Why do believers go to doctors?

[longliveCS40]

Completely disagree. Religion is an idea, or a system of them. Like Socialism. No matter what 22/IMCC/Tradition spew on here, socialism (not even communism) has never killed anybody. People kill people. Ideas can be dangerous, and ideas derived from religion can be especially dangerous, but it is the people wielding them that have caused the wars and suffering. People inherently seek battle, whether it be literal fighting, politics, sport, whatever, and religion has certainly played a part in fueling all of them, but it has played significant parts in stopping all of them as well.

I think that respect for religion (and the rest of the First for that matter) is at the top of my list for the incredible success of the US. If that respect for religion failed, so too would have the nation, imo. Many of the places you are likely thinking of are resultant from fighting over the same things men have fought over for eons, land, resources, survival. Religion simply bands them together, creates the community that I was discussing.



3) Yes, you ARE trying to disprove people's beliefs. You are not having this discussion in order to decide something internally, you have already decided. Is there anything, literally, any explanation that would change your mind? Of course people can still believe how they choose, but that doesn't mean you aren't attempting to disprove what they claim. Again, you prove it by calling it foolish. If you are interested in simply learning about their beliefs and challenging them, calling it foolish should be one of the obvious no-nos, as it serves absolutely no purpose other than to satisfy yourself.

So you're saying I should blame the people that use religion improperly (like starting wars) rather than blaming religion itself? Fair enough. But going a step further, shouldn't I blame the original person that created "religion" and those ideas?

I don't agree that I'm necessarily trying to disprove your beliefs. If that happens as a result of our debate, fine. If not, fine also. I don't honestly believe that you are going to change your beliefs due to a conversation you had with someone on the HROT message board so your assertion that I'm trying to change your beliefs fails from the start. I'm just having a conversation and some discourse on a subject. If someone said "I don't believe in gravity" I'd have a conversation with them about their reasons why and would be interested to understand their reasoning.

 

[naturalmwa]

See now you fail exactly the logic I discussed earlier. The existence of the god (or gods as you point out) are not dependent on the clapping. Just as reasonable, following you and longlive's proddings, is that one of the now-defunct religions could have been "correct". They haven't stopped being correct just because people moved on.

As I asked before, did gravity not "exist" simply because nobody knew what it was nor talked about it?

I bet we could prove you wrong. It would require researching what each religion taught. Which I admit would be interesting for me but not practical. But most every religion I've studied up to this point has imbedded in it some end times senario. That senario usually involves some mechanism that can control the end times. Establish a world wide caliphate, rebuild the temple, feed the gods blood, etc. Each time humanity rejected one of these ancient religions and the end times failed to materialize, we could conclude that religion was wrong.

According to the Bible this has already been proven for Christianity as the Jesus generation wasn't supposed to pass. By pointing that out am I not freeing people to seek some other truer faith? Or at the very least to treat their faith as less legalistic and more metaphorical and mysterious. My goal is for people to recognize that faith traditions and God concepts are flawed. To point out we all already reject many religious concepts and call that moral. Contrary to your claim, we actually have to teach society to ignore much of religious morality to maintain a just society. And thus we shouldn't look to religion to make public policy. Pointing out flaws with religious orthodoxy aids that aim.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes, if you discus it with mother theresa herself. If you simply claim that it is true of all "believers" you have started from a false and insulting premise.

Sure, if you have somebody who has made a specific claim like, "There is no point in medicine, because God will protect me," then by ALL MEANS question and ridicule them when you catch then in the waiting room of your family practitioner. But questioning all "believers" about it is not a "good question" by any stretch.

It wouldn't be any different than asking this, "Why do Christians all hate gays when Jesus tells them to love." A pointless, overbroad and ignorant question to begin with, something that you would read popping up on your idiot friend's facebook. Asking it about someone who believes that very thing (that they must hate gays AND that Jesus tells them to love) may be a good question.

You're spinning your wheels, but that's a good question too that would make a good topic here.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, you only say so because you believe you objectively decide what that god must do/not do, which is absurd.

Is your theory (as in not that of any christian denomination) that if there is a god he is literally manipulating every single thing at every single moment? Down to the atom?

