# Reading > Religious Texts >  Why do you need a god?

## Apotropaic

I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one? There's no proof of any god, but why do you make yourself believe in one/s? Is it to thank, to worship, or to praise for all the good things you have achieved? Or just for the comfort of thinking there's someone up there watching?

----------


## Adelheid

People don't just HAVE a god... it's not something you pick up and decide to make him your lucky charm or something. For me personally, God is a real entity to me. He always was, and He is, and He always will be. Nothing can change that.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I don't know about other people, but I feel uncomfortable around those who say "nothing can change" some aspect of how they think or feel. It is as if they are placing limits on how closely they will listen to reason. This is usually not what it implies, of course, but "only a Sith deals in absolutes."

----------


## simona

> I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one? There's no proof of any god, but why do you make yourself believe in one/s? Is it to thank, to worship, or to praise for all the good things you have achieved? Or just for the comfort of thinking there's someone up there watching?


think about that perhaps some day you will need someone to trust in you, to give you strenght. You need some one to understand you and to see what you really are. This is God, and what I like most of Him is that after all I said to Him, He's still my friend and He knows to see the best of me.

----------


## smilingtearz

> after all I said to Him, He's still my friend and He knows to see the best of me.


 :Nod:  yes i agree, and to add.. after all that I did, and the things I blamed him for.. he's still there..

----------


## amanda_isabel

i guess people have a god for comfort, and aside from that, we need to be afraid of someone if we want to have some direction/discipline in our lives, and who better to be afraid of than someone who supposedly knows us and has complete control of everything??
as for me, i do believe God exists.

----------


## rufioag

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

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

> I think everyone may be missing the point somewhat...We dont have a god for comfort nor do we need a god for something else. *God exists and thats the simpliest way to put it* becuase God is not there to do our biddings because we have no power over him, something 100% different than how the romans mythological gods existed.


There are quite a few people, here on the forums and elsewhere, who will gladly debate this matter (myself included).

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

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

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

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

----------


## Soma

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

----------


## Geoffrey

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

----------


## Soma

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

----------


## rufioag

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

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

----------


## Apotropaic

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

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

----------


## Nightshade

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



> Making one's self believe in something really isn't that difficult, it just requires shutting off part of your brain in this case


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

----------


## Virgil

> Ive said it before and Ill say it again in my opinion fact, reality and truth are all relative terms and are no more constant than than the climate.
> I believe in God that is my truth and because I believe in him I see proof of his existence. Others dont so they dont. I guess I can nearly see it both ways although the idea of not believing in God is for me very frightening but there you go. If I was a Christian I probably would want to become a nun. As it is my beliefs dont allow that kind of life. 
> 
> Geoffery that is kind of insulting but I was wondering do you realise that not believing is in fact a type of believing? and hat it works both ways?
> Anyway we had a thread a few months ago I think I started it(??) Anyway as we said then Most people have one major belief be it science , money love or God, a prime assumption upon which they build there inner moral systems and beliefs. I believe in God but for the life of me I cannot (at least at this point in life or more correctly up to this point) Believe in Love it just seems illogical and rather ridiculous to me. 
> Apotropaic I would say that yes God doesnt define you/me but then I dont define God but your beliefs do in large part help to structure that definition of yourself. My belief in God is not all I am but it is a big part of who I am and that is something that wont change no matter what or how my beliefs change because its the way Im built.


Night - That was quite touching. You have way more experience and complexity than your age indicates.

----------


## Chinaski

Belief is the death of intelligence - Robert Anton wilson

----------


## RobinHood3000

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


I did not say "refute." Such is an impossibility, for the nature of a deity renders him, her, or it inherently unknowable. Whether that is a point of profundity or of convenience is a matter for the individual to decide. I said "debate," which is what we are doing now.

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




> Belief is the death of intelligence - Robert Anton wilson


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

----------


## Chinaski

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## Chinaski

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## Geoffrey

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

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

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

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

----------


## rufioag

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

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

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Geoffrey

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

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

----------


## Soma

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

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

----------


## Jay

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

----------


## beer good

I believe that'd be the Völuspá. 

http://cybersamurai.net/Mythology/no...da/Voluspo.htm

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

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

----------


## Jay

Thank you  :Smile:

----------


## Soma

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

----------


## Nightshade

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


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



> But for humans to believe that they can define something as mighty as the god of our universe? well we should really learn our place.


But didnt I just say that we cant define God? My belief is none can truly know God in fact its probably why in Islam its considered almost sin to try to imagine what he looks like. 



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


Not a Christian so cant and wont comment on the Truth or Fiction in the Bible its not my place and I know next to nothing of it firsthand.
 :Biggrin:

----------


## Nightshade

> Night - That was quite touching. You have way more experience and complexity than your age indicates.


  :Biggrin:  Thanks Virgil but dont you mean more than you tend to show ?  :Tongue:  :Wink:   :FRlol:

----------


## bhekti

Why do I need God?

Because I cant live this life by being only myself. This life is too complex, too hard, too indifferent, too shocking. I cant live such a life by being only myself. 

I need strength. I need protection. I need defense. I need consolation. I need sanity. I need help. I need clarity. I need guarantee. And, I cant get that that I need by being only myself. I need to complain. I need to cry. I need to get angry. I need to be happy.

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

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

----------


## Stanislaw

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

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

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## Stanislaw

:Biggrin:  show me a good...

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

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

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

----------


## Nightshade

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

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

----------


## Stanislaw

> I know YOU are, but what am--oh, sorry, wrong debate ...
> 
> One would be surprised (I wouldn't say "shocked," although that can be the case) at how theists view themselves and atheists. Some of the more extreme Christians, as an example, have the gall to speak of themselves as if they were some sort of persecuted minority. I have yet to meet someone who discriminates against theists simply because they're theists (if anyone has any anecdotes, do regale us), although the other way around seems to happen in more subtle ways than people expect.
> 
> I wonder if the Americans will have a gay president or an atheist president first...


Well, I have a personal exp.

as for USA...I would guess an athiest president...I'm pretty sure it has already happened.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## mtpspur

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

----------


## Nightshade

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


Robin do you mean president or person? Because how can you not believe in any higher power...UI mean there is science nature physics money love family..... isnt a higher power just what a certain person thinks is the most important and influential thing around that causes other things to happen and be?
Isnt that basically what a religious belief is, an attempt to understand the world and life?

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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


That which you call "patience," some call "absence," just so you're aware.




