![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 77. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:50
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83 » alexandra_k, posted by Michael83 on September 28, 2006, at 0:49:37
> if there is contradictory, bad, false, unbelievable, or unreasonable information...
maybe that comes of taking the bible literally instead of metaphorically?
> How can a perfect God create an unjust system/religion?
maybe he just let the translators corrupt it...
but then you get the problem of evil.
i think the problem of evil if fatal. i think the problem of evil shows that it is not logically possible that god (an all loving, all knowing, all powerful agent) exists, hence it is not actual that god exists (hence god does not exist)
but there have been numerous theodicies (defences) of that conception of god in the face of the problem of evil...
apparantly philosophers (who study such things) are split down the middle regarding the existence of omni-god. so... who knows.
i just... find that notion of god doesn't help me understand, explain, or find meaning that i can't get from alternative explanations. and so... i have no use for the concept of god.
but it is an individual decision, i guess...
Posted by rayww on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:54
In reply to Having panic/anxiety attack again, ADVICE? HELP?, posted by Michael83 on September 19, 2006, at 21:58:06
When you feel confusion about religion and your mind becomes darkened it means that you should keep searching. Religion should bring peace to your soul, and should not make you feel like justifying by fighting against another. Those are all on the dark side of religion. There is a bright side to religion. Pray, seek, trust till you get on the right track.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2006, at 23:03:59
In reply to Re: Having panic/anxiety....and it's one thing... » Phillipa, posted by Michael83 on September 19, 2006, at 23:07:48
Michael83,
You wrote,[...I do not believe in heaven, Jesus, the bible, miracles, an afterlife, or anything like that....To believe in any of those things is impossible...].
I ask;
A. By what authority do you use to write that it is impossible to believe in any of the things that you mentioned to be impossible?
B. If it is impossible, as you write, to believe those things, could it be possible, in your opinion, that there could be things unbeknowing to you that could make it possible to believe those things?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2006, at 23:04:02
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Michael83's post, posted by Michael83 on September 26, 2006, at 0:09:45
Michael83,
You wrote,[...The Christian relgion..does not add up....Not a bit...].
I ask;
A. What is your definition of the phrase,{add up}?
B. In your use of {not a bit}, are you saying that there is not {any} part of the Christian religion that {adds up}?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2006, at 23:04:08
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83 » Declan, posted by Michael83 on September 28, 2006, at 0:40:35
Michael83,
you wrote,[...(people that I know who are Christian) those that teach the {fire and brimstone} version are teaching a ..irresponsible version....the least intelligent, most bigoted, and arrogant believed in the irrisponsible version.
Could you clarify if:
A. you can identify people that you do not know that are Christian to be the least intelligent by asking them if they teach or believe the fire and brimstone version?
B. If that is the case, then could you identify someone that you do not know, that are not Christian, to be either intelligent or not by asking them their perspective on the fire and brimstone version?
C. Could you tell if someone is intelligent or not, if they are not a Christian and you do not know them, by asking them if they accept the perspective of the fire and brimstone version?
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 23:30:32
In reply to Re: I feel better now... Michael83 » Declan, posted by Michael83 on September 28, 2006, at 0:40:35
> those who teach the "fire and brimstone" version are teaching a very irresponsible version. Deep down, I think those people ... cannot conjure up the courage to believe in a more reasonable version of Christianity.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Here on Social, you don't need to support religious faith, but it's still important to be civil.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 30, 2006, at 10:25:52
In reply to Redirected to Faith board, posted by gardenergirl on September 28, 2006, at 8:47:47
oops.
the conversation diverged rather...
seeing as it wasn't on the faith board and all i posted some stuff that i wouldn't have posted on the faith board (seeing as atheism and agnosticism and even flying spaghetti monster and virus is probably considered unsupportive of religious faith)though... flying spahetti monster is probably ok?
