Why I believe in God?

[MarkBastable]

ummmmmm??? you're attributing the ebb and flow, death and life, disease and health of mankind to sin or piety. do you know how out of touch with reality that is?... to actually think that a mental phenomenon, such as the choice between putting yourself above or below god, could affect even the tiniest atom on this planet.

i know you're not saying that our mentalities affect minor physical phenomenon. you're saying that they affect the most important, large scale physical phenomenon in terms of our human value systems. making your stance that much more baffling.

I think you've misunderstood what Lynne means. She's employing the 'original sin' argument - which goes like this: God made the world perfect for mankind, and all he asked in return was that mankind should stick to a few simple rules. Mankind didn't (in the metaphor, Adam and Eve ate of the fruit) and so God said, "Right - just for that, I'm going to let Satan take a shot at you, and then you'll have to make decisions about where your loyalties lie."

So she's not saying that each individual's mentality affects stuff like leukaemia. She's saying it's inherent to the human condition that God allows Satan to impose suffering on us, and that's no fault but our own.

All that's not, though, an argument for the existence of God, because the situation as stated requires the pre-existence of God in order to be possible.

Me, I think that a God who gives people curiosity and then puts them in a garden that contains a tree they can't touch is just asking to be disobeyed, so if that's how it happened, I'd say God was as much to blame as Adam and Eve. If it were a court case, he'd be charged with contributory negligence.

[billyjack]

even worse then. an old analogy that doesn't coincide with reality as we know it is being used to blame bad stuff on people.

at least my favorable take on lyne's stance gave her an out, telekinesis.

[NikolaiI]

Debate about Satan and Adam and Even and so on is really all off-topic to this thread. The original post of this thread said nothing about any of those, nor did the creator of this thread ever mention them. The thread is about God, not Christianity or Christian theology.

And it's a real paradox. Either God is not all-powerful, which means that he's not, actually, in charge of the Universe. Or he is all-powerful, which means he could stop suffering but he chooses to give Satan free rein to screw with us.

This is exactly what I'd rather be discussiong, rather than Christian theology.

Mark, let me reply to your position; first, I understand the reasons for atheism as I was an atheist for most of my young life. I studied philosophy and then Eastern philosophy and then some religions, mainly Buddhism and now Hinduism.

It seems like atheism is very far away from theism, but it isn't quite as far removed as one might think. When I shifted my views from atheism, I did not become a theist straightaway. As far as I can tell, although by some definitions there are more, there are three main types of perspectives. Atheism, impersonalism, and personalism (theism).

Personalism worships God as Lord, as the Personality of Godhead. In theism, though, God also has impersonal attributes. Such as an impersonal spiritual effulgence. Impersonalists see God to be impersonal, just this impersonal spiritual effulgence. This is referred to as brahmajyoti. In this philosophy (Mayavadin) the question of how could an all-powerful God allow suffering doesn't come up, or it isn't answered. It's answered honestly, "I don't know."

Atheism is not so much different from impersonalism, because neither concludes the existence of a Personality of Godhead.

Impersonalism is different from atheism because impersonalism does think there is some spiritual path.

Eastern philosophy generally has the idea that the material universe is Maya, or Samsara. The question mainly is, what is reality, and what are we? Why is there suffering? What is our true nature?

Atheism or skepticism is good so far as it goes. It's certainly necessary to protect against dogma. But it can, and I have seen it do so, become a dogma in itself. Your statement, "I already have the answer, I am just trying to get you to see it," is an indication of this.

Why is it mystics of all religions, cultures, nations, and times, say such similar things? Why do they say there is a truth which is the only thing which is important, but yet equally inexpressible in its vastness? What they say is that this truth is basically one of peace, bliss, saying... "Do not worry, and be happy," and as much as they can, they describe this infinite bliss which is what really is.

