Why do you need a god? [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

rufioag

04-20-2006, 04:16 PM

I think everyone may be missing the point somewhat...We dont have a god for comfort nor do we need a god for something else. God exists and thats the simpliest way to put it becuase God is not there to do our biddings because we have no power over him, something 100% different than how the romans mythological gods existed. And while Christians pray to God and ask him for things, it is not God's duty or job to accept everysingle one of our desires or any of them for that matter. God knows what is best for us and its like a saying i heard that i think really clarifies a point im trying to make. "God doesnt always give us what we want, but he will always give us what we need." My conclusion, God is not a creation of man, God created man. God is not there to serve man, Man is there to serve God. But I regress, man does need God, but does not need a god, because the statement that man needs a god is a statement of a human ideological creation of a god. I believe and need God because through him nothing is impossible, He's a light for me to see, He is glory without description

Now, I will say this. I think that its a must for believers in God to pray for strength, comfort, and healing in times of weakness becuase its at these times that God strengthens us the most. God will never test you further than you can handle and by the strength of the Lord, you can do all things.

RobinHood3000

04-20-2006, 05:42 PM

I think everyone may be missing the point somewhat...We dont have a god for comfort nor do we need a god for something else. God exists and thats the simpliest way to put it becuase God is not there to do our biddings because we have no power over him, something 100% different than how the romans mythological gods existed.
There are quite a few people, here on the forums and elsewhere, who will gladly debate this matter (myself included).

Of course, trying to convince a theist that their god doesn't exist is usually about as purposeful as counting the hairs on Patrick Stewart's head. I will say this, however: you can bet that the peoples of the ancient world, Greeks and Romans included, believed just as fervently and zealously in their gods as the most devout theists do now. It would be interesting to see whether the people of the next millennium will think upon today's religions with the same "Oh, how quaint..." response with which we think upon the religions of the past.

Xamonas Chegwe

04-20-2006, 07:08 PM

Soma

04-20-2006, 07:32 PM

In regards to the OP, I must say that there is a specific reason people are either Monotheist or Polytheistic. Speaking as the latter, I believe in the different gods of the Aasgard. They give me the strength knowing that I may have the support from them in my daily life to accomplish that which needs be. It gives people meaning to believe in a specific deity, whether it be one or many. Within each and every person on the earth is a desire to have a heavenly recogning of sorts. We all have a desire to worship, to find an inner peace that there is more than just death after this life. I strongly believe and hope to join my fellows in the great Halls of Valhalla. To sum up, we all wish for these things and we have the want to find them whether by one god or many. All that we must do is to find the strength inside to delve on this desire and to act on it.

Geoffrey

04-20-2006, 07:34 PM

it's strange but true - a person may choose to believe anything and make it there own reality. Making one's self believe in something really isn't that difficult, it just requires shutting off part of your brain in this case

Soma

04-20-2006, 09:35 PM

That is very true Geoffry. I agree with you to an extent. Personally, the shutting off part of the brain may not always be the wise choice. If we are to thouroghly ponder the idea of a Supreme existance then the use of the entire brain, or thought process, would be a necessary mean. But it is sometimes necessary to look at the concept, think about it, and then to accept it or reject it. The gods have given us all the great gift of choice. It is ours to accept to reject.

rufioag

04-21-2006, 01:19 AM

Ill say that I too have to take responsibility for my actions. Its not Gods will for me to commit sin. Humans have free will and free choice, to choose the path that God has laid out before or to attempt their own road.

And ill agree that there are many people out there who would refute my point about the existence of God but on what grounds? I do not understand why skeptics, who claim to be open minded, harden their hearts toward the Lord becuase the truth of the existence of God is all around us. Its in the living organisms of all types, the planet we live on, the universe that we exist within. I mean, its like someone who goes to a paramedic training school and they sit through all the lectures, they see the drills on how to give cpr, they watch videos, read statistics and how many lives have been saved through cpr. This person finally graduates and on that very weekend, they have the opportunity to save someone's life but dont because they didnt believe the truth behind the evidence.

Apotropaic

04-21-2006, 02:12 AM

I just don't understand devoted Christians, more specifically priests and nuns, (and all other types of religion similar) why they would spend so much time of their lives worshipping God and spreading their religion and all. It's all good deeds, but...I don't know, do they feel something? Are they happy with themselves? I don't know with them, but personally I just can't stand just sitting and praying around. There are atheists who are better persons than Christians. Gods don't really define you, I think.

But I guess it's like someone up there said, that God's your friend. Like how you don't really need friends, but having them makes things a lot better.

Nightshade

04-21-2006, 06:33 AM

Ive said it before and Ill say it again in my opinion fact, reality and truth are all relative terms and are no more constant than than the climate.
I believe in God that is my truth and because I believe in him I see proof of his existence. Others don’t so they don’t. I guess I can nearly see it both ways although the idea of not believing in God is for me very frightening but there you go. If I was a Christian I probably would want to become a nun. As it is my beliefs don’t allow that kind of life.

Making one's self believe in something really isn't that difficult, it just requires shutting off part of your brain in this case
Geoffery that is kind of insulting but I was wondering do you realise that not believing is in fact a type of believing? and hat it works both ways?
Anyway we had a thread a few months ago I think I started it(??) Anyway as we said then Most people have one major belief be it science , money love or God, a prime assumption upon which they build there inner moral systems and beliefs. I believe in God but for the life of me I cannot (at least at this point in life or more correctly up to this point) Believe in Love it just seems illogical and rather ridiculous to me.
Apotropaic I would say that yes God doesn’t define you/me but then I don’t define God but your beliefs do in large part help to structure that definition of yourself. My belief in God is not all I am but it is a big part of who I am and that is something that wont change no matter what or how my beliefs change because it’s the way Im built.

Virgil

04-21-2006, 07:13 AM

Ive said it before and Ill say it again in my opinion fact, reality and truth are all relative terms and are no more constant than than the climate.
I believe in God that is my truth and because I believe in him I see proof of his existence. Others don’t so they don’t. I guess I can nearly see it both ways although the idea of not believing in God is for me very frightening but there you go. If I was a Christian I probably would want to become a nun. As it is my beliefs don’t allow that kind of life.

Geoffery that is kind of insulting but I was wondering do you realise that not believing is in fact a type of believing? and hat it works both ways?
Anyway we had a thread a few months ago I think I started it(??) Anyway as we said then Most people have one major belief be it science , money love or God, a prime assumption upon which they build there inner moral systems and beliefs. I believe in God but for the life of me I cannot (at least at this point in life or more correctly up to this point) Believe in Love it just seems illogical and rather ridiculous to me.
Apotropaic I would say that yes God doesn’t define you/me but then I don’t define God but your beliefs do in large part help to structure that definition of yourself. My belief in God is not all I am but it is a big part of who I am and that is something that wont change no matter what or how my beliefs change because it’s the way Im built.
Night - That was quite touching. You have way more experience and complexity than your age indicates.

Chinaski

04-21-2006, 08:11 AM

Belief is the death of intelligence - Robert Anton wilson

RobinHood3000

04-21-2006, 08:24 AM

And ill agree that there are many people out there who would refute my point about the existence of God but on what grounds? I do not understand why skeptics, who claim to be open minded, harden their hearts toward the Lord becuase the truth of the existence of God is all around us. Its in the living organisms of all types, the planet we live on, the universe that we exist within. I mean, its like someone who goes to a paramedic training school and they sit through all the lectures, they see the drills on how to give cpr, they watch videos, read statistics and how many lives have been saved through cpr. This person finally graduates and on that very weekend, they have the opportunity to save someone's life but dont because they didnt believe the truth behind the evidence.
I did not say "refute." Such is an impossibility, for the nature of a deity renders him, her, or it inherently unknowable. Whether that is a point of profundity or of convenience is a matter for the individual to decide. I said "debate," which is what we are doing now.

By the same token, there is a powerful distinction between evidence and faith. CPR functions by a mechanism that is scientifically proven--religion distinctly less so. In my paradigm, however, they do have something in common: both are inventions that save lives.

Belief is the death of intelligence - Robert Anton wilson
Not so. Belief is the birth of knowledge. One cannot know something to be personally true, be it the product of 6 and 7 or the nature of the universe, without first believing that it is so.

Chinaski

04-21-2006, 08:28 AM

Semantics old man! Perhaps 'Dogma is the death of inteligent thought'?

RobinHood3000

04-21-2006, 08:30 AM

I can't say I agree with the point entirely, whippersnapper, but the wording is better ;).

Chinaski

04-21-2006, 09:17 AM

heh - the old man was a term of endearment (a la the early 20th C. English Upper Classes) rather than a reference to your age - I'm no spring chicken!

RobinHood3000

04-21-2006, 09:22 AM

...nor am I a geezer in any physical sense of the word (though I can be uptight from time to time) :D. There's a rather lengthy thread somewhere in the recesses of the forum that details the gradual revelation of my age.

Geoffrey

04-21-2006, 11:17 AM

Nightshade, It is a bit of an insulting statement - it was not directed at anyone specifically anyways... But yes I do understand your point. Disbelief is as much of a belief as belief itself, and perhaps I'm the one who simply cannot 'expand' his mind enough to fathom a supreme and powerful god.

But still, it's clear the bible is a fictitious work (yes yes believe whatever you want) but it does not make all that has happened since the bible was written fictitious, so thus you end up with a very devoted group of people. And here I am, with all my disbelief, attending a catholic university.

If I had to say, the universe boils down to a math equation - but the only problem is that it can't be boiled down. But for humans to believe that they can define something as mighty as the god of our universe? well we should really learn our place.

Nightshade, if you believe in a god, truly with every part of you, how could you not love that god with all your heart? Knowing of a god would be knowing of the truest love - at least I always thought.

rufioag

04-21-2006, 11:51 AM

How and in what way is the Bible a fictional story Geoffrey. You have no claim nor proof to disprove the Bible in any matter what so ever. This is merely an opinion that you chose to believe. And there is one fact, you claim that you can believe in anything but does not believing in something make it less of a reality? Many Nazi's claimed that the Holocaust was merely a fabrication of the allies and never actually accured, but we know of course, the holocaust did occur! So just becuase they dont believe it happened doesnt prove that it didnt occur! So, reality isnt based on belief at all. I think the problem is that people tend to limit God but God trascends time and space and therefore cant be categorized by our limitations.

I am positive that there is no way man could or would create such a being. I know this becuase man cannnot raise himself from the dead. I know this because matter cannot be created from nothing. I just dont have enough faith to be an atheist.

This isnt meant to offend anyone, especially Geoffrey, Im just wondering about what proof makes the Bible ficticious?

RobinHood3000

04-21-2006, 12:05 PM

"God must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. God must even transcend our most remarkable--to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth--in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks--betray God Almighty? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image." Reality in many ways may be based on belief, if quantum physics have their say.

"This is merely an opinion that you choose to believe." What's your point?

Religious texts cannot be disproven, that is for certain, for all error can be attributed to human fallibility. Nor can they be proven, as the case is with the presence of a God. Stating that the Bible cannot be disproven is not an argument, it's a fact. That's what faith is for.

It is not disproof that makes people refuse to believe in God, rufioag--it is the undeniable lack of proof.

No man can raise himself from the dead. Neither can a man pull a rabbit from an empty hat.

"Why is God supposedly a fictional being?" Well, why is God supposedly real? There is no proof to render the Bible fictitious (at least not now), but neither is there anything to render it true.

Geoffrey

04-21-2006, 03:19 PM

I have as much proof that god is not real as you have that a god is real and I'm sound in the fact.

People need to be accepting that the possibility always remains that they are incorrect - but perhaps people are fearful that that would ruin the spell...

Soma

04-21-2006, 03:34 PM

I must agree with both Robin and Geoffry. I as a polytheist am often ridiculed saying that I cannot prove that there are more than one god. I follow a plethora of gods. I follow the Aasgard. I agree with you that I have as much proof in the Aasgard as you do for your God or whether there is even a god at all. Just seeing the workings of nature leads me to believe that there is more than just science working. How did it all start if not by some creator of sorts? It had to have started from somewhere. It is just as it is said in a Norse saga stating the creation by the Great Ones "Out of nothing came the something. Out of nothing came life."

It is within each of us that we have a desire to believe something. Even the most ardent atheist has a belief. Like I had stated, it is up to us whether we choose to accept or reject our belief as the gods have given us that choice

Jay

04-21-2006, 03:51 PM

Soma, what saga are you talking about? Just curious :)

beer good

04-21-2006, 04:04 PM

I believe that'd be the Völuspá.

http://cybersamurai.net/Mythology/nordic_gods/LegendsSagas/Edda/PoeticEdda/Voluspo.htm

Of course, the age of the Völuspá is a hotly debated subject, and parts of it are probably influenced by Christianity.

(Incidentally, is Asgard really a teaching? AFAIK, Asgard is the home of the Gods, but not the name of the religion itself...)

Jay

04-21-2006, 04:14 PM

Thank you :)

Soma

04-21-2006, 04:25 PM

It is indeed Völuspá. The religion I follow is called Asatru. The Aasgard is the home of the gods and I am in the Order of Loki. The teachings we follow are the different Sagas and Stories from the old norse

Nightshade

04-22-2006, 02:59 AM

Nightshade, if you believe in a god, truly with every part of you, how could you not love that god with all your heart? Knowing of a god would be knowing of the truest love - at least I always thought.

Because love of God is more loving yourself why do people love God because by doing so they are going to get something out of it-that is if they believe he exists. Im sure this s not a conscious working of alot of peoples minds but there you go - I fast because love god and want him to love me. I want God to love me so I can go to heaven. Pretty greedy isnt it? Of course this is a gross oversimplification of something so much more complex but that is sort of the beginning point of what I believe HUMAN love to be. Notice the stress on human? well thats because Knowing God means you know Gods love and that I can believe in that is the God loves all his creations otherwise the whole being a live thing is pretty pointless.

But for humans to believe that they can define something as mighty as the god of our universe? well we should really learn our place.
But didnt I just say that we cant define God? My belief is none can truly know God in fact its probably why in Islam its considered almost sin to try to imagine what he looks like.

But still, it's clear the bible is a fictitious work (yes yes believe whatever you want) but it does not make all that has happened since the bible was written fictitious, so thus you end up with a very devoted group of people. And here I am, with all my disbelief, attending a catholic university.
Not a Christian so cant and wont comment on the Truth or Fiction in the Bible its not my place and I know next to nothing of it firsthand.
:D

Nightshade

04-22-2006, 03:09 AM

Night - That was quite touching. You have way more experience and complexity than your age indicates.
:D Thanks Virgil but dont you mean more than you tend to show ? :p;) :lol:

bhekti

04-22-2006, 11:36 AM

Why do I need God?

Because I can’t live this life by being only myself. This life is too complex, too hard, too indifferent, too shocking. I can’t live such a life by being only myself.

I need strength. I need protection. I need defense. I need consolation. I need sanity. I need help. I need clarity. I need guarantee. And, I can’t get that that I need by being only myself. I need to complain. I need to cry. I need to get angry. I need to be happy.

A close friend of mine asked me the same question one day. When he got my answer, he said to me that I belonged to the weak. Well, yes that is precisely. I am weak, I said. But, my friend looked at me as if I had given him a wrong answer. Then he said to me that I had let myself being deluded because I had said I am weak. He said that I was weak because I let myself believe in weakness. I am weak because I myself actually want to be weak, he explained. Get self-confidence, he advised. I ought not to say “I am weak”. I have to try to realize my potentialities more for strength than for the belief in weakness, said my friend.

RobinHood3000

04-22-2006, 12:45 PM

A point of key importance is that one form of guidance cannot be appropriate for each person.

By the same token, one must be able to justify one's choice in guidance in order to be remotely certain that it IS appropriate.

Stanislaw

04-22-2006, 02:52 PM

I dont think the question is why we need a God, but as to how having a God hurts us?

What is so evil and wrong about beleiving in a God?

Oh well, personally I think the belief in God is inevitable and is not a question of want's or needs.

RobinHood3000

04-22-2006, 03:17 PM

Find a consensus between theists on why NOT believing in a God is wrong. Then we'll talk.

Stanislaw

04-22-2006, 03:24 PM

:D show me a good...

oh well, personally this is a bit of a pointless debate...I mean, whats wrong with believing in a God, Its much like athiesim and the strong disbelief in god...disbelief taken on a faith.

RobinHood3000

04-22-2006, 03:31 PM

I know YOU are, but what am--oh, sorry, wrong debate :p...

One would be surprised (I wouldn't say "shocked," although that can be the case) at how theists view themselves and atheists. Some of the more extreme Christians, as an example, have the gall to speak of themselves as if they were some sort of persecuted minority. I have yet to meet someone who discriminates against theists simply because they're theists (if anyone has any anecdotes, do regale us), although the other way around seems to happen in more subtle ways than people expect.

I wonder if the Americans will have a gay president or an atheist president first...

Nightshade

04-22-2006, 03:34 PM

[quote] Oh well, personally I think the belief in God is inevitable and is not a question of want's or needs.[/quote} explain please:D becasue I think I agree if what your saying is what Im thinking your saying is the same as....well you get the idea?

