Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

Should have mentioned this in my last post, but I just noticed this comment after I replied: I know several atheists personally who would take great offence to that statement. It is certainly arguable that God is necessary - it is arguable whether He even exists or not!Please provide evidence that all human beings, Christian or not, have a deep need for God. Please also note that "the Bible says so" is not evidence.

That would be irrelevant to my situation, as I was a member of a church that followed what the Bible taught. Irrelevant, since the Christianity that I was a part of was genuine. But that's the kind that I have. True inner peace, but it doesn't come from God. If we had a need for God, we wouldn't be able to survive without God. Since we do, since I do, that proves that we have no need for God. I'm sorry but in the face of the evidence of atheists, who have no need for God, you don't simply get to assert that it is "inarguable" that we have a need for God. We obviously don't have that need.

quote:

---

How on earth can the fact of death strengthen your inner peace?

---

Only once you learn to accept the worst aspects about life can you begin to truly enjoy its great aspects. I don't spend all day worrying about whether or not I am going to exist forever or not, and I can truly enjoy life. If I stop existing I won't be aware of it, so what is there to worry about?

quote:

---

The only way I can see it is if you tell yourself, "Oh, well, at least I know that whatever I do or don't do really doesn't matter one way or another. A few months after my death I will be of no more significance to the world than of some dog that died in a ditch."

---

I simply don't believe that what I do or don't do in my existance depends on whether or not I am going to live forever. Why would it? So I can be punished or rewarded like a dog for my actions at some other time?

quote:

---

respect your courage and honesty, you have accepted your end and made peace with it. I wish everyone would face things as unflinchingly as you have. That being said, I will also point out that you have accepted the unacceptable, being willing to give up existing. What if there is an alternative?

---

What's so unacceptable about it. I didn't exist before, and it didn't really bother me. If I don't exist again, I doubt I'll mind that much.If there's an alternative, then I guess I'll experience the alternative. Do I have a choice in this matter? I wasn't aware.The 72 virgins in heaven doesn't seem too shabby. And I want lots of Coca-Cola and Goldfish, a good ultimate frisbee game everyonce in a while, some books, family, friends, etc.

wmscott No doubt this will open a can of worms,however,I will bet that you cannot prove this logically as being real.I will bet that you are not capable of explaining what reality is much less prove the existence of your worldview.Consider this a challenge to take up here or,if necessary,in another thread.