What I am trying to say is, not everything which exists can be measured with a ruler. Not everything which is of value can be put into words. Not everything which is true can be expressed in thought. There is truth, reality, beyond words, thought, and measurement. I guess that is my main point.

And about God; God is one of these which can't be understood by thought, words, or measurement. God is infinite bliss, truth, and existence. God is the source of everything which exists. Everything in this world, when we are thinking, "I am this body," is illusion. This may conflict with what you believe, and you may think whatever you wish in response. Please understand I am not justifying moral relativity. Actually I think we should be very moral, and not waste time on nonsense. But - what I am saying is, what happens to the body does not affect the soul. We are all the soul, and the soul actually cannot be hurt, cut, burned, or dried by air. It is eternal. What is temporary does not exist in relation to what is eternal.

Someone else mentioned revelation...I too speak of revelation. One must know that everything related to the ego is illusion. What is reality is a deeper peace, truth and bliss. Awakening is realizing one's nature - not simply understanding intellectually, but realizing, on all levels of being - one's Buddha-nature, or one's divine nature. This is what is true, that every living being's true nature is that.

I am not here to argue but merely discuss, as arguing is a waste of everyone's time.

[Eugenie]

I have believed since I was a baby and noone in my house believed or gave Him the time of day. I have always been aware of HIm , his love and a sense of destiny from Him.
My family always talks of when I was not yet three and suddenly hurried to the coat rack, taking down from the low peg my dress coat.
'where do you think you are going?' father asked in surprise.
'I am going to find God" I answered and went to the door."
They stared at one anothe and were silent as they took my coat off and tried to find some way to stop my tears of protesttion.

[BienvenuJDC]

I am not here to argue but merely discuss, as arguing is a waste of everyone's time.

Thank you, NikolaiI. That was a very informative and well thought out response. Although we may not see all things together, I think that there are some basic rudimentary thoughts that no doubt we will agree on. In fact, I think that your information given may even have helped me to understand my own beliefs better.

I do have a question for you, having studied many religions, it seems that you are currently holding to aspects of Hinduism (if I referred that properly). Do you hold fast to Hinduism, or have you blended aspects of several?

There is also the considerations of Theism vs. Deism. I've heard this in respects to Christianity, but I'm sure it applies across the board. If the existence of all things come from an intelligent powerful God...or a cooperative effort of Spiritual Persons, is He/They still involved with the creation? Obviously this begins to imply the area of Personalism vs Impersonalism...possibly? Please forgive me if I speak in terms of Christianity in this thread, I will try my best to comment, question, or explain in broader terms.

[Lynne Fees]

ummmmmm??? you're attributing the ebb and flow, death and life, disease and health of mankind to sin or piety. do you know how out of touch with reality that is?... to actually think that a mental phenomenon, such as the choice between putting yourself above or below god, could affect even the tiniest atom on this planet.

i know you're not saying that our mentalities affect minor physical phenomenon. you're saying that they affect the most important, large scale physical phenomenon in terms of our human value systems. making your stance that much more baffling.

Think of it this way. The Lord's prayer says, "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven." Due to sin, Earth is not heaven. In heaven, God's will is done in a complete way. On Earth, it is done in a more roundabout way. Once Adam & Eve (and every other human on Earth, past, present & future other than Jesus) sinned, the rules changed. We all bring disease and death upon the world in our own way, by our sin. (Not a tit-for-tat kind of disease and death for sin, but in a general sense.) God can pre-empt Satan and evil when He decides to - look at Job. When God does not pre-empt Satan, He does promise that He can help us make good out of any situation, however terrible.

[NikolaiI]

Thank you, NikolaiI. That was a very informative and well thought out response. Although we may not see all things together, I think that there are some basic rudimentary thoughts that no doubt we will agree on. In fact, I think that your information given may even have helped me to understand my own beliefs better.

I do have a question for you, having studied many religions, it seems that you are currently holding to aspects of Hinduism (if I referred that properly). Do you hold fast to Hinduism, or have you blended aspects of several?