While I appreciate the credit, the notion of God as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent isn't original or controversial to most Christians. But if you were at all paying attention you would see I was advocating for a more limited biblically justified version. I think you must now be trolling as you have lost any tread of an actual objection to my argument.

 

[Lone Clone]

If you get cancer, God wanted you to have it so why would you go to a doctor for treatment? Serious question.

God tells us to go.

 

[herecomethehawkeyes]

What a great burn, you really got him, I'll bet even now he is under the covers trembling concerned about this.

Why do you keep proving yourself to be a complete jackass?

 

[herecomethehawkeyes]

The first half of your post is just a personal attack on me and contributes nothing to the conversation so I'll respond to the latter half.

he is into personal attacks. its how he rolls

 

[herecomethehawkeyes]

I can only answer you with questions:

Do you believe that Christians think the minutiae of their lives is directly controlled by a god?

.

I have heard many of times, especially when life takes a dump on them, that god doesn't give anybody more than they can handle. Those same people praise god for all the good things that happen to them, so there is some merit to this.

I look forward to your snarky, jackass response

 

[LuteHawk]

No human being goes through this life without some
pain and suffering. Welcome to the Human Race.
The Christian understands that being Christian does
not eliminate pain and suffering from their life.

However, the Christian trusts in God to guide and
direct him through the ups and downs of daily living.
A Christian's faith in God enables him or her to make
it through this world of turmoil and trouble.

 

[Titanhawk2]

If you get cancer, God wanted you to have it so why would you go to a doctor for treatment? Serious question.

Why do you assume God wanted you to have it? Did he tell you that?

 

[longliveCS40]

Why do you assume God wanted you to have it? Did he tell you that?

My assumption is that he controls heaven and earth and all that those encompass. That is what I've been led to believe.

Is that a bad assumption?

Does he control some things? No things? Only things he wants to?

 

[longliveCS40]

No human being goes through this life without some
pain and suffering. Welcome to the Human Race.
The Christian understands that being Christian does
not eliminate pain and suffering from their life.

However, the Christian trusts in God to guide and
direct him through the ups and downs of daily living.
A Christian's faith in God enables him or her to make
it through this world of turmoil and trouble.

So do we go through pain and suffering because God is pulling the strings to make that happen? If so, OK, but as I've said previously, that doesn't seem very loving of him.

If not then he must not have the kind of control over heaven and earth that I've been led to believe he does but at least then, religion makes more sense to me.

I understand there are a lot of reasons to be religious: fear of death and no afterlife, a purpose, a reason to be moral, community, feeling a part of something. I'm not questioning why people are religious, they have good reasons.

I'm questioning that which they worship to.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So you're saying I should blame the people that use religion improperly (like starting wars) rather than blaming religion itself? Fair enough. But going a step further, shouldn't I blame the original person that created "religion" and those ideas?

There wasn't some creator of "religion", those ideas have been created by vast numbers of people throughout time and then manipulated, changed, evolved as well. Why is it so important for you to blame anything, or anybody?

 

[theIowaHawk]

My assumption is that he controls heaven and earth and all that those encompass. That is what I've been led to believe.

Is that a bad assumption?

Does he control some things? No things? Only things he wants to?

Again, I think your trouble is that you are trying to have a global discussion (with everyone) about very specific religious beliefs that many do not agree on. Always the hardest part of discussing religion, you don't know which parameters to begin in.

For example, you have Lute's responses but you can't use Lute's responses to really discuss with Titan, and you can't take Titan's responses and discuss with IMCC, and so on.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I have heard many of times, especially when life takes a dump on them, that god doesn't give anybody more than they can handle. Those same people praise god for all the good things that happen to them, so there is some merit to this.

I look forward to your snarky, jackass response

There are plenty of posts of mine above discussing this exact thing, I'm not sure why you ignored them.

 

[TexMichFan]

Because people then use those ideas of "faith" outside the realm of death and comforting to do things like deny civil rights to other people.

But that is a different discussion.

People of faith also have supported civil rights.

