Elimination of "evil" and "suffering" the ultimate goal?

[Sonny]

There was a reason for Job's sufferings. His attitude pushed God out of his life. When God is absent bad things happen.

[Sonny]

Adam sold out. He brought in a new leader into power. Paul calls him "the lord of this world". His principle is seen everywhere in this world.

[Dr. Shane]

Referring to "self" as a god and "reason" as being "holy scripture" is not a metaphor and I certainly cannot claim credit for it. This is spoken about the world over in the rooms of 12-Step groups. The reason so many people suffer from addictions - be them gambling, sex, co-dependency or drugs - is because they have removed God from the center of their lives and replaced Him with self. One need not be an atheist or agnostic to do that.

The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy provide us an explanation for the reason evil exists and the plan for its eventual elimination. Some people reject that explanation because in their minds, it doesn't make sense. Of course, they are guilty of trusting in their own mind more than in the Word of God. That is a fine example of making "reason" one's holy scripture. God says one thing and it is rejected because: 'that doesn't make sense.' Basically, such a person is claiming to be smarter than the God of the Bible. What can one do but tip their hat to such a person and say, "Good luck with that"?

[Overaged]

It certainly is not a metaphor and I fully addressed your point about religious people who use reason too.

The point I made in my last post was that reason is not always out of place, or "wrong." Reason is out of place when it is held up as a person's God...and reason in this form takes many different guises. As Shane said, when reason is God, one does not have to be atheist or agnostic.

[fccool]

Shane does not make any sense, because he is using his personal reason to deduce his correctness. So, what's he is saying is ... unless you by your personal reason come about the idea the Bible (not Quoran, and not Book of Mormon) is correct, then your reason is your own holy scriptures .

Terrible argument (because it's contradicts itself)

[Sonny]

So your reasoning is superior?

[Overaged]

Shane is making perfect sense; you are simply in disagreement with him. Doesn't mean he isn't making sense. As I covered already; and you have not been able to counter, reason is used under many different circumstances, not all of them wrong. In fact there is only one main reason that reason is not reasonable. I'll let you re-read my last few posts instead of repeating.

[Dr. Shane]

Religion, to a certain degree, requires a leap of faith. Reason, to some degree, leads a person to embrace some sort of religion be it Biblical Christianity, Papal or Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. However I don't think any religious person can point to 100% reason why they hold the religious beliefs they do. Part of it requires faith.

In evaluating the world's religions, as well as the option of non-belief, I decided that Biblical Christianity has the greatest probability of being true. Of course I can't prove the God of the Bible is true. I have to take it on faith. But when comparing Him with my other options, it appears He is most likely the True One.

OK. If that is where I am - accepting the Biblical God as the True One. Then I have to take the Bible as God's Word.

There are a number of Bible verses that teach us not to lean on our own understanding. Basically they teach us to lean on God's Word instead of our own thinking.

The Bible clearly teaches that we are not to rely on our own reason as a guiding philosophy for life. If I were to take a leap of faith to be a Muslim or a Buddhist, then I would be relying on some other spiritual guide (other than the Bible) as a guiding philosophy in life.

[fccool]

Overaged,

I'm not talking about relative understanding here. One person may understand the relative claims made by other... but it does not make them valid claims. I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by "wrong" or "invalid" reasoning. Evaluation of reason does not revolve around proof of claims, it revolves around the validity of the argument.

For example:

<They are guilty trusting their own mind than the Word of God>

The above argument is invalid. One has to trust their own mind in order to trust the Bible. The two are not mutually exclusive. In both cases people trust their own mind. So, the statement above is a logical inconsistency because it incorrectly paints people of faith as not relying on their minds.

Likewise <lean not on your own understanding> is as self contradictory as "this statement is false" word combination. In order to not rely on your own understanding you first must come to your own understanding of not doing so. Therefore, the statement <Bible clearly teaches that you must not rely on your own reason as philosophy of life> is likewise a self-contradictory statement. One of the ways that would be possible if people were robots and information simply freely flown into their brains in order to be executed without question or reason. But it is not so. People have to come by their own interpretation, which requires process of reason. Even the conclusion that they are going to dismiss the opposing evidence is argument out of reason, although it is a "invalid" argument if we logically examine it.

I hope you understand what I'm talking about when I'm discussing invalid arguments vs claims.

[fccool]

Sonny,

Superior reasoning does not rely on coming about the proof. It simply demands validity of argument.

[Overaged]

Well; I think you struggle unecessarily with semantics not based entirely upon reality, (as in validity of the argument dogma) but based upon the apriori of reasoning is better than faith; or some similar argument. You cannot seem to accept that "reasoning" has it's place; but not when it is misplaced, and made superior to all other forms of perception and practice thereof.

[cardw]

Shane,

The 12 step philosophy does not teach that addiction comes from removing god from the center of one's life. Atheists and agnostics, myself included, follow the principles of the 12 steps. Belief in god is not required. If god is mentioned it is the fact that I am not god. A higher power is needed but it doesn't have to be god. It can be one's sober community and friends among other very practical higher powers.

