Why I believe in God?

[Judas130]

Well, then, if you've read the whole thing, then certainly you came across the verse that explains your failure to understand the Bible, didn't you?

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14

That, in a nutshell, is why the Bible makes no sense to those who read it only to discredit it.

In context with quote, its hardly useful. Paul felt mistreated upon visiting CHRISTIAN Corinthians, and accused them of being 'of the flesh'. He was late to his meeting, and was seen as unreliable: 'we do not listen to him'.

15
The spiritual person judges all
things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

16
"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct
him?" But we have the mind of Christ

-- so those that indulge in a transcendent reality are not to be judged, they have their 'get out jail free' card for their ignorance of assertion and axiom? I'm sorry, but i'm judging already. it seems a hardly fair, loving, religion when the outsiders get discriminated towards. It contradicts jesus' views: there are many rooms in my fathers house - a respect for other people outside of his own faith. Paul, thus, does not possess the mind of Christ. simple. Paul here says that it does not matter if you are spiritual, you can be Buddhist, or a Christian of varying belief to that of Paul (the one who converted so many states) and yet you are still of the flesh: 'But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh'. This seems to contradict the views of Jesus, this contradiction makes the bible no better. your quote, in context, has no real argument.

So you feel that the idea human should be aiming for perfection, for purity is unconvincing?

The church tells me i must repent for my 'sins'. and what sins are these? looking a someone's rear and thinking 'damn! if only!'? because, why should i repent for this? It is not perfection or purity the Church is pointing you towards, it is to selflessness, to guilt. it is ridiculous - you were made with these 'default settings', why ignore them? if you are created in God's image then God is no more than a higher animal like we all are.

[Redzeppelin]

In context with quote, its hardly useful. Paul felt mistreated upon visiting CHRISTIAN Corinthians, and accused them of being 'of the flesh'. He was late to his meeting, and was seen as unreliable: 'we do not listen to him'.

15
The spiritual person judges all
things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

16
"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct
him?" But we have the mind of Christ

-- so those that indulge in a transcendent reality are not to be judged, they have their 'get out jail free' card for their ignorance of assertion and axiom? I'm sorry, but i'm judging already. it seems a hardly fair, loving, religion when the outsiders get discriminated towards. It contradicts jesus' views: there are many rooms in my fathers house - a respect for other people outside of his own faith. Paul, thus, does not possess the mind of Christ. simple. Paul here says that it does not matter if you are spiritual, you can be Buddhist, or a Christian of varying belief to that of Paul (the one who converted so many states) and yet you are still of the flesh: 'But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh'. This seems to contradict the views of Jesus, this contradiction makes the bible no better. your quote, in context, has no real argument.

"Outsiders" are "outside" because they refuse to believe in God. You can't be a member of a club if you reject the club's foundation. That's kind of how it works (though Christ DID sacrifice himself for all humanity - those who choose to follow him and even those who don't).

Your interpretation of Paul's words leave a lot to be desired. I Corinthians 2:10-16 are a unified discussion on the enlightenment that the Spirit - the Holy Spirit - brings to humanity about God. Without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, we would be in the dark about who God is how to understand His will. Paul makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is what makes scripture meaningful to Christians (and foolish to nonbelievers) because it is through the Holy Spirit's work that we aprehend God in our hearts. I suggest a closer re-read of Corinthians before you attempt to take apart Paul's ideas.

The church tells me i must repent for my 'sins'. and what sins are these? looking a someone's rear and thinking 'damn! if only!'? because, why should i repent for this? It is not perfection or purity the Church is pointing you towards, it is to selflessness, to guilt. it is ridiculous - you were made with these 'default settings', why ignore them? if you are created in God's image then God is no more than a higher animal like we all are.

"Default settings" eh? Sounds like a justification to me. If they're so normal, why then do people get angry if they see it? Why would a woman get annoyed and her boyfriend/husband angry if they caught you exercising your "default setting" on her rear end if it were a normal and socially acceptable behavior? Perhaps it's because that behavior is innately wrong - because it is you "taking" something that you have no right to.

Your assessment of God is absurd. Clearly you know nothing of Him and can speak with as much authority about His character as I can about yours (which is with no authority whatsoever).

The reality is that if you'd actually read the Gospels closely, or even Paul's letters, you'd know that the worst sins are all spiritual in nature - the sin of jealousy, of bitterness, of self-righteousness and pride - those are the sins that Jesus lashed out against. For the carnal sins (checking out rear ends) he was surprisingly compassionate. Like me, you good sir, are a sinner. And, like me, you can be forgiven.

[blazeofglory]

There are plenty of reasons for us to believe in God. When our questions can not get answered we turn to God. God is the answer.

That is why turn to God.

[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.

Why should I be a member of your club? Because the club will keep the hounds from eating your soul.

Now please don't get me wrong, not everyone is religious just for the benefits God has to offer. I believe there are truly charitable people out there, who honestly fear other people will go to hell. They fear for themselves as well, but they know their odds are better than the heretic's odds. Fear becomes the heart of their love. God is love. People only believe in God because they are afraid of what will happen if they (and others) don't.

Having a god does not mean you have morals. It just means you have a higher being to answer to for those morals. True morals are for moralities sake. Otherwise you're acting out of extortion. It is possible to believe in justice without needing god at every turn to tell you justice is good. Consequences of actions, social contracts, and other reasons are enough to make a person realize that Integrity and Service to others are good things. God just does it quicker. Like money. Like a gun.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

A sweeping generalization. Said as if God is some entity that can be manipulated for our own "self-interest." You've not read much of the Bible, I take it? God knows the motives of the human heart - He can't be manipulated. Those whose interest is only in theirselves wouldn't bother believing in God for very long - their servitude for theirselves wouldn't permit it. "Believing" in God is not the sign of being saved - even demons believe in God.

