Do you believe in God

[Arjun Shastry]

If existance of god is not proved using modern science,why one should believe in God?and if you believe in god then why don't you believe in ghosts?On what basis people say "although there are many religions,there is only one god?"
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Ram Abdullah D'Souza ]

[Vivek Nidhi]

Great comment Man. Thing it Like we are yet to find some Device to spot the person like Good. Probably a Programming Language to interact with Him
regs
Vivek Nidhi

[Max Habibi]

I'm under the impression that many people believe in God based on personal experience, which is, by it's nature, subjective.
For example, you might know that God exists, because you feel God's presence in your life. There are, of course, people who not feel this presence, and thus do not believe.
I imagine each side is alien to the other, in that 'they' fail to grasp the obvious.
M
ps - this is a sensitive topic, so please respect the feelings of the other people on this board as you proceed.
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Ram Abdullah D'Souza:[/QB]

If existance of god is not proved using modern science,why one should believe in God?
I was not asked to believed in God, I chose to. It�s a decision based on my background, culture and society � I believe I will do better if I am to follow (be afraid of) a supreme authority, who can never be wrong and who is never corrupt!
On another note, even though popular science doesn�t prove existence of God, it doesn�t mean God doesn�t exist � it only shows that science/technology haven�t evolved enough � we still can�t clearly explain infinity (of the universe, for example), science fails to explain many of the occurrences of this world!
and if you believe in god then why don't you believe in ghosts?
A conscious decision, because I don�t feel a need for ghosts in this world! (and because science can not prove it )
On what basis people say "although there are many religions,there is only one god?"
May be because the basic idea of �faith on an unknown good power� is the core idea of all religions?
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]

[Mani Ram]

I'm an atheist, thank God!

[Tony Alicea]

<JOKE>
“The Atheists of JavaRanch special interest group will be meeting online tonight at 7PM at the usual chat room, God willing.”
</JOKE>

[Tony Alicea]

Why does the name of the song by the Lovin' Spoonful "Do You Believe In Magic" sounds so much like the title of this thread? Hmm...

[Jeffrey Hunter]

He's an absentee landlord.

[Damien Howard]

I just finished reading "More than a carpenter" by Josh McDowell yesterday. He uses logic to prove that Jesus must have existed and must indeed be the son of god. And thus christianity is correct.
He made some very good points which I find difficult to refute.
I am curious as to whether anyone has been able to use logic to prove any other religion's claims. I be interested to read such a book if it exists. Does anyone know of a book that attempts to prove Islam or any of the other major religions (preferebly other than Judaism since Christianity is based on Judaism and could thus be seen as complimentary rather than contradictory)?

[Kishore Dandu]

Hinduism mentions that are there was god in the middle of people at some point in time to take care of the evil(he came back again and again when and if needed).
So that is contrary to what is called 'God that is virtual and sends his disciples to preach the good vs the bad'.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Damien Howard:
I just finished reading "More than a carpenter" by Josh McDowell yesterday. He uses logic to prove that Jesus must have existed and must indeed be the son of god. And thus christianity is correct.

I was reading "Blood in the name of Allah" by [dont remember the name of author].
But I left that book after 40 pages when author tried to tell me that Islam is the only religion.

[Gregg Bolinger]

One my my all time favorite "dialog exchange" was in the movie Contact between Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey. This won't be an exact quote, but this is it paraphrased....

Foster questions McConaughey on his beliefs and how he can believe in God without physical proof.
McConaughey (to Foster): Do you love your Father?
Foster: Yes.
McConaughey: Prove it.

The belief in God relies on blind faith. My belief in God (God of Abraham, the Christian God) comes from faith and personal experience, as Max talked about.
...if you believe in god then why don't you believe in ghosts?
I don't believe in ghosts because God says they don't exist. I do however believe in Angels and Demons. I have personally seen both (long story). Some people might see 1 or the other and think that they are ghosts because they don't know any better. Some poeople just see things that aren't there.
On what basis people say "although there are many religions,there is only one god?
This is probably not answerable without offending someone. But let's see if I can "be nice" about it.
I only believe in Christianity. Therefor, I only believe in my God, the God of Abraham, Father of Jesus Christ, etc. So I don't personally believe that any other religion's god is the same as my God. If you put 2 and 2 together you will know where I stand. I'm just not going to come out and say it.