The cause of addiction according to the 12 steps is RID or Restless, Irritable, and Discontent. And RID is caused by resentment and fear.

When one does the steps, including an exhaustive moral inventory, one can be free from restless, irritable, and discontent. Other benefits are the reduction of shame, freedom from self centeredness, and an ability to face life with rigorous honesty.

I have seen too many "religious" 12 step groups stop as soon as somebody says that have god in their lives. They don't do the steps, because god is going to save them, and they continue to drink.

You do the steps, theist or atheist, and you will stop addictive behavior period. Don't pollute the 12 steps with god talk.

[Overaged]

The 12 step philosophy is adapatable to many different people and cultures and mindsets. I have seen lots of "religious" ones that do the opposite that you have said. Therefore, what does your post prove?

[Dr. Shane]

12 step programs do vary and I haven't belonged to all of them. I have belonged to two but am not free in this form of media to say which I have belonged to. Those that I have belonged to definitely teach that "self" is the addict's root cause and that until the addict gets self out of the picture and replaces self with God, they will not recover.

The idea of using a Higher Power is a bridge to get the addict to God. Alcoholics Anonymous is considered the grand-daddy or 12 Step programs. In its basic text on page 47 it says that when we get started our own conception of God is all we need to begin to grow spiritually the context of that comment is Step Two (the beginning of the process). Later, in the same book on page 87, it says that we should not hesitate to see where religious people are correct and use what they can give us. The context of that is Step Eleven regarding meditation and prayer. Step Eleven is considered a maintenance step - one the addict will continue working their entire lives.

I have attended atheist 12-Step groups and they reject the very premise of the 12-Steps: that self is the problem and God is the answer. They use the same short version of the 12 Steps but they redefine how the addict is actually to go about working the steps.

I have been involved in a 12 Step program for 25+ years and my involvement includes years of working in their service structure and being published, on three occasions, in their international journal. I know what I am talking about.

[cardw]

It is true that self-centeredness is part of the cause. This is recognized within the resentment and fear inventory. This doesn't mean that the higher power is the god of the Bible. It simply means that we have to be accountable to someone or something that demonstrates the power to choose better.

Higher power is a higher power. It is not a bridge to god since AA teaches religious or non-religious freedom.

I'm sorry the only requirement for AA is a desire to stop drinking.

Addiction doesn't respond to reason. That is not a condemnation of reason; it is basically a recognition that our deeper need of an emotional shift. Much of AA teaching appeals to reason that points to the total lack of success by using our reason alone. It is not an abandonment of reason.

It is essential to use reason for our moral inventory. This is part of the process that forces us to quit looking to ourselves for the solution. It is the faulty reasoning and denial of the addict that keeps an addict stuck in the cycle of addiction.

An atheist group that rejects the 12 steps is not a 12 step group. I know many successful recovered atheists. I have participated in 12 step processes for over 25 years and have helped many people find meaningful and fulfilling lives. And this includes believers and non-believers. It is the process, not the belief in god that proves to be the source of success. Too often the religious shortcuts of just believe and all will be well sabotage recovery. They provide a harbor for dishonesty and denial.

Religion is often a block to rigorous honesty because of its poor understanding of honesty and reasoning.

[Overaged]

It depends which religion you speak of cardw...the christian religion encourages honesty.

[fccool]

I have a question, answer to which I don't know. Instead of seeking the answer, I choose the answer than can't be disproved and makes best sense to me... and accept it by faith to keep my beliefs intact? Would you believe such approach to be honest?

For example, my prior beliefs dictate that Bible is infallible. There are no factual mistakes, neither there are contradictions or mixed up views. I'm presented with a contradiction, and in order to retain my first belief intact I assume the Biblical infallibility by faith, and then find other possible explanation for me to believe while at the same dismissing the one that would contradict infallibility. Do you find such approach to be intellectually honest?

[Overaged]

My; you are so anxiuos to make "the other side" somehow "dishonest?" I wonder how honest that is?

[Sonny]

Living one's life without God, hmmm? Can't be done. Your very own nature has you fooled! What does Paul basically state in the first chapter of Romans? Professing to be wise they became fools, or something like that. The unbeliever is a slave to his nature.

[cardw]

So Sonny are you professing to be wise?

[Sonny]

I am nothing without Christ....You are too! True wisdom comes from God. Get with God....

[cardw]

So are you saying that whatever you say is coming from god's wisdom within you?

[Sonny]

You keep twisting what I state. Why?

[Sonny]

Here's Paul, paraphrased:

Those, living without God, claim to be wise, yet they are in reality fools. (compare to Romans 1:22)

Where are those who claim to be wise? Where are the scholars? Where are the philosophers? .... The Jews demand miraculous signs and the Greeks demand wisdom, but we Christians preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks. (compare to 1 Cor 1:20-24)

[cardw]

Asking you a question is not twisting what you state. It is a process of clarification. It appears that you are twisting what I ask into a statement.

Just answer the question for clarification instead of implying things that aren't there.