Robin going to sound real dumb here but ahhh whats a theists??

Stanislaw

04-22-2006, 03:42 PM

Xamonas Chegwe

04-22-2006, 07:54 PM

George W, Tommy J - both were widely believed to be atheists in all but name.

RobinHood3000

04-22-2006, 08:41 PM

Thomas Jefferson? Professed deist, he was, but has there ever been one who believed in NO higher power?

mtpspur

04-23-2006, 12:49 AM

I've been debating the wisdom of joining on all this. Botom line for me is either the Bible is God's Word as He reveals itself or not. If it is I'ld better pay attention and I might just learn something or if not go back to watching Cheers reruns. Highly simplified but when you are definitely well over half your hoped for life expectancy it's well to consider where you are headed. I profess to be a Christian who the longer I live and consider my continuing adventures with 'sin' I more then appreciate God's patience. I would have stomped me out a long time ago. But I don't profess to have even a fraction of His love, patience amd holiness. Which is why I'm glad the Lord Christ loves me anyway. As Elijah in Book of Kings pointed out--pick a side. Noteworthy the people kept their silence. 2 Kings 16(??) Bible not at hand. If I offend I apologize only for a lack of patience with the beating around the bush I keep reading on this forum.

Nightshade

04-23-2006, 03:58 AM

Thomas Jefferson? Professed deist, he was, but has there ever been one who believed in NO higher power?
Robin do you mean president or person? Because how can you not believe in any higher power...UI mean there is science nature physics money love family..... isnt a higher power just what a certain person thinks is the most important and influential thing around that causes other things to happen and be?
Isnt that basically what a religious belief is, an attempt to understand the world and life?

Actually I believe that every human being is born with the desire to believe in somthing greater than themselves some higher power if you will a need top seek a god or whatever to believe in.which is why religons cults followings crazy screaming fans have all been around for rever and always will be.:D

RobinHood3000

04-23-2006, 06:18 AM

I profess to be a Christian who the longer I live and consider my continuing adventures with 'sin' I more then appreciate God's patience. I would have stomped me out a long time ago. But I don't profess to have even a fraction of His love, patience amd holiness. Which is why I'm glad the Lord Christ loves me anyway.
That which you call "patience," some call "absence," just so you're aware.

Robin do you mean president or person? Because how can you not believe in any higher power...UI mean there is science nature physics money love family..... isnt a higher power just what a certain person thinks is the most important and influential thing around that causes other things to happen and be?
Isnt that basically what a religious belief is, an attempt to understand the world and life?No, that's a philosophy. A religion is something related but different.

Science, nature, physics, money, love, family are all concepts created by society, true enough. However, science and physics are meant to explain how reality works, not why reality is (fact, not truth). Love and family are evolutionary constructs that came about as a means of preserving a strong family unit (thus helping to ensure survival of the species). Money is a higher power only to the most ill-adjusted extremes. And nature (particularly the belief in Mother Nature) is in many ways a higher power (for that reason, I do not believe in her, either). Mother Nature doesn't profess to deal with life after death, however, which makes her more a philosophical concept than a religious figure.

Actually I believe that every human being is born with the desire to believe in somthing greater than themselves some higher power if you will a need top seek a god or whatever to believe in.which is why religons cults followings crazy screaming fans have all been around for rever and always will be.:D
Personally, I think that the main reason that this phenomenon seems to occur is that the vast majority of human beings have theist parents (in answer to your earlier question, a theist is a non-atheist, at least in my usage; one who believes in one or more gods). When the child eventually comes instinctually looking to the parents for guidance, they often get deferred to the higher power to which the parents claim to answer. The religion of the parents' is generally the "default" setting for new humans. Given the exposure to religion at such an early age, it is difficult to convince people to actively reconsider the paradigm that they have long regarded as truth.

Nightshade

04-23-2006, 11:10 AM

Well Im not going to disagree with you their especially in children but I would say though that even in little children you might notice how thier beliefs are often ever so slightly differant than thier parents and that they take it in interanlise it and decide what they want to believe.
In the end people belive what they want to and thats that.

optimisticnad

04-23-2006, 11:16 AM

once i was in a chat room and I cant remember exact details but i do remember getting involved in this heated debate about something and one the thing this person i was chatting to said was that belief is the absence of experience/ lack of experience equals belief. Now i believe in God but this made me think about how we always say exactly what I've just said: I BELIEVE in God: lack of experience? absence of experience? Just made me think...

Nightshade

04-23-2006, 11:21 AM

What do you mean by experiance,Optimistiic?

optimisticnad

04-23-2006, 11:29 AM

experience.
belief in something: lack of experience, if you've experienced something yourself you don't say I belive do you? So why do we say I believe in God? Why that specific word? And how do you 'experience' God? That spiritual feeling?
anyway must get on with essay.
(your mission is succeeding!)

Nightshade

04-23-2006, 11:39 AM

Because religon is about faith and belief I guess then again I could say I experiance the Glory of God everyday but you cant say that without sounding like a nutter now can you? Belief is the right word for it because of the way the english languge is built.
(thanks :D)
But I wouldnt say it was the absence of experiance I think you need to experiance to believe. Well I do anyway. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif

mtpspur

04-23-2006, 01:46 PM

Reply to Robin Hood -- you'reright--was grouchywhen I wrote it and I do believe I was disrespectful. I think I overreacted.Letme start over. I believe it comesdown to faith in something I can't prove. All the analysing, reasoning in the world will never conclusively prove one way or the other. The Bible makes too many claims that must be believed or not. Either the whole book is to be trusted or where do you draw lines and what to acceptor not to accept. Asthe years have gone by I have found God to be very faithful to His word and the longer I read His words I have found the Bible makes everything make sense and it fits for every type of person there is. I have no businees trying to make anyone belive what they think of the Bible but I do believe Christiansare unjustly critizizedfortheir simple faith in its words.

By the way and totally off the mark--I'm a Batman fan butI read Green Arrow before Oliver ever hadthe beard back in his old World's Finest dayswhich DC recently reprinted.

I shall try in future to post in a better frame of mind. But I still think people shouldtake a stand---(in a lessthan arrogant manner)--again thanks for your tact Robin.

RobinHood3000

04-23-2006, 05:05 PM

No hard feelings, mtpspur--welcome to the forums. No disrespect meant or perceived. Take your stand, and I'll take mine; wouldn't have it any other way.

Awww, you're missing out on Ollie's best stuff!

Green Arrow: "Nice to meet you, pretty bird. Catch the size of that shaft, did you?"
Black Canary: "Keep it in your quiver, Trickshot. *Jerk.*"
Green Arrow: "*Score.*"

Green Lantern: "Why don't you fire your metal detection arrow?"
Green Arrow: "Sorry, fresh out. Maybe my jerk magnet will find something."

falling*moon

04-23-2006, 05:19 PM

I bet we do not need a school master either..

we do not even need a President to rule the country.. :D

let me imagin our class without the teacher.... or the church without the precher .!!!!

love

RobinHood3000

04-23-2006, 05:52 PM

The schoolmaster, the President, the teacher, and the preacher all actively participate in that with which they are concerned.

Xamonas Chegwe

04-23-2006, 06:18 PM

The schoolmaster, the President, the teacher, and the preacher all actively participate in that with which they are concerned.

Nice point Robin.

mtpspur

04-24-2006, 12:19 AM

Note to Robin Hood---I like Green Arrow but I got really tired of how he'ld come and go in Black Canary's life. I always felt the GL/GA series wasslanted in his directions and Hal Jordan's was made limp in comparison.

I appreciate your words of encouragement. I do believe the Bible very much (when it's done in faith) and respect honest disagreement instead of the usual knee jerk reactions.

I'm also not quite sure I understand this debate after all. I remember back around 1970 something reading a book review of the Bible written for a Psychology magazine (sold in the eneral reading market) withe the precise idea that it was a literature book much as say Aesop Fables I suppose and laughing because by then it's been impossible for me to read the Bible and not believe God the Creator was speaking to me. I often forget that people really don't spend a lot of time thinking of the after life and the consequences of their actions in this life.

Again thanks. And one final confession---I really liked Hawkeye better and was furious with the last few issues of Avengers (and the relaunch).

Apotropaic

04-24-2006, 12:42 AM

Why do I need God?

Because I can’t live this life by being only myself. This life is too complex, too hard, too indifferent, too shocking. I can’t live such a life by being only myself.

I need strength. I need protection. I need defense. I need consolation. I need sanity. I need help. I need clarity. I need guarantee. And, I can’t get that that I need by being only myself. I need to complain. I need to cry. I need to get angry. I need to be happy.
That's what I'm curious about. It is after all, still your mind that generates all the strength and protection and all those. You make yourself believe in a god that gives you all those, just like the Chinese believe in a god that gives them prosperity, although they themselves still do the work and earn the money. At least, that's what I believe.

oh well, personally this is a bit of a pointless debate...I mean, whats wrong with believing in a God, Its much like athiesim and the strong disbelief in god...disbelief taken on a faith.

Oh well, personally I think the belief in God is inevitable and is not a question of want's or needs.
This isn't a debate, it's your own proclamation of your own faith. I'm not after the correctness of having one, I'm wondering what your god means to you. And no, I don't think belief in god is inevitable. Your parents or your school can drag you to church, or they can force feed the bible in your mouth, but it's still up to you in the end.

RobinHood3000

04-24-2006, 06:02 AM

Hawkeye's costume is silly, and Green Arrow's goatee looks cooler. Nyeh.

mtpspur

04-24-2006, 02:14 PM

Note to Robin Hood---I concede Green Arrow's costume is cooler. My main liking for Hawkeye was based on the fact that he is one of the very few characters who can actively disagree with Captain Amercia and know what he's talking about and make Cap think about his course of action. Poor green Arrow I do not believe is really taken seriously by the JLA---his constant coming s and goings don't help (and asI type this Hawkeye was just as bad). Ollie's rants and raves add to the turmoil.

But back to the discusssion---got to go to work.

Stanislaw

04-24-2006, 02:27 PM

This isn't a debate, it's your own proclamation of your own faith. I'm not after the correctness of having one, I'm wondering what your god means to you. And no, I don't think belief in god is inevitable. Your parents or your school can drag you to church, or they can force feed the bible in your mouth, but it's still up to you in the end.

Belief is inevitable...there is a portion of the human brain that actually responds to belief and prayer/meditation.

And belief in God has little to do with "dragging to church" or "being force fed the bible" belief in God (well, for the sake of argument) 'all supreme natural super cool dude who has no affiliation with any religions given name so as not to piss off anitchristians' however...if you claim not to believe in the christian god, muslim god, hindu god, budhist bodhisafa, shinto god... then somewhere there is a god that you believe, allbeit the god that is not god but science.

Nightshade

04-24-2006, 02:45 PM

Look someone who actually put what I was trying to say in better words :D

Stanislaw

04-24-2006, 04:38 PM

heh, sorry didn't mean to steal your thunder. :)

Chinaski

04-24-2006, 05:14 PM

Sorry can't do quote thing.

"Belief is inevitable...there is a portion of the human brain that actually responds to belief and prayer/meditation"

Yeah - but there is a cause and effect question isn't there? Would it respond to belief in somebody who has no concept of belief? Similarly, there might be areas that respond to other abstract notions, but we will never know if we don't hold that concept...I'm probably not being clear - but I know what I mean!

And what is this about having to believe in something, "...albeit science." Hmmm! If we are talking about 'belief' as in fideism, then it's not inevitable is it? I might 'believe' that gravity keeps me on the ground - I don't believe; and anyway I could be convinced of it if there were a compelling enough argument for another concept. Or am I just being argumentative, cos I should be doing something more productive, but I am starting to get into literature forums?

blp

04-24-2006, 07:25 PM

somewhere there is a god that you believe, allbeit the god that is not god but science.

Gorblimey, stanislaw, you're not really still riding this tired old hobbyhorse are you? It's NOT THE SAME THING. Science is first of all, not one monolithic entity that you do or do not believe in. It's not even a religion to the tenets of which you subscribe or don't. It's a vast body of more or less proven facts or hypotheses, all of which are continually open to question, which makes the whole enterprise more about skepticism than belief anyway.

blp

04-24-2006, 07:26 PM

Or am I just being argumentative, cos I should be doing something more productive, but I am starting to get into literature forums?
It's a black hole. And it's sucking you in.

jackyyyy

04-25-2006, 06:08 AM

Humans are animals, they have instincts. One of our instincts is self-preservation. This extends from our physical to our metaphysical. When we can't fight an idea anymore, we might give up, succumb to a lesser agreement. Belief in something, without reasonable proof, is usually wrong. However, people still do it, and I'll be generous, extreme cases. Reasonable proof is what scientists strive for, and theorists elude to. No? ;)

blp

04-25-2006, 08:46 AM

jackyyyy

04-25-2006, 09:11 AM

blp

04-25-2006, 09:26 AM

I am commenting on a few points in this thread; that Belief is inevitable, and God is inevitable and not a question of wants and needs. I am driving at, and as an example; our physical needs make us eat, our emotional needs 'can' make us believe. I disagree that 'belief' or 'a God' is inevitable, but do agree it can be needed.

You may be right. I think it's mostly about the desire for a good father figure and, occasionally, a good mother figure. A failure to grow up really.

jackyyyy

04-25-2006, 10:25 AM

You may be right. I think it's mostly about the desire for a good father figure and, occasionally, a good mother figure. A failure to grow up really.I have this terrible habit of looking at the plain paper of it. You are absolutely right. :nod:

rufioag

04-25-2006, 11:35 AM

But, your points dont exactly hold up too well. If there is soo much evidence to prove that God doesnt exist and no evidence to prove He does exist, then why do people still believe, especially when we grow up!? People tend to believe that science disproves God, but on the contrary, it supports Him to the fullest.

My one question is, how did matter form from nothing if there is no God? Unless you believe in the creating of something out nothing, there is no answer to this question. Everything in the Universe exists in a cause and an affect analysis, this is science. I am alive becuase my parents gave birth to me. So we come to creation. The Effect is the Big Bang, but what was the cause? But I understand people tend to avoid this question because they dont know, and thats understandable. But I know, and it is the same reason that Jesus was raised from the dead, walked on water, healed the sick, cured the blind. Its because God exists!

And the arguement that belief is inevitable is rediculous because there are many of you here who do not believe and thus enough evidence to refute this claim.

Chinaski

04-25-2006, 11:58 AM

Nightshade

04-25-2006, 01:48 PM

Blp but surley belief is belief no matter what it is your believing in? So Stans theory ( and mine) hold up .
:D

Gozeta

04-25-2006, 03:53 PM

There may have been something before the big bang - but why your, Christian, God? I personally believe in a giant Yak called Shimmy Shimmy Co Co Pop who wears a giant beanie hat. And there is just as much evidence that he exists. None.

Your right there was something before the Big Bang. God was there before it ever happened. To believe that we came to be just out of PURE chance, is a mistake... We are more than animals; we have been given a soul.

Tell me; what if I believed in God but there was none. What would happen to me in death? Nothing...I would just simply cease to exist. I would have no regrets for living my life to the "fullest"

Tell me; what would happen if I didn't believe in God but He was real? What would happen to me in death then?

Better to have believed than to not have believed at all.

Bandini

04-25-2006, 03:56 PM

Sh*t yeah! I spend my life in fear, in case Shimmy Shimmy Coco pop passes me through his elimentary canal.

How about you live a good life because you want to? Because it's nice to be nice folks - simple as that.

Nightshade

04-25-2006, 03:59 PM

BUt why fear? Anyway got to say I agree with Virgil.

How about you live a good life because you want to? Because it's nice to be nice folks - simple as that.
Yes but religion is the basis from which society basis nice and right isnt it?

Bandini

04-25-2006, 04:02 PM

It used to be. We moved on fella. Evolved.

Gozeta

04-25-2006, 04:18 PM

It is not fear that I live by. It is contentment of knowing God does exist. It fills my heart where there was nothing there to begin with.

Tell me, who here can prove that a species evolved to another kind?

rufioag

04-25-2006, 04:44 PM

There is no direct evidence of evolution, only theory in which they take Darwins theory and apply it accross the board when in reality, Darwins theory only supports adaptation among species.

Also, I think its continually a misconception that in order to get to Heaven you have to be nice. It is by Grace, and Grace alone that we are saved. Good works are NOTHING without FAITH in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. But, we also know that in:

James 2:17,18
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

Does this contradict the fact that you are saved alone by Grace? No, it sure doesnt becuase a Christian will show his faith through his actions and those who see him will know that truly his Lord and Saviour is Christ.

Xamonas Chegwe

04-25-2006, 04:58 PM

Tell me, who here can prove that a species evolved to another kind?

No one can 'prove' it, because you can always say, "How do you know it wasn't done by magic?" - to which the only valid answer is - "Well, I don't know, I can't know, but I have a sneaking suspicion that however the multiplicity of species that exist arrived upon this globe, it wasn't through the intervention of elves, fairies or some kid called Potter."
(I am not claiming that you are seriously proposing this here - I am just coming up with an argument equally as arcane and absurd as creationism, but which has less adherents, and showing that even that cannot be disproved.