Posted by gardenergirl on September 30, 2006, at 12:02:07
In reply to Re: Redirected to Faith board, posted by alexandra_k on September 28, 2006, at 21:19:26
> oops.
>
> the conversation diverged rather...
> seeing as it wasn't on the faith board and all i posted some stuff that i wouldn't have posted on the faith board (seeing as atheism and agnosticism and even flying spaghetti monster and virus is probably considered unsupportive of religious faith)
>
> though... flying spahetti monster is probably ok?If there's any problem with your post because I moved it, I take full responsibility. I admit I didn't read each post again before moving the thread.
gg
Posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:02:26
In reply to Lou's request for clarification to Michael83.. » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2006, at 11:26:53
A. I believe it is impossible to "believe" in something if you have no evidence to base that belief on. "God" is impossible for us to understand, so I think it's incorrect to say we know the nature of the ruler of the universe.
I just think the best we can do is "hope" for a God. If your way of believing is to "hope" then I understand and agree 100%. I too hope for a loving God.
B. Yes, and I use the word "hope" to describe the things I suspect, but have no proof to base my suspicions on.
I'm only saying we should describe our belief in God as a "hope" rather than a "belief."
But if you truly "believe" that's fine. I'm not pointing any fingers. I could be wrong.
Posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:06:07
In reply to Lou's request for clarificatio to Michael83's post » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2006, at 12:04:31
I'm trying to reply to your post as best I can without it looking like I'm blaming anyone, as Bob would like. I don't want to break the rules, so I'll describe it the best I can.
A. I do not believe that God created human beings uninvited, gave them an illogical belief system, and will punish them for simply following their logic. I do not believe that God would create faulty human beings and then blame them for their mistakes (which he created). There are just too many holes in a belief system like that.
B. Well no, a lot of it is good advice. I was just emphasizing how confused I am with it.
Posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:10:03
In reply to Lou's request for clarification from Michael83 » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on September 28, 2006, at 13:43:38
For your 3rd reply, I cannot answer those questions on here. I have my opinions, but I still respect everyone's belief. Some people just believe what makes them happy, and I guess the thing I've asked the most is "what's wrong with that?" I do the same as them, believe in what makes me happy.
Posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:11:35
In reply to Re: please be civil » Michael83, posted by Dr. Bob on September 29, 2006, at 23:30:32
I'm sorry Bob, I'll try to be more careful about what I say. I didn't mean to make it look like I'm pointing fingers. I just felt threatened by people who claim I'm going to burn in hell.
But I will try to be more careful about what I say, I understand completely.
Thanks.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2006, at 8:12:40
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification to Michael83.. » Lou Pilder, posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:02:26
Michael83,
You wrote,[...it's {incorrect} to say (we know [the nature] of the ruler of the universe)....we should describe our belief in God as "hope" rather than "belief"...].
A.Are you saying that those that say that they know in their heart that God is love, are incorrect to say that they know that the nature of God is love?
B.Are you saying that those that describe that they believe in their heart that God is love, and they say that they have experianced the Love of God, {should} really be saying that they hope that God is love instead of that they believe in their heart that and that those that say that they believe are {incorrect}?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2006, at 8:38:00
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarificatio to Michael83's, posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:06:07
Michael83,
You wrote,[...I do not believe that (God) gave {them} an illogical belief system...there are too many holes in a belief system like that...]]
A. Are you saying that the Jews and others that believe that they are recipiants of a belief system that they say that God gave them, is an illogical system, so thearfore , according to you, the Jews and others that believe that they are recipiants of a system given to them by God are beliveing something that is not true, because you say that it is {illogical}?
B. in your statement,[...there are too many holes in a belief system like that...],could it not be that what you think are {holes in the beliefe system} could possibly be explained with things that may be unbeknowing to you so that if you knew those things the holes might not be there?