 

[MplsHawk]

How does a person become responsible for a thing? I would say minimally they have to take part in that thing coming about, which a god would satisfy by creating the thing. I think that might not be sufficient. If the person intended for one outcome, but their thing reacted unexpectedly or was stolen and misused by other powers, that might relive a person of responsibility. But a supergod doesn't have this out. He both created and knows how his creation will act. What logic would let a supergod off the hook?

To whom would an all powerful God be responsible? This scenario starts with the assumption that God, like a regular human, is responsible in an accountability sort of way for how his creation behaves. To whom? Since there isn't a societal norm, a justice system, etc. in a position to judge or second guess an all powerul God, I struggle to analyze God within the context of your scenario.

 

[TexMichFan]

I am just trying to figure out the logic around this whole thing. there seems to be rational discussion for the most part in this thread. It is one question i have posed a few times in various forums and nobody really has addressed it. it seems weird that if you have this belief that god has a plan, and that god is this almighty being that has control over everything that one would want to try to alter the plans of that almighty being

People find comfort in prayer and it is not seen as trying to alter the plan.

It seems weird to me that people praying is a topic that people find weird.

Like a conversation I had with my sister when my father died. She was upset because she did not think my brother was upset enough. I told her you can't tell a person how to handle their grief and everyone should do it in the manner they feel is best for them.

 

[MplsHawk]

I meant to reply to each paragraph within the same post, but it didn't work out. Anyway . . .

I don't see how a timeless and all powerful God can create a world and see all outcomes without directing every detail. Note we are talking about Illness outside of human control and hence outside of free will. Seeing and knowing and controlling everything makes him responsible for everything. Now this God could logically choose not to act on everything, but not acting isn't a responsible act. So if this God chooses to act irresponsibly, it's no longer a perfect being and no longer a supergod. The only way God escapes responsibility is if his nature isn't super. If God has limits and rules and confinement it must respect then not knowing about a virus mutation makes sense and it wouldn't be responsible.

My thoughts on that are as follows: If a timeless and all powerful God were to direct every detail, why bother creating the world in the first place. If creation is nothing more than a puppet stage where we have no free will, why bother? As I understand it, Christianity is based on the notion that God wants his creation (us anyway) to freely chose to love Him as our God. Could he force us? Absolutely, but as I understand it, that isn't what he wants. Giving us free will has resulted in sinful consequences in his creation. He could act to control everything absolutely, but he chooses not to. At least that is how I understand it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Serious question, did you think this was clever?

Sorry to be so late to join such a fun thread.

Needless to say, many Christians have believed that people deserved their illnesses and injuries for much of history. Some still think that way.

You deserve what you get.

God has his reasons.

Those sorts of comments abound in the 21st century. So it's still out there.

In sum, it was a fair - albeit mocking - question.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Maybe you were an asshole to his people, perhaps mocking them on the internet. He gives you cancer to get your attention and then heals you so you can go on to start an online ministry and fleece people out of millions so you can buy the private jet he wants you to have?

Excellent.

If the Christian God actually existed, I could easily believe this. Clearly some people do.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

There is a difference in God allowing something bad to happen and God wanting something bad to happen.

Really?

Please explain how that is different - given that God has the easy ability to prevent it.

If God can save people from harm or evil with no effort and no cost but chooses not to, how is that distinguishable from wanting that harm or evil to happen?

 

[naturalmwa]

To whom would an all powerful God be responsible? This scenario starts with the assumption that God, like a regular human, is responsible in an accountability sort of way for how his creation behaves. To whom? Since there isn't a societal norm, a justice system, etc. in a position to judge or second guess an all powerul God, I struggle to analyze God within the context of your scenario.

That is an interesting point. But if we grant it, where does that leave us? If we can't assign the ethical construct of accountability to God, can we assign any morality to him at all? Can we say he is good or bad? Can he be loving, merciful or wrathful? If we are now unwilling to treat God as an ethical being and say he is amoral we have removed the supergod cloak. God loses abilities under this view and effectively becomes little more than a supercomputer.