[Tony Alicea]

Originally posted by Jeffrey Hunter:
He's an absentee landlord.

Wait! I know!
"The Devil's Advocate"! 1997.
I'll never forgive what "the devil" did to Charlize Theron!

[Jeffrey Hunter]

Bing! Bing! Bing!
We need to open up a new thread, Movie Quotes.
Anyhow, I recently read God's Debris, by Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy). Very interesting read, as I myself am not a believer in the Christian God (nor any other God defined by organized religions), but I am open to discussion and enjoy reading about different perspectives.
Adams' book is appropriately titled, as it explores a novel theory (at least I haven't heard it before), involving the Big Bang. In particular, if God were omniscent, God could virtually do anything, including seeing the future, changing the future, etc. So, what challenges are left for someone who can do anything? Well, there is one:
destroy Himself.
So, He did, and since then He's been going through the motions of reassembling Himself. Every living thing collectively makes up "God", we are all part of the debris, part of the reassembly process.
That's what I got from it in a nutshell.
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Jeffrey Hunter ]

[Max Habibi]

He uses logic to prove that Jesus must have existed and must indeed be the son of god. And thus christianity is correct.
I'd like to hear his argument, so long as it's presented as an argument, and open to critical dissection.

[basha khan]

Originally posted by Damien Howard:
I just finished reading "More than a carpenter" by Josh McDowell yesterday. He uses logic to prove that Jesus must have existed and must indeed be the son of god. And thus christianity is correct.
He made some very good points which I find difficult to refute.
I am curious as to whether anyone has been able to use logic to prove any other religion's claims. I be interested to read such a book if it exists. Does anyone know of a book that attempts to prove Islam or any of the other major religions (preferebly other than Judaism since Christianity is based on Judaism and could thus be seen as complimentary rather than contradictory)?

God is never logical.I challenge anyone can prove god logically.If u thinking Josh McDowell is right,i doubt ur prejudice.i think there is only 50-50 chance only for god's existance logically.there is always a questien that "what if not so?" or "what if the other 50%"?.
God is within ur heart.it's the purity.in every situation in life,there is two choices.good and bad.good is god and bad is evil.my god is good,love,purity...etc.
---
basha
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: basha khan ]

[Damien Howard]

Originally posted by Max Habibi:
[qb]He uses logic to prove that Jesus must have existed and must indeed be the son of god. And thus christianity is correct.
I'd like to hear his argument, so long as it's presented as an argument, and open to critical dissection.[/QB]

He explains that it is not possible for all of the events to have happened and be believed if they weren't true. He finds holes in peoples' arguments that attempt to disprove or contradict christ and his claims. It is a short read if you are really interested, although you have to get past the first 30 pages to get to the logical part since the first 30 pages are garbage in that he uses the "hypothesis" to prove the "hypothesis", but after that the book is a lot more logical.
I've never really been religious so I'm not telling anyone that this guy is right or wrong, I just found it interesting that is all. I was just curious as to whether anyone had written a similar book for another religion for comparative purposes.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Max Habibi:
[qb]He uses logic to prove that Jesus must have existed and must indeed be the son of god. And thus christianity is correct.
I'd like to hear his argument, so long as it's presented as an argument, and open to critical dissection.[/QB]

Well, we know that Jesus did exist. There is anough historical (non biblical) proof for that. Whether He was the son of God is a different matter.
Sadly, no one will be able to prove it 1 way or another. Especially with logic. :roll: Although God himself may be logical, I don't believe His existance is or isn't logical. God just is.
God is within ur heart.it's the purity.in every situation in life,there is two choices.good and bad.good is god and bad is evil.my god is good,love,purity...etc
The fallacy with this statement is assuming good is god. Being good does mean God is in you. I know a lot of people that are plain good folk. But they don't believe in God. And bad is evil doesn't make sense. I'm bad sometimes, but I'm not evil. A better statement would be evil is Satan. However, not all religions believe in Satan or hell even though they may believe in a god.
Adams' book is appropriately titled, as it explores a novel theory (at least I haven't heard it before), involving the Big Bang. In particular, if God were omniscent, God could virtually do anything, including seeing the future, changing the future, etc. So, what challenges are left for someone who can do anything? Well, there is one:
destroy Himself.
Interesting theory. I can't believe it because I believe God is a living God. I don't think God exists to be challenged. But if it were so, his challenge would be getting people to believe in Him and love Him and accept His son Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. But as it is, it's God's plan for us all to enter heaven. The challenge lies with us and in our hearts to do the right thing.
Do I sound like a preacher?