Lou
Posted by SLS on October 1, 2006, at 8:46:20
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification to Michael83.. » Lou Pilder, posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:02:26
> A. I believe it is impossible to "believe" in something if you have no evidence to base that belief on.
Wait. Wait. Wait.
People come to believe things in many different ways. Sometimes they need no evidence other than the word of someone they have come to trust. That is called faith.
That someone comes to believe is sufficient to make belief possible without the type of evidence you would deem necessary for yourself. I guess we all have our own standards for what we need to have in order to believe. I believe in God. That we exist is enough evidence for me. See. It is possible to believe without the type of evidence that you obviously feel is necessary for you to believe for yourself. That I believe proves that belief is possible without evidence, unless, of course, you consider mere existence evidence. If you believe that what I believe to be evidence is indeed a type of evidence, and you agree that we do exist, then perhaps you might then believe in God afterall.
Uncertainty allows for belief without evidence. It is impossible to believe otherwise.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 1, 2006, at 9:12:02
In reply to for clarification » Michael83, posted by SLS on October 1, 2006, at 8:46:20
> Uncertainty allows for belief without evidence.
Where do I get this crap from?
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2006, at 12:56:15
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarificatio to Michael83's, posted by Michael83 on October 1, 2006, at 0:06:07
> I'm trying to reply to your post as best I can without it looking like I'm blaming anyone, as Bob would like. I don't want to break the rules, so I'll describe it the best I can.
Thanks for being flexible and trying.
> There are just too many holes in a belief system like that.
But the above could still lead others to feel accused or put down. Maybe try talking about yourself rather than others, for example, instead of the above, something like:
> I just find it hard to adopt a belief system like that.
Do you see the difference?
Bob
Posted by Michael83 on October 2, 2006, at 1:33:14
In reply to Re: trying as best I can » Michael83, posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2006, at 12:56:15
I understand completely. I will remember that, I promise. I really really don't want to make anyone feel bad and I try to remember than when I post.
Thanks.
Posted by Michael83 on October 2, 2006, at 1:40:01
In reply to Lou's reply to Michael83's reply to Lou.. » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2006, at 8:12:40
>>>>Are you saying that those that say that they know in their heart that God is love, are incorrect to say that they know that the nature of God is love?<<<<
Lou, I'm not a physiologist or psychologist like Dr Bob, but I do know that "love" is a chemical reaction in your brain. I think you know that too. But that doesn't mean love is unimportant. It's important to us because it's the fuel for our emotions, which give us the diverse personalities we were fortunate enough to have.
But I don't think God has a "brain" like us because he is not flesh and blood, so I'm not sure how to answer your question.
Posted by Michael83 on October 2, 2006, at 2:05:46
In reply to Lou's reply to Michael83's reply to Lou-B » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on October 1, 2006, at 8:38:00
Response to: >>>>You wrote,[...I do not believe that (God) gave {them} an illogical belief system...there are too many holes in a belief system like that...]]<<<<<<<
A. I'm not here to say something is or isn't right or wrong.
I'm only saying it doesn't make sense to me, to the point where (at least in my mind), it makes absolutely 100% no sense. Others may think different.
B. In my mind, just from my understanding, the things I am confused with makes such a belief system an absolute cop-out. In my mind, others may think differently.
Could there be things that are unbeknowing to me you ask? That's not the nature of my confusion.
My confusion lies in the question, "How am I supposed to know what is and isn't right if I'm unable to get all the answers?" How am I supposed to know what's unbeknown to me?
My question is:
If I have different 10 people...
telling me 10 different belief systems...
all of them saying that they're right...
all 10 belief systems unable to prove absolutely that they're correct (no religion has proven they're correct 100%, I think everyone can agree on that)...
and all 10 beliefs telling me to believe based on "faith"...
and all 10 beliefs saying I will be punished if I'm wrong...How am I supposed to know who to believe?
How is that "just", if all 10 beliefs require me to believe on "faith", yet they are competing in a competitive market with other beliefs saying the same thing, yet none of them offering any amount of proof?