In Christianity the general consensus is if you believe in God, good things happen to you in this life and the next.

Untrue. The Bible tells us that good things and bad things happen in this world to the evil and the righteous alike. In fact, choosing to follow God often means walking a more difficult path here on earth.

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).

The carrot and the gun are not inherent and natural consequences; they have been contrived to get results. The mistake in this line of thinking is that heaven and hell are the same. They're not. They are the logical destination of people who either wish to serve God or serve themselves. And, it is not the oversimplified result of not "believing" in God - ending up in hell is choice made by people who persistently and over time refuse to accept the truth that God is their creator and they owe Him their lives in obedience. Heaven and Hell aren't assigned - they are chosen.

Why should I be a member of your club? Because the club will keep the hounds from eating your soul.

But the fact is this: that kind of deterent really doesn't have much force, does it? If we can do things here on earth that fly in the face of common sense (smoking, though we know it will kill us; ditto with numerous other self-destructive behaviors) with the consequences right in front of us, how are we to really take seriously consequences that can't be seen, and are at best beyond our ability to conceptualize?

People only believe in God because they are afraid of what will happen if they (and others) don't.

Another sweeping generalization that merely reveals why you think others might choose to believe in God. You cannot speak for all other Christians. Many of us believe in God because we recognize His ownership of us and we recognize the blessings He has given us.

Having a god does not mean you have morals. It just means you have a higher being to answer to for those morals.

And that makes a big difference. See below.

True morals are for moralities sake. Otherwise you're acting out of extortion.

How noble sounding. Pure altruism does not exist. And, without consequences, laws, and courts to enforce them, your utopian vision of morality would vanish in a heartbeat. One need not have a god to obey laws out of fear of retribution. That's pretty much how it works on this planet. Is it "extortion" to tell someone that if they steal they might go to jail? Is it extortion to tell the smoker that smoking will more than likely cause him cancer? How about the reality that consequences always attend moral transgressions, whether inflicted by the state, or our own heart?

It is possible to believe in justice without needing god at every turn to tell you justice is good. Consequences of actions, social contracts, and other reasons are enough to make a person realize that Integrity and Service to others are good things. God just does it quicker. Like money. Like a gun.

It's possible to believe in justice without God - but that "justice" has no stable foundation because it can be "revised" by humans whenever their self-interest or capricious whims decide that the laws do not serve their need. Witness the Nazi regime, Stalin, Communism, etc...

[krymsonkyng]

A sweeping generalization. Said as if God is some entity that can be manipulated for our own "self-interest." You've not read much of the Bible, I take it?

Admittedly, I couldn't get past the first chapter of the bible. My reasoning in not taking the good book too seriously has little to do with this topic though.

Untrue. The Bible tells us that good things and bad things happen in this world to the evil and the righteous alike. In fact, choosing to follow God often means walking a more difficult path here on earth.

Good point. But folks wouldn't brave the difficulties in this life if there was no reward or punishment in the next. That's self interest.

The carrot and the gun are not inherent and natural consequences; they have been contrived to get results. The mistake in this line of thinking is that heaven and hell are the same. They're not. They are the logical destination of people who either wish to serve God or serve themselves.

My point is that they are both basically the same thing in the next life...

And, it is not the oversimplified result of not "believing" in God - ending up in hell is choice made by people who persistently and over time refuse to accept the truth that God is their creator and they owe Him their lives in obedience. Heaven and Hell aren't assigned - they are chosen.

Some choice really. Owing god something isn't a choice, it's a debt.

But the fact is this: that kind of deterent really doesn't have much force, does it? If we can do things here on earth that fly in the face of common sense (smoking, though we know it will kill us; ditto with numerous other self-destructive behaviors) with the consequences right in front of us, how are we to really take seriously consequences that can't be seen, and are at best beyond our ability to conceptualize?

That's merely the difference of immediate gratification compared to long term happiness. I believe there's little comparison: Long term is more measurable than a shot of booze or a puff of smoke. God never enters the equation for temperance in this mortal coil.

Another sweeping generalization that merely reveals why you think others might choose to believe in God. You cannot speak for all other Christians. Many of us believe in God because we recognize His ownership of us and we recognize the blessings He has given us.

True. I did generalize, but I think I'm justified in it. People believe in god because they feel a benefit. I believe the post mortem benefits are the main incentive.

How noble sounding. Pure altruism does not exist. And, without consequences, laws, and courts to enforce them, your utopian vision of morality would vanish in a heartbeat. One need not have a god to obey laws out of fear of retribution. That's pretty much how it works on this planet. Is it "extortion" to tell someone that if they steal they might go to jail? Is it extortion to tell the smoker that smoking will more than likely cause him cancer? How about the reality that consequences always attend moral transgressions, whether inflicted by the state, or our own heart?

I see it more as economics than altruism. We are in agreement that consequence is the governing factor for a human being: I believe that people follow laws because they comprehend the consequences of the law on their selves. That's also why they follow god: It's in their best self interest.

It's possible to believe in justice without God - but that "justice" has no stable foundation because it can be "revised" by humans whenever their self-interest or capricious whims decide that the laws do not serve their need. Witness the Nazi regime, Stalin, Communism, etc...

The Nazis had plenty of church on their side when they started out. Communism is based on selflessness (isn't that a Christian ideal? Wasn't Jesus selfless?).

God does not equal morality in my book, he equals supernatural authority. The two may not always be coterminus in human thought, and can be twisted pretty nicely. There are plenty of examples of the abuse of religious authority. Self interest with foresight is where morality really comes from. It is also why people usually believe in god. You don't need god for the first though, he just helps.

[Redzeppelin]

Good point. But folks wouldn't brave the difficulties in this life if there was no reward or punishment in the next. That's self interest.