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Damien Howard:

He explains that it is not possible for all of the events to have happened and be believed if they weren't true.

I'd like to hear this explanation.

He finds holes in peoples' arguments that attempt to disprove or contradict christ and his claims.

AFIK, it's not necessary, logically speaking, that holy scriptures be disproven. The burden of proof falls on the party making an assertion: this, for example, is why people are assumed innocent until proven guilty.


It is a short read if you are really interested, although you have to get past the first 30 pages to get to the logical part since the first 30 pages are garbage in that he uses the "hypothesis" to prove the "hypothesis", but after that the book is a lot more logical.
I've never really been religious so I'm not telling anyone that this guy is right or wrong, I just found it interesting that is all. I was just curious as to whether anyone had written a similar book for another religion for comparative purposes.
Well, I'll bet there've been one or two, yes
M

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
The fallacy with this statement is assuming good is god. Being good does mean God is in you. I know a lot of people that are plain good folk. But they don't believe in God. And bad is evil doesn't make sense. I'm bad sometimes, but I'm not evil.

I agree with Basha's idea there! Let me add, God and Evil are two extremes of a scale - and being good doesn't make you God, but closer to that end, and by being bad sometimes, one moves to the other end of scale a little bit, but yet , not to the end.
I guess it�s a bit like the number system - lets say God is positive infinity and evil negative infinity! If there's a person who can't do either good or bad scores zero, and ordinary folks like us on either side of the zero.
Well, sorry I had to rant!

[Damien Howard]

Originally posted by Max Habibi:
Originally posted by Damien Howard:
[qb]
He explains that it is not possible for all of the events to have happened and be believed if they weren't true.

I'd like to hear this explanation.

He finds holes in peoples' arguments that attempt to disprove or contradict christ and his claims.

AFIK, it's not necessary, logically speaking, that holy scriptures be disproven. The burden of proof falls on the party making an assertion: this, for example, is why people are assumed innocent until proven guilty.


It is a short read if you are really interested, although you have to get past the first 30 pages to get to the logical part since the first 30 pages are garbage in that he uses the "hypothesis" to prove the "hypothesis", but after that the book is a lot more logical.
I've never really been religious so I'm not telling anyone that this guy is right or wrong, I just found it interesting that is all. I was just curious as to whether anyone had written a similar book for another religion for comparative purposes.
Well, I'll bet there've been one or two, yes
M[/QB]

His explanation is a 120 page book. If you are really interested I suggest you read it since:
1) I'm not good at paraphrasing
2) To type up all the points would take too long and make the post rather long
But an example of one of his points is paraphrased as follows:
If Jesus were not the son of god then he would have to be crazy or leading his life as a lie.
But the idea of him being crazy does not match what we "know" of his life.
And the idea of him leading a lie is also very difficult to believe because of its consistency and how he got his apostles to also believe etc. (explained much better in the book)
Anyway as I mentioned in my prev posts, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything (I'm unsure myself) I'm just looking for similar texts for comparative purposes.
Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal, it is not the reality of our world.
P(a)=1-P(not a)
demonstrating one is as good as demonstrating the other.
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but both sides make a claim
One claims existence, one claims lack of existence. Tackling either problem is to tackle both problems

[basha khan]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:


God is within ur heart.it's the purity.in every situation in life,there is two choices.good and bad.good is god and bad is evil.my god is good,love,purity...etc
The fallacy with this statement is assuming good is god. Being good does mean God is in you. I know a lot of people that are plain good folk. But they don't believe in God. And bad is evil doesn't make sense. I'm bad sometimes, but I'm not evil. A better statement would be evil is Satan. However, not all religions believe in Satan or hell even though they may believe in a god.

