Why I believe in God?

Those who understand and have a love for literature, who delight in the consistency of character and wonder at the beauty of a perfectly constructed story line, cannot help but love the Bible, if not for a book of religious accuracy, then as the ultimate expression of the collected word.

Joyce, Proust and James reached the pinnacle of literature and yet not even they could construct a character with the compassionate, complexity, and understanding of the 'higher being' that Jesus represents.

A question people always like to ask is that if there was a God, why is there so much suffering allowed in this world. The suffering in this world exists not because of God, but because of human nature. We, as a whole, have chosen suffering and death. Why do the good and innocent suffer? It is as simple as this - a person, A, gets angry at being mistreated by B. Because he is too cowardly to take his anger out on B, he picks on C, who is good and innocent but meek. C, being good and innocent, suffers. Is that because of God or because of the wickedness of A?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

humm a couple of things and not just directly related to this but things that have been mulling in my mind while I read this thread this evening. Firstly as far as I understand it and have always taken it to mean, The Koran doesn't say that God is necessarily kind or 'nice' or in anyway lovlydovley all soft and cuddley. No that would be putting Human characteristics on God when He/She/It is something so completely other the reality of which is beyond both Human comprehension and imagination. God is just God end of story. At least that is what I have always understood the Koran's stand on the subject to be, I could be wrong.

---

My Koran example was odd, especially when discussing something with Red, who is a Christian...I have the koran at home, I havent read it over yet, only parts that seem to collide with Christian things, such as mentions of Mary and Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

it is a survival mechanism that is controlled by hormones and electrochemical releases in the brain. Which is why in most cases the instinct of a mother is to 'love' her baby, its to ensure the survival of the species of course sometimes the natural click goes wrong some how and we have postpartum depression. I can go on forever, and have an explanation for most types of love and bonds but I wont bore you with it and let's just leave at that , and yes I know that a weird view and yes Ive heard it is a remarkably unhealthy take on life.

---

would you say to support this is belief? It is belief if it is but a theory. Of course, i'm sure there is empirical data in abundance to support your claim, someone else linked us to a thread on the same issue. Its a common argument to say 'science cannot prove everything, what about love?' frankly, it can explain love. What science does is deal with 'what' not 'why', faith deals with 'why' as well as 'what'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Loving God has not evolutionary or survival purpose, its irrational and it doesn't really affect anything life goes on however you feel about god, therefore I would argue that because there is no really benefit in it it has to be real ( actually that's a fairly irrational argument looking at it but then Faith never had much to do with rationality anyway its about what you Believe not what you can prove. and I know God loves me and none will ever convince me otherwise, why else would good things happen to me so often just exactly when I need them to? :D

---

The phrase: ignorance is bliss springs to mind. But I'd actually have to defend many many many christian philosophers who worked their bottoms off to rationally show their understanding of God, to the level where it gets so complicated. Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas....interesting thinkers, very well thought out arguments, and if not, were developed and also shot down by others...as is the way philosophy goes. Anselm + Descartes - Kant (forget Guarnillo) = little argument. Recently, being the Agnostic I am, I have seen how blissfully happy religious people are, how I felt when i was alone and had no one in very stressful times, and how I felt I knew and really actually knew there was something there to interact with, i [I]told[I] myself there was. Prayer...It got me out of the hole, ignorance is bliss. But I know that Prayer = Trance = cognitive mechanism to bridge melancholy and joy and etc, etc. Did I care? no.

I'm sure there are cold and analytical way to discribe this, I probably already have. But recently I pondered on the notion of a happy atheist. I wrote a poem, a cold, analytical poem, surprisingly, and its ending hasnt yet got the resonance I want, and its also surreal, so its a lil complex, but essentially, the notion of being 'Free' from the establishment, free from the trance, the conformity, the 'opiate of the people' as Marx had said, leaves very little in terms of significance, except to procreate. I accept this. But personally, its rather unfulfillable...but faiths such as Christianity which feel so guilt ridden in practise do little else as well ... makes me question why we choose new religions after leaving others...self interest? or in one's best interests?

peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol

A question people always like to ask is that if there was a God, why is there so much suffering allowed in this world. The suffering in this world exists not because of God, but because of human nature. We, as a whole, have chosen suffering and death. Why do the good and innocent suffer? It is as simple as this - a person, A, gets angry at being mistreated by B. Because he is too cowardly to take his anger out on B, he picks on C, who is good and innocent but meek. C, being good and innocent, suffers. Is that because of God or because of the wickedness of A?