Let's put it this way: relationships go through a number of stages - the deep love that a man and a woman may feel for each other is not present in its earliest stages; that's infatuation and attraction. The deep committed love develops over time. With God it is the same way; in the beginning, some people may simply choose to believe for the "benefit" - but if they are truly developing a relationship with God (which they must do, otherwise the "benefit" will cease to be meaningful to them) that motivation may still be present, but it will cease to take the highest priority.

My point is that they are both basically the same thing in the next life...

How can you even begin to assume knowledge of what the next life will be like?

People who wish to serve themselves reject God. You can't get to heaven by putting yourself first. Regardless as to how YOU interpret people's motivation for believing in God, the Bible makes it clear how one gets into heaven and it doesn't agree with your interpretation. Sorry.

Some choice really. Owing god something isn't a choice, it's a debt.

An attitude that clearly speaks of a denial that we owe God anything; are you willing to reject all obligation here on earth? Do parents owe their children anything? Do spouses owe each other anything? Do children owe their parents anything? Do you dare day no to those questions (because civilization is based on these shared obligations)? If we acknowledge that these relationships involve legitimate obligations, why do you seem to bristle at the idea that we owe something to the Entity that not only created us, but all the blessings we enjoy and the universe itself?

That's merely the difference of immediate gratification compared to long term happiness. I believe there's little comparison: Long term is more measurable than a shot of booze or a puff of smoke. God never enters the equation for temperance in this mortal coil.

I don't see the point you're trying to make here. Consequences are only just so effective. Most people understand that intrinsic controls are much more effective than extrinsic. Kids who are raised up correctly are a much better deterent to crime than higher jail sentences; the former is proactive, the latter reactive. As such, the extrinsic reward of heaven/punishment of hell is only just so effective; those who don't have a real relationship with God will eventually reject the reward and deny the punishment.

True. I did generalize, but I think I'm justified in it. People believe in god because they feel a benefit. I believe the post mortem benefits are the main incentive.

Well, you've simply repeated yourself again without providing any real argument as to why your generalization might be correct. You can't defend a generalization by simply repeating the generalization.

I see it more as economics than altruism. We are in agreement that consequence is the governing factor for a human being: I believe that people follow laws because they comprehend the consequences of the law on their selves. That's also why they follow god: It's in their best self interest.

To an extent, yes; but it's more complicated than that. The key is why people come to God at all. Generally, people come to God because the Holy Spirit has been working on their heart, convicting them of their sin and showing them their need of God (we do need him - C.S. Lewis suggests that we were desgined to "run" on God just as a car is designed to run on gasoline - anything else will leave us unsatisfied and searching). Once the individual accepts that s/he needs God, then they ask Him to enter their lives and the growth begins. The average person doesn't go "Well, I'm not sure about all this but I want to go to heaven." It's not that simple.

The Nazis had plenty of church on their side when they started out. Communism is based on selflessness (isn't that a Christian ideal? Wasn't Jesus selfless?).

Communism is NOT based on selflessness, PLEASE. You simply must be kidding. Let's not bring the Nazi's into this - claiming affiliation with God is easily done - proving it is an entirely different story. Next.

God does not equal morality in my book, he equals supernatural authority. The two may not always be coterminus in human thought, and can be twisted pretty nicely. There are plenty of examples of the abuse of religious authority. Self interest with foresight is where morality really comes from. It is also why people usually believe in god. You don't need god for the first though, he just helps.

That flawed and sinful human beings have misinterpreted God's will (either knowingly or unknowingly) doesn't invalidate God's morality anymore than your twisting my words would invalidate my argument.

Self-interest is usually working against morality. Morality always involves doing what is in the best interest of the other, not of me. In serving the other I end up taking care of me, but certainly not in a way that is explicitly based in "self-interest."

Without God behind morality, morality has no stable basis and is open to manipulation and distortion by self-interested people and their governments.

[krymsonkyng]

Let's put it this way: relationships go through a number of stages - the deep love that a man and a woman may feel for each other is not present in its earliest stages; that's infatuation and attraction. The deep committed love develops over time. With God it is the same way; in the beginning, some people may simply choose to believe for the "benefit" - but if they are truly developing a relationship with God (which they must do, otherwise the "benefit" will cease to be meaningful to them) that motivation may still be present, but it will cease to take the highest priority.

I agree. A relationship is initially benefit, eventually the immediate trade becomes less important. It's the first and strongest "why I believe" though.

Note the I in the sentence, folks don't do things for prolonged periods unless they feel they're right or benefit in some way or another. Otherwise they've stopped thinking and are just doing. That's not belief, that's blind faith and it's more dangerous than anyone who takes a moment to consider the real world consequences of their actions.

How can you even begin to assume knowledge of what the next life will be like?

Heaven = good. Whether it's paradise with harps and robes or merely being in the presence of god Heaven by definition is a good thing. Hell is its inverse to some degree. It's not an assumption, it's a definition.

People who wish to serve themselves reject God. You can't get to heaven by putting yourself first. Regardless as to how YOU interpret people's motivation for believing in God, the Bible makes it clear how one gets into heaven and it doesn't agree with your interpretation. Sorry.

Whether the bible proposes that's how it is or isn't, is moot. This isn't about how to get into heaven, or what an ideal person is like, it's about why a person believes in a god. Any god. It drives me crazy when folks take only the Christian point of view. Because why would anyone consider anything else?

An attitude that clearly speaks of a denial that we owe God anything; are you willing to reject all obligation here on earth? Do parents owe their children anything? Do spouses owe each other anything? Do children owe their parents anything? Do you dare day no to those questions (because civilization is based on these shared obligations)? If we acknowledge that these relationships involve legitimate obligations, why do you seem to bristle at the idea that we owe something to the Entity that not only created us, but all the blessings we enjoy and the universe itself?