Evolution cannot be tested or proven using the normal scientific methods, due to the time scales involved; but it does explain all of the available facts, has held up against all recent discoveries, and has stood the test of time in the face of a continual onslaught by those that would rather take a 2000 year old book at literal face value than use the brain which (they claim) God gave them for its proper function of extrapolating and deducing from the known facts using logic and intelligence.

Read a modern biology textbook; evolution and genetics is explained quite satisfactorily to any but the most blinkered religious pedant.

Can you prove that a TV doesn't work because an imp is inside turning tiny, coloured lamps on and off?

Bandini

04-25-2006, 05:03 PM

"...where there was nothing there to begin with..." Yes.

Why do some Christians always talk like they are trying to convince themselves of something? Hmmm! Occams razor needed here methinks. If it brings you comfort, then goodo. I know some good Christians - and I don't know he is 'truly' (interesting use of superfluous adverb there) anything except a good guy, just as I recognise any good guy. It's primitive nonsense matey. I have a good moral compass without having to subscribe to it. But each to their own...

rufioag

04-25-2006, 05:06 PM

I will consent to ur arguement in the fact that evolution is a possibility to explain the multitude of different species. Yes, a good theory. But why is it more plausible to say that we evolved from sponaneous creation of a cell from amino acids then to say that God created the multitudes of of different species which, over time, have adapted to survive around the world?

Just as you cannot prove evolution, I can not prove my belief that God created every living creature.

Id also say that I am not writing this to prove this to myself. If I wanted to do that Id write an essay and stand in front of the mirror and read it to myself and have an arguement there. I hope that you can give my arguement as fair of an open mind as im giving yours.

Xamonas Chegwe

04-25-2006, 05:19 PM

Why is saying that god created all of the species any more plausible than saying that elves and fairies did it? Or aliens dropped them here from space? Would you give these ideas an equally 'open mind'?

Just asking. ;)

Xamonas Chegwe

04-25-2006, 05:24 PM

And why, when there is a scientific theory that ticks all the boxes, that fits in perfectly with what we know of DNA replication, cell division, sexual reproduction, genetic mutation, species behaviour and inter-species competition, would you wish to supplant it with one saying - "Well there's this book see, and no, it doesn't mention DNA, or even cells, but it's well respected by a lot of old men with beards and ever so poetically written - and I'd rather believe that than some theory that's a bit too clinical for my taste."?

rufioag

04-25-2006, 05:25 PM

Scheherazade

04-25-2006, 05:35 PM

rufiog,

You find it hard to believe that 'the Universe created itself' but how about God? Where did God come from? Create himself?

Xamonas Chegwe

04-25-2006, 05:47 PM

rufioag,

I'm sorry that you feel that way - honest. I am not mocking, merely using humour to add interest to what can be a very dry discussion otherwise. I genuinely do believe what I said about evolution being a far more complete, solid and evidential theory than creationism. It shows not only the large picture of the gradual emergence of species, which is borne out by the fossil record, but also (in combination with genetic theory, microbiology and organic chemistry) presents the underlying mechanisms for that change in precise detail. Were DNA to be present in fossil evidence, I am quite convinced that it would provide the evidence to confirm the theory.

As for "Something coming from nothing", I am afraid that this predates evolutionary theory by several billion years. You are talking here about Big-bang theory, astrophysics, and the emergence of self-replicating molecules from a primordial 'soup' of chemicals - these too are well presented and substantiated in scientific journals. And again, the theories are much more rigorously stated than anything in the bible.

I do not, as some would state, believe in science, so much as I have been convinced by its arguments. I am afraid that the counter-arguments propounded by creationists and the like are far less convincing to anyone prepared to hold them to scrutiny.

You are of course fully entitled to your opinion. Ultimately, faith is belief without proof - so it cannot be defeated by proof. Personally, I prefer my beliefs to be based on proof, not on faith. This leaves unanswered questions, but that's the best bit - a bit of ambiguity is precious.

PS. Ferries? A universe created by passenger boats - can't see it myself. ;) Oops, there I go injecting unwanted humour again. Naughty naughty Xamonas - Go stand in the corner for an hour! :D

XXdarkclarityXX

04-25-2006, 06:01 PM

Sure, it would be plausable to say that elves and ferries created life on Earth. Just as plausible to say that than to say that the Universe created itself.

I just dont understand why you mock every answer that is given. I was hoping to have a discussion and not turn this into an attempt at trying to dissprove the others beliefs through insincerity.

You need to realize that this is a forum, not a big plastic bubble for you to hide in. If you want a place where you can say whatever you want without any spiteful reactions, you're not looking for the real world. The fact that you are sharing your thoughts implies consent for other members to comment upon them. You also, however, have the opportunity to provide a rebuttle to the so-called "mockery" of which you speak. My personal suggestion is to toughen up and provide some type of counter-argument instead of whining at an individual's approach to your comments. Unless of course you have none to give, in which case you shouldn't give ideas at all. Be prepared to defend everything you put here, because you have a 99.9% chance that someone won't like it. If you want to talk to me further, go ahead and PM me. I'm not trying to mock you either, but I do want you to be aware of the fact that the atmosphere here is very....critical? An argument without evidence is just an opinion, and opinions do not hold positions. Arguments do.

rufioag

04-25-2006, 06:09 PM

Lol...Im honestly not whining I was simply pointing out his attempt to disprove logic through mockery. I do not take offense to it and I thoroughly enjoy reading Xamonas posts becuase most of them (except the ones on ferries lol) hold weight that is conceivable.

But I will provide counter evidence. God did not create himself. Because creation of oneself would induce the idea of existence before creation which is false. God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Meaning, he has always existed. He is outside of time and space. These are my arguement and not merely an opinion becuase logical following of the evidence brings up facts about the existence of God. Of course, you could say that they are opinion becuase it is what I believe based upon the Bible, but isnt all personal interpretations of any given passage or statement an opinion? Please read the following arguement:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm

Yes it is long but through progression it does a great job of explaining the existence of a God outside of time and space. I hope that if you do read it, you would have questions becuase I dont believe in pure exceptance of someone's theory or opinion because acceptance without question shows ignorance of reality.

I enjoy a good arguement and Ill accept any personal mockery. My point in the statement was to try and attempt to get the thread back on a serious note.

Bandini

04-25-2006, 06:22 PM

There is no direct evidence of evolution

Who mentioned Darwin? I don't believe or not believe (look at my tag line!). I use evolved in the context, that my thought processes have evolved from a primitive belief that someone wants me to say he is great all the time, and worry that I am doing the right thing in his eyes: I am a 'good' guy, because I think it's ****ty to make people feel bad. I get pleasure from being 'good'. Though I have done plenty of things that would see me burn in Hell according to medieval nonsense that some spout; ooops - there I go being proud - a few more aeons wearing spiky underpants. In fact just not being a Christian means I'll burn in Hell doesn't it? Hmmm! I think I'll skip that evil sh*t.

kilted exile

04-25-2006, 06:47 PM

Tell me, who here can prove that a species evolved to another kind?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4461827.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

Stanislaw

04-25-2006, 08:03 PM

oh man, 'ere we go with the evolution crap again, see yall later! :mad:

RobinHood3000

04-25-2006, 10:15 PM

mtpspur

04-25-2006, 10:36 PM

In the example of the publican and the pharisee worhiping at the temple--the pharisee left unjustified in the eyes of God because he promoted his works in such a way as to imply God was lucky to have him in the congregation whereas the publican knew he was in trouble. Good works usually get me in a pickle because I can always find a selfish motive for it. God looks at the heart-not the outward appearance. By the Bible teaching responsibility for our actions/works etc we should inevitably find we fall short.

rufioag

04-25-2006, 10:40 PM

Robin Hood, in the eyes of man your deeds are indeed great and no one can take away the great reputation u have earned through charity. But, if the motives of your deeds arent to praise God, then in his eyes, the acts are selfish. I hope you understand me more cl early.

RobinHood3000

04-25-2006, 10:55 PM

Selfish? On what grounds? I apologize for my bluntness, but from my perspective, I have a different interpretation of doing good to improve the lives of others versus doing good with some hope of eternal reward. I don't mean to trivialize your good works--all's well that ends well, as far as I am concerned, hence my overall positive stance towards religion--but I do not see how doing things for others constitutes selfishness.

rufioag

04-25-2006, 11:36 PM

Its definetly not selfish if you have the right mindset. All I was saying is that some people do things (contribute money to the poor, build houses for the needy, etc) and this is all great but sometimes they do them to gain personal recognition and do not do them solely for the act of giving. That is the type that is selfish.

Soma

04-25-2006, 11:42 PM

OK. In my studies among different works this has come to mind in reading this thread. It is from Moses Hess's "Communist Confession" in where god was the human species or 'mankind united in love'. God had seemed outside humanity, because humanity had itself lived in a state of separation and antagonism. But with the coming of communism, hell would no longer exist on earth, nor heaven beyond it; rather, everything that in Christianity had been represented prophetically and fantastically would come to pass in a truly human society founded upon the eternal laws of love and reason. I find that to be moving because it represented a society that had found that through themselves they would find a god that would grant them peace and love and joy and the such. Interprete how you will but I think that that bit of reading from Moses Hess has shed a bit of light on the entire subject of whether we need a god and whether he really exists.

Regit

04-26-2006, 12:23 AM

Hi Soma,

Hess's theory (to combine religion and nationalism) is a theory heavily discarded. The idea that God is "mankind united in love", however beautiful it may seem, is not in keeping with the teaching of the Bible. In fact it's not even in keeping with Judeism, which is Hess's religion, or any other of the "great" religions. It's not in keeping with the sociologies of religions either. He was very much concerned with the struggles for indentities and nations around the crisis of his time. But, like Marx, he uses to explain religion his vague and ambiguous version of nationalism (except Marx was more concerned with economics and social class, and argued his case much more convincingly). The bottom line is, Hess was identified more as a nationalist than a religious man.

God is not human, and that is the assumption that both the atheist and the theist are relying on in this discussion I believe.

Soma

04-26-2006, 12:59 AM

Regit, I am not stating that Hess may be right or that he may be wrong. He can be either. That is a debate on a philosophical level and has no right or wrong answer. He is right to some ans wrong to others. One cannot prove one way or the other that God is human and it actually falls in line with the way that the thread is going. What he is merely stating is that one can find a god within himself. That it needs to come to a self realization. I would recommend reading the book to anyone for any insights into not only polotics but as in self realization of the potential one has to better the world and in so doing become "godlike in nature". I would like to add that his ideas have been discarded by some but to say heavily discarded would be a bit over the top. It is still accept by some and rejected by some. To say heavily discarded after it has been rejected by some would be to say that democracy has been heavily discarded because part of the world does not practice it or recognize it as a viable form of government but that would be a topic for another time. I just wished to point to the underlying tone in his writing that we have "godlike" potential within each of us.

Regit

04-26-2006, 01:18 AM

Hi Soma,

By "heavily discarded" I meant that, whilst many scholars were attracted to his arguments, most disagree with his conclusion. You are right: it would be impossible for me to know and sum up the personal opinions of everyone who has ever read this book in order to base on that to claim that it was discarded. I can only rely on what I learnt through the studies of other scholars. As you probably know, that final claim that a philosopher makes after his reasoning is the most impostant and, thus, is ultimately based on in judging his theory as a whole by other scientists. In this sense, this thoery IS heavily discarded. On a personal level, you can read the book in whatever perception you wish to.

Another thing; being 'godlike' is very much different from actually being God. Godlikeness does not contradict any religious or political doctrine; 'tis claiming that God is a human entity whilst also sacred at the same time that does. Though you are right; I can't state whether Hess was right or wrong, even based on studies and opinions of other scholars; and I was not. I was expressing an opinion, just as you were.

Nightshade

04-26-2006, 03:31 AM

I do belive we are straying off the topic the question isnt IS there a God or gods but why do people belive in god or gods and why do some people not. The 2 things are not really the same at all.
Soma maybe its not that we have "godlike" charcteristics but more that the common idea of God has human like charcteristics that perhps you can see have evoloved with time... I guess it could be because people would be more comfortable on the whole with a human than some totally unknow superpower

Its definetly not selfish if you have the right mindset. All I was saying is that some people do things (contribute money to the poor, build houses for the needy, etc) and this is all great but sometimes they do them to gain personal recognition and do not do them solely for the act of giving. That is the type that is selfish.
you know what Ive always believed believing in GOd is a very selfish self centred attitude--needless to say I belive in God. I mena yes we do all this but why? So I can get Gods recognition for it and my reward which is just as bad...no I think that really the only people who can possibly do somthing good just because are children and very young ones at that. I mean face it charity is selfish even if you dont do it for any of these reasons but because you like to help people and it makes you feel good and warm and gooey inside ( if your like me youll know what I mean) its all selfishness.
PS there IS an eveloution (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3868) thread you know :D

jackyyyy

04-26-2006, 06:00 AM

Okay, lesse now...

I think that atheism requires even more faith than theism, on the basis of the point that we atheists have nothing to gain if we are wrong.

Good works are useless without faith? How so? Is my charity worth less than a theist's charity because it is done in the name of goodness rather than God? Or because I anticipate no reward?Excellent point, Robin! And generally, can we remember how cold it is, sitting alone, devout to the 'belief' that they need proof before they will subside to another's, and while others all about feel safer in their's, without same proof. If those have proof enough for them, then good.

Regit

04-26-2006, 10:18 AM

you know what Ive always believed believing in GOd is a very selfish self centred attitude--needless to say I belive in God. I mena yes we do all this but why? So I can get Gods recognition for it and my reward which is just as bad...no I think that really the only people who can possibly do somthing good just because are children and very young ones at that. I mean face it charity is selfish even if you dont do it for any of these reasons but because you like to help people and it makes you feel good and warm and gooey inside ( if your like me youll know what I mean) its all selfishness.

My understanding of the word selfish is different. According to the Oxford dictionary, being selfish means: "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others." (Again, I am not claiming that the dictionary is a source of truth, I only think it a strong support to my argument). And I think you would agree that the teachings of most religions promote the consideration for others, forgiveness, etc. And as long as an act has consideration for other's interest, then it cannot be deemed a selfish act.

If you had said that no good deed is completely selfless? I would agree with you in this case. But then this would be a completely different argument. So, do you?

Regit

04-26-2006, 10:35 AM

I do belive we are straying off the topic the question isnt IS there a God or gods but why do people belive in god or gods and why do some people not. The 2 things are not really the same at all.

I'm sorry if you were not addressing this to me. But in case you were; I believe I was arguing the case that God is not human but is Supernatural, and Soma was suggesting the opposite. This is NOT a discussion about whether God exists; this is a discussion about what God IS. I believe you have misread our points.

And I also believe that the original question was: "Why do you need a God?" And to try and answer the question as to what we think God is, IS very important in answering this original question, not off topic at all.

Again, please let me apologise if you were talking about something completely different.

ShoutGrace

04-26-2006, 12:27 PM

I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one?

And I also believe that the original question was: "Why do you need a God?"

I was just wondering if the question was open to both theists who believe in God and skeptics/atheists/agnostics who do not. These threads often get muddled and aggravated (due to the subject matter? I think? duh?).

Hopefully we can all keep our sanest heads and be on best behavior.

you know what Ive always believed believing in GOd is a very selfish self centred attitude--needless to say I belive in God. I mena yes we do all this but why? So I can get Gods recognition for it and my reward which is just as bad...no I think that really the only people who can possibly do somthing good just because are children and very young ones at that.

I'm not sure about other faith systems, or yours Nightshade, but for Christians, the base purpose for believing in God is because you have become convinced that he loves you and you wish to try to know him better. I don't think that it is selfish at all. I don't want God's recognition. I just hope that I can do "allright" and get away with my existence here. Jesus has convicted me of a higher purpose, calling and way of life that I will follow to any end, peacefull or painfull. Your comment about children and young ones is cool because Jesus said both

"Unless you change and become like children you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

"Suffer the little children and let them come to me, for of such is the Kingdom of God."

Trusting, unpretentious. Fair and innocent. I personally think you were dead on about that!

Selfish? On what grounds? I apologize for my bluntness, but from my perspective, I have a different interpretation of doing good to improve the lives of others versus doing good with some hope of eternal reward. I don't mean to trivialize your good works--all's well that ends well, as far as I am concerned, hence my overall positive stance towards religion--but I do not see how doing things for others constitutes selfishness.

I just wanted attempt to clear something up here. Christians (whether ostensibly or not) are doing good works and performing charity not in the hopes of attaining an eternal reward but because Jesus explicitly commanded us to do them. Anyone who loves Jesus can't help but feed the poor and clothe the naked, simply because He said that whoever did that for any person was in effect doing it for Jesus himself. And who, while believing that Jesus himself loved them and gave himself for them (Gal 2:20), wouldn't do anything he asked? Or anything that would in any way effect him in a postive manner?