---

you have chosen a very big topic here. here is a short essay for ya :)

A fundamental challenge to God’s existence is the concept of evil in reality. For example, how could an all powerful and benevolent God allow for earthquakes, tornadoes, pestilence and other such natural disasters to take lives? Believers in God see Him as loving and just, and this evidence is difficult for them, logically.

The common reaction to the suffering in the physical world is that it all suggests that either God is omnipotent or not perfectly good. The ideologies of Deism or Agnosticism may fall in to play, that there is evil and suffering in the world because God is disinterested, or does not exist at all, the whole idea of God a mistake – frightening prospects for the theist.

Furthermore, due to the fact that there is indeed suffering in the world, one can argue that God either cannot remove suffering, or will not. If God cannot, this contradicts God’s omnipotence, if he will not then God is not benevolent or all-good.

The theist must deal with the problem of evil, as it empirically opposes the common attributes of God, and must show the suffering in the world as consistent with a perfectly good and all powerful God. If the theist can answer the problem of evil, this would provide a theodicy – a vindication of divine actions to mankind to allow the existence of the divine with natural and moral evil.

There have been many theistic arguments for explaining the problem of evil and one which is noteworthy is the book, The Divine Principle, the main theological textbook of the Unification Church. The book holds that redemption is the process through which God is working to remove the consequences of the fall and restore humanity back to the relationship and position that God had originally intended. The road to redemption is one of suffering and hardship, yet more importantly, the notion of redemption suggests sin and it is sin that has caused the suffering in the world.

If it is sin that causes the suffering in the world, then God is not benevolent, as He will not remove the natural evil, instead using it to punish, - a notion that does not comply with a loving God. However, perhaps as humans we are all imperfect and none of us good due to the fall of man and original sin, and must therefore seek to bridge our relationship with God once more. It is thus our free will that is the responsible for chaos in the world.

A question which leads from free will (which is a rather large topic in concerning evil) is that if God is omniscient He would have known of the fall before it happened, and could have prevented it. This leads us to ponder to what extent is evil man-made. God created the world ex-nihilio, establishing order in chaos, the unpredictable void. Yet evil exists long after the establishment of order, suggesting both evil and order must co-exist, being reflections of each other, meaning in short that God cannot be wholly perfect if good is relative to evil.

The theist must look at the attributes of God, for example looking at how God is omniscient and maybe taking the position of the skeptical theist, a viewpoint that one cannot possibly conceive God’s ultimate plan, or think or par with God, this is a popular belief. When looking at the different manifestations of God, we can see that he manifests in varying degrees. God possesses perfect mercy, yet sometimes does not show it, meaning mercy is a relative characteristic, while something like spirituality would be an absolute characteristic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judas130

Furthermore, due to the fact that there is indeed suffering in the world, one can argue that God either cannot remove suffering, or will not. If God cannot, this contradicts God’s omnipotence, if he will not then God is not benevolent or all-good.

---

What a catch-22 for God, eh? :)

Following is my reasoning, I am not a philosopher so I have tried to keep it simple for myself.

1. Even God has to abide by His Law, which we have yet to understand perfectly, if we ever will.

I am inclined to think that God 'cannot' remove suffering as we would like to picture Him to be able (i.e. stop all suffering right now from this moment on) because He 'cannot' go against His Law, which created the universe.

So we would assume from this that God is not omnipotent, however, keep in mind that He created His Law, which He cannot override. So if he is non-omnipotent, it is due only to Himself. A bit of a paradox? so what next?