God isn't my parents. God isn't my children. God isn't my society. The give and take in this life and between me and them is something like the give and take between god and man. I love them because they love me, or benefit me, not because I owe it to them. What about kids whose parents are abusive drunks? Kids with guns? Oppressive rule? Do we owe them love too? Love out of guilt? Shame.

I don't see the point you're trying to make here. Consequences are only just so effective. Most people understand that intrinsic controls are much more effective than extrinsic. Kids who are raised up correctly are a much better deterent to crime than higher jail sentences; the former is proactive, the latter reactive. As such, the extrinsic reward of heaven/punishment of hell is only just so effective; those who don't have a real relationship with God will eventually reject the reward and deny the punishment.

This is true. Parents raise their kids using lesser consequences and (hopefully) rationality to see what their actions will result in once they're of age. The idea is to comprehend consequences in order to avoid them and excel despite them. The fringe benefits of being a good person are well worth the trouble, despite the obvious benefits of being crude and getting away with it. Integrity means a good reputation. Robbery has immediate benefits but society sees the robber as a cheater and punishes them for it. Understanding the consequences of a persons actions is more important.

Eternal bliss or eternal pain are only so effective, my eye! They're eternally effective!!! Assuming someone can be convinced to believe in them. I see it as something like Stockholm syndrome: Initially cooperate and everything goes smoothly. Eventually it's just habit. There's love there.

Well, you've simply repeated yourself again without providing any real argument as to why your generalization might be correct. You can't defend a generalization by simply repeating the generalization.

Ok, invert my generalization. Do people believe in god because they feel no benefit from it? Is it out of guilt alone?

I believe rational people do what they feel benefits them. Which is why they believe in a god. It's that simple.

Communism is NOT based on selflessness, PLEASE. You simply must be kidding. Let's not bring the Nazi's into this - claiming affiliation with God is easily done - proving it is an entirely different story. Next.

Proving affiliation is unnecessary. In war both sides believe their god's on their side. I was pointing out that using the Nazi's and Commies as examples does nothing for this argument. Justice is just as stable as god.

Self-interest is usually working against morality. Morality always involves doing what is in the best interest of the other, not of me. In serving the other I end up taking care of me, but certainly not in a way that is explicitly based in "self-interest."

I disagree.

[Judas130]

"Default settings" eh? Sounds like a justification to me. If they're so normal, why then do people get angry if they see it?

Because society is very much practiced in good form. Behind the closed doors however, oh boy! Read Jekyll and Hyde to understand how dualistic society can be, how society spits hypocrisy, how they do not practice what they preach. But we all think it, desire for example, to do what you really want to do, is part of what you are, when you strip away all the strings that tie you down, you are an animal.

Why would a woman get annoyed and her boyfriend/husband angry if they caught you exercising your "default setting" on her rear end if it were a normal and socially acceptable behavior?

I never said it was.

Perhaps it's because that behavior is innately wrong

Feels good to me, feels free. Moral imperatives are shaped from your upbringing and your surroundings, what you accept unquestionably as a child, or force yourself to accept as an adult, for varying reasons and factors and incentives. To you, perhaps doing sorry you 'ought' not to feels bad, because you simply shouldn't, you'd get a slap, you'd feel dirty, because you are instilled with a notion of cleanliness. 'adama'/adam = earth. Your bible claims we are made from dirt, we are not divine, we are an imperfect form of a concept. You can squeeze more from the soil, but i'll take what i have and won't waste me' time sir.

The reality is that if you'd actually read the Gospels closely, or even Paul's letters, you'd know that the worst sins are all spiritual in nature

Then I have nothing to fear. I do not possess the transcendent power from this unseen 'spirit'. I possess a brain, and a body.

The key is why people come to God at all. Generally, people come to God because the Holy Spirit has been working on their heart, convicting them of their sin and showing them their need of God

Your opinion. Psychologically, people come to a religion to commune together in their guilt, using trance and conformity as the cognitive mechanism to find some middle ground between their melancholy and joy. The man who creates his god, builds his god to suit his characteristics, and preaches of it. Others who worship this deity, worship the man's characteristics. religious people seem to be in some perpetual search of forgiveness for some unseen sin, completely obsessed with their guilt, in union with what they think they feel is right, or what they are told. Tell me, if God influences us through our imperatives, if God innately speaks to us about what is wrong, then how comes we differ in opinion over morality? Clearly, God does not speak to all. Only those, select religious few...the ones who tell themselves day in and out that there is some mercy for their 'sinful' desires at the end of the tunnel. is evil really evil? or is evil simply live ? evil/live

ending up in hell is choice made by people who persistently and over time refuse to accept the truth that God is their creator and they owe Him their lives in obedience.

if God is all powerful - why then does suffering exist, the problem of evil etc etc. I understand the comebacks to these questions and this isnt exactly my point. My viewpoint is that Hell is where God is not. God does not exist physically, it can't. So hell is here. Heaven, like God, is your abstract notion. Hell is your realm of pain and suffering, destruction, and 'evil' - heaven is an end to all this, and frankly I call it death. Heaven and Hell = Life and Death. Both journeys, both tests.

How can you even begin to assume knowledge of what the next life will be like?

how can we know what the next life will be like? how can we know a God? the 'bible' is riddled with contradictions and is hardly a sound basis for absolute truth. It is the job of organizations, congregations of humans, to interpret biblical meanings and these interpretations flood in abundance. God does not exist empirically, we established this in another thread, yet he exists in concept. so then, with so many differing viewpoints on God, and on the bible, surely they can't all be right? God is the supreme being, yet you or anybody else is trying to explain him to me, undermines his superiority, because he fails prey to our differing, conceptual, abstract thinking. It eats itself, you might say.

[Redzeppelin]

Note the I in the sentence, folks don't do things for prolonged periods unless they feel they're right or benefit in some way or another. Otherwise they've stopped thinking and are just doing. That's not belief, that's blind faith and it's more dangerous than anyone who takes a moment to consider the real world consequences of their actions.

