I think believing in a god makes little sense, but on the other hand believing in nothing makes no sense either.

Whatever your belief or point of view is, you are always left with the question 'why?'

This is too deep for me of a morning 

Not sure that a belief in God can be defined as rational or irrational. 

Faith is "a belief that does not rest on material evidence or logical proof". For those who believe, no proof is required and for those those who don't believe, no proof is ever enough.

No offence to Col, but this made me laugh when i opened up the forum this morning.... We've had lots of political threads recently and now we have religion too *goes off to hide*

This has my vote for Post Of The Year, and it's only May!

 

I saw that very programme on Sunday as it was broadcast.

 

As ever with these debates I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer and as such no winner.

 

 

 

^ what yogi said covers it for me, I couldn't have put it better myself

  Well put Yogi

Thats what I'd like to have said... if I had the IQ 

 

Well said Yogi.  For my God is the centre of my life.  I have lived through severe illness and years and years of illness in my darling husband's life.  We could not have hoped to make it through without the strength that faith in God gave us both.  He has gone to be with his Lord now and one day I will join him.  That is all I know and it is enough for me. 

 

 Don't be fooled by my one semi-sensible post in almost seven years.

 

I know  ..............................that was one very profound and sensible post - I was quite blown away.

 

It's a great answer to a tricky question. Quite where I am on the spectrum I find difficult to put into words. My head tells me one thing my heart another.

 

I guess I don't want to put all my eggs in one basket.

Isn't this pretty?

 

 

 

 

I have a friend like that, as boys I used to call him a "Just in-caser"!

 

 

I have no problems with a belief in God.
The fascinating political slant consists of many people who assume that they are nearer to God than you are. That's where the potential trouble lies. Social Control, violence, and threats to others.
So, as Frank said, if you want to be with God then go direct.

I'm off back in the garden now.

I've been raised Catholic and to some extent I do believe in 'something' but I'm not sure what.  There's no proof that God does OR doesn't exist but there have been times over the years when I've questioned whether or not there is a God if he lets the cruellest of things happen to the most innocent of people.  Then the disgusting sexual abuse by Catholic priests (among others) and the physical and mental abuse the Catholic nuns have inflicted over the years makes me question a religion that hides these kinds of things and doesn't stand up for those who need it most.  Who are they to send the message that God exists and we should obey him when they aren't too keen on obeying anything themselves??

 

I believe in something, just not exactly when the Catholic church tells me to.  I have very little faith in them now.

 

 

I watched some of it but it ran as that program usually runs - and I got bored after a while.  For my part, I don't think it is 'rational' to believe in god, and if it were then it wouldn't be a 'faith'.  It can't be rational to believe in supernatural events, therefore it requires 'faith'. 

 

For example, I don't need faith to believe in coffee, as I've got a cup of it in front of me.  It's far more rational to believe in coffee, than not to believe in coffee.  God less so. 

 

Why would it be any more rational to believe in a god than lots of gods?  Many people who count themselves as Christians don't believe in the Devil.  Yet the devil's clearly a character that the Bible claims exists and of considerably supernatural power too - like God.  So are there really two gods in the Bible? 

 

Either way, they both require a leap of faith. 

 

 

You are quite right Carnelian.  To believe does require a leap of faith.  Satan certainly exists, the bible explains that he was Lucifer, the brightest and most beautiful of the angels who didn't see why God should be worshipped and not him so he tried to usurp God.

I tend to think that if you have a god who is prepared to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for looking backwards, it rather blots God's rep as being loving, compassionate and negates the need for a devil.

 

Something for the theologians to ponder.

You have misunderstood the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I don't believe in God or any God for many, many reasons. I don't knock people who do believe and I expect the same respect back. 

As it should be .

Are you on the turn ?

and me I just thought you might be popping into John Paul's for  mass 

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is vile on many, many levels.  Lot offers up his daughters to be gang raped in place of the angels he's protecting but it his wife gets turned into a pillar of salt for the 'disobedience' of looking backward when instructed not to.  I don't know what morals we're supposed to draw from that. 

 

Disobeying the patriarch is a mortal sin, but daughters are the patriarch's property to sacrifice at will. 

 

A vile and offensive 'morality tale'

 

I completely respect your belief, but this particular bible bit always made me wonder where all this happened. Where was God and his angels? No catholic priest has ever been able to answer this and many more questions.

What would happen to me if I was the member of a tribe in the middle of some place in South America that hasn't been discovered yet and have never heard of the bible, the koran or any other religious preaching? Would your God smite me and leave me to an eternity in hell?

 

I much rather lead a life that treats ppl well, adhere to a moral compass and leave the world biodegradable in a humanist coffin and funeral.

That's exactly why I don't understand why ppl treasure the bible and it's teachings. What about the 'tower of babel'. They all spoke the same language (if you can believe that), but God didn't like that and gave them all a different language to confuse and scatter them.

I think the answer lies in the area of cherry picking. Agents of social control pick the bits (of any of the books) that support their unusual ideas and ignore the other large percentage.
I'm not a big fan of the books but as a religion-lite, low church, C of E, ex choir boy, and campanologist, am quite happy that people enjoy coming together and find comfort in their worship.
One's partner, as a heavy German order, convent educated, guilt ridden, escaped catholic, victim, can only be described as bitter.

I think that's where I stand. I don't agonise over it - I was 'educated' in all the bible stories etc at school and Sunday school and the like. As an adult - I don't take it all at face value and have my doubts but if people can live in peace and harmony and get comfort from having a belief - that's a good thing isn't it?

More rational than ?

That's me. but I'm not bitter. I've talked to a lot of Dominicans and Jesuits in my life and I've never had a satisfactory answer other than 'that's where belief comes in' and I always felt it was a cop out by the person who answered my questions.  

Can I just add, I don't want to take away from ppl's belief, I'm just questioning it after listening to the debate.

Try and enter into the spirit of a discussion Renton. If not, bugger off to another thread.

 i think i'll go where i please

yes, but it's part of Biblical canon for a specific reason.  There is a lot of scripture that was excluded from Biblical canon and denounced as heresy.  The reason Sodom and Gomorrah is biblical canon is that those who compiled the OT, wanted virtue to be seen as putting God before all and for daughters and wife to be regarded as totally subservient to the patriarch. God > Patriarch (the channel for God's will) > wife > daughters.  It also wanted homosexuality to be seen as a sin against god and to be a sin worthy of God's wrath.  Additionally, the wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she didn't do as she was told by Lot, who was a confident of God.  Therefore the wilful, disobedient female is punished for her wayward behaviour of not doing as she's told by her husband.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was a valid question col. I wonder if you would tell others to " bugger off" if they had posed the same one.

Please - no arguments because of my post

 

I just wondered if there was something else Cologne believed in.

I too thought it was a reasonable question and not intended to inflame

Theres nothing about religion that can be called "rational"

 

Why is it that when people survive natural disasters or get saved by the emergency services they say "god saved me" and "god" gets the credit for those who survive or any good that comes out of these tragic events, but god never gets the blame for the disaster happening in the first place....that's a great deal if you can get it, get the credit for all the good things but never gets any blame for the bad things.