christian God. It seems that the main factor in this judgement will be whether or not you have believed in God during your life. There are many people in the world who have probably never heard of the Christian God, so they will not have the opporunity to make it to heaven. It appears that the judgement of a 'soul' after death will be partly done on a geographical basis.

8. People have a capacity for believing utter rubbish. In fact I am sure that there is a gene responsible for the fact that most people in the world have faith in at least one thing that is utter nonsense. Whether it be God, the Devil, aliens among us, ghosts, ancient Egyptian engineers with batteries and helicopters, the fact that the moon landings were a hoax, spiritualism, the fact that Shakespeare was written by Bacon, that digial cameras produce 'orbs' which are not reflections off raindrops or dust particles, but are sentient spiritual beings, and too many others to list here.

All this tends to suggest to me that the likelihood of a deity, specifically the Christian deity, actually existing, is really very low indeed.

Hi Selador,

I agree with you people can be creative with their imagination. I also understand your points. I have struggled with these same issues. At this point in my life I have come to a place where I don't feel inclined to defend a religion or the actions of people either now or from history.

The fact people disagree on the notion of God doesn't affect the reality of God.

I don't accept the notion of God by faith in that I can verify His existence with my senses. After studying the complexity of life, and the obvious implications of it, I have no choice but to come to the conclusion God is.

That doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with my conclusion, even though many do. And I don't suggest anyone is stupid for disagreeing with me.

Well..a definite non-religious factor would be the fact that there are more one parent and working parents homes, and less concentrated attention, caring and love spent on the children's upbringing.

We are at an age of "instant gratification", greed and self-involvement. Children are growing up raised more by TV, video games and their peers than with love and caring by their parents.

If you raise a child to be kind, open-minded, tolerant and loving, and the child knows that he is loved and cherished, that child will generally not go out and murder folks.

Religion really has nothing to do with it. I saw plenty of maladjusted and troublesome kids from religious homes growing up. In fact, some of the worst kids I knew came from strict religious homes that were repressive and bordering on abusive.

Teaching children to be narrow-minded, judgemental and non-questioning isn't really what I would call a solution, although maybe the crime rate would be less among them.

I have spent some time in more than one totalitarian society.

Without getting into details, I'll say this: The crime rates were very, very low.

Yes, you are right, we are at an age of instant gratification, greed and self-involvement. But I would content all of those things can be attributed to Godless society.

I agree with you being raised in a religious home doesn't mean one will continue following those teachings. I also don't suggest being raised in a strict religious home means one will be a good person, 100% of the time.

I suppose the question is, what do people do naturally when the fear of the government isn't a concern. I'm sure a strong totalitarian government can keep crime to a minimum with a few tanks.

So...what you are saying is: Religion really makes no difference?

Cause it seems like hardly anyone is really following the teachings of religions. At least not christian religions. Many of the priests, pastors and preachers certainly aren't. And sure seems like most of the folks attending regular service aren't. Sp what the heck. Why might be all better off raising our children as hippies. I believe statistically the true "hippy" murdered at a far smaller rate than the true believer.

Perhaps the question is: what would I, what would you, what would an *individual* do.

The tanks that enforce everyone's civility are within.

These tanks may fly a Christian flag, a Hindu flag, a principled atheist flag.


Would it make sense to choose a religion or moral code based upon the actions of its adherents? I can't quite put my finger on why, but somehow this seems to be a mistake.

lol

It isn't even your observation (unless you are capable of being aware of 1/3 of a billion people just in the US) nor is it clearly happening, and it is most certainly not evidence. I'd bother to give you tons of evidence and explanation, but you'd just say "no, that isn't so".

Indeed, we are seeing lower homocide rates than humans have seen since the world was created 4000 years ago, but so long as you wish to base your non-observational non-evidence on something someone pushing a political agenda told you, there isn't that much I could offer that would disabuse you, so please continue with your belief.

BTW, in case you missed it: FBI: Violent crime rate declines again.

-Ghoti

The assertion of the FBI that violent crime is declining is simply more evidence that it is, in fact, rising.

There, Mr. Troll, now you don't have to respond. I have it covered.

No, indeed. The matter has nothing to do with intelligence.

You say you can verify the existence of God by your senses. I could find a man in an institution somewhere who believes he is Napoleon, and knows this fact by means of his senses. Not suggesting that religion is insanity, although sometimes the result of it can suggest that very thing.