OK - this is simply going to go in a circle until we get some clarity on how you're using the term "benefit" and the idea of "self-interest." You're using the term in a way to suggest "selfishness" but that is not always so. To do what is in my "best interest" may mean doing things that require sacrifice and discomfort. That is very different from "self-interest" that is inwardly focused. For example, if I eat the right foods and exercise, I'm doing that out of "self-interest," but nobody would call that selfish. However, if I eat junk food because I like it and it makes me feel good - well, that's a different sort of "self-focus." The problem with making Christians "self-interested" and no more is that that flatly contradicts the Bible's injunctions that believers be outwardly (not inwardly) focused.

Heaven = good. Whether it's paradise with harps and robes or merely being in the presence of god Heaven by definition is a good thing. Hell is its inverse to some degree. It's not an assumption, it's a definition.

No - you've merely categorized both places - but that is not sufficient to make assumptions about the nature of either place - especially since the definition of "good" must match God's definition of "good" (not our own) if it is to be accurate.

Whether the bible proposes that's how it is or isn't, is moot. This isn't about how to get into heaven, or what an ideal person is like, it's about why a person believes in a god. Any god. It drives me crazy when folks take only the Christian point of view. Because why would anyone consider anything else?

Because I AM a Christian; why should I take a view I don't believe in? Do you do that?

God isn't my parents. God isn't my children. God isn't my society. The give and take in this life and between me and them is something like the give and take between god and man. I love them because they love me, or benefit me, not because I owe it to them. What about kids whose parents are abusive drunks? Kids with guns? Oppressive rule? Do we owe them love too? Love out of guilt? Shame.

On the contrary - God is your parent as He is the parent of all created beings. Wrong - you owe your parents certain things as their child: respect, love, honor, care. Before you understood what it meant to love them, you had instilled within you the idea that you had certain obligations to them. Kids who aren't taught that do not grow up to respect and love their parents. Your negative examples are clever, but they are merely exceptions you're tossing out to deflect the point I was making. Family memebers have obligations to each other - the family is the most fundamental unit of government because it is the natural model of obligation and duty.

Eternal bliss or eternal pain are only so effective, my eye! They're eternally effective!!! Assuming someone can be convinced to believe in them. I see it as something like Stockholm syndrome: Initially cooperate and everything goes smoothly. Eventually it's just habit. There's love there.

No. Both options (bliss and pain) are equally unreal to us. It requires faith to believe in either, just as it takes faith to believe in God. There are plenty of people who believe in both who still willingly sin. Consequences cannot keep all people from doing what they ought not. The idea is that while the fear of the consequence or desire of the reward may bring someone to God, that once that person gets into a relationship with God that such mercenary ideas fall to the side; if the person does not develop a relationship with God, then he/she will more than likely fall away and decide not to believe in either.

Ok, invert my generalization. Do people believe in god because they feel no benefit from it? Is it out of guilt alone?

I believe rational people do what they feel benefits them. Which is why they believe in a god. It's that simple.

Yes - rational people do that - but "benefit" is not the nasty word you're trying to make it. Your simplification over-simplifies both human nature and our interactions with God.

Proving affiliation is unnecessary. In war both sides believe their god's on their side. I was pointing out that using the Nazi's and Commies as examples does nothing for this argument. Justice is just as stable as god.

No - justice is a function of law - and if unjust laws are passed then justice becomes unjust.

Because society is very much practiced in good form. Behind the closed doors however, oh boy! Read Jekyll and Hyde to understand how dualistic society can be, how society spits hypocrisy, how they do not practice what they preach. But we all think it, desire for example, to do what you really want to do, is part of what you are, when you strip away all the strings that tie you down, you are an animal.

We are capable of this, yes. All of us.

Feels good to me, feels free. Moral imperatives are shaped from your upbringing and your surroundings, what you accept unquestionably as a child, or force yourself to accept as an adult, for varying reasons and factors and incentives. To you, perhaps doing sorry you 'ought' not to feels bad, because you simply shouldn't, you'd get a slap, you'd feel dirty, because you are instilled with a notion of cleanliness. 'adama'/adam = earth. Your bible claims we are made from dirt, we are not divine, we are an imperfect form of a concept. You can squeeze more from the soil, but i'll take what i have and won't waste me' time sir.

Feelings ought not ever be taken for reality. Freedom is not simply doing what you wish. In fact, most textbooks on law, freedom and justice make it plainly clear that the only way to ensure freedom is to restrict it - that total freedom without restriction means that somebody gets oppressed in some way. As the old saying goes - my freedom to swing my arm is limited by the freedom you have to keep your nose unbroken. If I respond that "well, too bad, swinging my arm 'feels good' and 'feels free' " I'm not sure you'd go for that logic.

I am instilled with respect for a woman's body which is not rightfully mine to possess even in my heart (see Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5). The only rear end on earth that is rightfully mine to attach my eyes to is my wife's.

We are fashioned from dirt and the breath of God - which means we are partially "divine" beings in that we have a "spark" of God inside us called a "spirit."

Then I have nothing to fear. I do not possess the transcendent power from this unseen 'spirit'. I possess a brain, and a body.

There are sins of the flesh (murder, adultery, theft) and sins of the spirit (pride, self-righteousness, vindictiveness, arrogance). Mocking God and those who believe in Him fall under the second category.