I'm OK with a limited God, but that's not how believers usually portray him. In particular this stripping away of his morality becomes particularly problematic for the Abrahamic faiths. I would suggest the better answer is we judge God by his own rules. If you think the Bible is a book that teaches ethical lessons from God, then we ought to be able to hold God to those standards. Does the Bible teach what makes a person responsible?

 

[naturalmwa]

Again, I think your trouble is that you are trying to have a global discussion (with everyone) about very specific religious beliefs that many do not agree on. Always the hardest part of discussing religion, you don't know which parameters to begin in.

For example, you have Lute's responses but you can't use Lute's responses to really discuss with Titan, and you can't take Titan's responses and discuss with IMCC, and so on.

Well we probably could if some people weren't standing in the way. In theory we very easily could have a discussion about the differences between the Lute, Titan and IMCC doctrines and how they arrived at them.

 

[naturalmwa]

I meant to reply to each paragraph within the same post, but it didn't work out. Anyway . . .

I don't see how a timeless and all powerful God can create a world and see all outcomes without directing every detail. Note we are talking about Illness outside of human control and hence outside of free will. Seeing and knowing and controlling everything makes him responsible for everything. Now this God could logically choose not to act on everything, but not acting isn't a responsible act. So if this God chooses to act irresponsibly, it's no longer a perfect being and no longer a supergod. The only way God escapes responsibility is if his nature isn't super. If God has limits and rules and confinement it must respect then not knowing about a virus mutation makes sense and it wouldn't be responsible.

My thoughts on that are as follows: If a timeless and all powerful God were to direct every detail, why bother creating the world in the first place. If creation is nothing more than a puppet stage where we have no free will, why bother? As I understand it, Christianity is based on the notion that God wants his creation (us anyway) to freely chose to love Him as our God. Could he force us? Absolutely, but as I understand it, that isn't what he wants. Giving us free will has resulted in sinful consequences in his creation. He could act to control everything absolutely, but he chooses not to. At least that is how I understand it.

Part of why this question is interesting is it takes free will out of the equation. Free will and testing people's choices might be a great reason for God to create the world. But free will has no bearing on your cells metastasizing into cancer. God created a world filled with perils beyond our ability to control. That makes God responsible for those perils as I see it. Free will works fine when dealing with human choices, not so well when dealing with the scenario this thread is about.

 

[MplsHawk]

Part of why this question is interesting is it takes free will out of the equation. Free will and testing people's choices might be a great reason for God to create the world. But free will has no bearing on your cells metastasizing into cancer. God created a world filled with perils beyond our ability to control. That makes God responsible for those perils as I see it. Free will works fine when dealing with human choices, not so well when dealing with the scenario this thread is about.

I think that most Christians believe that those perils didn't exist until mankind's free will chose to let sin into the world. That death, disease, etc., wouldn't have been something mankind would have had to deal with.

 

[jaffarosenfels]

You are over thinking it. Being Christian isn't rocket science with difficult tests to pass. At the foundation is love and faith. One cannot truly be Christian without these.

But one can have love and faith and also be an atheist.

 

[MplsHawk]

That is an interesting point. But if we grant it, where does that leave us? If we can't assign the ethical construct of accountability to God, can we assign any morality to him at all? Can we say he is good or bad? Can he be loving, merciful or wrathful? If we are now unwilling to treat God as an ethical being and say he is amoral we have removed the supergod cloak. God loses abilities under this view and effectively becomes little more than a supercomputer.

I'm OK with a limited God, but that's not how believers usually portray him. In particular this stripping away of his morality becomes particularly problematic for the Abrahamic faiths. I would suggest the better answer is we judge God by his own rules. If you think the Bible is a book that teaches ethical lessons from God, then we ought to be able to hold God to those standards. Does the Bible teach what makes a person responsible?

I don't think that our lacking the authority (for lack of a better word) to judge God or hold him accountable by our standards is logically followed by the conclusion that God has no morality that can be assigned to him. It also definitely does not follow that he is a limited God. To the contrary, a limited God could be judged or held accountable by whatever limits Him. An all powerful God could not be limited by anything, and especially not be mankind.