I read a book a couple of years ago, in which a sociologist/phsycologist argued that every good deed was selfish, be it atheistic or theistic. Giving truly is better than recieving! We naturally feel good when we make others lives better! I won't argue the subconcious because I'm not a doctor. I don't care what is going on in my head when I give of myself for another person, because I am trying to do what my Lord said was true and right. I also don't care what is going on in an atheists (concious or subconcious) head whilst they give. The bottom line is that good works aren't the be all end all in my worldview. Before we can worry about aspect of life #5 we have to worry about aspect #1. Without Jesus' amazing grace good works are, in my mind, superficial.

If you had said that no good deed is completely selfless? I would agree with you in this case. But then this would be a completely different argument.

Merriam Webster defines selfish as

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.

Funk and Wagnalls defines selfish as

1 : caring chiefly for self or for one's own interests or comfort.

In that sense I think that charity does indeed give a sense of comfort and fufillment. I think that amazingly enough you can perform charity with a total disregard for the wellbeing or others. Theoretically (as some have argued it),the good you do and the blessings you work in others lives are incidental.

I totally agree with you concerning the matter of Hess's work, Regit. Once again, I won't pretend to understand other faith systems (or even my own, fully) but this goes completely against everything we know about God.

Bandini

04-26-2006, 12:35 PM

oh man, 'ere we go with the evolution crap again, see yall later! :mad:

I know - that God or evolution dichotomy bollox. I don't have to prove evolution to think belief in a particular God is nonsense.

Gozeta

04-26-2006, 02:27 PM

I know - that God or evolution dichotomy bollox. I don't have to prove evolution to think belief in a particular God is nonsense.

Then tell me why do you think to believe in God is nonesense???

By the way; the same goes for me too...I don't have to prove that there is a God to think and beleive atheism is nonesense. :)

Bandini

04-26-2006, 02:30 PM

People don't just HAVE a god... it's not something you pick up and decide to make him your lucky charm or something.

Exactly - so lets stop pretending it's anything else eh?

Bandini

04-26-2006, 02:32 PM

Oh - whoops I missed the 'not'. But that is what it is really isn't it - superstition?

ShoutGrace

04-26-2006, 03:01 PM

Oh - whoops I missed the 'not'. But that is what it is really isn't it - superstition?

Belief in God is not superstition. Human beings who believe in God must necessarily have evidentiary reasons for their belief. What is our reality? How is a "religious experience" any less valid than vague animosity? Is not a human testimony and attestation to personal knowledge valid? At least as it relates to the notion that belief in the supernatural is superstition.

Whether you believe in God because of the "just right" Universe, the Kalam Cosmological argument, prophecies fufilled through Jesus, the Christ, personal experiences with God, or simply an internal realization that there is something "more", your belief stems from a real source.

Originally Posted by Apotropaic
- I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one?

Lets not have this thread closed.

RobinHood3000

04-26-2006, 03:33 PM

And what of when my friends come to me for advice? I have twice had former crushes of mine, who were aware of my regard when it existed, come to me for help in matter regarding something my replacement/successor-as-suitor did wrong. Can it really be said that I enjoy such situations? And is my giving of aid in spite of myself really done with MY sense of gratification in mind?

Soma

04-26-2006, 03:39 PM

I am in agreement with Shoutgrace. Belief is merely an internal process of wanting to know that there is simply more to life than just being born, living, and then dying. Each one of us has that desire to know that there is something more. It is like saying that you wish to find out more from a particular subject in school. You do not just sit there and wait for it to magically appear and for you to know. You must study it and experiance it to learn it. It works the same with finding god. We must study it to know more and gain a knowledge. I personally feel that whether we are polytheistic or monotheistic or even atheist or agnostic it works that way. Without searching the issue at hand then we may never know.

I agree that this thread should not close also. It is a good topic of discussion

Bandini

04-26-2006, 03:44 PM

Belief in God is not superstition. Human beings who believe in God must necessarily have evidentiary reasons for their belief.

Nonsense - qualia interpreted as evidentiary reasons. perhaps, but not evidentiary in the 'normal' sense of the word. We can play language games all day, but if you want to discuss it with me, I'm afraid that I'll always dismiss it as fantasy.

Is every religious belief over time and space down to evidentiary reasons? No. If you were born in a remote Papua New Guinean tribe, you would have a completely different religious belief system. Religion is a social construct, born of a way of making sense of the world . It has been further 'developed' as an agent of social control. There is NO evidentiary proof.

And, if we say for one moment that there is: why is your religious belief more 'valid' than any of the other countless religious beliefs. I'm not saying that there is no supreme being - perhaps there is. But why yours?

XXdarkclarityXX

04-26-2006, 07:05 PM

Chava

04-27-2006, 07:11 AM

jackyyyy

04-27-2006, 07:15 AM

I don't need to dig anywhere to know there is stuff under the ground, and there's lots of it still walking around on top of it. If you are saying, and only, that God is something beyond our comprehension, I will buy that. But, for one person who found a chicken leg to say it means this, and another who found a chicken breast to say it means that, is to assume they know something. I would assume nothing, which should offer a totally unpretentious stance in the face of otherwise arbitrary information.

An interesting idea your analogy leads me to is, if all these people, with their digups were to come to the same table and reassemble this chicken, would they then conclude the same God? Now, that would be a fine thing, one day.

Regit

04-27-2006, 09:24 AM

Ok, I think I have an example that can explain for the different religious beliefs around the world. Suppose you are excavating a digsite that was supposedly an old farm about a hundred years ago. You and your team go to dig, and you take the area where the chicken coop used to be. After 100 years, the coop is obviously just a plot of grass and nothing else. In any case, you start digging and you find a the beak of a chicken. You keep digging and find a chicken's leg bone, and then a wing bone of a chicken. You dig and dig and dig and eventually find enough bones to fully reconstruct the skeleton of a chicken, and all this is done on the relatively large plot of land that the chicken coop was on.

Here's my point: The chicken coop is like the world, the chicken is God, and we are like the digger attempting to find the "true" God. As we "dig" for the truth, we find little pieces that indicated that there that chicken (God) exists. I might find a leg bone, and this will tell me that God exists. However, I might also find a wing bone, and that will also tell me that God exists. Basically, people in different areas find different parts of God but they don't negate his existence because they all have the markings of a common derivative. Any part of a chicken will prove the existence of a chicken, just as any religion will prove the existence of a supreme being.

The chicken coop is like the world, the chicken is God.
I assume that using “coop” in this sentence you speak about the coop that is no longer an active coop but only a site for archaeology. This is a crooked analogy, for it assumes that God is either dead or long gone from the world. No, finding a leg-bone will not tell you that the Chicken exists; it will tell you that the Chicken used to exist; it will also tell you that the Chicken is dead. Furthermore, I assume that in your example you speak about a coop that only held one chicken. Because you talk about finding one true God that is a chicken, and the many proofs of him are the bones. I’m sorry if I’m nitpicking, but besides contradicting your own point, this analogy of God also contradicts many religious believes.

If I overlook all those things, putting the inaccuracies above aside, and accept your analogy: [World=Coop, God=Chicken], then I am afraid your point is still very weakly supported. Real life archaeologists do not find a chicken leg-bone in a coop; they only tell you that they do afterwards. They in fact only find an unidentified bone in an unidentified plot of land. It takes studies, and further research, and many assumptions to conclude that the plot of land was indeed a coop, and that the bone was indeed a bone belonging to a chicken, and that the bone was a leg-bone. And other scientists would not accept these conclusions unless they see reasonable proofs. (You might have sidestepped this with the short 10 years period, but I do not allow it; obviously because if we saw the chicken only 10 years ago, then it would not be necessary to find bones in order to prove that the chicken exists).

To conclude I ask you: by your analogy you accept religions as the different bones of God; what is your proof? Besides showing us how they put the bones together to form a chicken skeleton, scientists also convince us that the bones were of a chicken’s; but you have not attempted to do the same. You assume that every religion is a true part or bears a true resemblance of God and with the same integrity as each other in regard of this. You are making a statement equivalent to: ‘though each religion is different from others, all of them are different and undeniable evidence that a true God exists.’ How is that any more convincing than just saying: ‘God exists’? I cannot contest you if you say that God exists because you truly believe so ( and I do not). But you cannot use the same faith to rationalise all different believes in the world. And you certainly cannot use faith as evidence.

XXdarkclarityXX

04-27-2006, 03:36 PM

Could you come up with a better analogy? Possibly one that suits religion a little better?

Bandini

04-27-2006, 03:59 PM

Lets not have this thread closed.

What causes a thread to be closed? I find it strange that it is always religious threads. Surely the people that come onto the threads are looking for rigorous debate? Otherwise why bother? If you are strong in your faith, why should it matter if someone ridicules you? And why does it cut so deep? I can't ever imagine a believer in evolution, or an agnostic, or an atheist wanting a thread to be closed down because an idea has been held up to ridicule. Scares me. Surely you could just not post there, if you can't argue your point/you worry that your theory might not hold up?

Gozeta

04-27-2006, 04:08 PM

one of the reasons I'm an atheist, is the degree to which religion is used as an excuse for one's actions. I despise the ieda that something is done in the name of God. It doesn't make any sense? why would a God hail many rich people, and starve many others and press them into poverty? why would God want to bless a crusade which aim was to kill those who disagreed? it seems so archaic? the idea of religion seems medeival to me.
I asked a friend once, why God would let there be war killing many thousands of innocents. She replied that it was the devils work? but if a force is powerful enough to create all the world in 7 days, then why can't he pull another trick out of the hat?
It just doesn't make any sense?
An aquaintance who delcared that she wouldn't be upset if her children died in an accident, because it would be the will of god.
Religion seems to me like a method of understanding the experieinces life will give you, for the better or worse. It's a paradigm, which once enforced will answer all your questions, "It was the will of God." Thank god for this miralcle" it becomes the explanation. And i just can't stand when people enforce this paradigm onto others or use religion as an excuse.
In my opinion, the only one who can stand responsible for your actions, is you.

You ask why God let such things happen? Didn't you answer this yourself? "In my opinion, the only one who can stand responsible for your actions, is you" EXACTLY! God gives us the freedom to do what we want. Whether it's good or bad. God gives us free will. Why? Because he wants to give us a chance to choose. If he knows everything then why would He do this? Because He wants to give you that CHANCE. So, that when you go up to HIM, you have no excuse. He would have given you all the chances like wise to Everyone else; no matter who the person is. The devil doesn't have to tempt us to do or plot something evil. When humanity itself is always ready to do it on it's own accord.

beer good

04-27-2006, 04:13 PM

Bandini

04-27-2006, 04:14 PM

I'm waiting to see what it is that we are not allowed to do on religious thread before I contribute!

Gozeta

04-27-2006, 04:23 PM

ShoutGrace

04-27-2006, 04:23 PM

Threads get closed when the discussion moves away from the original topic. This thread's original topic was why believers "needed a god". Any thread can be started at any time relating to most any issue. However, the discussion in each particular thread needs to stay it's course.

If you are strong in your faith, why should it matter if someone ridicules you?

Ridicule has no place in either intelligent debate or intellectual reasoning. Surely anyone who has convictions can withstand personal attacks, but in this vein truly edifying discourse is hard to come by.

Surely you could just not post there, if you can't argue your point/you worry that your theory might not hold up?

While I'm sure that it is well within the realm of possibility that we here on this forum could dismantle age old arguments and concepts (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Atheism, etc.), I imagine it is most probable that at the end of the day, the theories will still be rooted in the same spot.

Bandini

04-27-2006, 04:34 PM

Ridicule has no place in either intelligent debate or intellectual reasoning. Surely anyone who has convictions can withstand personal attacks, but in this vein truly edifying discourse is hard to come by.

I disagree - satire is a valid form of rhetoric. I think truly 'edifying discourse' is impossible without freedom to employ ones chosen rhetorical devices.

Furthermore, I did not use the phrase 'personal attcks', you did. There are no personal attacks - it is not personal, it is related to philosophical discourse- somebody propounds a theory, another refutes it! Thesis, antithesis, synthesis and all that - it is an ESSENTIAL component of discourse. I can appreciate arguments from people who are religious - but I will try to refute them.

Gozeta

04-27-2006, 04:36 PM

I disagree - satire is a valid form of rhetoric. I think truly 'edifying discourse' is impossible without freedom to employ ones chosen rhetorical devices.

Furthermore, I did not use the phrase 'personal attcks', you did. There are no personal attacks - it is not personal, it is related to philosophical discourse- somebody propounds a theory, another refutes it! Thesis, antithesis, synthesis and all that - it is an ESSENTIAL component of discourse. I can appreciate arguments from people who are religious - but I will try to refute them.

Ha! Thanks! I always love an arguement or two myself! :nod:

Bandini

04-27-2006, 04:40 PM

T

While I'm sure that it is well within the realm of possibility that we here on this forum could dismantle age old arguments and concepts (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Atheism, etc.), I imagine it is most probable that at the end of the day, the theories will still be rooted in the same spot.

So what are you saying here? That you might be able to convince someone of your argument, but you don't like people trying to convince you? Forgive me, I really am at a loss! can you explain?

beer good

04-27-2006, 05:19 PM

Hmmm true...considering everything has its time. A time to cry, a time to laugh, a time work, a time to play, a time to live and a time to die. Simple; if it's your time it's your time. Can I also mention the harm we humans are doing to nature CAN affect wheather itself! You guys like science right? You should know.
True, we can do that to some extent and it IS a problem... but so far I've never heard of a man-made earthquake. And besides, all these things have been around for a lot longer than we've been able to affect the weather even the slightest bit. But OK, the 230,000 who died in the tsunami last year - it was simply their time. You'll forgive me if that doesn't convince me that God is good.

Regit

04-27-2006, 05:39 PM

True, we can do that to some extent and it IS a problem... but so far I've never heard of a man-made earthquake. And besides, all these things have been around for a lot longer than we've been able to affect the weather even the slightest bit. But OK, the 230,000 who died in the tsunami last year - it was simply their time. You'll forgive me if that doesn't convince me that God is good.

Beer Good,

I don't know about other religions but the Bible does have an explanation for natural disasters (I take it from your question that you have not read the Bible). I imagine most religious doctrines deal with natural aspects very early in their developments (you are not the first person to raise this question). I could attempt to explain the Bible's view of it in the next second, and you would almost definitely disagree with it, even though right now you don't even know what it is. You cannot just throw a question into the void and hope for someone to come and convince you. Dedicated followers of religions have their faiths, they don't have all the answers. If you really want an answer, and not simply to provoke unprepared attempts at your question or waiting to be impressed, I suggest you research the religious documents yourself. When you have learnt the explanations that the religious documents have to offer, and if you disagree with them, having your own opinions of the matter, then perhaps we can have a discussion about it.

beer good

04-27-2006, 05:58 PM

So basically you're saying that you know the answer to my question and it's perfectly simple and you won't tell me. That's very Christian of you. Thank you.

I did not ask to be convinced, I'm already convinced. However, I am really curious how people explain that paradox. But I guess I'll never know.

(For the record, I have read the bible - however, I haven't memorized it. Could you at least point me in the right direction? Book, chapter, verse?)

EDIT: I apologize if I seem cranky. That's because I am. But I am also genuinely puzzled about how people can equate Good God = Millions dying in natural disasters.

kilted exile

04-27-2006, 08:03 PM

Regit

04-27-2006, 08:05 PM

So basically you're saying that you know the answer to my question and it's perfectly simple and you won't tell me. .
No, Beer Good, I did not say that I know the answer to your question, and I certainly did not say that it was a simple answer. I meant that I can attempt to interprete the teachings of the Bible that give direction for your question, and not other religions that I have not read on. And when I used the phrase "in the next second", I was trying to stress the point that you have already made up your mind about the matter without hearing what I might have to say, thus making it a futile act, no matter how soon comes its performance. (My apologies if I appeared to have dismissed or disrespected your question; it is a good question and difficult to answer). It is for your attitude that I lack respect:

I did not ask to be convinced, I'm already convinced. However, I am really curious how people explain that paradox. But I guess I'll never know.
You said that you are already convinced, meaning that you would disagree with whatever the Bible might say, right? Then may I ask, how can you disagree with something before you hear it? You asked to be offered answers (to a difficult question that requires much thinking and reading) and, at the same time, state that you will not give those answers any consideration. And then you quiz the lack of response. Perhaps you can try to understand why I don't want to waste my time.

But I am also genuinely puzzled about how people can equate Good God = Millions dying in natural disasters.
First of all, it's not an equation. God does not equal to millions of deaths. Do you realise that there are more to the Bible's God and the world than just "Millions dying in natural disasters"? There is a difference between 'being part of', or 'being the result of' and 'equal to'. Please don't insult the logic of mathematics as well. Perhaps you meant to say: how can a Good God allow millions to die in natural disasters? You can question, but you should not be disrespectful.
If you genuinely want to know the answer, then I cannot see why you don't want to do some reasearch on it. The Bible doesn't answer specific questions clearly in one part or one chapter; it's not a text book. It is the meaning expressed or implied in many different parts throughout it that will give you an idea. If I were to answer your question satisfyingly, it would take a well-planned and well-written essay. It's not something that I want to make a half-effort at. And it is not something I am prepared to do for a question with cynical and disrespectful tone.