[QUOTE=Judas130;683811]

Your opinion. Psychologically, people come to a religion to commune together in their guilt, using trance and conformity as the cognitive mechanism to find some middle ground between their melancholy and joy. The man who creates his god, builds his god to suit his characteristics, and preaches of it. Others who worship this deity, worship the man's characteristics. religious people seem to be in some perpetual search of forgiveness for some unseen sin, completely obsessed with their guilt, in union with what they think they feel is right, or what they are told. Tell me, if God influences us through our imperatives, if God innately speaks to us about what is wrong, then how comes we differ in opinion over morality? Clearly, God does not speak to all. Only those, select religious few...the ones who tell themselves day in and out that there is some mercy for their 'sinful' desires at the end of the tunnel. is evil really evil? or is evil simply live ? evil/live

1. It's my opinion, but that opinion is based upon what the Bible tells me - on what Paul says in the epistles. So it's more than just my opinion. If you had closely read the book you are indirectly criticizing you might know this.

2. Although your psychoanalytical undown of religion is interesting, it is largely incorrect - it is the view from the "outside" and I don't expect you to have a much more accurate view than that. We did not create God - He created us.

3. God's "voice" will not overwhelm us; it speaks quietly and can be drowned out by the other voices of this world (our desires, our lusts, our selfish motives) as well as the voice of he who wishes to derail any conversation we might have with God - Satan. He speaks - but you can't hear Him unless you wish to, or your heart is in a place where you're willing to hear Him.

Christians do not revel in their guilt. They understand and accept that they are sinners (as we all, including you, are) and that only God can help them become a better, less sinful person. Nobody on this earth is a "good" person per se - we all have done and continue to do things that hurt ourselves and our relationships - even you are guilty of this.

if God is all powerful - why then does suffering exist, the problem of evil etc etc. I understand the comebacks to these questions and this isnt exactly my point. My viewpoint is that Hell is where God is not. God does not exist physically, it can't. So hell is here. Heaven, like God, is your abstract notion. Hell is your realm of pain and suffering, destruction, and 'evil' - heaven is an end to all this, and frankly I call it death. Heaven and Hell = Life and Death. Both journeys, both tests.

Hell is the "quarantine" place that God will allow those who do not wish to serve Him to continue their existence. You are using simplistic logic to argue where hell is located. God is ultimate reality - whether or not He has a physical form is immaterial. Heaven and Hell are real places.

how can we know what the next life will be like? how can we know a God? the 'bible' is riddled with contradictions and is hardly a sound basis for absolute truth. It is the job of organizations, congregations of humans, to interpret biblical meanings and these interpretations flood in abundance. God does not exist empirically, we established this in another thread, yet he exists in concept. so then, with so many differing viewpoints on God, and on the bible, surely they can't all be right? God is the supreme being, yet you or anybody else is trying to explain him to me, undermines his superiority, because he fails prey to our differing, conceptual, abstract thinking. It eats itself, you might say.

I have little idea as to what the next life will be like - but if I am in the presence of God, I do not care.

Spare me the "riddled with contradictions" theory - it's tired and worn out. Most of them are easily resolved, and very few deal with theology. The apparent contradictions actually serve to reinforce its validity - because I book simply contrived by humanity to manipulate others (another popular charge) would most certainly have revised those contradictions out of existence. You can't have it both ways.

I can't explain God to you - nobody really can - except that the Bible tells us that God is love - so what you understand about love is what you understand about God.

[krymsonkyng]

First I want to thank you for hanging in here so long with me. I really enjoy this discussion.

OK - this is simply going to go in a circle until we get some clarity on how you're using the term "benefit" and the idea of "self-interest." You're using the term in a way to suggest "selfishness" but that is not always so. To do what is in my "best interest" may mean doing things that require sacrifice and discomfort. That is very different from "self-interest" that is inwardly focused. For example, if I eat the right foods and exercise, I'm doing that out of "self-interest," but nobody would call that selfish. However, if I eat junk food because I like it and it makes me feel good - well, that's a different sort of "self-focus." The problem with making Christians "self-interested" and no more is that that flatly contradicts the Bible's injunctions that believers be outwardly (not inwardly) focused.

You're right, self interest has a negative connotation not completely in line with what I'm trying to say, but it's the closest thing I could think of. Best interest doesn't fit either because I'm talking about a perceived "best" interest based on what an individual understands to be true.

It is a far sighted self interest, not always a logical choice, but a perceived truth. People believe in god because they think in the long run there will be a payoff. That's the only rational explanation I've considered until this conversation, where the concept of a deistic debt was hit upon. I guess folks believe what they're raised to believe. I don't think tradition or doctrine is always spot on (Genesis for example. I can't buy it.) but "that's the way it is" seems as good a reason as any, if one doesn't want to dig into other ideas.

No - you've merely categorized both places - but that is not sufficient to make assumptions about the nature of either place - especially since the definition of "good" must match God's definition of "good" (not our own) if it is to be accurate.

Ok... what? Would you consider Heaven a benefit of having Faith in whichever Christian group you belong to? By benefit I mean a good thing.

Because I AM a Christian; why should I take a view I don't believe in? Do you do that?

All I ask for is an open mind. That's the only way learning or an educational discussion is accomplished. I consider a view even if I don't believe in it. That's respect, isn't it? I'm trying to stay open to all the other gods that have come and gone both before and after the Christian texts were written, interpreted, edited, rewritten and reinterpreted. I want a generalized reason why people believe in god(s). As I understand it, people believe because they think it's right. They think it's right because of the benefits.

On the contrary - God is your parent as He is the parent of all created beings. Wrong - you owe your parents certain things as their child: respect, love, honor, care. Before you understood what it meant to love them, you had instilled within you the idea that you had certain obligations to them. Kids who aren't taught that do not grow up to respect and love their parents. Your negative examples are clever, but they are merely exceptions you're tossing out to deflect the point I was making. Family memebers have obligations to each other - the family is the most fundamental unit of government because it is the natural model of obligation and duty.

A parent and a biological predecessor are two different things. A baby owes his or her parents nothing until they begin to raise and nourish it. Love honor and respect must first be given to be deserved. A child doesn't understand those concepts until a parent instills them.