I'm bad sometimes, but I'm not evil.
What you are thinking about evil?.a gigantic wild animal like dinosour?.do u ever seen evil to think so?.evil is that just bad thing within ur heart at that time.if u follow that bad thing,u follow evil.and god is that good thing in ur heart.there is nothing physical being to compare to.wat i m saying is good is god and bad is evil.follow good.u r following god.god is only the good in ur heart.there meybe some people who do good things and saying they dont believe in god.u cant trap the god in a term or like belief.god is beyond belief.and i dont say most of those who saying "we believe in god" is actually following god.according to me,most follow politics.politics to be secure or to hide from insecurity or fear of life .only a few people understand god in them.god is just good.that's all.
---
basha

[Jeffrey Hunter]

...follow good.u r following god

Something else I found interesting about Scott Adams' Big Bang theory is the fact that, as the theory explains, we are all a component of "God" attempting to put Himself back together, and if we do not live according to plan (i.e. do good, productive things for fellow man), we are living in opposition to the reassembly, hence we are flowing against that which is good and righteous.
Of course, the human civilization may be nothing more than an alien ant farm. The project of some higher intelligence, which is just as relevant a theory as any other proffered by the religious sector.
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Jeffrey Hunter ]

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Damien Howard:

But an example of one of his points is paraphrased as follows:
If Jesus were not the son of god then he would have to be crazy or leading his life as a lie.

If this is an example of the logic, then I'm comfortable that nothing's been 'proven' yet, strictly speaking
Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal, it is not the reality of our world.
P(a)=1-P(not a)
demonstrating one is as good as demonstrating the other.
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but both sides make a claim
One claims existence, one claims lack of existence.

Not from a strictly logical point of view. Logically speaking, if one side is making a claim("the answer to the equation is 42"), then the burden of proof falls on that side.
If the other side is not claiming to know the answer("I don't know the answer to the equation, but no one's found that magic number so far"), than they are not required to prove anything, and the standing assumption is that equation is not solved.

M

[Jeffrey Hunter]

Originally posted by Damien Howard:

If Jesus were not the son of god then he would have to be crazy or leading his life as a lie.
But the idea of him being crazy does not match what we "know" of his life.
And the idea of him leading a lie is also very difficult to believe because of its consistency and how he got his apostles to also believe etc.

This sounds an awful lot like a C.S. Lewis ripoff (see Mere Christianity).
The first part of this book is a so-called "logical" approach to why Jesus existed, and why God exists.
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Jeffrey Hunter ]

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

The reviews of this book (haven't read it myself, but went over to Amazon) suggest that, in fact, this book openly presents itself as working within C.S. Lewis' framework.

[Tony Alicea]

Did anybody read The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity?
I didn't, but it worries me that some people take the new testament as an eyewitness account of what happened, which is not the position held by the christian scholars.
The gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus by anonymous writers which were not there when it all happened. The names on the gospels were given later by church leaders. But they did not know who wrote them. This is the position of Christian scholars and not of just 'atheists' etc. BTW.
All this is said with all due repect to all those who believe (emphasis on believe, like another poster previously emphasized) different.

[Tony Alicea]

...destroy Himself.
So, He did, and since then He's been going through the motions of reassembling Himself. Every living thing collectively makes up "God", we are all part of the debris, part of the reassembly process.