> Robin do you mean president or person? Because how can you not believe in any higher power...UI mean there is science nature physics money love family..... isnt a higher power just what a certain person thinks is the most important and influential thing around that causes other things to happen and be?
> Isnt that basically what a religious belief is, an attempt to understand the world and life?


No, that's a philosophy. A religion is something related but different.

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




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


Personally, I think that the main reason that this phenomenon seems to occur is that the vast majority of human beings have theist parents (in answer to your earlier question, a theist is a non-atheist, at least in my usage; one who believes in one or more gods). When the child eventually comes instinctually looking to the parents for guidance, they often get deferred to the higher power to which the parents claim to answer. The religion of the parents' is generally the "default" setting for new humans. Given the exposure to religion at such an early age, it is difficult to convince people to actively reconsider the paradigm that they have long regarded as truth.

----------


## Nightshade

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

----------


## optimisticnad

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

----------


## Nightshade

What do you mean by experiance,Optimistiic?

----------


## optimisticnad

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

----------


## Nightshade

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

----------


## mtpspur

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

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

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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


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

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

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

----------


## falling*moon

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


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


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




love

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

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


Nice point Robin.

----------


## mtpspur

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

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

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

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

----------


## Apotropaic

> Why do I need God?
> 
> Because I cant live this life by being only myself. This life is too complex, too hard, too indifferent, too shocking. I cant live such a life by being only myself.
> 
> I need strength. I need protection. I need defense. I need consolation. I need sanity. I need help. I need clarity. I need guarantee. And, I cant get that that I need by being only myself. I need to complain. I need to cry. I need to get angry. I need to be happy.


That's what I'm curious about. It is after all, still your mind that generates all the strength and protection and all those. You make yourself believe in a god that gives you all those, just like the Chinese believe in a god that gives them prosperity, although they themselves still do the work and earn the money. At least, that's what I believe. 




> oh well, personally this is a bit of a pointless debate...I mean, whats wrong with believing in a God, Its much like athiesim and the strong disbelief in god...disbelief taken on a faith.
> 
> Oh well, personally I think the belief in God is inevitable and is not a question of want's or needs.


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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## mtpspur

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


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

----------


## Stanislaw

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


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

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

----------


## Nightshade

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

----------


## Stanislaw

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

----------


## Chinaski

Sorry can't do quote thing. 

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

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

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

----------


## blp

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


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

----------


## blp

> Or am I just being argumentative, cos I should be doing something more productive, but I am starting to get into literature forums?


It's a black hole. And it's sucking you in.

----------


## jackyyyy

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

----------


## blp

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


Sorry, what are you driving at?

----------


## jackyyyy

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

----------


## blp

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


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

----------


## jackyyyy

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


I have this terrible habit of looking at the plain paper of it. You are absolutely right.  :Nod:

----------


## rufioag

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

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

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

----------


## Chinaski

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

----------


## Nightshade

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

----------


## Gozeta

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


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

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

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

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

----------


## Bandini

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

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

----------


## Nightshade

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



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


Yes but religion is the basis from which society basis nice and right isnt it?

----------


## Bandini

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

----------


## Gozeta

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

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

----------


## rufioag

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

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

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

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

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

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


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

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

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

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

----------


## Bandini

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

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

----------


## rufioag

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

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

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

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

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

Just asking.  :Wink:

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

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

----------


## rufioag

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

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

----------


## Scheherazade

rufiog,

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

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

rufioag,

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

> Sure, it would be plausable to say that elves and ferries created life on Earth. Just as plausible to say that than to say that the Universe created itself. 
> 
> I just dont understand why you mock every answer that is given. I was hoping to have a discussion and not turn this into an attempt at trying to dissprove the others beliefs through insincerity.


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

----------


## rufioag

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Bandini

> There is no direct evidence of evolution


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

----------


## kilted exile

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



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

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

----------


## Stanislaw

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

Okay, lesse now...

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

Good works are useless without faith? How so? Is my charity worth less than a theist's charity because it is done in the name of goodness rather than God? Or because I anticipate no reward?

----------


## mtpspur

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

----------


## rufioag

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## rufioag

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

----------


## Soma

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

----------


## Regit

Hi Soma,

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

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

----------


## Soma

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

----------


## Regit

Hi Soma,

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

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

----------


## Nightshade

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




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


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

----------


## jackyyyy

> Okay, lesse now...
> 
> I think that atheism requires even more faith than theism, on the basis of the point that we atheists have nothing to gain if we are wrong.
> 
> Good works are useless without faith? How so? Is my charity worth less than a theist's charity because it is done in the name of goodness rather than God? Or because I anticipate no reward?


Excellent point, Robin! And generally, can we remember how cold it is, sitting alone, devout to the 'belief' that they need proof before they will subside to another's, and while others all about feel safer in their's, without same proof. If those have proof enough for them, then good.

----------


## Regit

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


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

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

----------


## Regit

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


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

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

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

----------


## ShoutGrace

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






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


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

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




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


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

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

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

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




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


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

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




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


Merriam Webster defines selfish as 

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

Funk and Wagnalls defines selfish as 

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

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

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

----------


## Bandini

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


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

----------


## Gozeta

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


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

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

----------


## Bandini

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


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

----------


## Bandini

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

----------


## ShoutGrace

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


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

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



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


Lets not have this thread closed.

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## Soma

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




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

----------


## Bandini

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


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

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

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

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

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

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

----------


## Chava

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

----------


## jackyyyy

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

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

----------


## Regit

> Ok, I think I have an example that can explain for the different religious beliefs around the world. Suppose you are excavating a digsite that was supposedly an old farm about a hundred years ago. You and your team go to dig, and you take the area where the chicken coop used to be. After 100 years, the coop is obviously just a plot of grass and nothing else. In any case, you start digging and you find a the beak of a chicken. You keep digging and find a chicken's leg bone, and then a wing bone of a chicken. You dig and dig and dig and eventually find enough bones to fully reconstruct the skeleton of a chicken, and all this is done on the relatively large plot of land that the chicken coop was on. 
> 
> Here's my point: The chicken coop is like the world, the chicken is God, and we are like the digger attempting to find the "true" God. As we "dig" for the truth, we find little pieces that indicated that there that chicken (God) exists. I might find a leg bone, and this will tell me that God exists. However, I might also find a wing bone, and that will also tell me that God exists. Basically, people in different areas find different parts of God but they don't negate his existence because they all have the markings of a common derivative. Any part of a chicken will prove the existence of a chicken, just as any religion will prove the existence of a supreme being.





> The chicken coop is like the world, the chicken is God.


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

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

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

----------


## XXdarkclarityXX

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

----------


## Bandini

> Lets not have this thread closed.