No. Both options (bliss and pain) are equally unreal to us. It requires faith to believe in either, just as it takes faith to believe in God. There are plenty of people who believe in both who still willingly sin. Consequences cannot keep all people from doing what they ought not. The idea is that while the fear of the consequence or desire of the reward may bring someone to God, that once that person gets into a relationship with God that such mercenary ideas fall to the side; if the person does not develop a relationship with God, then he/she will more than likely fall away and decide not to believe in either.

A developmental relationship is not a sole initial reason for believing or disbelieving in a god. It is a reason, to stay with a god but that's a moot point for me. The relationship is merely part of the pay off, and considered in the person's best interest.

Yes - rational people do that - but "benefit" is not the nasty word you're trying to make it. Your simplification over-simplifies both human nature and our interactions with God.

I believe egoism is base human nature. I believe if a human is to be a member of a society, or a part of the race there needs to be some progression from this egoism. Whether this progression is through a god, or through philosophy, there needs to be that first step, from egoism to some form of values beyond the immediate-self.

No - justice is a function of law - and if unjust laws are passed then justice becomes unjust.

The values of a god or faith in such are a function of interpretation. How many sects of any major religion are there? Compare this to how many sets of national laws there are. One or two for each nation. Justice and law are akin to god and faith in such. Again though, this is off topic.

My basic statement is that people believe in any god for the benefits it brings them in this life or the next.
A feeling of belonging, a personal relationship with some higher being, a get out of hell free card and many other things are to be considered benefits, since they are considered more desirable than the alternatives.

[NikolaiI]

I want a generalized reason why people believe in god(s). As I understand it, people believe because they think it's right. They think it's right because of the benefits.

Forgive me for interrupting! I almost did before, but I waited. Anyway, I wanted to say the same thing as before. Perhaps some do it for a reward, but I think it's a minority. I mean can you remember talking to a believer about their reasons, and if so, do you recall any saying "so I'll be rewarded"? In my experience people believe because they are convinced there is a higher reality, or something like this, or that they have had spiritual experiences. Or they decided intellectually or by reason.

[krymsonkyng]

Forgive me for interrupting! I almost did before, but I waited. Anyway, I wanted to say the same thing as before. Perhaps some do it for a reward, but I think it's a minority. I mean can you remember talking to a believer about their reasons, and if so, do you recall any saying "so I'll be rewarded"? In my experience people believe because they are convinced there is a higher reality, or something like this, or that they have had spiritual experiences. Or they decided intellectually or by reason.

To believe because one is convinced of a higher reality, is repetitive and circular, "I believe (in god) because I believe (in a higher reality)". I'm trying to rationalize faith. Folks wouldn't believe in something unless it was to their betterment. They may not explicitly state a reward, but feeling justified in their beliefs is certainly to be considered a benefit of the belief.

Perhaps a general reason like, "folk believe, because it feels right" isn't good enough. Please give me a reasoning for believing something that doesn't benefit a person in some way? I've talked with believers before and it's not "so I will be rewarded", it's "because my belief is rewarding" every time so far. That sounds pretty reasonable to me...

[Judas130]

Feelings ought not ever be taken for reality. Freedom is not simply doing what you wish. In fact, most textbooks on law, freedom and justice make it plainly clear that the only way to ensure freedom is to restrict it - that total freedom without restriction means that somebody gets oppressed in some way. As the old saying goes - my freedom to swing my arm is limited by the freedom you have to keep your nose unbroken. If I respond that "well, too bad, swinging my arm 'feels good' and 'feels free' " I'm not sure you'd go for that logic.

yet these democratic ideals do not always apply in society, sometimes the people do not matter, and what you alone think is the important thing. I'm bickering here, for if we reversed jesus' teachings, we would have chaos. To get hit on the cheek, and smash him in the other would mean only senseless war. In the animal kingdom, which is the source of my idea here, the winner takes all, the strongest survives and society is a long way away from that. I wouldn't be physically hurting anybody by being a lil in touch with the carnal human, if abiding certain laws and understandings...such as murder, which is unnaturally taking away a naturally given life, and interfering with the telos of the human. (to kill animals is fine, hunting gives the animal a purpose other than to procreate, yet it must not be wasted). anyways...

I am instilled with respect for a woman's body which is not rightfully mine to possess even in my heart (see Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5). The only rear end on earth that is rightfully mine to attach my eyes to is my wife's.

feel free to limit yourself, and your anger for having another man staring at your territory is justified, natural.

We are fashioned from dirt and the breath of God - which means we are partially "divine" beings in that we have a "spark" of God inside us called a "spirit."

For Plato, the spirit is supposed to be an immortal thing, completely perfect and unchanging, which is, for a christian maybe, because of where it derives from - yet how can an unchanging thing suffer from a flux of emotion?
what is your understanding of the spirit? not just the textbook christian definition, but how it works and what is it essentially?

There are sins of the flesh (murder, adultery, theft) and sins of the spirit (pride, self-righteousness, vindictiveness, arrogance). Mocking God and those who believe in Him fall under the second category.

Assuming this to be true, we therefore all have spirit. Okay. To mock a God means to acknowledge a God, while your everyday nihilist wouldn't even bother, not all atheists mock either. Yet pride is a human nature i don't feel we should ignore. If I had a kid, and he got good grades, i'd feel pride. this is wrong? so i should show indifference and not encourage him?

to be self righteous is to be 'Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.' and being pious is to 'have or show a dutiful spirit of reverence for God or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations.' Surely this, is what Jesus, and his disciples themselves did, and what religious people do today. To be self righteous is to be intolerant of other people's moral systems that differ to your own, to be completely intolerant of the behaviors of others - maybe checking out a rear end. to be the opposite of this, is to be completely relative. Sounds to me like you have to have the sins of the spirit to preach out against the sins of the flesh.