There is also the considerations of Theism vs. Deism. I've heard this in respects to Christianity, but I'm sure it applies across the board. If the existence of all things come from an intelligent powerful God...or a cooperative effort of Spiritual Persons, is He/They still involved with the creation? Obviously this begins to imply the area of Personalism vs Impersonalism...possibly? Please forgive me if I speak in terms of Christianity in this thread, I will try my best to comment, question, or explain in broader terms.

No, that seems right. It does seem to imply the area of Personalism vs. Impersonalism. I wasn't thinking about Deism vs. Theism when I wrote my post.

I would agree that you and I have many similar fundamental beliefs. Our differences are... I don't know if you are, but I am assuming, you are not a vegetarian. For me it is absolutely essential. But besides that difference, assuming it is one, there probably are many similarities. For instance neither you or I take any intoxication. That is probably second to vegetarianism (or rather non-injuring, of which vegetarianism is part) to me.

I know that went off topic a little... to answer your question yes, Hinduism is mainly my religion but I think it incorporates other religions. My only desire is to understand what is true, what is real. I believe God is the source of everything. My experiences led me to this conclusion. I've had experiences of the soul and of God. Basically these led me to understand that God's reality is peace, bliss, power, and knowledge. That is what is true, what is real. The rest is illusion.

Basically I believe God is infinite. All the rest is ignorance, Maya, or illusion; it is imagination. The central question is why is there suffering? But to me more central is, what is true/ what is real? I believe eventually, we will all wake up, to the infinite nature of God. Until that happens I will continue to live a simple life and try to increase happiness, knowledge, peace, and love. I basically believe in simplicity as well. I try to be undivided.

[MarkBastable]

Atheism or skepticism is good so far as it goes. It's certainly necessary to protect against dogma. But it can, and I have seen it do so, become a dogma in itself. Your statement, "I already have the answer, I am just trying to get you to see it," is an indication of this.

Actually, that was a deliberately and facetiously provocative response to the suggestion that I might need to read previous posts in order to find an answer. You would think that I'd've learned by now that it's futile to attempt to make a serious point by the application of fatuous logic.

Why is it mystics of all religions, cultures, nations, and times, say such similar things? Why do they say there is a truth which is the only thing which is important, but yet equally inexpressible in its vastness?

Well, not because there's a God, if you ask me. I think that they say such similar things because people are led astray by the very attributes that make us human beings - to wit, the talents for language and symbolic thought. We construct a metaphor for Big Cosmic Stuff, and we choose to personify it. We need to refer to it in conversation, so we give it a name. Because it has a name, we start to think of it as a Real Thing. Next thing you know, we can't separate the metaphorical construct from our own perception of reality, and before long we're building cathedrals and intercontinental missiles.

What I am trying to say is, not everything which exists can be measured with a ruler. Not everything which is of value can be put into words. Not everything which is true can be expressed in thought. There is truth, reality, beyond words, thought, and measurement. I guess that is my main point.

Unfortunately a ruler and some words are all I have, because that's all God gave me. And if God decides to create children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.

I am not here to argue...as arguing is a waste of everyone's time.

Oh I am. I don't think it's a waste of time at all.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments during discussions.

Posts containing such remarks will be removed immediately.

[Lynne Fees]

Well, not because there's a God, if you ask me. I think that they say such similar things because people are led astray by the very attributes that make us human beings - to wit, the talents for language and symbolic thought. We construct a metaphor for Big Cosmic Stuff, and we choose to personify it. We need to refer to it in conversation, so we give it a name. Because it has a name, we start to think of it as a Real Thing. Next thing you know, we can't separate the metaphorical construct from our own perception of reality, and before long we're building cathedrals and intercontinental missiles.



Unfortunately a ruler and some words are all I have, because that's all God gave me. And if God decides to create children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.