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

----------


## Gozeta

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


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

----------


## beer good

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

----------


## Bandini

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

----------


## Gozeta

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



Hmmm true...considering everything has its time. A time to cry, a time to laugh, a time work, a time to play, a time to live and a time to die. Simple; if it's your time it's your time. Can I also mention the harm we humans are doing to nature CAN affect wheather itself! You guys like science right? You should know.

----------


## ShoutGrace

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




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


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




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


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

----------


## Bandini

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


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

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

----------


## Gozeta

> I disagree - satire is a valid form of rhetoric. I think truly 'edifying discourse' is impossible without freedom to employ ones chosen rhetorical devices. 
> 
> Furthermore, I did not use the phrase 'personal attcks', you did. There are no personal attacks - it is not personal, it is related to philosophical discourse- somebody propounds a theory, another refutes it! Thesis, antithesis, synthesis and all that - it is an ESSENTIAL component of discourse. I can appreciate arguments from people who are religious - but I will try to refute them.


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

----------


## Bandini

> T
> 
> 
> While I'm sure that it is well within the realm of possibility that we here on this forum could dismantle age old arguments and concepts (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Atheism, etc.), I imagine it is most probable that at the end of the day, the theories will still be rooted in the same spot.


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

----------


## beer good

> Hmmm true...considering everything has its time. A time to cry, a time to laugh, a time work, a time to play, a time to live and a time to die. Simple; if it's your time it's your time. Can I also mention the harm we humans are doing to nature CAN affect wheather itself! You guys like science right? You should know.


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

----------


## Regit

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


Beer Good,

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

----------


## beer good

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

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

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

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

----------


## kilted exile

> True, we can do that to some extent and it IS a problem... but so far I've never heard of a man-made earthquake. And besides, all these things have been around for a lot longer than we've been able to affect the weather even the slightest bit.


Agree totally, the only effect we really have on the weather is severity.

----------


## Regit

> So basically you're saying that you know the answer to my question and it's perfectly simple and you won't tell me. .


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



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


You said that you are already convinced, meaning that you would disagree with whatever the Bible might say, right? Then may I ask, how can you disagree with something before you hear it? You asked to be offered answers (to a difficult question that requires much thinking and reading) and, at the same time, state that you will not give those answers any consideration. And then you quiz the lack of response. Perhaps you can try to understand why I don't want to waste my time.



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


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

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



> That's very Christian of you. Thank you


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

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

----------


## evil_one33

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


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

----------


## evil_one33

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


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

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

----------


## Regit

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


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

----------


## kilted exile

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

----------


## Regit

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

----------


## kilted exile

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

----------


## Regit

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

----------


## kilted exile

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



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

----------


## rufioag

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

----------


## Regit

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


Point well taken.

----------


## Gozeta

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


WOW! Your good! I'll think about this for a moment and then I'll get back with you on this. I want to find the right words to explain. To give you an ANSWER. Check on this thread tomorrow. (Well, thats if I'm not on a mission or anything)

----------


## Scheherazade

> (Well, thats if I'm not on a mission or anything)


Ethan? Ethan Hunt??

 :Tongue:

----------


## Gozeta

> Ethan? Ethan Hunt??


I wish I was him! lol

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one? There's no proof of any god, but why do you make yourself believe in one/s? Is it to thank, to worship, or to praise for all the good things you have achieved? Or just for the comfort of thinking there's someone up there watching?


When I was a boy of eleven, and a heathen, I suddenly percieved that GOD had come before me, hearing from HIM clear Words from HIS Mouth. In that instant, lust melted away from my heart like an icecube, and I felt a most profound bond to the HOLY ONE. I saw that HE was the LIFE HIMSELF, and, though I had no prior Knowledge of HIM, I desired HIM, even as one sees the right person to marry and knows in an instant that he doesn't want to be apart from that one - only, rather than sensing we were made for each other, I knew HE was the AUTHOR of my Life.

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

----------


## evil_one33

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


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

----------


## Union Jack

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

----------


## Regit

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## ShoutGrace

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


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

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

----------


## Union Jack

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

----------


## chielu

I have a thought or a question to consider:

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

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

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

----------


## Gozeta

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


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

----------


## Gozeta

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

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

----------


## blp

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


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

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

----------


## Union Jack

> This is what always happens in these debates. As long as religonists think they can win the argument with logic, they stick to logic. Then, when someone like chielu raises a point they can't answer, they resort to the old 'our not to question' argument. 
> 
> Look, it's not really free will if we know we're going to hell for not obeying, is it? And if he really wanted us to have free will, why didn't he make us freer - like why didn't he make us able to fly, for instance? Or blow enormous purple bubbles out of our ears?





> Original sin is not a completely bad thing. In fact, the fall of man commonly appears in literature as a _Felix culpa_ (Latin for fortunate fault.) Eves choice to eat from the tree of knowledge is the first actual exercise of freewill, which up to that point, existed only as a potential capability of humanity. According to the view of the fall of man presented in John Miltons Paradise Lost (which I agree with) Eve desired the fruit from the tree, because she believed that it would raise her up to be Adams equal. Whereas Adam realized that Eve had fallen when she approached him with the fruit, he understood the consequences of the action he was about to take, yet he still decided to eat the fruit because he loved Eve more than God and wanted to stay with her, even in her fallen state. The fall becomes a _Felix culpa_, because it opens up real possibilities to humanity, one could now choose to seek salvation or to sin and lead a life opposed to God. Of course Milton was not a humanist, and one of the purposes of this presentation of the tale is to refute humanisms base statement that man is the measure of all things according to Milton, the fall proves that man is not the measure of all things because mans logic is fallible, which Adam comes to realize. The poem ends on a positive note of Archangel Michael showing Adam the future of humanity, Adam comes to understand his fault, and thus gains true wisdom
> 
> *"This having learnt, thou hast attained the sum
> Of Wisdom...
> Then wilt thou not be loth
> To leave this Paradise, but shalt possess
> A paradise within thee, happier far."
> (Paradise Lost, Book XII.575587)
> *
> ...


Read, consider, realize.

----------


## Nightshade

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

----------


## Regit

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


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

----------


## mtpspur

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

----------


## rufioag

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

----------


## blondeatheart

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

----------


## rufioag

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

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

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

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

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

taken from http://members.ozemail.com.au/~lkolb...pts/C338C.html

----------


## The Unnamable

*Regit* and *Union Jack*,

blp doesnt need me to speak on his behalf but I would say that you probably havent read all of the threads where what he describes is exactly what happens.