2. Just because God 'cannot' end suffering now does not mean that he 'cannot' end suffering ever.

God has to work aligned with and within His Law. That is why Jesus came and the Word became human. Everything that Jesus did was within the Law (of nature and creation).

Christians like to believe that God can remove suffering. Unfortunately, unlike God, we live within time and may be in the middle of God's plan to remove suffering. The story of humankind is not finished and soon suffering may be ended yet, but it is done according to God's will, not humankind's.

Believing in God has so many reasons. First and foremost is we are not knowledgeable about the origin or creation of this universe and in point of fact we can not solely subscribe to the idea of Darwin.

We are all conscious beings and there must be a source of it, and of course all that we do are not sheer quivers, vibrations, tremors and the like. There are things that are beyond our ranges of comprehensions and believing in God is not beleiving in our confinements and to think that there must be something beyond all these webs as a matter of fact.

And may be some of our questions that go unanswered will find answers in believing in God. God is not a word, nor an entity, nor an object, nor a process. May the last answer or the last destination is what God is. God is everything or not everything. It is something that is not explained away in books of scriptures, not in religious faiths, not even in benediction. And wherein is a question we can never answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol

Those who understand and have a love for literature, who delight in the consistency of character and wonder at the beauty of a perfectly constructed story line, cannot help but love the Bible, if not for a book of religious accuracy, then as the ultimate expression of the collected word.

Joyce, Proust and James reached the pinnacle of literature and yet not even they could construct a character with the compassionate, complexity, and understanding of the 'higher being' that Jesus represents.

---

Jesus is complex because he is a surreal character, and the bible contradicts itself in several instances. The bible is a sequel to the Old testament, but it had parts cut from it: Apocryphal texts are mostly ignored. The bible is far from perfect or whole. The bible has been interpreted in whatever way it is needed to mean. It's ambiguity and mysticism allow others to lead minds unwilling to think for themselves. Jesus is like an ancient superman, a character with absolute power who overcomes moral struggle and previous doctrine. Jesus is a catalyst. he has all the marks of a superhero, righteous fury, rise, and fall included.

The bible's ancient, but constantly revised and given new spin. If anything it's on the same level as the Koran, the Sutras, or any other religious document unless you happen to be Christian biased. Jesus wasn't the first of his kind or the last. Gilgamesh, Heracles and other ancient heroes were parented by the god(s).

I refuse to accept the bible as a valid reason why people in general believe in a god. It is a fine story, but I do not see it as perfect, ultimate, or anything more than what it is: Doctrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol

A question people always like to ask is that if there was a God, why is there so much suffering allowed in this world. The suffering in this world exists not because of God, but because of human nature. We, as a whole, have chosen suffering and death. Why do the good and innocent suffer? It is as simple as this - a person, A, gets angry at being mistreated by B. Because he is too cowardly to take his anger out on B, he picks on C, who is good and innocent but meek. C, being good and innocent, suffers. Is that because of God or because of the wickedness of A?

---

I agree that people allow themselves to suffer. I feel the "Jesus take the wheel!" mentality that religion sometimes breeds is partly to blame. But this is a different topic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krymsonkyng

The bible's ancient, but constantly revised and given new spin. If anything it's on the same level as the Koran, the Sutras, or any other religious document unless you happen to be Christian biased. Jesus wasn't the first of his kind or the last. Gilgamesh, Heracles and other ancient heroes were parented by the god(s).

I refuse to accept the bible as a valid reason why people in general believe in a god. It is a fine story, but I do not see it as perfect, ultimate, or anything more than what it is: Doctrine.

---

It is very difficult for an individual to approach the Bible with a completely objective and open mind; in fact, I'm tempted to say it is impossible. From the moment we are born, we are influenced by the beliefs of those around us.

The world naturally finds Christianity repulsive and unnecesary. The average man is brought up on a secular view of Christianity and almost automatically categories Jesus to other ancient 'king types' of past cultures.