That has come closest to my own idea of a "supreme intelligence"... Minus the 'destruction' part.
I have been occupied seriously about this theme since age 19 more or less.
I was raised as a catholic all through 12th grade but I always felt in the back of my mind that the "god" thing had to be different from all that they were trying to teach (indoctrinate) me.
Eventually that led me to secure a BSc in Physics and a minor in Psychology, as only a part of my search. I figured that before going into uncharted (for me) waters, I better had a good hold on reality (yes; Physics is as close as anyone can get to, well, physical reality). But my studies didn't stop there by any means.
One possibility of course, was that there was nothing to it (god that is). That the myth of god began way back during primitive man's magical thinking and encounter with nature's apparent "wrath" in the form of unexplained fire dropping from the sky and burning everything (lightning), to heavy winds that would devastate expanses of land big or small (hurricanes and tornadoes). Floods, etc...
His primitive ignorant mind could not associate anything but a "super-being" with these happenings, and as such he may have sought a way to placate this super dude who had demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that "it" held sway over his (primitive man's) life; his suffering and his death.
"So, He did, and since then He's been going through the motions of reassembling Himself. Every living thing collectively makes up "God", we are all part of the debris, part of the reassembly process."
The universe would look the same (see my scientific approach here?) if instead, this god, which was non-material before the Big Bang, decided to manifest itself in a way (material as opposed to not-material) that would allow it to eventually, through very slow evolution due to the physical laws "decreed" at the beginning, achieve a state of enough complexity (Man) that it could finally recognize itself like in front of a mirror. (BTW, this is the way some mystical esoteric traditions, "away from the madding crowd", christian, muslim and others, see it.)
This top manifestation is Man, the human being ("made in god's image"?) which is God Made Man.
Unfortunately, God "knew" that a physical being that would be its mirror in the universe, would be capable of many things, "good an bad". Therefore some religion's "free will". It was a crap shoot. (God did play dice with the universe; see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).
Eventually, if Man attunes himself with this Cosmic Consciousness which is only positive, he will do the right things and will help correct the things that inevitably will be wrong just because god decided to manifest itself in the material world.
Now, why did this supreme intelligence decided to materialize itself so that it could see itself from this material vantage point? I don't think we will ever know. We may want to assume that It knew what it was doing.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
"Inquiring Minds Want To Know!"

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
Did anybody read The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity?
I didn't, but it worries me that some people take the new testament as an eyewitness account of what happened, which is not the position held by the christian scholars.
The gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus by anonymous writers which were not there when it all happened. The names on the gospels were given later by church leaders. But they did not know who wrote them. This is the position of Christian scholars and not of just 'atheists' etc. BTW.
All this is said with all due repect to all those who believe (emphasis on believe, like another poster previously emphasized) different.

With all due respect right back at ya Tony, not knowing who wrote them means, no one knows for sure. Which means it could have been Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Keeping in mind of course that only Mathew and John were of the 12 deciples of Christ. I think Luke was a follower of John. Can't remember about Mark.
Anyway, like I said, not knowing is not knowing. Of the research I have done you can say M, M, L, and J did write them just as easily as you can say
they didn't.

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Originally written by Jill Heatherly:
Since its release, More Than a Carpenter has been challenging readers to ask the question, "Who is Jesus?" Author and renowned speaker Josh McDowell acknowledges that while the topic of God is widely accepted, the name of Jesus often causes irritation. "Why don't the names of Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius offend people? The reason is that these others didn't claim to be God, but Jesus did." By addressing questions about scientific and historical evidence, the validity of the Bible, and proofs of the resurrection, McDowell helps the reader come to an informed and intelligent decision about whether Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. This short, 128-page gem does not employ fancy theological words, forsaking the layman, but reads more like an intimate research document laying out the facts with veracious accuracy, from reliable sources ranging from secular scientists to conservative seminarians. A skeptic himself for many years, McDowell always believed that Christians were "out of their minds" but now insists that "never has an individual been called upon to commit intellectual suicide in trusting Christ as Savior and Lord." McDowell adeptly articulates fundamental answers to poignant questions that cause the skeptic to consider whether Jesus was a liar causing countless martyrs to die in his wake, a lunatic deserving death, or actually the Lord of the universe.

Jesus claimed to be God. If he is not God, he either was a liar or was self-deluded (crazy). In either of these cases, he was not just a "good man" or a "good teacher" whose example we would want to follow.

[Tony Alicea]

Marylin: For all we know, (and we will never know for sure) the historical Jesus may have never claimed to be more God than any one of us is. This could have been invented by the church leaders much later on.
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Tony Alicea ]

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Why do you think that the religious leaders at the time wanted to kill him?

If you had been a disciple, would you have died a martyr's death for what you knew to be untrue?
[ April 30, 2004: Message edited by: Marilyn de Queiroz ]

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
...(and we will never know for sure)...

Yes we will.