I have read, considered and realised. I also know_ Paradise Lost_ very well. 

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

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15953

My own reference to _Paradise Lost_ is on page 4, #56

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

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## Regit

> *Regit* and *Union Jack*,
> 
> blp doesnt need me to speak on his behalf but I would say that you probably havent read all of the threads where what he describes is exactly what happens.
> 
> I have read, considered and realised. I also know_ Paradise Lost_ very well. 
> 
> See page 4 of the What was before God? (or, Why did He wait so long?) thread. Its here:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15953
> ...


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

----------


## chielu

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## falling*moon

Dear Robi,

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

----------


## Gozeta

> This is what always happens in these debates. As long as religonists think they can win the argument with logic, they stick to logic. Then, when someone like chielu raises a point they can't answer, they resort to the old 'our not to question' argument. 
> 
> *Hmmm. All I did is give you an answer the bible has given me. Maybe it doesn't suit you but hopefully it will for others. Isn't the only way to know our beliefs through the Word? For it is the foundation in which faith and hope was built. (for me that is; can't speak for every believer)*  
> 
> 
> Look, it's not really free will if we know we're going to hell for not obeying, is it? And if he really wanted us to have free will, why didn't he make us freer - like why didn't he make us able to fly, for instance? Or blow enormous purple bubbles out of our ears? 
> 
> *Simple, because He has created us; and not you.*


Does these answers sound illogical???

----------


## Union Jack

> *Regit* and *Union Jack*,
> 
> blp doesnt need me to speak on his behalf but I would say that you probably havent read all of the threads where what he describes is exactly what happens.
> 
> I have read, considered and realised. I also know_ Paradise Lost_ very well. 
> 
> See page 4 of the What was before God? (or, Why did He wait so long?) thread. Its here:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15953
> ...


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

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

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

----------


## TBtheG

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

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

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


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

----------


## blp

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


Remember to respect his belief in himself.

----------


## blp

> Exactly, I totally agree, and I apologise to blp if I seemed a little curt. My wording probably should have been better. What I meant to say was that everyone has the free-will to believe whatever they want, and no matter what logic you throw at someone, true believers will not refute their faith, for they fully believe that their belief is beyond logic and science. They are not merely saying it to win an aurguement, they believe it when they say "God says so..." And it is not within anyone's power to change this way of thought, though you may aurgue and attempt to sway their opinion, it is ultimately up to them and their own beliefs.
> 
> And I understand that Paradise Lost is only a poem and should be read thus, this is how I read it too, for I do not follow the Christian faith. I merely meant that if I was Christian I would tend to side with the view of the fall that More presents.
> 
> Thank you The Unamable for bringing my error to my attention.


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

----------


## rufioag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## rufioag

Please, explain further.

----------


## RobinHood3000

The upper limit of awareness is knowledge of that which is available to us. We cannot know that of which we are unaware--we can only recognize that there is a wealth of knowledge lost to the winds which can never be reclaimed.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Thus you can see how it bothers me that the phrase "read, consider, and realise" now seems to be pinned on to me because it is in a reply to me as well as to its original author.


Regit, I apologise for giving the impression that you subscribed to the _Paradise Lost_ comment. I didnt mean to tar you with my oversized brush  I was trying to be economical by including my responses to two comments in the same post. That was my error and you were right to respond in the way you did. I hope I havent put you off contributing further  those capable of genuine thought are in short supply.

I wasnt so much defending *blp* as suggesting that his veteran status gave him a different impression from your own. There have been many posts that confirm that the identified approach is a well-worn tactic.

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

----------


## The Unnamable

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


I didnt think I was pointing out an error  simply offering a different view of Miltons attempt to justify the ways of God to man. I dont find Miltons logical justification convincing  and neither, I would argue, did he. This is why he used rhetorical techniques to persuade, rather than simple logic.

----------


## Ancestor

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

----------


## Regit

> The upper limit of awareness is knowledge of that which is available to us. We cannot know that of which we are unaware--we can only recognize that there is a wealth of knowledge lost to the winds which can never be reclaimed.


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

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

----------


## Regit

> I hope I havent put you off contributing further  those capable of genuine thought are in short supply.


Not at all. I am honoured and eager to contribute further.




> I wasnt so much defending *blp* as suggesting that his veteran status gave him a different impression from your own. There have been many posts that confirm that the identified approach is a well-worn tactic..


You're right. Perhaps I should let the technical inaccuracies go and interprete blp's comment as what he might most likely have meant to say by it.




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


I agree. I wish I could have put it as plainly and as clearly as this.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> The things of which we are not aware, that we yearn to find, are not knowledge. Again, I'm sorry to be nitpicking on technicalities, but the second half of your statement does not support the first half. Knowledge is "the sum of what is known." Thus knowledge is only considered knowledge if we are aware of it. And thus there cannot be a _wealth of knowledge_  that we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot _reclaim_ something that we never had.
> 
> On a different point, I would not draw a line on the "upper limit" of human knowledge. Yes, it is dependent on the facts, truths, or information that are available to us; but we would always yearn to know more; and, I'd like to think, we would always find ways to obtain and study those things that are still unknown. If we are content only with that which is available to us, then it is indeed a sad and gloomy horizon for mankind. The limit of knowledge: I'll never recognise that.


Hmm.

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

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

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

----------


## chielu

Rufioag,

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

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

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

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

----------


## Union Jack

> I didnt think I was pointing out an error  simply offering a different view of Miltons attempt to justify the ways of God to man. I dont find Miltons logical justification convincing  and neither, I would argue, did he. This is why he used rhetorical techniques to persuade, rather than simple logic.


The error I was referring to was my curt response, lacking any explanation as to what I meant. Your Paradise Lost post was a good read. Cheers.

----------


## evil_one33

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


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

----------


## evil_one33

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


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

----------


## The Unnamable

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


I simply meant that arguments over the existence of God will not be resolved by discussions about either the historical authenticity or literary merit of the Bible. Surely faith, by definition, is what exists in the absence of irrefutable evidence. People believe because they have faith, not proof.