Paul says in Romans God gave us creation to show He exists. So now people have managed to take God out of that, even, by espousing the theory of Darwinism to explain how we got here. Who or what put the "survival" instinct into plants and animals, by the way? That it all happened by chance it harder to believe than to believe in God.

[MarkBastable]

That it all happened by chance it harder to believe than to believe in God.

It is if you believe in God. But, believe me, if you don't take God as read, chance is a much more believable explanation than anything else. In fact, it's so believable, I'm always a bit surprised that anyone bothers to find another explanation.

However, believability is no argument in support of truth.

For instance - because of the way in which the human mind interprets the world, it's much easier to believe the Earth is a plate than to believe it's a ball. But, despite the fact that the plate is more believable, the world is in fact a ball.

What's easy to believe is not necessarily true. I find chance easy to believe. You find God easy to believe. But neither my predisposition nor yours is in the least useful as an argument in support of either belief.

[BooK WorM 13]

Im only 12 and to most people im still a kid. But i have my own opinionson things. like thewhole god aspect. I still quiestion my true faith simply because the bible confuses me, not in a way as though to make me fell stupid bbut challenges my brain and tests my beleifs. my family is religious(very) so i suppose i should be aswell, but i still think there is something out there. We had learned about the ancient greeks in school the other day, and it clearly stated that they also had simular religions as welll as us here in the present.

[lichtrausch]

Im only 12 and to most people im still a kid. But i have my own opinionson things. like thewhole god aspect. I still quiestion my true faith simply because the bible confuses me, not in a way as though to make me fell stupid bbut challenges my brain and tests my beleifs.

How so?

my family is religious(very) so i suppose i should be aswell

There's no reason to believe in something just because your family does.

i still think there is something out there. We had learned about the ancient greeks in school the other day, and it clearly stated that they also had simular religions as welll as us here in the present.

Most religions come from the early days of man when we were incredibly primitive and knew nothing about the world. The human brain has a habit of looking for patterns and meaning, and finding them even where they don't exist. So early men searched for a meaning of how human beings were created and most decided that we were created by an all powerful celestial being. Not a bad guess at the time. The key thing to remember is that these guesses which quickly became dogma remain nothing more than guesses trying to explain the world. Back then they were decent guesses but they couldn't and still can't be backed up with reason.

[NikolaiI]

Most religions come from the early days of man when we were incredibly primitive and knew nothing about the world. The human brain has a habit of looking for patterns and meaning, and finding them even where they don't exist. So early men searched for a meaning of how human beings were created and most decided that we were created by an all powerful celestial being. Not a bad guess at the time. The key thing to remember is that these guesses which quickly became dogma remain nothing more than guesses trying to explain the world. Back then they were decent guesses but they couldn't and still can't be backed up with reason.

Oh - because all those who believe in God are the same, equally inept and inferior to the atheist, who knows the truth by reason? I am being a little blunt, but I don't mean to be harsh. I was an atheist until I was 17, and I understand the position well. Still, just believe me that there is more out there. I would suggest reading some of Emerson's essays. And a book on Buddhism, which doesn't teach about God, but is a wonderful first step begin to be free from Western materialism, I also suggest, which is called Entering the Stream.

Anyway, I would take Emerson's intellect, personality, mind and ideas over any atheist's writings I have ever read.

[lichtrausch]

Oh - because all those who believe in God are the same, equally inept and inferior to the atheist, who knows the truth by reason?

An atheist doesn't know "the truth". He admits ignorance at the point where others, who can't possibly know "the truth", claim to know "the truth".

Still, just believe me that there is more out there.

I believe you. After all the universe is a big place, ain't it?

I would suggest reading some of Emerson's essays. And a book on Buddhism, which doesn't teach about God, but is a wonderful first step begin to be free from Western materialism, I also suggest, which is called Entering the Stream.

I'll check it out when I get the chance.

Anyway, I would take Emerson's intellect, personality, mind and ideas over any atheist's writings I have ever read.

That's nice.