A sincere study into the character of Jesus will affirm many differences. Jesus was the only character whom aim it was to establish a 'spiritual kingdom' rather than a physical one. The character of Jesus has never been able to be emulated in any of the modern literature, and the reason why I say modern literature is because only modern literature (due to it being the product of literary advancement) would be able to (if it could) create such a character.

In fact, the closest character to Jesus I have come across is Superman (but he is a DC comic character) and he made no attempt to change things on the spiritual level on earth.

Those known as the greatest writers have rarely made any attempt to construct a God and wisely so, have chosen for their masterpieces to be focused on the human condition.

My point is, no literature other than the Bible has been able to craft a character as original, as consistent, with as thorough an understanding of the human condition, as that of Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol

A sincere study into the character of Jesus will affirm many differences. Jesus was the only character whom aim it was to establish a 'spiritual kingdom' rather than a physical one. The character of Jesus has never been able to be emulated in any of the modern literature, and the reason why I say modern literature is because only modern literature (due to it being the product of literary advancement) would be able to (if it could) create such a character.

In fact, the closest character to Jesus I have come across is Superman (but he is a DC comic character) and he made no attempt to change things on the spiritual level on earth.

Those known as the greatest writers have rarely made any attempt to construct a God and wisely so, have chosen for their masterpieces to be focused on the human condition.

My point is, no literature other than the Bible has been able to craft a character as original, as consistent, with as thorough an understanding of the human condition, as that of Jesus.

---

Siddhartha was said to have been born a half century before Christ... Martyrs existed long before Jesus, and long after. Spiritual martyrs as well.

Modern literature has a term for the Christ Figure: link. Given, a lot of these people are considered mimic of the original, but several have their own reasons. A good example would be Finny in A Separate Peace. Another (though to a much lesser extent) would be Victor from Choke. He becomes so worried about his kindness and niceties that he begins to strive to be anything but Christ in defiance of his psychotic parent.

Jesus is perfect. In theory, that isn't too hard to write. Jesus has no weakness. There is no fear there, no complexity to his decisions. I would say he's less complex for his perfection, and his few imperfections are contradictions considered trivial and ignored.

Any writer to construct a god would not be considered great for long because of the retribution such "arrogance" would bring. People get persecuted for questioning the church. Such writings are not considered "great" by mainstream readers for a reason.

I reject the bibles as the main motivating factors for people to believe in the Christian God. Scripture of any sort is sort of like an instructional story (Not too unlike a series of fables, but of a more serious nature. People don't kill over the tortoise and the hair...) for the already faithful to take to heart. Few people I have met ever join Christianity after reading the entire bible. The usual indoctrination takes place at a younger age and is accepted household fact that bias' the newly faithful towards scripture for reinforcement. Again though, this is only because the child (if rational) accepts the teachings of his parents enough to believe them beneficial.

Oh, but I have seen Jesus work in my life in such a wonderful way. Who do you think Jesus is? Cuz if you study the Bible with an open mind, you will be amazed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynne Fees

Oh, but I have seen Jesus work in my life in such a wonderful way. Who do you think Jesus is? Cuz if you study the Bible with an open mind, you will be amazed.

---

I wholeheartedly agree, an open mind is necessary in learning anything, the bible(s) included. The point of my posts in this thread are to determine a cause for faith in any god though, not just whichever god you subscribe to. I have come to the bible with an open mind before, but I refuse to take it as fact for several reasons not important to this thread.

To keep on topic may I ask you a question? If you're alright with a personal question (you do not have to answer if you do not want to) would you say you believe in a god because of the good things Jesus does for you?

This is a topic that can fuel our imagination and as a matter of fact it engages us to think and imagine greatly.

In point of fact beleiving God widens your horizon of life. Or else life is meaningless. If we try to understand life in material terms or take it as a physical entity and can not think beyond a point life becomes very dry.

Believing in God broadens our perspectives.

Man suffers and still he hopes he can be out of it. He can overcomes hardships. He believes prayer is powerful.