----------


## evil_one33

> Okay, so god knew all along what would happen to humanity - why then did he do it? We are not created in his likeness - if we were we would be sinless. If god created us in his own image, then god, too, was flawed - he (as I said in the previous post) abused his own freewill by creating us good, but knowing very well we would not remain so. This to me seems rather demented. We are punished in life for actions to which we cannot control - then we are again punished in death for those same actions? God is very angry and extremely controlling... Before I could simply "believe" for the sake of believing in something, I would want to know why god is so determined to make his creation suffer. And, yes, I do have the right to ask, I do not have to accept something simply because others say it exists.
> 
> Whether god had a choice or he was following his own destiny really is irrelevant: god chose to create man and god punishes man for his own predestined, therefore uncontrobale actions. That's like giving heroin to a person, getting them addicted, then admonishing her or him for having an addiction by not effectively using their god-given freewill to say no. Someone else created the addict, and that person is accountable for their actions. God is responsible for his own creation - yet we are supposed to be grateful to and worship a god that gave us the freewill which was flawed right from the get-go? God is a paradox. 
> 
> The bible is man-made, in fact it's been re-written seven times - with every version delivering its own interpretations of the the various social and religious climates of the time. Imagine a bible written in 2006, would it read the same as a bible written in say, 1475? Not likely.


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

----------


## Union Jack

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## rufioag

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

----------


## Bandini

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

----------


## blp

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


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

----------


## rufioag

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

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

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

----------


## blp

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

----------


## rufioag

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

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...-bradley1.html

----------


## Bandini

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


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

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

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

----------


## Bandini

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


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

----------


## blp

> If you truly seek an answer...please read the entire page from this link. Yes it is long, but if you really desire an answer this may make things more clear.
> 
> http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...-bradley1.html


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

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

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

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

----------


## rufioag

I apologize for misunderstanding you BLP.

----------


## Bandini

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


Spot on.........

----------


## rufioag

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

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

----------


## Bandini

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

God IS love after all?

I love these ridiculous analogies!

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

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


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

----------


## blp

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


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

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

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

----------


## Union Jack

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


But people make the choice anyway. Ha Ha, to me it doesn't seem like a hard choice at all... God?....Hell...? hmmmmmmm?
But I am not Christian and I don't believe in either anyway.

----------


## Union Jack

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


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

----------


## Bandini

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


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

----------


## blp

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


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

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

----------


## Bandini

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

An Orwell quote just occured to me: 

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

Present company accepted of course!

----------


## dregn

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

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

Welcome to the forum.

----------


## cfossett09

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

----------


## blp

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

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

----------


## blp

> I have proof hes there. Its called the Bible.


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

----------


## Logos

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


mwuhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!  :FRlol:

----------


## Union Jack

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

> What's the point of living a certain way today if you are just gone tomorrow?


In case nobody caught it from my mouth on one of the other religious threads:

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

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

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

----------


## cfossett09

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

----------


## RobinHood3000

> ...quite frankly He hasnt made me doubt Him or His plans he has laid out for me.


Just so we're clear, nor has He given some of us reason to believe.


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

----------


## cfossett09

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



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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## chielu

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

To answer your question about sinning:

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## rufioag

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

----------


## Gallantry

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


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

----------


## ShoutGrace

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

----------


## ShoutGrace

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


Hear Hear! I quite agree.

----------


## Theshizznigg

> A lot of people believe in a god that thinks exactly as they do - this is convenient, as it enables them to commit acts of violence and inhumanity, secure in the knowledge that it is "God's will". I'm sure that we can all think of examples without resorting to current politics.
> 
> Personally, not believing in any god, I have to take responsibility for my own actions - which is a real bummer I can tell you!


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

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

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

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

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

----------


## blp

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


Proof is, by definition, something that shows something irrefutably to be true. As far as I can see from what you're saying here, the Bible doesn't constitute proof for you, it just expresses an opinion you agree with.

----------


## RobinHood3000

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


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

----------


## blp

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


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

----------


## RobinHood3000

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

----------


## blp

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


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

----------


## blp

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


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

----------


## ShoutGrace

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




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


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

----------


## blp

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


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

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

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

----------


## blp

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

----------


## Grumbleguts

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

----------


## blp

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


Ah it's nice to be understood.

----------


## blp

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

----------


## Grumbleguts

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

----------


## blp

I understood that you agreed. Just being super finicketty.

----------


## Theshizznigg

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


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

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

Shizz.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> XMC It never ceases to amaze me how you are caught up in your prejudices.
> 
> Do you think that I like it when I see the Church used as an arm for wrongful gains, in the name of Gods will? Do you think Christians do not notice this, or that many don't disagree with it, or downright hate it? 
> Do you think that a Church led by humans is not prone to error, or shouldn't be? 
> Do you think I like reading of Pastors marrying Gay couples under God, or of priest molesting young children, of TV Evangelist selling hopes and wishes to dying people in order to take money from them?
> Or that I believe there was no inquisition, no witch burnings, or that there are no evil men within the church?
> Do you think that I don't shake with anger when I see the root of which my entire life is based under attack from all sides? All the while I am almost defenseless against these provocations which others use as an excuse not to consider Christ? Do you think it doesn't upset me, that my fellow humans beings will cease to exist, when they could have been saved? 
> Do you really think that the main body of born again Christians are so convulted, so deeply set in their ways, that they don't notice it, or simply ignore it? That they don't feel outraged by the slander that comes against them, and their God? 
> None of the people accountable for these things are true followers of Christ.
> ...


Shizz,

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

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

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

----------


## The Unnamable

*blp*, do you know Plaths _The Moon And The Yew Tree_? What I like about it is that her lack of faith isnt the result of any inability to subscribe to an illogical belief but because she simply doesnt see where there is to get to.

She also feels the need to believe:

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

But she doesnt. _This_ is what _she_ sees:

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

----------


## Regit

> *blp*, do you know Plaths _The Moon And The Yew Tree_?  What I like about it is that her lack of faith isnt the result of any inability to subscribe to an illogical belief but because she simply doesnt see where there is to get to.
> 
> She also feels the need to believe:
> 
> How I would like to believe in tenderness ----
> The face of the effigy, gentled by candles,
> Bending, on me in particular, its mild eyes.
> 
> But she doesnt. _This_ is what _she_ sees:
> ...


What a beautiful poem.

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

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

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

----------


## blp

No, I didn't know that poem, Unnamable. It's great. Like Plath, I'd like to be able to believe in that tenderness and, like her, what I actually see is something more disturbing. 

I don't, myself, really need a precise logical flaw in Christian doctrine to not believe. The lack of evidence will do. I just sort of got caught up in the game of unpicking the tapestry.

----------


## chielu

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

Right, and this is how religion is pure business - come to our faith and reap the benefits - if you choose not to you're the one who will suffer for eternity. God gives freewill then says, if you don't choose me you're toast. I worked for a major telephone company that taught its employees to sell the benefits of paying a higher price for quality service and products - people could of course choose the less creditble competition, but it was at their own risk. So, yes, I agree . . . god created humankind in his own likeness - his marketing strategy is very alive in in big business!