Dear Rahvin; If that was the case, I would indeed be guilty of being very arrogant. To base one's view of what is true merely on your own opinion, is self deception and foolish in the extreme. My religious views are all based on scripture, not creed or opinion. We can argue over interpretations of scripture, but we will need to be very specific and go over each point one by one. I have had many discussions on the board on some points, so feel free to check my message index and see what I have already posted on different points. So decide which point you wish to debate and I will be happy to show you scripturally why I believe it. But since you don't accept the Bible as the being our guide in this matter, we should probably start with how to prove that it is from God. Yes measuring or comparing the subjective is a problem here. To simplify, for this thread I am using the concept of three levels of inner peace, 1st a general sense of well being, 2d: a deeper inner peace that is not dependant things being nice, 3d: the peace from God, an inner peace that is unbreakable. Very arbitrary, but we do need some qualification of what we are talking about.Measuring one's level of inner peace is very subjective, but the type of peace can be inferred by how a person describes it and what they attribute it to. If some one states that they have inner peace because they have a nice life, that is what I would call type 1 general inner peace. If they say that they have an inner peace that is not dependant on things being nice, that is 2 or maybe even three. Now since 3 or peace from God, is from God, only God can say for sure. But we can look for evidence such as a person's having weathered horrible events and maintaining a peaceful outlook. Sure, any one can have these minor sources of inner peace without God. But you are also terribly wrong here as this kind of inner peace is destroyed all too easily. "if you take away the child, the parent still knows that they raised a good and decent person." So the poor kid dies a horrible senseless death, and the parent doesn't lose their sense of inner peace because they know they did a good job raising the kid? Gone forever for no reason, and the parent just accepts this and deals with it. This may work on paper but not in the real world. Did you forget about Love? Parents love their children, and the death of a child is one of the hardest loses anyone ever has to face. Trying to console one's self with "well I know I was a good parent" is about as comforting as that stupid line you used to hear "God needed another little angel". Nether line does nothing about filling the huge hole in your heart. There is only one thing that can, and that is hope, hope of the resurrection, that one day you will see your child again. The peace from God in this case gives you complete confidence that God will one day raise your child. It is hope based on your total trust in God. Then there is also the comfort of prayer, and of reading the verses in the Bible about the resurrection. Just ignore for a moment about whether nor not you think it is real, which is more comforting, the kids gone but I was a good parent, or I know that I will see my kid again in the resurrection? Your whole premise of finding comfort in thinking that you did what you could, seems dependant on not really caring, of just forgetting about it and being able to let go. For people who really care, such thinking is nearly worthless, it may help with reducing guilt, but for real emotional lost, it doesn't work since a parent who really loved his child can never let go or forget. True love is forever and the love between a parent and a child is one of deepest loves that there is. A loving parent even with the hope of the resurrection, always misses their child and thinks of them everyday. It is a horrible lost, but the hope of the resurrection and the peace of God helps you focus on the future and helps you cope with your lost. You pray a lot and God carries you through. In short you still love and remember your child instead of trying to forget and put it behind you, which is not dealing with it, that is just trying to bury it. OEM is the best. Yes God does have a monopoly on the hope of life after death. Who has greater peace, the man who accepts death or the man who knows God will bring him back from the dead? For those who believe in the resurrection, death is like falling asleep until God wakes you. For the person without that hope, death is a one way door to nowhere, to be ok with that you really have to not care. If you love life, how can you be ok about losing it and never getting it back? When someone puts a gun to your head, it really focuses your thinking and a lot of nonsense you have believed in just evaporates. I don't think just accepting death will cut it then for most people, probably just leave you with panic. I am sure that it worked for some, but considering the way our minds work, it is a very difficult thing to do. Few people have that much detachment from life. Just look at the difference, the contented atheist has to let go of life forever while the theist loves life and looks forward to coming back to life. The theist has hope, the atheist has nothing. The contented atheist outlook isn't very healthy for your mind since it is so bleak. I have heard it said that the one thing man can not live without is hope, the contented atheist would disprove that, if having no hope can said be said to be living for in a way they have already died in their heart. First I was speaking about human philosophy without believing in God, people of non-Christian religions are still theists. But non-Christian religions do have a greater difficulty dealing with the issue of death and it is only in the Bible that we find satisfying answers to our spiritual questions, like why does God permit evil? Why do we die? etc. Without real answers, or real hope, they have far less foundation for maintaining inner peace when faced with calamity in comparison with what is found in God's Word.
Second, I was speaking in general terms about the philosophy itself. The philosophy of men falls apart when up against the problems of the world. If the philosophy of men was up to the task, we would have solved our problems by now, but we haven't and we can't. Without God we have no hope. What hope does a godless philosophy offer the parent of a dead child? What comfort for their grief? The fact that some can embrace dying doesn't do any good for the rest of us who love life and want to go on living. As for people not giving up hope, what hope does an atheist have? If he buys it, it is over. Being in a foxhole under bombardment, a soldier is faced with nearly certain death, and is convinced he is about to die, under those conditions people become religious nearly to the last man. A tour of duty in Iraq is in comparison a cake walk, few would go if they viewed it as a death sentence. While not as stressful as certain death, I would expect that under the stress an increase in religiousness including some former atheists.Here is what the US army states on the subject. http://www.bragg.army.mil/528CSC/FM22-51Ch3.htmSincerely Yours; Wm Scott AndersonThis message has been edited by wmscott, 07-11-2005 05:28 PM

quote:

---

3-6. Increased Religious Faith
It is probably an exaggeration to say that there are "no atheists in the foxhole," but many soldiers and civilians do find that danger, and especially the unpredictable danger of modern war, stimulates a new or stronger need for faith in God.

