Things that bring about some doubt

I have read numerous attacks at belief, they tend to attack the doctrines or beliefs one has in deity or a specific religion. I, as nearly all men of faith do, have doubts from time to time. When doubts arise for me, they arise in response to poor human behavior. I have doubts from time to time as to the idea that if there is a God, why doesn't he strike down various people when their behaviors are beyond reprehensible. Why was the woman that microwaved her baby not struck down? Why are parents that abuse their children not struck down? Why are those that commit crimes like these not struck down? The scene in the Bible that has Christ stating he who is without sin should cast the first stone comes to mind, but I think in these situations it should not be looked at in this manner. I realize this conflicts with the "love everyone" type concepts in my system of beliefs, but I am not perfect and have difficulty always loving everyone.

Enough of my soap box in this post. My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists? Regardless of claims that justify God not striking these people down, it does seem wrong to let them continue after acts such as these.

I only wish that people do what they say. If you are a part of a loving religion, then love is what you should show to people who hate you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I only wish that people do what they say. If you are a part of a loving religion, then love is what you should show to people who hate you.

You touch on one of the main reasons why people lose faith: "If there is such a loving God, why does He allow so much suffering in the world?"

Responses I've come across, one way or another...
1. Maybe it's time the Asker re-evaluate their idea of "God."
2. God is testing us.
3. "Why does He allow such suffering? We do we allow such suffering? After all, he gave us free choice." (this is George Burns' response to John Denver who asked this in "Oh, God"😉.

A 3-year-old runs after his ball which bounces into the street. You stop him, and he gets angry because he can't get his ball. He doesn't understand the world the way adults do.

Similarly, when Bad Things happen we get scared/depressed/angry, we doubt God's existence rather than perhaps realizing that we understand less of God's World than a 3-year-old understands the adult world.

Another line of thinking...
God's ultimate creation is a being which can actively choose not to believe in the existence of its creator. How cool is that? And to make things really interesting, He threw in suffering and death, and for all we humans know, Satan and Hell.
What? We don't 'get it'? That's a reflection of us, not of God, arrogant little dots of flesh that we are.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
--Voltaire.

Just some thoughts.

We think that suffering and death as something BIG, but it's not. Those things are temporary.

Originally posted by Regret
I have read numerous attacks at belief, they tend to attack the doctrines or beliefs one has in deity or a specific religion. I, as nearly all men of faith do, have doubts from time to time. When doubts arise for me, they arise in response to poor human behavior. I have doubts from time to time as to the idea that if there is a God, why doesn't he strike down various people when their behaviors are beyond reprehensible. Why was the woman that microwaved her baby not struck down? Why are parents that abuse their children not struck down? Why are those that commit crimes like these not struck down? The scene in the Bible that has Christ stating he who is without sin should cast the first stone comes to mind, but I think in these situations it should not be looked at in this manner. I realize this conflicts with the "love everyone" type concepts in my system of beliefs, but I am not perfect and have difficulty always loving everyone.

Enough of my soap box in this post. My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists? Regardless of claims that justify God not striking these people down, it does seem wrong to let them continue after acts such as these.

This is very simple and I am surprised you do not realise it.

it is because every time you try and point out an apparent moral flaw in a religion, that religion claims to have answers for it, such as the ones Debbiejo gives above, about sin, the need for suffering and evil being the fruit of man and not God etc.

Religion claims to have the answers to all doubts, so the only tactic those attacking it can use, without hitting such a simple brick wall, is to attack the validity of the religion itself. Cut through the crap and get to the point of the matter.

Originally posted by Regret
I have read numerous attacks at belief, they tend to attack the doctrines or beliefs one has in deity or a specific religion. I, as nearly all men of faith do, have doubts from time to time. When doubts arise for me, they arise in response to poor human behavior. I have doubts from time to time as to the idea that if there is a God, why doesn't he strike down various people when their behaviors are beyond reprehensible. Why was the woman that microwaved her baby not struck down? Why are parents that abuse their children not struck down? Why are those that commit crimes like these not struck down? The scene in the Bible that has Christ stating he who is without sin should cast the first stone comes to mind, but I think in these situations it should not be looked at in this manner. I realize this conflicts with the "love everyone" type concepts in my system of beliefs, but I am not perfect and have difficulty always loving everyone.

Enough of my soap box in this post. My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists? Regardless of claims that justify God not striking these people down, it does seem wrong to let them continue after acts such as these.

Honestly, religious beleifs would not be attacked if religion didn't have such a strong influence on politics and media.

When religious beleifs exist on a personal level, very few people bother to attack or critisize it. But when one's religious beliefs gains social power through politics or media, people who do not share those beleifs feel threatened.

They feel that thier lives, relationships, and dreams will be given a new obstacle with another's beleif taking dominance.

Religion wouldn't be attacked if the reasons it gives actually made sense.