----------


## The Unnamable

> What a beautiful poem.


I have to be careful not to stray off topic here. I think this poem is relevant to the original question in that it sort of answers it, even while making clear why Plath cant subscribe to any system of belief that depends on the idea of a loving, merciful supernatural entity. 

Yew trees are often found in graveyards in the UK, where they have been considered as symbols of everlasting life by both Christians and Pagans. For Plath, however, they seem point to everlasting nothingness. The supposed comforts offered by faith are unavailable to her  she simply doesnt believe. Life ends in blackness and silence. In fact, she finds the idea of religion self-serving and intrusive:

Twice on Sunday, the bells startle the sky ----
Eight great tongues affirming the Resurrection
At the end, they soberly bong out their names.

Ultimately they proclaim nothing more than their own existence. Notice how bong out is a deliberately deflating use of simple onomatopoeia. To believers, the bells affirm the Resurrection; to Plath they just make noise. You say, The candles emit a different light onto the effigy, giving it a tenderness; I agree  and to me, this is something of a trick of the light  when illuminated by the gentle light of candles, the effigy appears to exude gentleness but when seen in the light of the world Plath recognises, they are simply stiff with holiness. She thinks the idea is a nice one, but untenable. The Yew tree points to the moon, which is bald and wild  producing an image that is unadorned and raw, revealing only that absolute fact of blackness and silence. Of course, thats just what _Plath_ sees, but is this not a valid human emotion and, as this is a Literature forum, is it not interesting to read what other people think and feel in relation to the so-called big questions of existence? This is why I disagree with part of your comment when you say, it is her depression or the existing perceptions of her mind that prevails over the comfort and principles of worship, and not her inability to submit to an illogical or unproven faith (I recognise that you expressed this as a question). I dont like the idea that what she sees can be attributed to her depression. It implies that the inability to maintain a positive outlook is a form of mental illness. I believe that many here would subscribe to the view that it _is_. I don't.

----------


## paledancer

for me, it is both of them. Knowing that there is a great power makes me feel good and there is also the belief that I will find the eternal peace (heaven or wherever it is)
at the end of a proper life

----------


## The Unnamable

"The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth."
Mikhail Bakunin _God and the State_

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Thomas Paine _The Age of Reason_

And, in the interests of balance  :FRlol:  :

"Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity (in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?"
John Updike _Self-Consciousness: Memoirs_

----------


## RobinHood3000

> And, in the interests of balance  :
> 
> "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity (in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?"
> John Updike _Self-Consciousness: Memoirs_


Interesting how he implies that theism is a creative venture...somehow, I don't think this statement helps his point much.

----------


## shinigami

Well, the way I see things.. People only need Gods to cling on to something.. As in.. just for the sake of having someone there.. dependence.. Here's a scenario:
Someone killed someone else so the person feels guilty but is never found, he turns to God and asks for repentance, thinking.. God has forgiven me, now he's happy again.. Why is that? Well, he has to ask forgiveness from someone.. "I think therefore I am". I believe that God really doean't exist and people only think they need him because they can't face cold hard unfeeling accurate facts.. They just want to be led...

----------


## Regit

> Well, the way I see things.. People only need Gods to cling on to something.. As in.. just for the sake of having someone there.. dependence.. Here's a scenario:
> Someone killed someone else so the person feels guilty but is never found, he turns to God and *asks for repentance*, thinking.. God has forgiven me, now he's happy again.. Why is that? Well, he has to ask forgiveness from someone.. *"I think therefore I am".*  I believe that God really doean't exist and people only think they need him because they can't face cold hard unfeeling accurate facts.. They just want to be led...


I cannot believe that you quoted Descartes to demonstrate such a shallow point of view. If you have read "Discourse on Method" and actually understand what that phrase is supposed to mean, you would regret using it here. And you cannot ask God for repentance; you have to repent yourself before asking for forgiveness. Opinions will be opinions, but such serious lack of understanding for what you are talking about will deprive yours of much respect.

So you are arguing that everyone who believes in God believes because they "can't face cold hard unfeeling accurate facts", and everyone who believes in God "just want[s] to be led"? I take it you think that you can face "cold hard unfeeling accurate facts" better than Albert Einstein could; and you possess more independence and more leadership than Constantine I ever did. Think about it a while.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Break it up, fellas--condescend no more than necessary.

"Cogito, ergo sum"--the basic tenet from which Descartes began to build his life's philosophy from the ground up.

----------


## Regit

> Of course, thats just what _Plath_ sees, but is this not a valid human emotion and, as this is a Literature forum, is it not interesting to read what other people think and feel in relation to the so-called big questions of existence? This is why I disagree with part of your comment when you say, it is her depression or the existing perceptions of her mind that prevails over the comfort and principles of worship, and not her inability to submit to an illogical or unproven faith (I recognise that you expressed this as a question). I dont like the idea that what she sees can be attributed to her depression. It implies that the inability to maintain a positive outlook is a form of mental illness. I believe that many here would subscribe to the view that it _is_. I don't.


You are right, I should not have used the word 'depression'. When I was reading the poem and its analysis on other sites, I saw many comments on her depression. I was not convinced by these analysis, precisely because of what you said, that it is just another "valid human emotion" and I can certainly identify with it. That's why I added the "perceptions" bit to try and back it up somewhat vaguely and unsuccessfully. When I saw words such as "cold", "black", "upset", or "griefs", or lines such as... 
"...it is quiet
With the O-gape of complete despair. I live here."
...I immediately relate to feelings of despair and vulnerability that could heavily affect the mood of the poem. And the word 'depression' came in mind. But mood alone does not constitute meaning.
Although the message of other lines like "I simply cannot see where there is to get to" and, perhaps, of the whole poem can be easily mistaken for that of despair, they are, as you explained, emotions and ratios that every human is capable of. And they are valid reasonings of the mind. And I do understand, and agree with the point that you made. Thus, I will retract the word 'depression' as I think it damages the point I was making heavily.
I agree that the lack of religious belief is not caused solely by the lack of faith without needing proof and evidence. As we can see here that such faith can exist without necessarily leading to religious belief.

----------


## Regit

> Break it up, fellas--condescend no more than necessary.


Do you feel the need to be a peacemaker constantly? That's great, except we do not require your service here just yet. I am perfectly aware of what I am doing. Perhaps if you contribute more than brief interceptions to a discussion you might feel the same passion in trying to get to the bottom of the arguments as I do. And that is exactly what I was doing: I was trying to provoke an interesting discussion. Do not mistake an attack towards the point that a person is making for a personal attack on that person. Just because an argument lacks understanding and sharpness, it does not mean that the person making it does. And that was, by no mean, what I was implying. 