[Tony Alicea]

Gregg: I respect your beliefs (isn't it great we live in the USA?!) but the point that I was trying to make (which is not mine originally) is that the "intelligentsia" who have studied these things in a detached manner, say that the gospels are anonymous and written way after Jesus' death. In a time when life expectancy was low compared to the present time.
It's not the same that because we don't know who wrote them, it may have been some of the disciples.
I think you believe because you choose to believe. IMHO your beliefs should not depend on facts. Otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs. If you feel strongly about your convictions, then you don't need to 'debate' facts. IMHO.
In any case, if it works for you that's great.
I'm going now to express one of my deepest fears (well, not really since we have a strong Constitution that would prevent this from happening)... A THEOCRACY!
What I would not tolerate (and hopefully you either!) is, that in this country of ours, the USA, laws would be passed under the guise of "because God said so".
Then we would not be any different from an islamic republic, for example.

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

I don't believe that the USA will become a theocracy in our lifetime, Tony. Don't worry.

[Tony Alicea]

Thanks Marilyn!
I will be able to sleep better tonight! Ha ha!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
Gregg: I respect your beliefs (isn't it great we live in the USA?!) but the point that I was trying to make (which is not mine originally) is that the "intelligentsia" who have studied these things in a detached manner, say that the gospels are anonymous and written way after Jesus' death. In a time when life expectancy was low compared to the present time.

Actually, Tony, you are mistaken. The gospels of Matthew and Mark are based on a source called Q that is probably written within 10 years or less of Jesus' death. All of the gospels were probably written witin the lifetimes of people who lived at the same time as Jesus. John is possibly that only Gospel that was written more than 50 years after the crucifixion although some scholars believe that John may have been earlier. The letters of Paul were actually written by Paul and he lived at the same time as Jesus. He spoke to and knew all of the apostles.

[Michael Yuan]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Actually, Tony, you are mistaken. The gospels of Matthew and Mark are based on a source called Q that is probably written within 10 years or less of Jesus' death. All of the gospels were probably written witin the lifetimes of people who lived at the same time as Jesus. John is possibly that only Gospel that was written more than 50 years after the crucifixion although some scholars believe that John may have been earlier. The letters of Paul were actually written by Paul and he lived at the same time as Jesus. He spoke to and knew all of the apostles.

Well, regardless of who wrote the gospels, the christian bible was still put together by a committee of people long after Jesus's death. Keep in mind that the people in early church, who compiled the christian bible, are likely to have political agendas (just look at some of the church organizations today). With an agenda, it is very easy to manipulate the text to say anything you want to by simply discarding and destroying conflicting gospel text as "inconsistent". Ok, I do not know whether this was what actually happened. It is just highly probable given the deceptive nature of human beings.
Even worse, throughout the history, the bible text has been subjected to many different interpretations. For example, today, some people invoke the bible to fight against gays or abortion rights while completely ignoring the passages that call for stoning people to death for minor "sins". For me, it is hard to believe that an "almighty god" would give us a book of such ambiguity to follow.

[Arjun Shastry]

{
For me, it is hard to believe that an "almighty god" would give us a book of such ambiguity to follow
}
I think this is valid for every religion except Buddhism.Somebody said above doing good means following God and doing bad means following Evil.Who decides what is good or bad?Definition of good or bad changes from time to time I think.200 years back women going to school was considered bad and hence evil everywhere in the world.But now its not the case.

[basha khan]

Originally posted by Ram Abdullah D'Souza:
{
For me, it is hard to believe that an "almighty god" would give us a book of such ambiguity to follow
}
I think this is valid for every religion except Buddhism.Somebody said above doing good means following God and doing bad means following Evil.Who decides what is good or bad?Definition of good or bad changes from time to time I think.200 years back women going to school was considered bad and hence evil everywhere in the world.But now its not the case.

Who decides what is good or bad?
You decides what is good and bad.it's all upto u.it's ur responsibility.you learn all the knowledge and spends energy for that.and how much energy u spends,that much wiser u become to decide good and bad.and once u decide,be wholehearted and purehearted.you are only choosing good.you are only following god.
200 years back women going to school was considered bad and hence evil everywhere in the world.But now its not the case.
Suppose if u live in the world at that time(200 years back),and u wholeheartedly decides that going to school is a good thing,u must send ur sisters and girls belonging to u to school.then only u follow god.that's how humenbeings is matured and cultured and civilised.
---
basha