---

becomes

quote:

---

It is probably an exaggeration to say that there are "no atheists in the foxhole," but many soldiers and civilians do find that danger, and especially the unpredictable danger of modern war, stimulates a new or stronger need for faith in God. If this is fused with a sense of purpose in fulfilling God's will, it may lead to living a better life, increased dedication to duty, and attempting to make the world better in spite of the horrors and evils seen in war. In some cultures and religions, acceptance of God's will, fatalism, faith in the afterlife, or the reward for dying in a holy cause may also contribute to exceptional bravery and disregard for death. However, such faith does not always promote good tactical common sense. It can lead to unproductive loss of life unless guided by sound leadership.

---

And more importantly Atheists find the military a very hostile place so tend to keep it to themselves.Page Not Found - Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers | Military Association of Atheists & FreethinkersThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-Jul-2005 09:33 AM

No of course not. What I was asking was how the fact of death can give you inner peace. It doesn't give me inner peace. On the contrary, I don't like it.

Dear crashfrog; The only religion today that really follows the Bible is Jehovah's Witnesses. Were you once a Witness? Were you baptized? and were you disfellowshipped? Then it is not True inner peace if it doesn't come from God. You can find inner peace without God, but it is only a relative type of peace. Like outer peace, peace or the absence of war, is not true peace. True peace is when you know that there will never be another war and there is no conflict at all nor the prospect of any. Merely accepting what appears to be your fate can give you a sense of inner peace, but it is not True inner peace. It is like you are in a crowded burning building with no way out, you sit down and feel peaceful because you accept that you are going to die, while I after finding an exit, feel real inner peace knowing I will be able to escape the fire. Your peace is one of death, mine is of hope, that is why I say your peace isn't true or real.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Sidelined; Reality-the quality or state of being real.Since the religious part of my world view is founded on the Bible, the first step in logically proving that what I believe in is real, is to prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God. In this discussion, it should be merely necessary to prove that the Bible contains elements that could not have been of human origin to prove it as having a supernatural source. Do you agree that would be sufficient? Once that is accomplished, and if you are willing to accept that fact into your worldview, then we can use the Bible as an authoritative reference to systematically prove what I believe in. I do find that while nearly everyone claims to be very logical in their reasons for what they believe, in actual practice, they believe what they want. I find that this applies to nearly everyone and I sometimes catch myself doing this too despite my best efforts to avoid such silly nonsense. So try to keep an open mind, I do.First let us consider what the Bible is not by a brief comparison to the Book Of Mormon. The BOM has no historical background, there is no BOM archeology any more than there is Oz archeology. Shortly after the BOM was published, numerous historical errors were pointed out that clearly revealed the book to be a complete fraud. DNA studies have also conclusively proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the Jewish migration to the Americas described in the BOM, never occurred. Repeatedly the BOM has over and over again been completely discredited as being historically true, and there has never been presented any historical evidence that clearly supported any of the events as having taken place. That is what a complete fraud looks and smells like.Now in the case of the Bible, the places described are real and many of the historical events described are attested to by historians and archeology. Disputes over biblical history are focused on details or certain parts, the over all history described in the Bible is known to be factual and is not questioned as is the case with the BOM. As for the disputes, our knowledge of ancient events is not total, so omission is not in itself evidence for non occurrence and sometimes ancient historians maybe in error on some points. Since total historical accuracy is not essential to proving my argument, it is enough at this point to say that the Bible is a historical book relating real events that for the most part are accepted as having occurred.Then there is the great age of the Bible which is frequently stated to be the oldest of all the major religious books. Much of the history recorded was written by eye witness of the events. Some critics