Ask Miranda a theological question!

[miranda2]

Since the other thread is getting long, I thought I'd start another in case anyone was still interested. (Am I mad??....) Won't be offended if no-one posts!!

Rhubarb, that's the problem with the whole heaven concept. It is used time and time again by christian leaders as an excuse for why suffering is ok, and that in fact it doesn't matter how crap this life is you get another and you must not blame God . i.e. 'suffer the little children unto me'. 'the meak shall inherit the earth' etc.

Isn't this a cop out?

No-one can explain suffering Lil. I don't like the Christian concept of the Adam and Eve story to explain all our sufferings, such as childbirth. I just take it as part of being alive. To be fair, God did send down his only son to be tortured and then crucified, so he has a fair idea of what we go through. His mother also suffered on seeing her son die in that way. But you have to remember that the majority of suffering on this earth is man made and can be prevented - by man. It does not take God or a miracle to cure the world of starvation - it takes world leaders, man, to solve that one. We could so easily rectify many of our own problems, but we don't.

Thanks Rhubarb!

Exactly Lil. Would any faith be popular if it said there is a god, but no after life? I think most people are generally good anyway because it feels good, there is a buzz from helping someone.

like it, rhubarb, well done!

rhubarb, btw, when you talk about your faith now, is that still catholic? hope you don't mind me asking.

Aha Tinker! That's where grace and humility come into it and has long been the subject of many conversations between myself and Jehovah's Witnesses who are always papping on about this wonderful life they will have after death based on the good things they have done.

God knows why we do things, he knows what is in man's hearts and that is what Revelations say we shall be judged on, what is in our hearts. Jesus also reminded us of this, but I forget where exactly.

Bossykate, yes I am still a Catholic. I find it hard to explain why really. I know that if I didn't go to Church on Sunday I wouldn't do anything, so going to Church encourages me to pray and think about God. I choose the Catholic faith because it is the one that closely resembles my own. I was brought up a Catholic, but went through a period of non-belief in my early twenties. I stopped praying, stopped going to Church, etc. But I returned to the faith when I was confronted with people around me who filled me with kindness, whose love of God was an inspiration to me, and because of certain personal experiences I had. I believe in transubstantiation (the changing of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood) and I believe in the Trinity, so the Catholic faith seemed the right one for me. I don't agree with everything they say, but they do allow me to air my views, I can debate religion with them whenever I like, so I don't feel pressurised into being 'one of them'.

I probably haven't explained that very well have I? I also like the fact that it's one of the oldest religions, not a new one made up for man's convenience. And it doesn't bow down to pressure, it remains a religion for God, not for man.

Oh gosh...
Dadslib - I don't buy your science; something not existing in the known universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I like science, get a real buzz from reading New Scientist each week - but the sort of argument you are coming up with is just your personal opinion dressed up in technicalities. Many, many scientists are religious, and interestingly people often find that when they delve into science (or philosophy ) they get more, not less interested in religion. Bill Bryson has just written a beginners guide to science, and he says it has made him much more open/humble. And even Hawking is now saying we probably can never know 'the mind of God', can't come up with a theory of everything (ie that that is probably a theoretical impossibility).
Having said all that, if you rewrite your question so it is less aggressive then I will agree - that is, not 'why can't I accept there isn't a god' but 'why can't I accept there might not be a god' - well yes, I accept that. I might be wrong. In fact, being philosophical about it, I am certain to be wrong, that is the one thing I am sure about! - that is it is infinitesimally unlikely that my view of life is entirely correct, and it is theoretically impossible for my finite mind to fully understand the infinite. Taking up your science paradigm, I could maybe express it by saying that faith is my working hypothesis, to date it fits the available evidence best (I'm including in that evidence my personal experiences and the fact that most people in history have had a faith in something beyond this world - beware of chronologcial snobbery!). I quite accept that other people have a different data set and so other hyptotheses. I think it is importatn that we all continue to question and test our respective hypotheses, because the truth matters.

Lil, I always thought that 'Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me' meant that the disciples had to put up with the kids not that the kids had to suffer.