Again, that is not to say that yours is not a good question, but if you have not tried to answer it yourself, it's kind of hard for others to help you. Understanding would take careful reading(research) and careful discussions, for the second part of which I would gladly offer my service to you.

That's very Christian of you. Thank you
Did I state somewhere that I was a Christian? Is this supposed to be an insult? Cranky or not is really your business; in a discussion we'd rather have constructive arguments than crankiness.

Beer Good, you speak as though I can answer your question in one sentence, and that you only want a simple straight forward answer. Perhaps you underestimated your own question, or perhaps you are not as "genuinely" interested as you thought.

evil_one33

04-27-2006, 08:45 PM

And ill agree that there are many people out there who would refute my point about the existence of God but on what grounds? I do not understand why skeptics, who claim to be open minded, harden their hearts toward the Lord becuase the truth of the existence of God is all around us. Its in the living organisms of all types, the planet we live on, the universe that we exist within. I mean, its like someone who goes to a paramedic training school and they sit through all the lectures, they see the drills on how to give cpr, they watch videos, read statistics and how many lives have been saved through cpr. This person finally graduates and on that very weekend, they have the opportunity to save someone's life but dont because they didnt believe the truth behind the evidence.

The existence of God is just as possible as the Big Bang. You can't say that just because there are living things around us that that is proof of a God. In a paramedic training video there is proof by statistics, videos and others views. Where as the proof of a God by your definition is the planet and life on it. Does that mean that God created Dinosaurs as well as people? Yet there is no metion of dinosaurs in the bible. The earth is roughly 6 billion years old. There aren't 6 billion years of documentary in the bible. I can accept that there are good lessons in the Bible, but I can't accept the surrounding environment as proof of a God. Can we not also make water and life?

evil_one33

04-27-2006, 09:00 PM

But I am also genuinely puzzled about how people can equate Good God = Millions dying in natural disasters.

I don't see how one has anything to do with the other. Would you prefer that no one ever died and we lived forever? GOOD in terms with how you rationalize it may not be the same as in the terms for the GOOD for our population. (Just look at the population of China.) This view may seem cold and heartless, but realisticly it's very acurate.

God cannot be blamed for any and all natural disasters. If you are going to do that would you like to blame Global Warming on Him as well? One is the effect of moving techtonic plates and the other is from the increased release of carbon dioxide, neither of which is mysterious if you take the time to study it. Since God is not responsible for MAKING these "natural disaters" why should He be blamed when they occur. That doesn't make sense.

Regit

04-27-2006, 09:11 PM

Could you come up with a better analogy? Possibly one that suits religion a little better?

The relationship between God and man is unique. To illustrate my point, I would use as an example a teaching of an actual religion. I would not attempt to make analogies in trying to make my point simpler. Simplifying a topic of such complexity only makes it more vague and inaccurate, setting myself up to be criticised.

kilted exile

04-27-2006, 09:17 PM

Heres the thing I've never been able to understand: If there is a supreme being and he's all wise and powerful and stuff, why would she care what something as insignificant as me thinks of them? Either it has way too much free time, or is incredibly paranoid and self-appraising

Regit

04-27-2006, 09:24 PM

He, she, it? A confusion of pronouns? Or was it supposed to be on purpose?

kilted exile

04-27-2006, 09:29 PM

Most definetely on purpose (you'll notice a "them" in there as well) My point is not about any one religion but the idea of a supreme being altogether, and many religions are not based on the idea of a creator as "He"

Regit

04-27-2006, 09:37 PM

kilted exile

04-27-2006, 09:46 PM

My gosh, I thought you were joking at first. There are better ways of saying what you wanted to say, like how you said it the second time is fine. The first question was not only seriously grammatically incorrect, it was also confusing.

You'll come to notice quite soon that I care little for grammatical correctness. I have to disagree about it being confusing however, I feel that the point I am making is still clear - I could have used he/she/it/them each time but I'm too lazy for that so I used one each time because simply using He would suggest that I was discriminating against the Judeo-Christian image of a creator (which I am patently not) I fully believe in equal opportunities and question all ideas with the same vociferousness.

rufioag

04-27-2006, 10:45 PM

Evil One, when has man ever created life out of nothing? let me rephrase that, when has man created life without using existing life?

Regit

04-27-2006, 10:48 PM

You'll come to notice quite soon that I care little for grammatical correctness.
Point well taken.

Gozeta

04-28-2006, 12:48 PM

Scheherazade

04-28-2006, 01:04 PM

(Well, thats if I'm not on a mission or anything)Ethan? Ethan Hunt??

:p

Gozeta

04-28-2006, 01:09 PM

Ethan? Ethan Hunt??
I wish I was him! lol

Mililalil XXIV

04-28-2006, 04:03 PM

I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one? There's no proof of any god, but why do you make yourself believe in one/s? Is it to thank, to worship, or to praise for all the good things you have achieved? Or just for the comfort of thinking there's someone up there watching?
When I was a boy of eleven, and a heathen, I suddenly percieved that GOD had come before me, hearing from HIM clear Words from HIS Mouth. In that instant, lust melted away from my heart like an icecube, and I felt a most profound bond to the HOLY ONE. I saw that HE was the LIFE HIMSELF, and, though I had no prior Knowledge of HIM, I desired HIM, even as one sees the right person to marry and knows in an instant that he doesn't want to be apart from that one - only, rather than sensing we were made for each other, I knew HE was the AUTHOR of my Life.

I was about to contemplate lustfully bad subject matter, but HIS Words to destroy it so mattered to me as a profound matter of Love from the heart, that I immediately did as HE said, then sought to know HIM for ever.

evil_one33

04-28-2006, 08:09 PM

Evil One, when has man ever created life out of nothing? let me rephrase that, when has man created life without using existing life?

Never, but neither in fact did God. He used dust and breath. So technically creating life using some of His own. But, I conceed, good point.

Union Jack

04-28-2006, 09:08 PM

Some people find the concept of a greater being, comforting. It alleviates some of their own responsibility in living.

Regit

04-29-2006, 12:53 AM

Just a question, since people keep bringing up the "free will" argument whenever the question of why God allows bad things comes up; how does man's free will explain earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, meteors and tidal waves? Surely God should be able to control something as simple as weather and tectonic movements?

Perhaps I was too harsh before. I can offer you some possible answers that I might draw from the Bible (Again, I don't know any other religious explanation and I don't claim that my answers are perfectly accurate). I will try to make it as clear as possible within a short space.

First of all, as the Bible teaches, tornados, earth quakes, and other natural disasters can only bring suffering, they cannot bring death to man, only God can do that. Death is not the physical destruction of the body; death is the eternal separation from God: Hell. Physical life is a test, or a chance to repent from the original sins of man. So if a soul repents, then it will be with God in eternal life, regardless of how its physical body had died. This is in the teachings of Paul, in the New Testament.
Second of all, no one in the world is innocent. There may be the just and unjust, but all of us are ultimately sinful as a whole. The sin of Adam and Eve carries in all mankind; this was God's original curse. And so by being born, every man has sin and none is innocent. This dispells the notion of: "deaths of many innocents". Pain is upon mankind for our sin as a whole, and, as Jesus teaches, "the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike"; and pain does not mean death.

It is said in the first book of Moses, known as Genesis, that God created the heaven and the earth and all living things in seven days, and that creation was beautiful and plentiful. But it never said that creation was perfect and was completely safe for man. For natural order involves more things than man. If man can have his freewill, why can nature not have its own natural developments? Man can conflict with nature, and so can nature with man. Had this world been perfect and without sin, then its nature would also be perfect. But when Adam and Eve sin, God cursed nature and creation as well as mankind: "Cursed is the ground for thy sake." This world is not perfect because mankind is not perfect. In other words, natural disasters happen because mankind is sinful, they are generally not specific acts of God to punish only sinners.

But on a few occasions, disasters can be God's judgment. Also in Genesis chapter 6, you will find the story of Noah and the Flood. And the flood was God's punishment for mankind and all living things, their destruction. "5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth.'" But God saved Noah from the flood, from his destruction, because "8 Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." The flood came, Noah saved himself with God's instructions, and worshiped God. And God "smelled the sweet savour" of man's worship, and made a covenant with man. That there will be no more flood to destroy the world.

In this you can see God's many efforts to make man just. God values the just and has many times attempted to tell man what is right and wrong. There are so many examples of the many times God tested mankind, like Jacob and Abraham (both of whose stories are in Genesis). God gave Moses the Ten Commandments to guide mankind also. But sinful mankind still is, and imperfect the world still is, and pain still it suffers. Although, in the New Testament, Jesus has come with salvation; and has promised to return to make a better world, free of sin. It's all due to the sin of man.

I am not trying to convince you that this is correct, or that this is my faith; this is just how I think the Bible can be interepreted to answer your question. I'm sorry if it did not make perfect sense or did not satisfy you. Ask me more questions if you'd like, it's hard to put everything I know about the subject down in one post. Thanks.

ShoutGrace

04-29-2006, 01:48 AM

Some people find the concept of a greater being, comforting. It alleviates some of their own responsibility in living.

Believing in a greater being (God) almost always entails a greater responsibility in life. God holds us to a higher ideal. Actions now have infinite repercussions.

I can't speak for other faiths but I could describe the Christian view on this subject if you want . . .

Union Jack

04-29-2006, 05:39 AM

Christians call for one to follow the teachings of Christ? Yet this is an impossible example to follow, for no one is without sin.I say that it alleviates responsibility because they are given a way to live, and a purposed outcome. They are given an ideal to follow. Without this ideal, many people would be lost and confused. And it is not only Chrisitanity, without religion, man must create his own ideal to live to.

chielu

04-29-2006, 06:10 AM

I have a thought or a question to consider:

If god created the universe, and god did this as a "creator" in charge of the modeling, design and construction of the universe (which includes man, of course) then this means god had a choice on how the universe would look and what and who would belong in this universe.

One option god had was to give man freewill. God, so we read in the bible, created Adam and Eve, and said I have given you everything you will ever need, but if you screw it up I will punish you and all mankind (his own creation)for eternity.

Here's the conundrum: God could have created man differently, correct? It's like some sick joke - a creation gone bad; god had a choice, and his choice was to instill freewill in man, but then god says, I will punish you for abusing this free will? God gave man the same freewill god himself possesed. God said he made man in his own image (or something like that), so god passed on freewill to man. God, it seems, abused his own freewill when he created man.

Gozeta

04-29-2006, 01:40 PM

Here's the conundrum: God could have created man differently, correct? It's like some sick joke - a creation gone bad; god had a choice, and his choice was to instill freewill in man, but then god says, I will punish you for abusing this free will? God gave man the same freewill god himself possesed. God said he made man in his own image (or something like that), so god passed on freewill to man. God, it seems, abused his own freewill when he created man.

God wanted people who were like HIS likeness because he wanted a family; that loved Him through free will. That's why He created us. Plus who are we? To question our Creator? For we are HIS! Think about it. Do things that we create say "why did you make me this way?" Is it not the things we create from our minds and hearts like art, music, etc. Does the picture an artist paint get asked by its creation "why did you use this color?" Does the music ask its composer "why did you choose this melody?" No, they just are because we want them that way. Is it bad for God wanting a family????

Gozeta

04-29-2006, 01:45 PM

Not bad Regit! You beat me to it! lol Thats exactly the answer I was to post.

And Beer Good; you said you have read the bible correct? Have you taken a look of the book JOB? It clarifies cleary also to what Regit was saying.

blp

04-29-2006, 02:57 PM

God wanted people who were like HIS likeness because he wanted a family; that loved Him through free will. That's why He created us. Plus who are we? To question our Creator? For we are HIS! Think about it. Do things that we create say "why did you make me this way?" Is it not the things we create from our minds and hearts like art, music, etc. Does the picture an artist paint get asked by its creation "why did you use this color?" Does the music ask its composer "why did you choose this melody?" No, they just are because we want them that way. Is it bad for God wanting a family????

This is what always happens in these debates. As long as religonists think they can win the argument with logic, they stick to logic. Then, when someone like chielu raises a point they can't answer, they resort to the old 'our not to question' argument.

Look, it's not really free will if we know we're going to hell for not obeying, is it? And if he really wanted us to have free will, why didn't he make us freer - like why didn't he make us able to fly, for instance? Or blow enormous purple bubbles out of our ears?

Union Jack

04-29-2006, 03:08 PM

This is what always happens in these debates. As long as religonists think they can win the argument with logic, they stick to logic. Then, when someone like chielu raises a point they can't answer, they resort to the old 'our not to question' argument.

Look, it's not really free will if we know we're going to hell for not obeying, is it? And if he really wanted us to have free will, why didn't he make us freer - like why didn't he make us able to fly, for instance? Or blow enormous purple bubbles out of our ears?

Original sin is not a completely “bad” thing. In fact, the fall of man commonly appears in literature as a Felix culpa (Latin for “fortunate fault.”) Eve’s choice to eat from the tree of knowledge is the first actual exercise of freewill, which up to that point, existed only as a potential capability of humanity. According to the view of “the fall of man” presented in John Milton’s Paradise Lost (which I agree with) Eve desired the fruit from the tree, because she believed that it would raise her up to be Adam’s equal. Whereas Adam realized that Eve had fallen when she approached him with the fruit, he understood the consequences of the action he was about to take, yet he still decided to eat the fruit because he loved Eve more than God and wanted to stay with her, even in her fallen state. The fall becomes a Felix culpa, because it opens up real possibilities to humanity, one could now choose to seek salvation or to sin and lead a life opposed to God. Of course Milton was not a humanist, and one of the purposes of this presentation of the tale is to refute humanism’s base statement that “man is the measure of all things” according to Milton, the fall proves that man is not the measure of all things because man’s logic is fallible, which Adam comes to realize. The poem ends on a positive note of Archangel Michael showing Adam the future of humanity, Adam comes to understand his fault, and thus gains true wisdom…

"This having learnt, thou hast attained the sum
Of Wisdom...
Then wilt thou not be loth
To leave this Paradise, but shalt possess
A paradise within thee, happier far."
(Paradise Lost, Book XII.575–587)

God allows the fall to occur in order for man to fail, and thus gain true wisdom. Man realizes that knowledge does not provide power, which Eve believed when she listened to Satan’s whisperings, but rather the desire for power through knowledge cause man to overreach his human limitations.

If anyone is interested, I can post my complete interpretation of Milton’s Paradise Lost, as I have studied the work extensively.

P.S (Post Scriptum): When I use the word “man,” I refer to humanity, not just man as opposed to woman, I do recognize that humanity is not compromised of solely the male sex. :D

Read, consider, realize.

Nightshade

04-29-2006, 03:51 PM

hehe ((g)) I really have to start reading names as well as looking at avys :lol:

Regit

04-29-2006, 09:36 PM

This is what always happens in these debates. As long as religonists think they can win the argument with logic, they stick to logic. Then, when someone like chielu raises a point they can't answer, they resort to the old 'our not to question' argument.

Be patient blp, I'm sure someone will come up with something logical. There's only been one response to chielu's question; perhaps you were too hasty in using the word "they". Can you remember anyone specific who has used logic to answer questions at one point and resort to dodging the question at another? If you can please give me an example, then I shall believe you and say that you are right about that person. In any case, don't categorise; because you are here, simply, wrong.

mtpspur

04-30-2006, 01:30 AM

Having deviated from the question myself (with the Green Arrow/Hawkeye comments) I've been thinking about the actual question--why do I need a God? As I often joke to a friend of mine--Brandy--it's always about me---self centerness being one of my more cuter qualities. Before I became a Christian I had an idea of God being a good/bad deeds score keeper and I might squeak by (a little whining always got me a short ways). I did not know my sins were in the way of knowing God (as revealed in the Bible I must qualify). The longer I live the more I know on my own merits I will never measure up--even if judged by my own measuring stick and a whole lot of leeway. Thehardest thing foe me as been to simply accept that God made me as I am and loves me and can change me if I trust Him as a chiild trusts their parents--note that Wally and the Beaver really don't trust Ward and the Mrs. They always fall on thir rumps before the usual rescue job if I can make that analogy. In my usual Columbo rambling way I do need God for everything that makes life as we know if of value-- family, friends, vocation etc.

rufioag

04-30-2006, 01:45 AM

I dont know if this answers your question and I am pretty certain their is scriptural evidence for this. Man was created, Satan tempted man to fall into sin. Man became spiritually seperated from God because of Sin. Man must repent from this sin through sacrifices but these are temporary. So God the Son, the Messiah, who is crucified on the Cross represents the final sacrifice and it is only through Him that we as humans can once again have that personal relationship with God that sin has deprived us of. And it is through Jesus Christ that Satan is ultimatly defeated.

blondeatheart

04-30-2006, 01:51 AM

i tihnk people believe in god to feel better ie to ihnk that thers more to this life and that dying isnt the end i mean im prty depressed and hav considered it for that reason but meh

rufioag

04-30-2006, 01:53 AM

The Bible is very very clear that God knew precisely what was going to happen before He ever created the universe. There were no surprises for God. We read in Ephesians 1:4 that He predestinated us from before the foundation, or He chose us from before the foundation of the world, in Christ, to be holy and conformed to God's will, and so on. He predestinated us.