claim some portions were written later then stated, but there little to support such claims so there is no real reason that things were not written as claimed. But this is again a side point to our discussion.My last side point I want to mention, is that the Bible is literature, it is well written. Most ancient religious books are not. Even the books are not part of the Word of God that some tried to add the Bible, are from what I have seen, of a noticeably lower writing caliber, like someone tried to slip a few pages of a comic book into a well written book. The power and beauty contained in the pages of the Bible are breath taking and is universally acknowledged. Whatever the Bible is, it is something to be taken seriously, it is not some obvious fraud like the BOM. In short, the Bible has all the markings of what it claims to be, there are no obvious errors like the BOM to discredit it. To decide whether or not the Bible is actually inspired requires a detailed investigation, those who have made a decision one way or the other without doing so, do not know what they are talking about. Many have done this and such opinions favorable or not, are of course of no value since they are not based on the evidence. Considering how important the Bible's claim of being the word of God is, it is an issue that each person should really consider the evidence in detail for themselves to make their own informed discission rather than taking the word of others. So any brief account of the evidence I can provide here, can only be a starting point for such a study. So rather than attempting to conclusively cover everything, I will cover a few key highlights that should be enough show that there is evidence of supernatural influence in the writing of the Bible.The most obvious point and also the most frequently cited, is that the Bible contains very specific prophecies that were fulfilled right down to the last detail. Not the broad open ended vague to the point of being meaningless type that can be twisted by anyone to mean anything, but prophecies that are so clear and accurate that critics try to claim they were written after the events since even they know that no man could have written them on their own. The problem with the critics claim is the evidence shows the books like Daniel were written when stated [Ezekiel was a prophet in Jerusalem at the same time Daniel was in Babylon and refers to Daniel several times by name. (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3)], and Daniel contains prophecies that reach down to our day and beyond anyway.In Daniel is found the prophecy of seventy weeks of years, (Daniel 9:25-27) "from the going forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah [the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in the straits of the times. "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. "And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until [the] end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations. "And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease." First the prophecy predicts the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and from the time of the word or command to rebuild the city, there would be a time period 69 weeks of years or 483 years until the Messiah would appear, in the year 29 AD. The Jews of the first century understood this prophecy and were expecting the Messiah to appear in that year. (Luke 3:15) "Now as the people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John: "May he perhaps be the Christ?" After the appearance of the Messiah there is the last week of the 70 weeks, in the middle of that week, or after three and half years after he appeared as Messiah, the Messiah would be 'cut off' which is an OT reference to being executed. That is of course exactly what happened, Jesus was executed after a three and half year ministry. At that time he stopped the need for sacrifices by his which was what they had all pictured, the reality replaced the symbolic. Then after his death, the covenant is still keep in force for another half week of years, or three and half years. This covenant in the prophecy is one week of years long, 7 years, and ran from the start of Jesus' ministry until three and half years after his death. This covenant was for the Jews, that because of their special position, Jesus preached only to the Jews and those associated with the Jewish faith, and this continued until Cornelius the first Gentile to accept Jesus as the Messiah.This prophecy by itself is enough to prove a supernatural influence in the writing of the Bible, and yet it is only one of many prophecies found in the book of Daniel, and Daniel is but one of the many prophetic books of the Bible. Jesus literally fulfilled hundreds of OT prophecies, many of them concerned specific details like which city he was to born in, etc. No man could have known these details in advance, yet over and over again in the Bible we find these fantastic