> "Cogito, ergo sum"--the basic tenet from which Descartes began to build his life's philosophy from the ground up.


Actually, it orinally was "Je pense, donc je suis." And it is not a basic tenet of Descartes life's philosophy; it is simply a famous quote that other people relate to him the most (not to mention often misunderstood). He had written many philosophical works by the time he used this phrase in "Discourse on Method". I don't try to summarise philosophy to small quotes. The basic principle for his philosophy, I am sure, is the methodology of reasoning that he expressed clearly and in great detail in many of his works.

----------


## blp

I've just dug up this old article, as it suggests an interesting explanation for humankind's need for religion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...085572,00.html

----------


## RobinHood3000

> Do you feel the need to be a peacemaker constantly?


*<----------<<<<*





> Actually, it orinally was "Je pense, donc je suis." And it is not a basic tenet of Descartes life's philosophy; it is simply a famous quote that other people relate to him the most (not to mention often misunderstood). He had written many philosophical works by the time he used this phrase in "Discourse on Method". I don't try to summarise philosophy to small quotes. The basic principle for his philosophy, I am sure, is the methodology of reasoning that he expressed clearly and in great detail in many of his works.


Is that so? Because from my understanding of Descartes, he was attempting to develop a philosophy that was rigorous in the sense of mathematical proof, and subsequently decided that the first thing of which he could be certain was that he himself existed. Or am I mistaken?

----------


## Regit

> *<----------<<<<*


An avatar and a name confirms your wisdom and morality beyond any doubts that I am capable of. Thank you.




> Is that so? Because from my understanding of Descartes, he was attempting to develop a philosophy that was rigorous in the sense of mathematical proof, and subsequently decided that the first thing of which he could be certain was that he himself existed. Or am I mistaken?


Which work are you takling about? Descartes attempted to develop many methodologies and many of his major achievements were mathematical works, yes. Thus, depending on what you meant, you might be accurate only to a certain degree, which I hesitate to discuss here because it may be off topic. But once again, I do not appreciate attempts to summarise great philosophical works into small paragraphs with a great number of technical inaccuracies. The least you can do is explain what you mean. The brief answer is no, "I think, therefore I am" is not Descartes' tenet of his "*life's philosophy*". If you would like to continue this discussion further, you can start another thread and I will make myself much clearer (see, I have gotten used to the rules too). Have you read Descartes' "Discourse on Method"? I studied it in my first year at University, and from what I have heard so far, I doubt that you have more than 50 words to say about it. But I apologise if my perception is false; and I would be very honoured to enter a discussion about a Descartes' work of your choice. If I have not read it, I will try to read it as sson as I can.

----------


## RobinHood3000

> An avatar and a name confirms your wisdom and morality beyond any doubts that I am capable of. Thank you.


No, it doesn't--what are you going on about? It confirms that I have a hero complex and thus tend to stick my nose wherever people start getting sarcastic.





> Which work are you talking about? Descartes attempted to develop many methodologies and many of his major achievements were mathematical works, yes. Thus, depending on what you meant, you might be accurate only to a certain degree, which I hesitate to discuss here because it may be off topic. But once again, I do not appreciate attempts to summarise great philosophical works into small paragraphs with a great number of technical inaccuracies. The least you can do is explain what you mean. The brief answer is no, "I think, therefore I am" is not Descartes' tenet of his "*life's philosophy*". If you would like to continue this discussion further, you can start another thread and I will make myself much clearer (see, I have gotten used to the rules too). Have you read Descartes' "Discourse on Method"? I studied it in my first year at University, and from what I have heard so far, I doubt that you have more than 50 words to say about it. But I apologise if my perception is false; and I would be very honoured to enter a discussion about a Descartes' work of your choice. If I have not read it, I will try to read it as sson as I can.


I haven't read any of Descartes' works (ask Unnamable--he can confirm that I tend to blather about things of which I have minimal experience). When I asked if I was mistaken, I wasn't being priggish--I was asking for clarification from someone who's at least read something I haven't. Besides, there's a lot to be said for brevity. Hmmph.  :Tongue: 

And if I may say so, passion usually tends to be a _detriment_ to logical debate, in my opinion. I interceded because you seemed to be trying to provoke something other than a sophisticated response.

----------


## Regit

> I haven't read any of Descartes' works (ask Unnamable--he can confirm that I tend to blather about things of which I have minimal experience). When I asked if I was mistaken, I wasn't being priggish.


 I misunderstood you; it was hard to read your intention. My apologies. I don't have to waste The Unnamable's time on this matter, I will take your word for it.



> And if I may say so, passion usually tends to be a _detriment_ to logical debate, in my opinion.


Passion does sometime interfere with logical debate; you are right, but not as much as the lack of research and lack of logical argument supporting a statement.



> I interceded because you seemed to be trying to provoke something other than a sophisticated response.


That is simply your misunderstanding.

----------


## Green Lady

People need a God or maybe even gods because they need some type of foundation. Sometimes our foundation is the knowledge of man. Whether you believe in one or the other is not important to point that you at least believe something. To have no beliefs is to be pulled about by the hurricane that is life and eventually ripped to pieces. Neither are a crutch, though some of the opposite belief may say so. They are something to build your life upon. What your foundation is though, will determine what you build upon it.

----------


## My Word Is Law

One of the reason's I believe in God is because I can't believe in death just being darkness. Like, if there is no God, when I die I will just go out, like a candle. My conciousness would cease to exist and there would be no remnant of me. I can't believe that. Call me selfish or unaccepting or stupid, but it's true. Another reason I believe in God is because I think Darwinism has too many holes in it to be plausible, and Creationism is the only other option.

----------


## RobinHood3000

I can believe it. The thought of nothingness after death is depressing, radical, and often frightening. But I prefer nothingness to eternal torment, thanks very much.

There is never an "only other option." To imagine that humanity has narrowed the origins of the universe to the sole two possibilities is nothing short of big-headedness.

In as far as science vs. Creationism (this is probably the wrong thread for this, but at least you'll read the response): the fact that science takes its sweet time to plug its holes doesn't mean you should disregard it right then and there.

----------


## My Word Is Law

I meant the only other plausible option for me to believe in that I've heard of. Not the only other option total  :FRlol:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I take it you think that you can face "cold hard unfeeling accurate facts" better than Albert Einstein could


I'm sorry, but could the theists please stop claiming Einstein as one of their own? Albert may have believed in some sort of god, but he certainly did not believe in the Christian one, or anything like him.