2. Although your psychoanalytical undown of religion is interesting, it is largely incorrect - it is the view from the "outside" and I don't expect you to have a much more accurate view than that. We did not create God - He created us.

Its amusing that IF i ardently supported my belief I would condemn you ignorant for your belief, and here the same is suggested - the outsiders cannot possibly understand. chill, i'm only pondering...my questions are childish, but my acceptance isn't. However, throughout my stay on these boards I want you to tell me if you feel offended, because I'm sure its happened before when my opinion surfaces. I can't logically understand how a concept can directly effect the physical reality. People talk of how contingency requires a necessary being - but how is this supported? I hear the physical examples, but these do not apply to God, being beyond physicality and all.

3. God's "voice" will not overwhelm us; it speaks quietly and can be drowned out by the other voices of this world (our desires, our lusts, our selfish motives) as well as the voice of he who wishes to derail any conversation we might have with God - Satan. He speaks - but you can't hear Him unless you wish to, or your heart is in a place where you're willing to hear Him.

This is understandable, reminds me of Plato's 'charioteer'. or the mind steering the body and the soul (both of which are running in opposite directions). To not understand what you hear from 'Satan' is further dangerous if you want to score some heaven points, for there's that saying that the greatest deception Satan ever did was make believe he wasn't real. I think there is more to argue that our mind is one with the soul. The mind is what we have physically as a mechanism of the brain to conclude that there is a God, can't this longing for perfection that people seem to possess be from a spark from God? and seeing as the conclusions are formed in the mind...

Christians do not revel in their guilt. They understand and accept that they are sinners (as we all, including you, are) and that only God can help them become a better, less sinful person. Nobody on this earth is a "good" person per se - we all have done and continue to do things that hurt ourselves and our relationships - even you are guilty of this.

But you have proven to me that Christians are, on the basis that you believe in sin. You believe that what you would do without any influence is sinful, because the Bible tells you, and the Bible is your proof of God, it seems. Satan represents the natural side to us humans, without this personification we would not understand Good or evil, which are human notions. Personally, i feel giving alms or lowering myself to a servant for others (which i have done) made me feel dirty and worthless, even though I did it because I felt that would be what God would want of me. I know the road is tough, but this 'good' is just a word, and you can play with words. I have done things that hurt myself and others, but 'guilty' is something I can reject, because 'guilty' implies being 'bad', sometimes I feel brilliant, is brilliance good? sure it is. Words are only words. Good is something you have applied and you use it to categorise my example in to 'sin' - because 'bad' is all that is naturally felt in the human mind, indulgences, pride, hate/anger and 'sin' is applied in order that we remove what is natural of us and conform to repentance for being who we were born to be. I can only see guilt, and a weak argument on my part.

Hell is the "quarantine" place that God will allow those who do not wish to serve Him to continue their existence. You are using simplistic logic to argue where hell is located. God is ultimate reality - whether or not He has a physical form is immaterial. Heaven and Hell are real places.

Saying that Heaven and Hell are real places doesnt help me much. surely the logic is far simpler to say 'it just exists'. If God has no physical form, yet we can exist beyond physical existence, then we must transcend the reality and onto the abstract? like taking a photograph, I understand an afterlife of existence in the thoughts of others that will come to know of you due to writings or music or other talents. However, the idea of being physical, and then not being physical but existing necessarily, is one that takes some work to prove. A flower exists, but it is contingent because it doesn't have to. Heaven and Hell isn't a flower...so it doesn't exist, but it must?

Spare me the "riddled with contradictions" theory - it's tired and worn out. Most of them are easily resolved, and very few deal with theology. The apparent contradictions actually serve to reinforce its validity - because I book simply contrived by humanity to manipulate others (another popular charge) would most certainly have revised those contradictions out of existence. You can't have it both ways.

what of the bibles that add extra books or take some away and claim to be the voice of God still? The contradictions aren't taken out because this would cause a might stir im sure, instead it is interpreted by many different people and then preached from these people's conclusions, it is unclear.

I can't explain God to you - nobody really can - except that the Bible tells us that God is love - so what you understand about love is what you understand about God.

If God is love, then why did God drown all those below Noah's Arc? if God is love then why did he inflict pain on the Egyptians and take the side of another race? The Bible tells me that God is also a vehement creature, completely charged with fury for those who do not care for him and worship the gods that came before him, this is not love. Jesus is very compassionate...I dont see how Jesus is God however, so any argument that God is love based on Jesus falls on deaf ears. The Koran promotes a loving God in many cases, yet also a vengeful God. I just see contradictions.

An interesting argument I heard was the God manifests in varying degrees. God possesses perfect mercy, yet is sometimes merciless in action. This might overcome the contradictions. Most of the characteristics of God are relative characteristics, I would throw Love into this category. However, The fact that God is spiritual, is an absolute characteristic and is quite blatant.

food for thought.

[Nightshade]

If God is love, then why did God drown all those below Noah's Arc? if God is love then why did he inflict pain on the Egyptians and take the side of another race? The Bible tells me that God is also a vehement creature, completely charged with fury for those who do not care for him and worship the gods that came before him, this is not love. Jesus is very compassionate...I don't see how Jesus is God however, so any argument that God is love based on Jesus falls on deaf ears. The Koran promotes a loving God in many cases, yet also a vengeful God. I just see contradictions.

An interesting argument I heard was the God manifests in varying degrees. God possesses perfect mercy, yet is sometimes merciless in action. This might overcome the contradictions. Most of the characteristics of God are relative characteristics, I would throw Love into this category. However, The fact that God is spiritual, is an absolute characteristic and is quite blatant.

food for thought.

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.

On the subject of love .. . I don't believe in love human love in any form, 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.
Yet I believe in God, I believe that perhaps if there is any kind of love even possible then it would be Divine Love as it were ( I like that term although I probably use it differently to most people). 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?