prophecies made long in advance being fulfilled in exact detail, and not just by some kind of long shot chance since there are no misses. If humans were doing the guessing, we would expect a huge number of guesses, with perhaps a few getting a hit once in a while. But somehow the prophecies in the Bible have this amazing accuracy.Another point I would like to use to show that the Bible is the word of God, is not commonly used probably because it takes some understanding to see it, but I would like to give it a try. In the Bible there is an interconnectedness, prophecies, phrases and words found in one book of the Bible have a connection with another book of the Bible. Like with the prophecies of the messiah, they are not all in the book of Daniel, they are found throughout the OT, and they all converge. It is like having a bunch of people shooting at a target from different angles and all hitting it, but they can't see the target because it is in the future, and they don't know each other because they are shooting from different times in the past and they didn't even know what the target was or were or when it would be in most cases. Yet some how they all hit the target. It is not just convergence of biblical prophecies that ties the books together, phrases and terms used in one book are defined by another, like one writer explaining a term or prophet phrase that another writer will use hundreds of years later in another book. (Genesis 3:14-15) "And Jehovah God proceeded to say to the serpent: . . . And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel." Today we know that the serpent is the Devil and his seed is those who follow him, the woman is God's heavenly organization and the woman's seed is Jesus Christ. The prophecy finds it's fulfillment in Christ's dying a temporary death, the heel wound, and the serpents head burse will be fulfilled with the coming execution of the Devil. How did Moses or anyone else know to write this? It ties right in with what John wrote at Revelation 12:1-5 "And a great sign was seen in heaven, a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of twelve stars, and she was pregnant. And she cries out in her pains and in her agony to give birth. And another sign was seen in heaven, and, look! a great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and upon its heads seven diadems; and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, that, when she did give birth, it might devour her child. And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne." I will not go into all the details, the stars are angels by the way, but you can see the parallelism between the two prophecies. John's was written after Jesus' death and has fulfillment in our time period and beyond. From Genesis to Revelation there is this interconnectedness of what is in one book shedding light on what is said in another, basically like someone took the pieces of a puzzle and scattered them throughout the pages of Bible. Each single piece doesn't mean much by itself and the writer probably didn't understand it just as you probably don't understand much of that above quote from Revelation, (Daniel 12:8-9) "Now as for me, I heard, but I could not understand; so that I said: "O my lord, what will be the final part of these things?" And he went on to say: "Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end." because each prophet and/or writer was given only one or just a few pieces of the puzzle, they could not deduce the whole, so they had no knowledge of how what they wrote would fit in with what would be written later and how all it would all come together. So no human could have engineered this, it required an intelligence that knew what was going to happen in the future, and was in existence over the whole time span the prophecies were recorded and was able to inspire the Bible writers with what they need to write. Once you can see this pattern in the Bible for yourself, it is a convincing proof of God, but to see it takes a thorough study of the Bible.This post as long as it is, was only meant to give you an idea of how the Bible gives amble proof of it's being inspired by God and of God's existence. To pursue this further, to be able to see this for yourself, I would recommend reading the following books.A Bible along with the following:
"Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy!" For a verse by verse study of Daniel and it's prophecies.
"The BibleGod's Word or Man's?" Evidence that the Bible is inspired.Both books are published by Jehovah's Witnesses and are not for sale anywhere, but instead are available without cost from Jehovah's Witnesses. Whom getting in touch with, should not be a problem. Just ask for the book or books by name and they will arrange for you to get a copy. If there are no local Witnesses in your area, you can try on the web at http://www.watchtower.org/ or you can e-mail me and I will see what I can do.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