This was before He ever created the world. He already planned our salvation. He knew right along that man would rebel, that man would be under the wrath of God. Now we must remember that God is sovereign, altogether sovereign. Number two, we must remember that God did not create mankind sinful. He created mankind good, after His own image.

Mankind was created a responsible being, accountable to God for his actions. Mankind of his own volition rebelled against God and came into the terrible state that he did come into. And God in His sovereign good pleasure walked the second mile by providing for our salvation at a very dear and terrible cost to Himself, of course, because it was necessary for God to become man and endure hell for our sins in order to save us.

Now why God did this is all to His glory. The whole creation is to His glory. We read, for example, in Romans 9:22, "What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath afore prepared unto glory." Here God is saying that He is sovereign in these matters. If he wants to glorify Himself through His poured out wrath on the unsaved, that's His sovereign good pleasure, even as it's His sovereign good pleasure to save those whom He will.

We of course, as sinners in the misery of sin, can't understand this. We just can't fathom the love of God, we can't fathom the grace of God, we can't fathom the holiness of God. We only know that it exists.

taken from http://members.ozemail.com.au/~lkolberg/transcripts/C338C.html

The Unnamable

04-30-2006, 03:26 AM

RobinHood3000

04-30-2006, 08:23 AM

There are also some humans who surround themselves with others to glorify themselves and keep them company. The humans are called "egocentric" and those who surround them are called an "entourage."

Regit

04-30-2006, 08:40 AM

Regit and Union Jack,

blp doesn’t need me to speak on his behalf but I would say that you probably haven’t read all of the threads where what he describes is exactly what happens.

I have read, considered and realised. I also know Paradise Lost very well.

See page 4 of the “What was before God? (or, Why did He wait so long?)” thread. It’s here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15953

My own reference to Paradise Lost is on page 4, #56

I would suggest you read the poem as a poem, a piece of Literature, rather than as a piece of religious dogma.

The whole of the thread I mention is an example of what blp was referring to.

I have read that thread, and I understand your defence Unnamable. You seem a sharp and reasonable person, and you don't like answers that lack logic or evidence, and neither do I (I got this perception also from reading your discussions on the first few threads that you posted, I hope it is not too assumptive). Thus you can see how it bothers me that the phrase "read, consider, and realise" now seems to be pinned on to me because it is in a reply to me as well as to its original author. You can probably also see the lack of evidence in blp's comment. I would never say something like, for example, 'atheists never do anything but throw questions at believers'. Because I know that there are atheists who study religious documents carefully and respectfully. If someone was really genuinely interested in knowing the answer; they would not ask it clueless. Because the answer surely is in the documents and the teachings and not here. Only those who try to catch out unprepared theists who have only their faith ask questions without having tried to answer it themselves. But they are not all atheists. An when I decide to take a side of an argument, that does not mean that I want to accept everyone else's words who is on the same side as my own, and I am sure many people feel the same. There are no gangs here. I prefer to be responsible for the things that I have said, as I can imagine you do also. Moreover, this is a different discussion, involving different people, and under any circumstance, I don't see your evidence as enough to justify blp's general comment at all "religonists", even if I am not one (though I do see the good intention behind your defence of blp). If he was refering to someone specific, he should have made it clear. And in any case, I don't have any respect for brief comments full of jabs and without much argument behind it like that one. I look forward to hearing blp's own defence of his comment.

chielu

04-30-2006, 08:43 AM

Rufioag wrote:
The Bible is very very clear that God knew precisely what was going to happen before He ever created the universe. There were no surprises for God. We read in Ephesians 1:4 that He predestinated us from before the foundation, or He chose us from before the foundation of the world, in Christ, to be holy and conformed to God's will, and so on. He predestinated us.

This was before He ever created the world. He already planned our salvation. He knew right along that man would rebel, that man would be under the wrath of God. Now we must remember that God is sovereign, altogether sovereign. Number two, we must remember that God did not create mankind sinful. He created mankind good, after His own image.
_________________________

Okay, so god knew all along what would happen to humanity - why then did he do it? We are not created in his likeness - if we were we would be sinless. If god created us in his own image, then god, too, was flawed - he (as I said in the previous post) abused his own freewill by creating us good, but knowing very well we would not remain so. This to me seems rather demented. We are punished in life for actions to which we cannot control - then we are again punished in death for those same actions? God is very angry and extremely controlling... Before I could simply "believe" for the sake of believing in something, I would want to know why god is so determined to make his creation suffer. And, yes, I do have the right to ask, I do not have to accept something simply because others say it exists.

Whether god had a choice or he was following his own destiny really is irrelevant: god chose to create man and god punishes man for his own predestined, therefore uncontrobale actions. That's like giving heroin to a person, getting them addicted, then admonishing her or him for having an addiction by not effectively using their god-given freewill to say no. Someone else created the addict, and that person is accountable for their actions. God is responsible for his own creation - yet we are supposed to be grateful to and worship a god that gave us the freewill which was flawed right from the get-go? God is a paradox.

The bible is man-made, in fact it's been re-written seven times - with every version delivering its own interpretations of the the various social and religious climates of the time. Imagine a bible written in 2006, would it read the same as a bible written in say, 1475? Not likely.

falling*moon

04-30-2006, 10:12 AM

Dear Robi,

i think God has stuff to do too....

Gozeta

04-30-2006, 12:27 PM

This is what always happens in these debates. As long as religonists think they can win the argument with logic, they stick to logic. Then, when someone like chielu raises a point they can't answer, they resort to the old 'our not to question' argument.

Hmmm. All I did is give you an answer the bible has given me. Maybe it doesn't suit you but hopefully it will for others. Isn't the only way to know our beliefs through the Word? For it is the foundation in which faith and hope was built. (for me that is; can't speak for every believer)

Look, it's not really free will if we know we're going to hell for not obeying, is it? And if he really wanted us to have free will, why didn't he make us freer - like why didn't he make us able to fly, for instance? Or blow enormous purple bubbles out of our ears?

Simple, because He has created us; and not you.

Does these answers sound illogical???

Union Jack

04-30-2006, 12:43 PM

TBtheG

04-30-2006, 03:04 PM

God and I once hot boxed his car and ate Taco Bell together.

Xamonas Chegwe

04-30-2006, 03:22 PM

God and I once hot boxed his car and ate Taco Bell together.

Do you have his number? Because we're one short for the pub quiz team and his omniscience may come in handy - especially if he's good on sport. :D

blp

04-30-2006, 04:01 PM

Do you have his number? Because we're one short for the pub quiz team and his omniscience may come in handy - especially if he's good on sport. :D

Remember to respect his belief in himself.

blp

04-30-2006, 04:06 PM

Exactly, I totally agree, and I apologise to blp if I seemed a little curt. My wording probably should have been better. What I meant to say was that everyone has the free-will to believe whatever they want, and no matter what logic you throw at someone, true believers will not refute their faith, for they fully believe that their belief is beyond logic and science. They are not merely saying it to win an aurguement, they believe it when they say "God says so..." And it is not within anyone's power to change this way of thought, though you may aurgue and attempt to sway their opinion, it is ultimately up to them and their own beliefs.

And I understand that Paradise Lost is only a poem and should be read thus, this is how I read it too, for I do not follow the Christian faith. I merely meant that if I was Christian I would tend to side with the view of the fall that More presents.

Thank you The Unamable for bringing my error to my attention.

I haven't been following most of this too closely, but don't worry, Union Jack, once I'd read your previous post a couple of times, I didn't take you for a Christian.

rufioag

04-30-2006, 08:24 PM

chielu - why then did he do it? We are not created in his likeness - if we were we would be sinless.

We were created sinless. God didnt create man sinful but man fell into sin after he was tempted by satan in the garden of Eden.

You have no arguement my friend. You try to use evidence that you dont really understand and then to claim to know God's purpose in creation. I do not know why He created man the way He did but you assume you understand exactly how God should have created man.

chielu - That's like giving heroin to a person, getting them addicted, then admonishing her or him for having an addiction by not effectively using their god-given freewill to say no.

God did not introduce the sin that caused man to fall. God is without sin and when he created man, man was without sin.

chielu - in fact it's been re-written seven times - with every version delivering its own interpretations of the the various social and religious climates of the time. Imagine a bible written in 2006, would it read the same as a bible written in say, 1475? Not likely.

I will not let this statement pass. It is a rediculous assertment by you that you have no validity to and if you do Id love to see it. Yes, it has been rewritten but the Bible has not changed and ill agree that We don't have the original biblical documents, but we have the next best thing: thousands of copies of the original New Testament manuscripts, by which we can determine what was originally said.When the thousands of copies of manuscripts (far more than for any other document of antiquity) are compared, we can know that the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine. If you want me to post links, I'll post links becuase I have factual evidence.

RobinHood3000

04-30-2006, 08:27 PM

A magistrate sees two pieces of evidence and says, "I have seen all I must know to make a decision," unaware that there are hundreds of items left for the court to see.

rufioag

04-30-2006, 09:49 PM

Please, explain further.

RobinHood3000

04-30-2006, 09:54 PM

The Unnamable

04-30-2006, 11:27 PM

Thus you can see how it bothers me that the phrase "read, consider, and realise" now seems to be pinned on to me because it is in a reply to me as well as to its original author.
Regit, I apologise for giving the impression that you subscribed to the Paradise Lost comment. I didn’t mean to tar you with my oversized brush – I was trying to be economical by including my responses to two comments in the same post. That was my error and you were right to respond in the way you did. I hope I haven’t put you off contributing further – those capable of genuine thought are in short supply.

I wasn’t so much defending blp as suggesting that his veteran status gave him a different impression from your own. There have been many posts that confirm that the identified approach is a well-worn tactic.

Faith is a matter of neither literary nor historical judgment. Only when it is treated so do I take issue with it.

The Unnamable

04-30-2006, 11:28 PM

Thank you The Unamable for bringing my error to my attention.
I didn’t think I was pointing out an error – simply offering a different view of Milton’s attempt to justify the ways of God to man. I don’t find Milton’s logical justification convincing – and neither, I would argue, did he. This is why he used rhetorical techniques to persuade, rather than simple logic.

Ancestor

05-01-2006, 12:30 AM

Why not believe in a higher being? Are we truly a higher being ourselves? Not likely because we sure do a lousy job at keeping people safe from violence and hate. Why is it so hard to believe in something that is unseen to the naked eye but can be seen by the heart? My 13 year old Nephew did not blame an higher being for taking the life of his friend he blamed a human. He wants to know his friends Spirit is not alone and in pain that comforts him. What is so wrong with that? I am not angry with those whom do not believe just cannot understand why they appear to be against a comforting thought. Do not get me wrong faith is not for comfort but for me if fills my being with hope and love. Knowing that there is a higher being to shine light upon darkness within myself. My faith fills my being and I feel whole but yet I do not try to push it onto another nor see anything wrong if you do not believe. Why do you need a God? Cannot be answered by those of faith because we are walking different paths in life. You have to find your own answers in life for yourself. Sorry if I got off topic and mods feel free to delete the post.

Regit

05-01-2006, 01:31 AM

The upper limit of awareness is knowledge of that which is available to us. We cannot know that of which we are unaware--we can only recognize that there is a wealth of knowledge lost to the winds which can never be reclaimed.
The things of which we are not aware, that we yearn to find, are not knowledge. Again, I'm sorry to be nitpicking on technicalities, but the second half of your statement does not support the first half. Knowledge is "the sum of what is known." Thus knowledge is only considered knowledge if we are aware of it. And thus there cannot be a wealth of knowledge that we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot reclaim something that we never had.

On a different point, I would not draw a line on the "upper limit" of human knowledge. Yes, it is dependent on the facts, truths, or information that are available to us; but we would always yearn to know more; and, I'd like to think, we would always find ways to obtain and study those things that are still unknown. If we are content only with that which is available to us, then it is indeed a sad and gloomy horizon for mankind. The limit of knowledge: I'll never recognise that.

Regit

05-01-2006, 01:32 AM

I hope I haven’t put you off contributing further – those capable of genuine thought are in short supply.
Not at all. I am honoured and eager to contribute further.

I wasn’t so much defending blp as suggesting that his veteran status gave him a different impression from your own. There have been many posts that confirm that the identified approach is a well-worn tactic..
You're right. Perhaps I should let the technical inaccuracies go and interprete blp's comment as what he might most likely have meant to say by it.

Faith is a matter of neither literary nor historical judgment. Only when it is treated so do I take issue with it.
I agree. I wish I could have put it as plainly and as clearly as this.

RobinHood3000

05-01-2006, 06:04 AM

The things of which we are not aware, that we yearn to find, are not knowledge. Again, I'm sorry to be nitpicking on technicalities, but the second half of your statement does not support the first half. Knowledge is "the sum of what is known." Thus knowledge is only considered knowledge if we are aware of it. And thus there cannot be a wealth of knowledge that we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot reclaim something that we never had.

On a different point, I would not draw a line on the "upper limit" of human knowledge. Yes, it is dependent on the facts, truths, or information that are available to us; but we would always yearn to know more; and, I'd like to think, we would always find ways to obtain and study those things that are still unknown. If we are content only with that which is available to us, then it is indeed a sad and gloomy horizon for mankind. The limit of knowledge: I'll never recognise that.Hmm.

I strongly doubt that human knowledge has the potential to be infinite (as many optimists feel), simply because of the sheer unlikelihood that human existence will be infinite. One who uses the word "infinity" is throwing around some heavy-duty weight; it is not, as many associate with the term, merely a "really big number." I realize that doesn't address the point--that's just a primer.

The statement "...thousands of copies of the original New Testament manuscripts, by which we can determine what was originally said" strikes me as being somewhat presumptive. The posit is that we can determine what was originally said based on the text, yet if we could not determine it, how would we know that we were wrong?

That is to say, how would the human attitude differ if we were wrong or right regarding our interpretation of things such as religious texts? There is an element of pomposity involved (no offense meant to any here) to announce that we are correct in our interpretation when we have no way of knowing whether that is truly the case.

chielu

05-01-2006, 07:58 AM

Rufioag,

I do not claim to know anything about anything! I am merely questioning a Christian ideology that is based on one book. The fact that this book has been reprinted a thousand times does not, for me, make it any more real or factual than any other historical text.

Again, I fail to see how god created man sinless - man succumbed to satan's temptation - and if man were created in god's likeness -this wouldn't have happened. God gave man freewill - but why, if he know that man would not be able to resist temptation? My point is that god as a creator had a choice - and he chose to create a being who had the power to chose one side over the other. This I find difficult to comprehend. God made the choice to give man freewill, which means god fully understood the consequences of freewill, yet chose this model for man regarldess of the potential outcome. This is not by the way what I know, rather what I perceive.

I am a Buddhist, and the reason I am a Buddhist is because being raised Catholic, I never felt comfortable with the idea of freewill and punishment/reward concepts. The first time I read that the buddha said don't automatically believe what I say or what others preach - question what you hear...figure it out for yourself, I felt liberated -I knew that it was okay to not have all the answers, to not seek redemption from something outside the realm of my limited understanding of the universe ... that I am ordinary and there is no supreme being that watches out for me - I am not special, I am only human.

The decisions I make throughout my life effect everything and everyone around me, and this I must add is quite enough food for thought that I needn't worry, too, what will happen to me post death!

Union Jack

05-01-2006, 08:01 PM

I didn’t think I was pointing out an error – simply offering a different view of Milton’s attempt to justify the ways of God to man. I don’t find Milton’s logical justification convincing – and neither, I would argue, did he. This is why he used rhetorical techniques to persuade, rather than simple logic.
The error I was referring to was my curt response, lacking any explanation as to what I meant. Your Paradise Lost post was a good read. Cheers.

evil_one33

05-01-2006, 10:52 PM

God wanted people who were like HIS likeness because he wanted a family; that loved Him through free will. That's why He created us. Plus who are we? To question our Creator? For we are HIS! Think about it. Do things that we create say "why did you make me this way?" Is it not the things we create from our minds and hearts like art, music, etc. Does the picture an artist paint get asked by its creation "why did you use this color?" Does the music ask its composer "why did you choose this melody?" No, they just are because we want them that way. Is it bad for God wanting a family????

No, but that's not the point. It's true we do create things however we don't give the things we create free will and so we expect them to do what we want them to. The closest we get to creating anything with a free will is children. Do you expect them to do whatever they're told? Do YOU do whatever your told? Or do you want answers? I think it's just in anyone's nature to push boundaries and using an inatimate obect to compare with a living one isn't fair.

evil_one33

05-01-2006, 11:08 PM

Faith is a matter of neither literary nor historical judgment. Only when it is treated so do I take issue with it.

Do mean you cannot judge faith based on history, that history has no place in faith or none of the above? I'm slightly confused. Please clarify for my tiny brain.