I used to keep my opinions to myself until religious fanatics crashed aeroplanes into the World Trade Centre and added to the number of innocent souls destroyed by religious fanaticism. I believe that religion is dangerous and regressive, and that the world would be a much better place without it.

Hi Selador,


My post was not about religion. I don't know of an organized religion I can support.

When I speak of the notion of God, it's seperate from any group. The notion of God can be viewed apart from any religion.

I will admit my personal faith might bias my viewpoint in matters that as of yet are unexplained. But I try to keep an open mind to logical points.

I don't blame any religion for the acts of a few people.

I accept everyone regardless of their faith or lack thereof, and I value their opinions.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

Scientific Proof of the Existence of God
Just to see how the conversation goes. Scientists! Do your duty!

-Ghoti

Chaplain: Let us praise God.
[The congregation rises.]
Chaplain: O Lord…
Congregation: O Lord…
Chaplain: … ooh, You are so big…
Congregation: … ooh, You are so big…
Chaplain: … so absolutely huge.
Congregation: … so absolutely huge.
Chaplain: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Congregation: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Chaplain: Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and…
Congregation: … and barefaced flattery.
Chaplain: But You're so strong and, well, just so… super.
Congregation: Fantastic!
Chaplain: Amen.
Congregation: Amen.

Ouch, that gave me an aneurysm!

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing it with us.

That is very interesting. I'll have to look for that book. As far as the interview, of course "proof" has no place in it. It has been known in theoretical physics for a long time, though, that including a conscious observer makes things more straightforward. Actual experiments done in this area mostly fall into the realm of religion or mysticism, but they generally bear this basic theory out.

Good post. The thesis of the "scientific proof" is this single sentence:

By definition this hypothesis is untestable and thus unscientific. Given that it competes with our current view of the Universe, I would simply invoke Occam's Razor and suggest our current view as reality.

Without getting into the philosophy, I think it's interesting that it's human observation that brings into existence the Universe and our now-perceived flow of time. Why not observation by a cat or fly? What constitutes observation? Must it be photons that are collected through a lens to a focal plane populated with photoreceptive nerves or would touch be considered observation? If so, could a single-cell organism not observe and thus bring the Universe into being? Why can only a sentient being bring into existence the Universe? How does one define sentience? Is there a primitive level of sentience which would not trigger the existence of the Universe and, if so, how does one define that threshold?

These are the kind of questions that unscientific theories generate that simply cannot be answered. Religion generates the same.

~Ulrika~

Read the article again, he said "That means that the amoeba is, of course, a manifestation of consciousness, and so is the human being."

Also this:

WIE: So you feel there's a kind of purposiveness to the way the universe is evolving; that, in a sense, it reaches its fruition in us, in human beings?

AG: "Well, human beings may not be the end of it, but certainly they are the first fruition, because here is then the possibility of manifest creativity, creativity in the sentient being itself. The animals are certainly sentient, but they are not creative in the sense that we are. So human beings certainly right now seem to be an epitome, but this may not be the final epitome. I think we have a long way to go and there is a long evolution to occur yet."

If you speak of God you are speaking of the Christian deity. That is the name of the Christian deity. If you were speaking of Allah, you would be speaking of the Muslim deity. If you wish your religious views to be considered apart from religion, why do you refer to your deity or controlling intelligence in Christian terms?

Ok - you don't blame any religion for the acts of a few. Unfortunately religion seems to prevent people from developing their own system of ethics. Also it provides them with a way of justifying their own immoral or unethical behaviour. I have met *one* Christian in my life who truly led a Christian lifestyle - in other words in accord with the moral teachings of Christ. One. I have also met a lot of unpleasant, immoral Christians who have used their religion as a justification for their own, unpleasant, immoral personalities.

Yes, I also accept every decent person regardless of their faith, and value any opinion that is logical.

Not according to the way I learned it. The Christian/Judaic god's name is either Jehovah or Yahweh, depending on which scholar you ask.

Yahweh was a local tribal god in the area of the middle east known as Canaan. His wife's name was Asherah , but they killed her off early in the story, and wiped her from most of the historic record (most likely by the Deuteronomist).

I have not studied as much about Islam and Allah, but from what I understand, in pre-Islamic Arabia he was moon god.

The history of this stuff gets really interesting when you start to bring in ancient non-biblical references and start to compare and contrast the entities discussed.

-Ghoti

[edited for spelling]