I enjoy the respectful back and forth Natural, so thank you. However, as another poster asserted last night, I'm not smart enough to really speak for Christians on this subject. Despite his assertion being weak attempt at a poke in the eye, he was right. I know my limits and I think I'm probably beyond them, so I will move on from this topic so I don't reflect poorly on other Christians and their beliefs.

 

[naturalmwa]

I think that most Christians believe that those perils didn't exist until mankind's free will chose to let sin into the world. That death, disease, etc., wouldn't have been something mankind would have had to deal with.

Does this actually seem logical to you? That mankind created cancer and earthquakes by eating an apple? Even this has problems however as the Jesus sacrifice was supposed to attone for the apple. So for the last 2000 years God has kept the perils going of his free will. And that's not even getting into the problems of how an all powerful God couldn't keep the sin box from opening or why he was forced to create it in the first place. Why invent cancer?

Why punish people for generations for the sin of their parents many generations removed? I mean if that is godly justice, we must surely all be on the hook for slave reparations right? When your ancestors do something wrong, you are forever guilty is the biblical lesson. This answer has a lot of problems not least of which is the fact thats its an obvious acknowledgement of the problem in the original scenario. By retreating to this ground, you are tacitly acknowledging that disease is a problem for the supergod construct.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't think that our lacking the authority (for lack of a better word) to judge God or hold him accountable by our standards is logically followed by the conclusion that God has no morality that can be assigned to him. It also definitely does not follow that he is a limited God. To the contrary, a limited God could be judged or held accountable by whatever limits Him. An all powerful God could not be limited by anything, and especially not be mankind.

I enjoy the respectful back and forth Natural, so thank you. However, as another poster asserted last night, I'm not smart enough to really speak for Christians on this subject. Despite his assertion being weak attempt at a poke in the eye, he was right. I know my limits and I think I'm probably beyond them, so I will move on from this topic so I don't reflect poorly on other Christians and their beliefs.

Thanks for the conversation. I thought you acquitted yourself well. I really like this idea you brought up that a supergod can't be judged because he is not limited. It made me think. What came to mind was that morality is inherently about limits. Its about setting boundaries and not respecting compete licence to do anything. So to be a moral being, God must have limits. If God has no limits, it can't be moral. And if the judge of all of us can't be moral, it can't judge morality in others. So we have yet another problem with the supergod construct.

All this gets solved if we just imagine a God that is more biblical. In the Bible god has limits. He has to send messengers to bring news and gather intel. Prayer to a supergod seems weird because that sort of God already knows what you want and how he will rule before you are even born. Prayer to a biblical God makes sense because he can be bartered with and persuaded. The biblical God makes errors and even apologizes for them. A God like the Bible actually supports answers all these problems, but he is no longer super. The biblical God had limits. Which means there are some forces in the universe that are beyond that biblical God. I suspect this is the logic problem the supergod was invented to address, but it brings a host of other problems.

 

[HawkMFT]

Really?

Please explain how that is different - given that God has the easy ability to prevent it.

If God can save people from harm or evil with no effort and no cost but chooses not to, how is that distinguishable from wanting that harm or evil to happen?

Some people think that God sits at some gigantic switchboard, controlling every minute aspect of the universe. I don't think that's how it works.

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but this place actually used to have more intelligent "Atheists" or non-believers. Clearly, they've moved on. I only read the first page of this thread but quickly realized it wasn't worth the time to read 3 more pages so yours was the post I chose to respond to.

 

[jscott78]

If you get cancer, God wanted you to have it so why would you go to a doctor for treatment? Serious question.

Because at heart they do not believe prayer works. They lack faith. Religion to them is just a hedge.

 

[longliveCS40]

Some people think that God sits at some gigantic switchboard, controlling every minute aspect of the universe. I don't think that's how it works.

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but this place actually used to have more intelligent "Atheists" or non-believers. Clearly, they've moved on. I only read the first page of this thread but quickly realized it wasn't worth the time to read 3 more pages so yours was the post I chose to respond to.

You should read the rest. It gets better and I stop being as much of a pot stirring asshole. Natural does a good job of providing some pretty good points and questions. You should read and reply if you want.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Sorry to be so late to join such a fun thread.