Originally posted by Regret
I have read numerous attacks at belief, they tend to attack the doctrines or beliefs one has in deity or a specific religion. I, as nearly all men of faith do, have doubts from time to time. When doubts arise for me, they arise in response to poor human behavior. I have doubts from time to time as to the idea that if there is a God, why doesn't he strike down various people when their behaviors are beyond reprehensible. Why was the woman that microwaved her baby not struck down? Why are parents that abuse their children not struck down? Why are those that commit crimes like these not struck down? The scene in the Bible that has Christ stating he who is without sin should cast the first stone comes to mind, but I think in these situations it should not be looked at in this manner. I realize this conflicts with the "love everyone" type concepts in my system of beliefs, but I am not perfect and have difficulty always loving everyone.

Enough of my soap box in this post. My point is, when people attack religion why do they attack insignificant issues, such as evidence for the validity of the religion, when such a broad and easily attacked aspect exists? Regardless of claims that justify God not striking these people down, it does seem wrong to let them continue after acts such as these.

My personal belief as to the items that bring me doubt is that I don't know the answer. Following this, a study into all possible sources of information on the subject, including science, religion and philosophy. After a thorough search I then consider the implications of all pertinent information, understanding where the facts point. Then, with religious issues, and often with any issue, (especially given my beliefs) I pray over the conclusion I have reached. I then have exhausted the tools at my disposal and can honestly state what I believe to be the answer or state a simple "I don't know."

Doubt is never a bad thing unless the individual becomes complacent in their doubt, thus the doubt leading to stagnation rather than growth and expanded understanding.

It is us the ones that should do something to be free from suffering. It is up to us, not God.

It is not God who must stop all suffering in the world. Suffering is a consequence of our ignorance, and we have to learn how to be free from it thats why there shouldn´t be external help. If there is external help, then the merit is not yours and you didn´t evolve.

There is nothing external to you to help you. God is not external.

We wanted things to be this way too, we wanted free will.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Religion wouldn't be attacked if the reasons it gives actually made sense.

I disagree.

Philosophy isn't attacked anywhere as much as religion is, even though philosophy tends to end up creating more questions than answers.

Philosophy, however, is not infringing on people's personal lives or rights. Religion is....always has been.

That's why people attack it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I only wish that people do what they say. If you are a part of a loving religion, then love is what you should show to people who hate you.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It seems odd to me that people argue that God should stop all the evil. But when God 'smites' certain evil people (ie. Sodom) he gets called unloving and so on. This leaves only one option, infringing on free will, but most people do not want this. Therefore, they ask for solutions from God when they need to be the solution for themselves. God is not the problem. Mankind is.

Is killing someone the only way God can stop evil ? That's pretty pathetic and limitted for an all mighty God...

Reminds me of a comic book from DC/Vertigo entitled "The Spectre".

The Spectre will just sit and watch while evil is being done, but do nothing to prevent it. Once it already happened, he finds the perpetrator, tortures and kills him/her, and then declares justice.

He does NOT SAVE...he ONLY PUNISHES....

So is this how God is ? He will not interfere when a person aims to harm another person, just watch ? But once its already done, he THEN interferes by slaughtering the person who did the evil deed ?

They say there are two kinds of evil. Those who DO evil, and those who SEE EVIL being DONE and do NOTHING to prevent it.

Originally posted by Green Arrow
I do as I say, I have a religion of anger, of hate, only loving to those that deserve it. And I define those that deserve it.

That's pretty darn pathetic...

Originally posted by Green Arrow
I do as I say, I have a religion of anger, of hate, only loving to those that deserve it. And I define those that deserve it.

I am glad that you have stated truthfully. I respect that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am glad that you have stated truthfully. I respect that.

I don't...that's pathetic.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't...that's pathetic.

I think we made some progress. If they can see how much hate is in their religion, maybe they will change it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Is killing someone the only way God can stop evil ? That's pretty pathetic and limitted for an all mighty God...

Reminds me of a comic book from DC/Vertigo entitled "The Spectre".

[b]The Spectre will just sit and watch while evil is being done, but do nothing to prevent it. Once it already happened, he finds the perpetrator, tortures and kills him/her, and then declares justice.

He does NOT SAVE...he ONLY PUNISHES....

So is this how God is ? He will not interfere when a person aims to harm another person, just watch ? But once its already done, he THEN interferes by slaughtering the person who did the evil deed ?

They say there are two kinds of evil. Those who DO evil, and those who SEE EVIL being DONE and do NOTHING to prevent it. [/B]

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think we made some progress. If they can see how much hate is in their religion, maybe they will change it.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, you see, this argument doesn't work because God does save. However, certain people are so corrupt that they will not be saved. When God sees this corruption spreading he stamps it out. Killing was very justified at Sodom and Gomorrah. Not one good person was to be found in the cities, save Lot (and Lot wasn't all that good himself). Any other way would be infringing upon free will, something God does not do unless asked. However, Jesus is the new covenant, which is why I believe he no longer does this, kind of like the rainbow being the covenant of never destroying all mankind again.

Killing others simply because you don't agree with the way they live is not justified.