My sister-in-law is a JW; the only one in the family. Are you seriously suggesting that she has this True (since you capitalised it) inner peace, believing that an imminent Armageddon will bring eternal death to her husband, children and parents?

Crashfrog as a Jehovah's Witness. Now that's hilarious.

Change 3d to an inner peace that is unbreakable and we can actually debate this. As it is, you are defining that the highest peace comes only from God in the question, when that is exactly what we are debating. You see? You’re arguing as if you had already proven that the strongest sense of peace comes only from God. Then you say that only God can say for sure — if we mere humans can’t possibly know, then why ask the question to other mere humans? In this you are correct. But you have failed to prove that an Atheist or person of a non-Judeo-Christian faith cannot have a sense of inner peace that is just as strong as the peace that can be attained through faith in God. Please provide evidence for your argument. I will admit that my losing a child example was not the best — you are right in that it is one of the most horrible experiences a person can go through, and perhaps the most likely event to cause someone to lose their inner peace. But to say that hope of the resurrection is the ONLY source of comfort and hope is horribly bigoted and arrogant. A Hindu would draw comfort and hope from the belief that their child will be reincarnated, perhaps into a better life. And it is still valid to say that an atheist could take pride in the way they raised their child, and be at peace with the life their child was able to lead. I’m not saying that it doesn’t hurt like hell, and I’m not saying that it ever goes away. I am saying that a person can remain strong and retain a positive outlook on life and a sense of inner peace despite that pain. No. My premise is that people can find comfort in doing everything they are able, and then accepting the things they cannot change. None of us can stop death. We can’t even stop generally bad things from happening. We can still remain strong and persevere against all odds because of an inner sense of peace and hope. God is ONE source of that strength. Those who do not believe in Him can find other sources that can grant an equal peace. You make me sound like a monster — I am not saying at all that the pain of losing a child is not severe or that it goes away after a time. I fully acknowledge that it is one of the most grievous emotional wounds a person can sustain, and that it never truly heals. All I am saying is that, while God is one source of the strength needed to maintain a person’s inner peace through even such an ordeal, God is not the ONLY way. Atheists lose children just as often as Christians, it hits them just as hard, and I doubt you can show that every one of them loses their sense of inner peace any more than a Christian does. Here we go again. No, He does not. You believe Him to be the One True God. Other people believe in Allah, or Buddha, or Ra, or Odin. Each of these religions contain a belief in the afterlife, in life after death. You seem to have trouble acknowledging that people of other faiths are entitled to their own beliefs, and that to them, your God is just as much a myth as their gods are to you. Hope in an afterlife is not the only source of inner peace. Living the best, most honorable life you could, helping others as much as possible, and leaving the world a generally better place than when you got here is a perfectly noble and strong source of inner peace. The fact that everyone dies is a given to the atheist, a fact that cannot be changed. Most atheists would tell you that the important thing is not that you die, because everyone dies, but that the way you live the life you have is the important part. I have personally known several atheists who are more moral, more caring, more genuine, more emotionally stable, and mentally stronger than nearly all of the Christians I have known. My experiences would tend to disprove your assumption that all atheists are hopeless and dead inside. Now THAT is arrogant. Many people have read the Bible and concluded that it did NOT, in fact, provide satisfactory answers. To say that the Bible is the ONLY source of satisfactory answers is not only foolhardy, but bigoted against other religions beyond belief. Excuse me? We had THOUSANDS OF YEARS under the philosophies of religion and achieved NOTHING. Please note the Dark Ages, a period in which the Catholic Church enforced a Theocracy across all of Europe. Ever hear of the Inquisition? Yes, religion worked very well for us there. Or how about Afghanistan? The depravities of the Taliban were and still are done in the name of faith. Secular societies have only recently arisen, and in that time we have sent probes to the outer regions of the solar system, cured countless diseases, and improved the quality of life for BILLIONS of human beings. I’d say the philosophies of men have held up pretty well through some of the darkest periods of history, and advanced the entire human species.wmscott, you seem to be having a religious conversation rather than a debate. A debate requires evidence to back up claims. Thus far, your only evidence is that your beliefs come from scripture. You cannot prove an argument by referencing the Bible — that is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. Just because the Bible says it is true doesn’t MAKE it true. If it IS true, then you can support it with evidence, and let the argument stand by itself. If you would like to debate whether Atheists and non-Judeo-Christians can have a sense of inner peace just as strong as the peace Judeao-Christians draw from their faith in God, then please provide evidence to back up your claims.

I had sex with two witnesses once? is that the same thing?they seem to get some measure of peace - or that could have been the booze.

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. So you say, but again, you're mistaken. I had true inner peace, and it didn't come from God. Thus, you must be wrong. Your hope is a lie; mine is the peace of truth. That is why I say that I have true inner peace and that I did not need God to have it.Since I have true inner peace, and it did not come from God, you must be mistaken.