In fact prayer is powerful. The most important thing is beleif or confidence and if one loses one tends to lost greatly. Prayer props up faith and confidence in ourselves, in others, and in everything.

Prayer braces our sense of morality. Of course prayer soothes our minds and we will be doing things that morality approves.

There are so many reasons that make us beleive in God. Man does not want to be confined and man wants to grow infinitely and limitlessly.

God is a height, an ideal, a summit man wants to be at.

The most important value man has is God, and no achievement is higher in glory and worthier than realizing or attaining liberation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krymsonkyng

God seems to be something of a security blanket. These days he's like insurance. Back in the day he was the only way of life. Folks believe and have believed in a god mostly out of self interest
In Christianity the general consensus is if you believe in God, good things happen to you in this life and the next. If you don't you suffer for eternity. Other religions have similar rewards and punishments (Buddhism you spin your wheels, Taoism you constantly hurt, Any idea similar heaven or hell is like waving a carrot or a gun respectively).People are selfish even in their charity

---

I will answer it like this:

I feel pretty sure that there is a higher Power behind everything.

The higher power wants us to live in a particular way: Be good person, compassionate, honest, loving, tolerant etc.
By striving to live this way, I feel God’s grace will be with me and He will take care. He will also lead me towards God realization.
So, you can say here that by believing in God, I am looking for a benefit that my present life will be OK in general.

What if my life gets in disarray, then I will still keep believe hoping that God will straighten it out.
What if He does not straighten it out?
I think I will continue believing and hoping and working towards solving my problems.
This is the way it is presently with me and may be with many other believers.

One more point I would like to mention here:
God has also been taken as ultimate lover or beloved.
So when you love God, like a true lover or a beloved you want to please God. You resign yourself to the will of God and accept God in whatever situation He puts you.

If you have seen the movie ‘Casablanca’, then there are two good men in love with same woman. Both men would have laid their lives for the happiness of this fine woman and there was just love for the woman without thought of any self-interest. That is how it should be ultimately between God and human.

May be here also you can say that there is a benefit involved: Doing the thing that you like ‘loving someone without any care for self’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laidbackperson

I will answer it like this:

I feel pretty sure that there is a higher Power behind everything.

The higher power wants us to live in a particular way: Be good person, compassionate, honest, loving, tolerant etc.
By striving to live this way, I feel God’s grace will be with me and He will take care. He will also lead me towards God realization.
So, you can say here that by believing in God, I am looking for a benefit that my present life will be OK in general.

---

I would believe in a god for very much the same reason.

I have not seen Casablanca (yet) but I can see how a person loves a god, I wanted to find a general reasoning for people to believe. I believe people believe, in general because it feels right. Love is a powerful motivator, but I wanted to classify it as a "benefit" in terms of motivation. I now see how careful one must be when trying to make general statements about something so near and dear to so many hearts.

I wanted to make a statement similar to Pascal's wager, but in relation to religion as a whole instead of just Christianity. I hope I have not offended anyone with my obstinacy in believing that the feeling is a stronger motivator than the doctrine.

In fact it is very hard to carry on without having to believe in God, for God is inundated with life, and we feel totally at one with God in many respects. Today more than ever we turn to God, for all we eye these days are falsehoods, deception, forgeries.

How can we not beleive in God the savour.

For what is God is not the Biblical or mythological God. God is a symbol or ideal of something, and not believing in God is not believing in any ideal.

without indulging personal religious beliefs, it is a basic and inherent part of our nature to believe in a higher power. early philosophers consistently proofed this in logic. by pure observation of known civilization this is true.

people who cling to the idea that there is no God seem truly contradictory to their own human nature, internally they battle what they say does not exist.

even the most recent discoveries in quantum physics and string theory have arrived at a point of ill consequence that they must now explain something from nothing. it is a leap, it is faith.

In point of fact it is hard not to beleive in God, for without God ultimately everything becomes worthless.

God is an accumulation of our all values in point of fact.