The Unnamable

05-02-2006, 05:37 AM

Do mean you cannot judge faith based on history, that history has no place in faith or none of the above? I'm slightly confused. Please clarify for my tiny brain.
I simply meant that arguments over the existence of God will not be resolved by discussions about either the historical authenticity or literary merit of the Bible. Surely faith, by definition, is what exists in the absence of irrefutable evidence. People believe because they have faith, not proof.

evil_one33

05-02-2006, 06:56 PM

Okay, so god knew all along what would happen to humanity - why then did he do it? We are not created in his likeness - if we were we would be sinless. If god created us in his own image, then god, too, was flawed - he (as I said in the previous post) abused his own freewill by creating us good, but knowing very well we would not remain so. This to me seems rather demented. We are punished in life for actions to which we cannot control - then we are again punished in death for those same actions? God is very angry and extremely controlling... Before I could simply "believe" for the sake of believing in something, I would want to know why god is so determined to make his creation suffer. And, yes, I do have the right to ask, I do not have to accept something simply because others say it exists.

Whether god had a choice or he was following his own destiny really is irrelevant: god chose to create man and god punishes man for his own predestined, therefore uncontrobale actions. That's like giving heroin to a person, getting them addicted, then admonishing her or him for having an addiction by not effectively using their god-given freewill to say no. Someone else created the addict, and that person is accountable for their actions. God is responsible for his own creation - yet we are supposed to be grateful to and worship a god that gave us the freewill which was flawed right from the get-go? God is a paradox.

The bible is man-made, in fact it's been re-written seven times - with every version delivering its own interpretations of the the various social and religious climates of the time. Imagine a bible written in 2006, would it read the same as a bible written in say, 1475? Not likely.

My points exactly. I really never have understood why ALL of humanity is being punished for what Adam and Eve did. Although chielu is being alittle harsh I agree that if in fact God DID know what was going to happen to us why wouldn't he have tried to prevent it or created us at all?

Union Jack

05-02-2006, 07:16 PM

My points exactly. I really never have understood why ALL of humanity is being punished for what Adam and Eve did. Although chielu is being alittle harsh I agree that if in fact God DID know what was going to happen to us why wouldn't he have tried to prevent it or created us at all?

"317 God alone created the universe, freely, directly and without any help.

318 No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it to call into existence "out of nothing") (cf DS 3624).

319 God created the world to show forth and communicate his glory. That his creatures should share in his truth, goodness and beauty - this is the glory for which God created them.

320 God created the universe and keeps it in existence by his Word, the Son "upholding the universe by his word of power" (⇒ Heb 1:3), and by his Creator Spirit, the giver of life.

321 Divine providence consists of the dispositions by which God guides all his creatures with wisdom and love to their ultimate end.

322 Christ invites us to filial trust in the providence of our heavenly Father (cf ⇒ Mt 6:26-34), and St. Peter the apostle repeats: "Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you" (⇒ I Pt 5:7; cf. ⇒ Ps 55:23).

323 Divine providence works also through the actions of creatures. To human beings God grants the ability to co-operate freely with his plans.

324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life. "

From the Cathecism of the Catholic Church.
Basically it states that God created the universe and man, and gave man the ability to choose between good and evil. Why? Because only then would humanity truly be free to accept the love of the father. If there was no choice, and we HAD to "choose God" then the love would not be remarkable. What is remarkable and loving is that even in a world so full of sin, many live good lives in loving accordance with the father's goals.
(Goals, which admittedly are beyond the comprehension and foresight of humanity.)

rufioag

05-03-2006, 08:12 AM

Even if you cant believe that man kind is being punished for the sins of Adam and Eve, are you sinless? Have you never sinned?

Bandini

05-03-2006, 09:27 AM

If you don't agree with the concept of 'sin' then you can't have sinned! It's like 'faith' - it's all playing with semantics when it come to arguments for religion innit?

blp

05-03-2006, 09:30 AM

the Cathecism of the Catholic Church.
Basically it states that God created the universe and man, and gave man the ability to choose between good and evil. Why? Because only then would humanity truly be free to accept the love of the father. If there was no choice, and we HAD to "choose God" then the love would not be remarkable. What is remarkable and loving is that even in a world so full of sin, many live good lives in loving accordance with the father's goals.
(Goals, which admittedly are beyond the comprehension and foresight of humanity.)

The problem is, we're not really free if we're constantly threatened with punishment. Either we love God or we go to Hell. It's rather difficult to make a free choice under these circumstances.

rufioag

05-03-2006, 09:40 AM

Bandini, I agree with you on the point that if you do not believe in sin, then you do not believe in the concept that you could have sinned. But those argueing here are argueing against the idea that they are being punished for a sin that they didnt even commit. The fact that they are making an arguement over sin shows that they have a concept and belief of an idea of right and wrong. Disbelief alone does not refute the existence of reality.

blp - Either we love God or we go to Hell. It's rather difficult to make a free choice under these circumstances.

You say this but its easily refutable. In the same line as Bandini was going, if you do not believe in God, this has little influence on you. As for myself, I didnt make the decision to come to God based on the fact that if I didnt, Id go to Hell. I did it becuase God has shows infinite love and mercy. People cast aside the idea that if they do not believe in God they will go to hell, and therefore exhibit free choice.

blp

05-03-2006, 11:04 AM

Sorry, ruf. I don't feel refuted at all, however easy you thought it would be. Where's the infinite love and mercy if you go to hell just for not loving God?

rufioag

05-03-2006, 11:39 AM

Bandini

05-03-2006, 11:39 AM

The fact that they are making an arguement over sin shows that they have a concept and belief of an idea of right and wrong.

Semantics, semantic semantics! And a non-sequitor! I have a belief in right or wrong - although it is my own view developed through my own reality filter, and subject to change. Yet I don't have faith or believe in the concept of sin!

Further, one can discuss a concept without 'believing' in it; and there are, obviously, different nuances of the word.

To me this is simply another example of a language game used in an attempt to prove the existence of God. Semantics, semantics, semantics!

Bandini

05-03-2006, 11:41 AM

If you truly seek an answer...please read the entire page [/url]

..............Perlease!

blp

05-03-2006, 12:46 PM

If you truly seek an answer...please read the entire page from this link. Yes it is long, but if you really desire an answer this may make things more clear.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-bradley1.html

Oh dear. Rufioag, the 'logic' on this page is woefully illogical. I quote:

'It seems to me that the detractor of hell is making two crucial assumptions. First of all, he assumes that if God is all powerful, then God can create a world in which everyone freely chooses to give his life to God and is saved. And second, he assumes that if God is all loving, then God prefers a world in which everyone freely chooses to give his life to God and be saved. Since God is thus both willing and able to create a world in which everyone is freely saved, it follows that no one goes to hell.

Now notice that both of these assumptions have to be necessarily true, in order to prove that God and hell are logically inconsistent with each other. So as long as there's even a possibility that one of these assumptions is false, it's possible that God is all-loving and yet some people go to hell.'

These are not my assumptions at all. I'm saying, why can't I be free to not love God and not go to hell? That would be real freedom and, given it, if I then decided to love God, my decision would seem to have real meaning, rather than being merely the result of a threat.

rufioag

05-03-2006, 01:17 PM

I apologize for misunderstanding you BLP.

Bandini

05-03-2006, 01:25 PM

I'm saying, why can't I be free to not love God and not go to hell? That would be real freedom and, given it, if I then decided to love God, my decision would seem to have real meaning, rather than being merely the result of a threat.

Spot on.........

rufioag

05-03-2006, 01:39 PM

I geuss I would equate it to a job interview in which the employer has told you that you will be hired, you just have to accept his invitation. You have been given complete free will on wether to accept the job or not. You did not apply but was sought after by the employer. Once your hired though, you recieve the full benefit of employment with pay and everything that goes along with that. Now, on the other hand, you can turn down the offer and accept the consequences that you will be without employment. Now if you turn down an employment opportunity, your not going to recieve the benefits of that Job are you? Its illogical to believe if you deny something that you are going to recieve full benefits for it.

Summation: You arent going to recieve the benefits of a Job if you turn it down and You arent going to recieve the Gift of the Lord if you turn Him down.

Bandini

05-03-2006, 01:53 PM

Isn't it more like not buying a ticket for a concert, but someone buying it for you and leaving it with the door staff?

God IS love after all?

I love these ridiculous analogies!

Xamonas Chegwe

05-03-2006, 02:27 PM

blp

05-03-2006, 02:48 PM

Summation: You arent going to recieve the benefits of a Job if you turn it down and You arent going to recieve the Gift of the Lord if you turn Him down.

Mmm. Yes, that's how I want it to be. But there's still this hell thing. The employer isn't going to punish you for not taking the job.

This whole chat is making me feel quite sorry for God. He's a mean old sod, really, but it seems that behind all that hellfire and damnation is just a desperate need for affection. All together now: Awww (ahahmen)

RobinHood3000

05-03-2006, 03:11 PM

Infinite love and mercy distributed among finite numbers of people seems like an awful waste.

In other news, kudos to rufioag for finally getting an avatar!!

Union Jack

05-03-2006, 04:49 PM

The problem is, we're not really free if we're constantly threatened with punishment. Either we love God or we go to Hell. It's rather difficult to make a free choice under these circumstances.
But people make the choice anyway. Ha Ha, to me it doesn't seem like a hard choice at all... God?....Hell...? hmmmmmmm?
But I am not Christian and I don't believe in either anyway.

Union Jack

05-03-2006, 04:58 PM

Sorry, ruf. I don't feel refuted at all, however easy you thought it would be. Where's the infinite love and mercy if you go to hell just for not loving God?
Where's the love and mercy? Jesus the Christ died for humanities sins, the ultimate sacarfice and expression of love.
God always forgives, no matter the sin(s) if one truly seeks repentance and chnages, God welcomes them with open arms.
Again, not my beliefs.

Bandini

05-03-2006, 05:06 PM

But most job offers don't come from faceless, invisible corporations that aren't listed in any phonebook or register of companies - the only one I can think of was in John Grisham's "The Firm", and we all know what happened there. :D

heh!.................

blp

05-03-2006, 05:28 PM

Where's the love and mercy? Jesus the Christ died for humanities sins, the ultimate sacarfice and expression of love.
God always forgives, no matter the sin(s) if one truly seeks repentance and chnages, God welcomes them with open arms.
Again, not my beliefs.

Are you missing the point on purpose? Not a hard choice? No, exactly. Barely a choice at all. So where's the freedom? That was my point.

Christ's self sacrifice also belies this so called freedom. It's predicated on the idea that we're all, fundamentally, sinners and there's nothing we can do about it except accept Christ.

Bandini

05-03-2006, 05:30 PM

Bizzare innit? But harmless(!!!) You know I just thought, I reckon a primary schoole religious education is perhaps good if you don't have religious parents to indoctrinate you - a lot of, what I think of as, 'liberal' Christianity is just having a decent moral compass, and I reckon you need a good analogy or two when you are a nipper to grasp how to be a decent human being. It's the oppressive fundamentalist stuff I have a problem with. All a bit hypocritical and harsh.

An Orwell quote just occured to me:

"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

Present company accepted of course!

dregn

05-03-2006, 05:47 PM

First I want to say I am new here. Found this page awhile back as a way to read some books I've always wanted to read without having to spend the money. Sucks being a poor college student. I've never been on a forum where a thread like this has been handled so mildly by so many. It really is impressive to see a place were a discussion can actually take place without anyone really fighting or name calling.

My response to the "why do you need a god" topic. I personally haven't decided if I need a god or not yet. I think many people decide they need a god to help them deal with life. It's hard to wake up some day and realize you are here and you will not be here at some point in the time in the future. Why are you here? What happens to you after you are gone? What's the point of living a certain way today if you are just gone tomorrow? Organized religion allows these questions to be answered. The belief in god will often times allow people to see meaning in their life and subside their fears. I think the belief can be a great thing if it helps a person live a life that is productive and they feel has meaning as long as it doesn't effect others opportunity at living their life.

I can't answer the question as to wether or not god exists. I've tried my best to figure it out and there is no sufficient evidence on either side that leads me to believing they are right. I read the article that rufioag linked to several pages ago that attempts to use logic to determine that god exists and has always existed. Nearly every branch of his logic tree he built results in all of the final statements I have lead myself to. The difference between myself and the author is that at the end I find all of them just as plausible as any of the others. I can no more think outside of the box and have the belief that god has always existed then I can believe that a tiny piece of matter that led to the "big bang" has always existed. One of the first things you are taught as a child is everything has a beginning and an end, but to explain our existance this really cannot hold true. It's a very difficult concept that I have always had troubles trying to explain to myself.

Only recently have I started to read the bible. I am not that far into it. After being raised a catholic and from what I've read so far it has only led me to ask even more questions about the catholic faith and led me even further away from believing in organized religion. Right now I view the bible as no more then a book which we can learn much about history from, but will not neccesarily give me the answers to life. I've heard many simliar stories written by different civilizations in mesopotamia long before they were written in the bible. These stories have different characters and the gods are different, but the stories are to simliar to be different stories. I don't know if this leads towards god existing, or if it leads to showing man made god up to explain life.

In my not to long life I have heard of to many stories that help to show god exists to allow myself to not believe in any type of higher power. At the same time I've often heard of logical explanations for these events that I can't say for sure a higher power does exist. I don't feel that I need a god to live a productive life. I'll just take advantage of being here while I am and hope that I can help others also enjoy their life. I think that's all I can hope for right now and I guess someday I will know if a higher power exists or not.

Xamonas Chegwe

05-03-2006, 06:47 PM

I very reasoned synopsis of your POV dregn. We are all friendly here because the mods keep us that way - we get beaten with the nailed stick otherwise.

Welcome to the forum.

cfossett09

05-03-2006, 06:55 PM

yeah He is there. You just have to believe. And I knwo you cant see Him but sometimes you have to have belief in what you can't see with the eye. I have proof hes there. Its called the Bible. Im glad you have your own opinions but thats mine. It does give me comfort liek you sai dtho to know that I have something to look forward to when I die and that there is someone up there protecting me and keeping me in line!

blp

05-03-2006, 06:55 PM

Yes, nice post, dregn. With your powers of reflection and inquiry, I'd be surprised if you ended up needing a god. Welcome to the forum.

If you can't afford books, you can always do what I used to do - stand around and read them in the shops. Some of them have even started providing chairs.

blp

05-03-2006, 06:58 PM

I have proof hes there. Its called the Bible.

I'm sorry, cfossett09, I don't understand. How is that proof?

Logos

05-03-2006, 07:04 PM

I very reasoned synopsis of your POV dregn. We are all friendly here because the mods keep us that way - we get beaten with the nailed stick otherwise.

mwuhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa! :lol:

Union Jack

05-03-2006, 07:17 PM

Blp, just because a choice is "bad" or one-sided ( to your views,) does not destroy the fact that it is still a choice.

RobinHood3000

05-03-2006, 07:34 PM

What's the point of living a certain way today if you are just gone tomorrow? In case nobody caught it from my mouth on one of the other religious threads:

Personally, I consider this way of thinking somewhat self-centered (please don't be offended--I mean this not as an insult, but in the sense that this thought pattern focuses solely on the thinker). The train of thought that one's concern in earthly affairs ends upon death is so common that many seem to have trouble breaking out of it. Life insurance and wills are perhaps the few exceptions to the rule.

I wonder why people feel that they need not concern themselves with what happens after their death. To some degree, obviously, this IS the case, but is it not the gesture of true selflessness to focus on improving the quality of other peoples' lives? Why not cease to worry about one's own death and instead worry about that life which remains?

I understand this must sound both naïve and idealistic, and it's hard for me to express exactly what I'm thinking of. I'll try and come back later when I've found a way to say it...

cfossett09

05-03-2006, 07:45 PM

it might not be proof to you or to others who dont believe there is a God. But for people that believe like I do, It tells all about how he sent his son down to die on the cross so we could sin and be forgiven. We believe without seeing and quite frankly He hasnt made me doubt Him or His plans he has laid out for me. The Bible shows hes real by the scriptures in the books that were written by the men that saw. Youd ont have to believe it because I mean some people dont believe until they see. But thats where I differ.

RobinHood3000

05-03-2006, 07:51 PM

...quite frankly He hasnt made me doubt Him or His plans he has laid out for me. Just so we're clear, nor has He given some of us reason to believe.

Okay, I think I know what I was trying to say in that last post. There's a couple reasons why you should live a certain way today in spite of death tomorrow: 1) there's always people living for the day after tomorrow and beyond. There's other earthlings who are profoundly influenced by what we do today, even after we're fertilizing daffodils. And 2) Why not? Even if we live terribly today, we still die tomorrow...between living well and living terribly (and helping others live well instead of terribly), I prefer well.

cfossett09

05-03-2006, 07:57 PM

[QUOTE=RobinHood3000]Just so we're clear, nor has He given some of us reason to believe.

okay so your right there. I guess not everyone is happy with what theyve dealt with in life. But I am and like I have been saying its my opinion like thats yours. But He has given me reasons to believe for the sake that i am a great person because of all the mistakes I have made in my life ( and trust me, there are many). And with making all the mistakes, I was still forgiven by someone no matter how wrong I had done. That helps me know that there is someone up there that I can talk to and not be judged. And I dont live for the days and beyond. I live my life one day at a time. Noone is promised tomorrow and noone knows what tomorrow will hold for them. You gotta keep on living as if tomorrow wasnt going to be there and let your loved ones know you love them.