I have not been to church since my best friend died, my son became ill, and my partner left. I just don,t see the bloody point anymore.

nerdgirl and lil, the often quoted ' suffer the little children ' etc makes a lot more sense in 'modern English' bibles. Mine says :
' Let the little children come to me. Don't stop them, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to people who are like these children.'
It doesn't mean ' suffer ' in the sense of ' pain and suffering '.

Thanks Nursie. Must get myself a new bible!

Message withdrawn

Dadslib - just because you think these finer points of the Bible are unimportant does not mean to say that everyone else should too. Respect means listening to other peoples views no matter how pointless you yourself might think them to be.

I enjoy answering questions on points of the Bible, I would think it quite rude to tell everyone to get a life and see the bigger picture. Christianity is for everyone, not just you. If you like the common sense approach as you call it, that's fine, but other people like to debate on issues the Bible throws up. Jesus put a lot of importance on these scriptures, and as a Christian I feel that they are still relevant today. Obviously you have to take into context that they are over 2000 years old, but the fact that people still debate over them shows just how important they still are.

If you find Catholic Churches boring, why not attend an evangelical one?, that might be more up your street. Personally I find the chants very meditative and relaxing.

dadslib- had to go right back to the beginning of the other thread to find this..."don't let anyone tell you that Christianity is a moral code, that is such a distortion of the truth."- miranda again! You're missing the point, I'm afraid, Christianity is all about Christ, whether you like it or not! And I'm a wishy washy liberal, not a believer in the bible as fact! Of course there is a moral code, all religions have a moral code, and they are remarkably similar.

As for the ritual of Church services- it is what makes people feel comfortable in Church- if you'd been brought up with it, you wouldn't mind it at all. I can see that it would be pointless to you, but the familiarity is important to a lot of people- what does your wife think about it? Incidentally, I would feel (have felt) seriously uncomfortable at an evangelical Church, that has little structure to the services, happy clappy music (I like hymns, I'm afraid), speaking in tongues and everyone hugging each other left right and centre. It's horses for courses, really. If you were religious you'd settle into whatever routine of worship suited you-don't please slag off the method of delivery of the message, it's not really designed to draw you in!

Whopper Tissy!

Dadslib, I thought this was a remarkably civilised and indeed rather intelligent conversation about the roots of religion, why people believe, analysis and investigation of the texts that belief is based on, all of which was interesting to those participating, even those who disagree so profoundly as say, Bloss & Miranda and myself. As for your question, who cares, well, clearly we do. I do feel marginally affronted by your assumption that our brand of debate is 'unreal' while your (male?) opinions are so much wiser. As a matter of fact, as I posted earlier, I believe that the notion of the pain of childbirth being a god-given curse has profound implications for women & attitudes to childbirth to this very day. I happen to find this interesting. Perhaps you don't because of your gender.

In other words, I'm agreeing with you Rhubarb, and we have diametrically opposed views on religion!

Hey we should pave the way for peace between us!

Bloss, Miranda, thanks for answering my questions. It really helps to hear the same thing from two different Christian viewpoints. Tom, if you're about, I'd love to hear your answers, too.. it helps greatly in a discussion I'm having elsewhere. The questions being:
"what defines a sin" and "are there sins that, in God's eyes, are worse than others". (Not a wind-up, I promise.)

Dadslib, my husband and I (both non-churchgoers and not so religious types) had an argument about how to answer your question. He's a scientist who didn't finish grad school in philosophy and I'm a scientist who didn't finish grad school in science. So we're both failures, but manage to muddle through these debates anyhow. (I have found it best to debate when you know nothing about the subject. Nothing to hold you back from your opinion then!) Anyway, I'm curious why you chose that scientific route than the more obvious one?

Anyway, I was trying to think of someone to answer your post validly when I realized that a guy I used to work for was a strong Christian. His wife was a pastor and he wouldn't work on Sundays, that sort of thing. He is a senior professor in Astronomy/Astrophysics and directed the development of the Apache Point Observatory. He studies galaxy formation and the origin of the elements of the periodic table. And while that's not your string theory/ super string theory/ supergravity theory/ universal theory of the moment, I'd be willing to bet he knows just a bit about all of them. And if he's willing to believe in God, I'm more than willing to believe that science does not prove the non-existence of god. No matter what your latest Popular Science or New Scientist (sorry Miranda, they did report the whole cold fusion thing) might say.

The Skeptics Bible

This is quite entertaining