Needless to say, many Christians have believed that people deserved their illnesses and injuries for much of history. Some still think that way.

You deserve what you get.

God has his reasons.

Those sorts of comments abound in the 21st century. So it's still out there.

In sum, it was a fair - albeit mocking - question.

Welcome aboard. Yes, maybe a good question FOR THOSE PEOPLE, but obviously not the vast majority of Christians.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Because at heart they do not believe prayer works. They lack faith. Religion to them is just a hedge.

Are people who meditate, exercise, etc. lying idiots too?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Thanks for the conversation. I thought you acquitted yourself well. I really like this idea you brought up that a supergod can't be judged because he is not limited. It made me think. What came to mind was that morality is inherently about limits. Its about setting boundaries and not respecting compete licence to do anything. So to be a moral being, God must have limits. If God has no limits, it can't be moral. And if the judge of all of us can't be moral, it can't judge morality in others. So we have yet another problem with the supergod construct.

All this gets solved if we just imagine a God that is more biblical. In the Bible god has limits. He has to send messengers to bring news and gather intel. Prayer to a supergod seems weird because that sort of God already knows what you want and how he will rule before you are even born. Prayer to a biblical God makes sense because he can be bartered with and persuaded. The biblical God makes errors and even apologizes for them. A God like the Bible actually supports answers all these problems, but he is no longer super. The biblical God had limits. Which means there are some forces in the universe that are beyond that biblical God. I suspect this is the logic problem the supergod was invented to address, but it brings a host of other problems.

Why would you ever think a God must be moral? Why do you work so hard to give it human attributes?

 

[Vroom_C14]

Because we believe they will fix us?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Some people think that God sits at some gigantic switchboard, controlling every minute aspect of the universe. I don't think that's how it works.

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but this place actually used to have more intelligent "Atheists" or non-believers. Clearly, they've moved on. I only read the first page of this thread but quickly realized it wasn't worth the time to read 3 more pages so yours was the post I chose to respond to.

Well . . . I wish you had actually responded to it..

 

[naturalmwa]

Why would you ever think a God must be moral? Why do you work so hard to give it human attributes?

Several reasons we could explore. First because morality appears to be a primary concern of most God concepts. I would expect a god to posses the quality the desire and judge by. In some older God concepts the God is a warrior and judges according to courage and strength, so I think it logical that a god should be the ideal of what it is seeking in us. Morality also is a major component the goodness of a being and goodness is a big attribute of most gods. I could probably envision more. Why wouldn't I expect a god to have attributes in common with the thing he supposedly made in its image. But if religion was right you have it backwards. What you are calling human attributes are actually divine attributes that humans share with their creator. It's also wrong to think its me giving god these qualities. This is how I understand religions to represent God.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Several reasons we could explore. First because morality appears to be a primary concern of most God concepts. I would expect a god to posses the quality the desire and judge by. In some older God concepts the God is a warrior and judges according to courage and strength, so I think it logical that a god should be the ideal of what it is seeking in us. Morality also is a major component the goodness of a being and goodness is a big attribute of most gods. I could probably envision more. Why wouldn't I expect a god to have attributes in common with the thing he supposedly made in its image. But if religion was right you have it backwards. What you are calling human attributes are actually divine attributes that humans share with their creator. It's also wrong to think its me giving god these qualities. This is how I understand religions to represent God.

Seems you are taking the approach that the actual characteristics of a god must come from humans, I don't see why that is necessary.

You are defining what "goodness" must mean. Why not think this god to be more like Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen, where the totality of creation is considered and morality is seen within that concept as opposed to the perspective of humans.

We believe killing to be immoral, right? Therefore if a god were to kill he would be immoral? Isn't that a simplistic description of your view? But even the "good"-est of us kills and does so on a regular basis, just not usually humans. Why must humans be so conceited to demand that humans are more important to a supreme being than an ant.

Now the obvious question from longlive is whether that proves believers are foolish idiots. That is just a simplistic and pointless path to take; of course humans will believe their faith revolves around and corresponds to them, we are selfish and emotional creatures. But that doesn't disprove religion.