RobinHood3000

05-03-2006, 08:10 PM

Hmm...I've always felt it vital to forgive oneself...forgiveness from external sources has always been secondary to me.

chielu

05-03-2006, 08:59 PM

The question I am now realizing should have been framed as: why would a god make such a choice when creating humankind - not why did he...

To answer your question about sinning:

No, I have never sinned, and this is because I do not believe in such a concept. Am I human? Yes. Does this mean I am not perfect? Yes. Do I strive to be perfect? No. The reason I do not strive to be perfect or flawles or sinless -- whatever you want to call it, is because I know that it is an impossible task. I do however look for ways to limit my overactive ego - meaning there are times when I hurt people, and people hurt me, and as a human being I am constantly in search of emotional and mental balance. I do try to make a good effort not to hurt, judge or ridicule people - but guess what? I do it anyway . . . because I am human. I do not believe that my earthly actions will be measured by a heavenly tribunal, either. What I do here on earth is what I leave behind for the generations after me to either clean up or enjoy.

I do not believe a god watches over and protects me - that would be arrogant. I do not feel blessed, as it would not feel right to receive a blessing when others are suffering; others who are not blessed, or not blessed yet. My status is my karma - what I came into this world with - what I do with my karmic condition while on earth is what concerns me, not what happens when I am no longer breathing.

It's interesting, some people rebel against religious doctrines and some people stand by them like a loyal soldier does to her or his country. I am the non-conformist type - I question everything and believe almost nothing. If someone says that something makes sense, I ask why...?That's why Christianity is not a good fit for me - there are just too many rules and I can't handle all the threats and warnings...ahhh! It's like choosing to sit on one side of the fence then gluing yourself to it. But I do understand how certain religions meet specific needs for various people.

I am open to learning and hearing about all religions; I find many of the stories and metaphors interesting. But, I do like Buddhism, mostly because I have to act more than think. There is a metaphor in Buddhism (maybe Christianity has a similar one) where a man is walking down a road and he comes face-to-face with Christ - he says, hey christ, it's like this and it's like that - then he kills the christ. he is walking down another road and comes face-to-face with the Buddha and he says, hey, buddha, it's like this and it's like that, then he kills the buddha.

What this means, and I could be wrong, as there so many people with their own interpretations, is that when we are too stuck on our own POV, we miss all the other wonderful teachings and messages that are being shared all around us. The man did not meet or kill Christ or the Buddha - he disolved his own passion for one belief. He was so enthralled with own thoughts and convictions that he actually believed that he met Christ & the Buddha!

rufioag

05-03-2006, 09:05 PM

We are all blessed in some way. Even those who suffer because all have suffered. But I conclude my statements in this thread. You will choose to believe or not believe and I pray that the Holy Spirit will move you in some way to accept what I KNOW is truth. I understand that metaphors are not perfect in describing things but it is an attempt to clarify a point. I am not perfect in anyway and therefore I do not make perfect examples that allude to the Christian faith but I use the blessings the Lord has given me in an attempt that I can justly represent who the Lord wishes us to be.

Gallantry

05-03-2006, 10:22 PM

I do not believe a god watches over and protects me - that would be arrogant. I do not feel blessed, as it would not feel right to receive a blessing when others are suffering; others who are not blessed, or not blessed yet. My status is my karma - what I came into this world with - what I do with my karmic condition while on earth is what concerns me, not what happens when I am no longer breathing.

In response to your comment concerning blessings and sufferings.
Behind the heart of Christianity is the fact that blessings are not material and there is more to this world than what happens to you here. To take a point from Don Miller, many people take the Bible to say place faith in God and you will get what you want and everything will go your way. This is not the case, the Bible is shouting place your faith in God and what happens to you here won't matter. Blessings are things you will rarely distinguish and sufferings as the Bible teaches "produce perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not dissapoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us."(Romans 5:3-5). So thus from the Christian stand point there is no point in saying it doesn't feel right to say you are blessed when others are not blessed because you do not know what they might be blessed with and as for the people suffering, we all suffer. There is no reason for you not to be blessed spiritually because someone is suffering. You will also find that those that suffer are the most spiritualy blessed. Blessed with a kind heart, humility, faith, wisdom, and other spiritual gifts.

ShoutGrace

05-04-2006, 02:29 AM

But I conclude my statements in this thread. I am not perfect in anyway and therefore I do not make perfect examples that allude to the Christian faith but I use the blessings the Lord has given me in an attempt that I can justly represent who the Lord wishes us to be.

I never realized that Leo Tolstoy was an intensely spiritual man. He was a fundamental Christian who attempted to carry out the Gospel literally in his life, and surely did better than any one of us in that respect. Yet it truly tortured him that he could not attain the standards he believed Jesus set out before every person (The entire Beatitudes, and Matthew 5:48 esp). I felt sad when I read this section of a personal letter he wrote concerning his own failures.

"'What about you, Lev Nikolayevich, you preach very well, but do you carry out what you preach?' This is the most natural of questions and one that is always asked of me; it is usually asked victoriously, as though it were a way of stopping my mouth. 'You preach, but how do you live?' And I answer that I do not preach, that I am not able to preach, although I passionately wish to. I can preach only through my actions, and my actions are vile . . . And I answer that I am guilty, and vile, and worthy of contempt for my failure to carry them out.

At the same time, not in order to justify, but simply in order to explain my lack of consistency, I say: Look at my present life and then at my former life, and you will see that I do attempt to carry them out. It is true that I have not fulfilled one thousandth part of them [Christian precepts], and I am ashamed of this, but I have failed to fulfill them not because I did not wish to, but because I was unable to. Teach me how to escape from the net of temptations that surrounds me, help me, and I will fulfill them; even without help I wish and hope to fulfill them.

Attack me, I do this myself, but attack me rather than the path I follow and which I follow and which I point out to anyone who asks me where I think it lies. If I know the way home and am walking along it drunkenly, is it any less the right way because I am staggering from side to side! If it not the right way, then show me another way; but if I stagger and lose the way, you must help me, you must keep me on the true path, just as I am ready to support you. Do not mislead me, do not be glad that I have got lost, do not shout out joyfully: ‘Look at him! He said he was going home, but there he is crawling into a bog!’ No, do not gloat, but give me your help and support."- Leo Tolstoy

In the end, Tolstoy fled from his fame, his family, his estate, and his identity. He died poor and alone in a rural railroad station.

"With crystalline clarity Tolstoy could see his own inadequacy in the light of God's Ideal. But he could not take the further step of trusting God's grace in order to overcome that inadequacy."
(Philip Yancey, 'The Jesus I Never Knew')

ShoutGrace

05-04-2006, 02:32 AM

In other news, kudos to rufioag for finally getting an avatar!!

Hear Hear! I quite agree.

Theshizznigg

05-04-2006, 03:05 AM

A lot of people believe in a god that thinks exactly as they do - this is convenient, as it enables them to commit acts of violence and inhumanity, secure in the knowledge that it is "God's will". I'm sure that we can all think of examples without resorting to current politics.

Personally, not believing in any god, I have to take responsibility for my own actions - which is a real bummer I can tell you! :nod:

XMC It never ceases to amaze me how you are caught up in your prejudices.

Do you think that I like it when I see the Church used as an arm for wrongful gains, in the name of Gods will? Do you think Christians do not notice this, or that many don't disagree with it, or downright hate it?
Do you think that a Church led by humans is not prone to error, or shouldn't be?
Do you think I like reading of Pastors marrying Gay couples under God, or of priest molesting young children, of TV Evangelist selling hopes and wishes to dying people in order to take money from them?
Or that I believe there was no inquisition, no witch burnings, or that there are no evil men within the church?
Do you think that I don't shake with anger when I see the root of which my entire life is based under attack from all sides? All the while I am almost defenseless against these provocations which others use as an excuse not to consider Christ? Do you think it doesn't upset me, that my fellow humans beings will cease to exist, when they could have been saved?
Do you really think that the main body of born again Christians are so convulted, so deeply set in their ways, that they don't notice it, or simply ignore it? That they don't feel outraged by the slander that comes against them, and their God?
None of the people accountable for these things are true followers of Christ.

And unlike most people, I am responsible for all of my actions, as well.
I may ask for forgiveness, but if it was my hand which caused the trouble, then I will, willingly face the punishment for it. That is merely the courage the fortitude, and Christian morality that I have developed in my lifetime.

I am not a perfect being, I have my failings in Christ and they torment me more than anyone could ever imagine, I have my prejudices, but I feel I must at least set the record straight, lest I stand by completely.
I did not mean to have a go at you, but please think about my points reasonably.
Your in my prayers, Shizz.

"I do not hide behind Christ, but Christ lives in me.
He may guide me, but it is I, who must truly follow."

blp

05-04-2006, 05:03 AM

RobinHood3000

05-04-2006, 05:45 AM

Do you think that I like it when I see the Church used as an arm for wrongful gains, in the name of Gods will? Do you think Christians do not notice this, or that many don't disagree with it, or downright hate it?
Do you think that a Church led by humans is not prone to error, or shouldn't be?
Do you think I like reading of Pastors marrying Gay couples under God, or of priest molesting young children, of TV Evangelist selling hopes and wishes to dying people in order to take money from them?
Or that I believe there was no inquisition, no witch burnings, or that there are no evil men within the church?
Do you think that I don't shake with anger when I see the root of which my entire life is based under attack from all sides? All the while I am almost defenseless against these provocations which others use as an excuse not to consider Christ? Do you think it doesn't upset me, that my fellow humans beings will cease to exist, when they could have been saved?
Do you really think that the main body of born again Christians are so convulted, so deeply set in their ways, that they don't notice it, or simply ignore it? That they don't feel outraged by the slander that comes against them, and their God?
None of the people accountable for these things are true followers of Christ.If they bother you so, what have you done about them?

blp

05-04-2006, 05:46 AM

Blp, just because a choice is "bad" or one-sided ( to your views,) does not destroy the fact that it is still a choice.

If you were actually arguing on the side of Christianity, which I know you're not, I'd have to say this was the pedantry of fascism. Christianity's 'choice' is no different from the 'choice' faced by citizens of oppressive regimes: obey or die. My point was not about whether this constituted choice, but about whether it constituted freedom, which I still maintain it doesn't.

RobinHood3000

05-04-2006, 05:48 AM

Isn't it more like "obey or suffer eternal torment, you godless heathen"? (Oh, wait--that was what somebody said to me last week, I'm sorry...:blush:) We all die--what happens then is anybody's guess.

blp

05-04-2006, 06:30 AM

We all die--what happens then is anybody's guess.

'die' as in, be cast into the lake of fire on Judgement day, to be wearyingly specific.

blp

05-04-2006, 06:43 AM

Do you think I like reading of Pastors marrying Gay couples under God?

Do you think I like reading sentences like this? Two guesses.

ShoutGrace

05-04-2006, 06:56 AM

Every human being will experience a biophysical end. Death is inevitable. Christians will argue that there is both a physical and spiritual death.

My point was not about whether this constituted choice, but about whether it constituted freedom, which I still maintain it doesn't.

Aren't you free to choose your beliefs? Aren't you every day making free choices? People are free to latch onto and trust in anything that convicts them. Perhaps I am misunderstanding "freedom".

blp

05-04-2006, 07:20 AM

Aren't you free to choose your beliefs? Aren't you every day making free choices? People are free to latch onto and trust in anything that convicts them. Perhaps I am misunderstanding "freedom".

I'm not talking about whether I feel free, ShoutGrace. I'm talking about the rhetoric of free will in the Christian doctrine. To summarise

God is said to give us free will in order that our decision to love him or not has a meaning, but then

we are threatened with damnation if we don't, which is a negation of our freedom of choice. Real freedom of choice would be, love God or don't, with no repercussions.

blp

05-04-2006, 07:34 AM

This whole thing might seem to have gone off topic a little, but the vexed question of what motivates 'faith' - whether love or fear - seems relevant. To what extent does religion create the need for a god in its adherents?

Grumbleguts

05-04-2006, 07:45 AM

I agree with your comments blp. I have always found the carrot and stick approach of most major religions to be far too human to come from a supposedly omnipotent omniscient infallible and caring creator.

blp

05-04-2006, 08:00 AM

blp

05-04-2006, 10:30 AM

To press the point a little, though, I have to say, Grumbleguts, that I don't think it's just a matter of saying that the carrot and stick approach is implausible. I'm trying to get at what seems to me to be a definite logical flaw.

Grumbleguts

05-04-2006, 10:53 AM

I never claimed that you weren't blp. I was intending to agree with and to add to your comments not to summarise them. Perhaps I should have used a new paragraph to seperate the two sentences.

blp

05-04-2006, 10:55 AM

I understood that you agreed. Just being super finicketty.

Theshizznigg

05-04-2006, 11:05 AM

If they bother you so, what have you done about them?

What exactly would you have me do about them? Hunt them down, expulse them, or kill them?
Declare a holy war againt them?
Or even the lighter touch, of boycotting them, causing them humiliation, speaking out my hatred against them.

That would only invariably turn me into one of them.
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, is a soothing prospect, but it unfortunately doesn't work. Two wrongs will never make a right.

Shizz.

Xamonas Chegwe

05-04-2006, 01:20 PM

XMC It never ceases to amaze me how you are caught up in your prejudices.

Do you think that I like it when I see the Church used as an arm for wrongful gains, in the name of Gods will? Do you think Christians do not notice this, or that many don't disagree with it, or downright hate it?
Do you think that a Church led by humans is not prone to error, or shouldn't be?
Do you think I like reading of Pastors marrying Gay couples under God, or of priest molesting young children, of TV Evangelist selling hopes and wishes to dying people in order to take money from them?
Or that I believe there was no inquisition, no witch burnings, or that there are no evil men within the church?
Do you think that I don't shake with anger when I see the root of which my entire life is based under attack from all sides? All the while I am almost defenseless against these provocations which others use as an excuse not to consider Christ? Do you think it doesn't upset me, that my fellow humans beings will cease to exist, when they could have been saved?
Do you really think that the main body of born again Christians are so convulted, so deeply set in their ways, that they don't notice it, or simply ignore it? That they don't feel outraged by the slander that comes against them, and their God?
None of the people accountable for these things are true followers of Christ.

And unlike most people, I am responsible for all of my actions, as well.
I may ask for forgiveness, but if it was my hand which caused the trouble, then I will, willingly face the punishment for it. That is merely the courage the fortitude, and Christian morality that I have developed in my lifetime.

I am not a perfect being, I have my failings in Christ and they torment me more than anyone could ever imagine, I have my prejudices, but I feel I must at least set the record straight, lest I stand by completely.
I did not mean to have a go at you, but please think about my points reasonably.
Your in my prayers, Shizz.

"I do not hide behind Christ, but Christ lives in me.
He may guide me, but it is I, who must truly follow."

Shizz,

I said 'Some people', not every believer. And there are such people - you do a great job of listing some of them (although what gay marriages have to do with it I have no idea).

I am quite aware that there are many different reasons for believing, just as there are many for disbelieving, I was merely answering the question in a particular instance, not in general.

I think it is your prejudice regarding your preconceived impression of my antagonism towards believers in general and christians in particular that has clouded your mind in this case.

The Unnamable

05-04-2006, 06:05 PM

Regit

05-04-2006, 09:50 PM

blp, do you know Plath’s The Moon And The Yew Tree? What I like about it is that her lack of faith isn’t the result of any inability to subscribe to an illogical belief but because she simply doesn’t see “where there is to get to”.

She also feels the need to believe:

“How I would like to believe in tenderness ----
The face of the effigy, gentled by candles,
Bending, on me in particular, its mild eyes.”

But she doesn’t. This is what she sees:

“Inside the church, the saints will all be blue,
Floating on their delicate feet over the cold pews,
Their hands and faces stiff with holiness.
The moon sees nothing of this. She is bald and wild.
And the message of the yew tree is blackness -- blackness and silence.”

What a beautiful poem.

I think I understand your interpretation. "Inside the church, the saints will all be blue," - She says earlier in the poem that "this is the light of the mind ...the light is blue" - Perhaps she means to say that although all divine messengers bear the stiffness of their duty and, thus, their holiness, they will all be viewed as the reflection of "the light of the mind" and will only be seen as what this light allows each individual to see. "The moon is bald and wild"; perhaps meaning that the source of her perceptions is blunt and free, as well as brutal and chaotic, and it does not let her submit to this stiffness. The candles emitt a different light onto the effigy, giving it a tenderness; but it is mild and the "blackness" of the mind is too vast. Or the candle is too weak compared to the moon; and it's messenger, the bending face of the effigy is inferior to the yew tree, the tall and straight messenger of the moon? Thus it is her depression or the existing perceptions of her mind that prevails over the comfort and principles of worship, and not her inability to submit to an illogical or unproven faith?

Could you give me an interpretation of the image of the yew tree? I can't seem to figure out what else it represents, except what I had mentioned. Also, I could not figure out the message of "silence" of the yew tree. Why was it mentioned only once, like an addition to blackness?

Or perhaps her message is that of the naturists, that religious feelings are commanded by our connection with nature. Sorry if this messed it all up, my poetry reading is very weak.