So really the logic ends there. Forget what I "don't know," it doesn't matter. It's not what I "don't know," it's "why should I be expected to knwo those things"? See my point?
Think about that.
And then I "could" go deeper (although I won't) about how human error (implying I could (or anyone really) get led into the wrong things, no one has perfect logic, not even me :p) and other common faults of the human mind play into this and how it all relates to the "justice" behind it.
I'd really be interested to hear your response to this.
NOTE: If this post went to far for anyone, I am very sorry. The whole point behind it is that no one should be blamed for what they believe in, because none of us are perfect. That's the whole point to all my questions. My point was meant to defend those who do believe by saying they shouldn't be blamed for believing what makes them happy or what makese sense to them. So don't feel like I'm blaming, no, I'm defending. I really defending diversity of opinion.
Posted by Michael83 on October 2, 2006, at 2:29:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply....(Lou this is root of my point) » Lou Pilder, posted by Michael83 on October 2, 2006, at 2:05:46
There is one phrase, one thing that Jesus said, that was ignored by the apostles, ignored by most ancient and modern Christian churches, but makes the MOST sense of all the Bible. The one phrase that basically saves Christianity and the logic behind it.
In Luke 23:34, Jesus said while on the cross, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
That one phrase has helped me in a lot of sleepless nights when trying to overcome the fear that I was going to go to hell. Although I do not believe, I have an incredible amount of respect for Jesus because of what he said.
He (Jesus) forgave the people crucifying and insulting him (without them asking for it), because he understood that they did not know who he really was. It technically wasn't there fault, they were ignorant.
Then this contradicts the "belief in Jesus is the only way to heaven story," which is the most popular form of Christianity.
Luke 23:34 basically implies "universal salvation." Because humans are not perfect and no religion offers 100% proof, so who is to blame those who don't believe?
The thing I wonder the most is why wasn't this included in modern (or even ancient, or any popularized Christianity at anytime) Christianity?
That one phrase saves the entire religion, but it seems to be ignored all too often.
I can honestly say 100%, if most churchs had believed and taught the truth of this phrase, and led it to imply universal salvation, I would not be suffering like I am today or like I have for the past 5 years.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 2, 2006, at 7:43:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Michael83's reply to Lou.. » Lou Pilder, posted by Michael83 on October 2, 2006, at 1:40:01
Michael83,
You wrote,[...he (God) is not flesh and blood...].
Could you clarify the following?
By what authority do you use to write that God {is not} flesh and blood?
Lou
Posted by Michael83 on October 3, 2006, at 1:03:03
In reply to Lou's request for c to Michael83 » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on October 2, 2006, at 7:43:15
Lou come on, now you're just blurring the line between black and white and creating a grey area where anything goes.
I don't think that too many people believe that God is flesh and blood.
I mean if we believe that, the way to believe that God is flesh and blood is to accept by "faith," then that leaves us susceptible to believing practically anything. We could be vulnerable to believing anything anyone comes up and tells us to accept by "blind faith" without using our logic.
I'm still questioning whether or not you understand my whole point about the justice behind forcing faulty humans to believe in something that may not make complete sense to everyone.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2006, at 6:26:48
In reply to Re: Lou's request for c to Michael83 » Lou Pilder, posted by Michael83 on October 3, 2006, at 1:03:03
Michael83,
You wrote,[...you're..blurring the line...and creating a grey area...]
It is not my intention to {blurr the line} or to {create} a grey area.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2006, at 6:43:20
In reply to Re: Lou's request for c to Michael83 » Lou Pilder, posted by Michael83 on October 3, 2006, at 1:03:03
Michael83,
You wrote,[...if we believe that, (that God is flesh and blood)...then that leaves us..to believe ..anything....{>without< using..logic}...].
Well, are you saying that there is a system of logic that says that God {can not} be flesh and bone?
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.