_I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God._ 
-Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, p.66

_I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil._ 
-Albert Einstein, as quoted in a memoir by Life editory William Miller in Life, May 2, 1955

See?

----------


## RobinHood3000

> I meant the only other plausible option for me to believe in that I've heard of. Not the only other option total


OKay, just so we're clear  :Tongue: .

----------


## ShoutGrace

> I'm sorry, but could the theists please stop claiming Einstein as one of their own? Albert may have believed in some sort of god, but he certainly did not believe in the Christian one, or anything like him.
> 
> _I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God._ 
> -Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, p.66
> 
> _I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil._ 
> -Albert Einstein, as quoted in a memoir by Life editory William Miller in Life, May 2, 1955
> 
> See?


Christian theists certainly may not claim Einstein as one of their own. But ultimately he believed in a transcendent mind which had ordered the Universe in a directed and intelligent fashion. I'm not entirely sure whether or not he believed that this organizer was supernatural in a classical theistic sense or not. I need to get somewhere else before I can arrange his quotes in like fashion.

----------


## Regit

> I'm sorry, but could the* theists*  please stop claiming Einstein as one of their own? *Albert may have believed in some sort of god*, but he certainly did not believe in the Christian one, or anything like him.


Yes I see. Let's review. 

I hate to pull out my dictionary again, but may I remind you that "theist" means "a person who believes in God", and not just a Christian or "anything" like it? Here we are:

*Theist*: n. of or relating to theism, one who believes in the existence of a god or gods/ a believer in a personal God.

Thus the fact that, in your own words, he "*may have believed in some sort of god*" is enough to make him a theist. Ok?

And my comment was a reaction to this comment: 


> People only need Gods to cling on to something.. As in.. just for the sake of having someone there.. dependence.. Here's a scenario:
> Someone killed someone else so the person feels guilty but is never found, he turns to God and asks for repentance, thinking.. God has forgiven me, now he's happy again.. Why is that? Well, he has to ask forgiveness from someone.. "I think therefore I am". I believe that God really doean't exist and people only think they need him because they can't face cold hard unfeeling accurate facts.. They just want to be led...


 No mention of a Christian God or "anything like him", just God.

*See?*

My point was that Einstein believed in "some sort of of God" and he can still face "cold hard unfeeling facts" better than the person who suggested that he couldn't. Ok?

And watch it, I never said that I was a theist, and I didn't claim anything.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Regit:

I apologize for the poor wording. By a theist I meant a dogmatic religious person of any stripe. I cannot tell how many times I have heard something along the lines of "Einstein believed in God, so why don't you? and I am, frankly, sick and tired of explaining to such people that while Einstein believed in a god (maybe) it certainly wasn't the same one that the Christians pray to.

For the record, I do not agree with shinigami. While he may have hit on one of the reasons that some people need a god figure, it is certainly not the only reason.

I apologize again for any offense.

----------


## Green Lady

I'd just like to say something else. If at the end of my life there turns out to be no God and I just end, nothing else after this, then I'll be fine. If there is a God and I've been following Him, then I'll be fine. I say, better safe than sorry.

----------


## BeingaBunny

i need god coz i need someone to hate

----------


## blp

> I'd just like to say something else. If at the end of my life there turns out to be no God and I just end, nothing else after this, then I'll be fine. If there is a God and I've been following Him, then I'll be fine. I say, better safe than sorry.


This is what's known, by me, who invented the term just now, as the 'safe tracker-fund heresy'. Your place in the inferno is waiting - an earthy tunnel, too narrow to fit your body comfortably, through which you will be forced to crawl for eternity.  :Brow:

----------


## BeingaBunny

I wonder how Einstein defined god. I doubt his definition would fit most others. God could be a moment, a trigger, an action - the cause. God is whatever caused what we consider reality to come into being. And the flaw to that is...what caused god? What caused whatever caused god? And what caused that? There will always be an unexplainable something. God is simply something that can't be explained.

Well, to most people that will probably make some sense. I am too far lost myself. The only existence I THINK I am sure of is my own. I don't know if I believe in other people or not. I think I could be god, and everyone else is here to entertain me. Don't know.

I'll tell you guys right now. If I am god, do not bother praying. Unlike the one called Him, I do not care. I am not that vain. I do not create to judge - I create to love.

----------


## blp

> Christian theists certainly may not claim Einstein as one of their own. But ultimately he believed in a transcendent mind which had ordered the Universe in a directed and intelligent fashion. I'm not entirely sure whether or not he believed that this organizer was supernatural in a classical theistic sense or not. I need to get somewhere else before I can arrange his quotes in like fashion.


Well, the thinking may simply be out of date. A key Einstein quote is 'God does not play dice with the universe'. Stephen Hawking retorted later in the century, that, after all, he did - by which he meant that it was all rather more random and unpredictable than previously thought, making it likely that there simply was no governing intelligence (I think we can take his reference to a god as symbolic).

----------


## RobinHood3000

> If at the end of my life there turns out to be no God and I just end, nothing else after this, then I'll be fine.


Make no mistake, I'm glad you feel this way, but if that turns out to be the case, do you really have a choice?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> Well, the thinking may simply be out of date. A key Einstein quote is 'God does not play dice with the universe'. Stephen Hawking retorted later in the century, that, after all, he did - by which he meant that it was all rather more random and unpredictable than previously thought, making it likely that there simply was no governing intelligence (I think we can take his reference to a god as symbolic).


What is too complex for a finite mind will look random. I often have things in mind that I have not yet expressed, which must be expressed in a particular order, before I am understood. It takes time to grow in knowledge of the ETERNAL.

----------


## RobinHood3000

What minds are infinite?

----------


## Mililalil XXIV

> I'll tell you guys right now. If I am god, do not bother praying. Unlike the one called Him, I do not care. I am not that vain. I do not create to judge - I create to love.


We don't pray as a means of being judged, but to interact with LOVE HIMSELF, and to learn HIS Love as Participants in the Mystery of its Fulfillment.

----------


## Bandini

> Regit:
> 
> I apologize for the poor wording. By a theist I meant a dogmatic religious person of any stripe. I cannot tell how many times I have heard something along the lines of "Einstein believed in God, so why don't you? and I am, frankly, sick and tired of explaining to such people that while Einstein believed in a god (maybe) it certainly wasn't the same one that the Christians pray to.
> 
> For the record, I do not agree with shinigami. While he may have hit on one of the reasons that some people need a god figure, it is certainly not the only reason.
> 
> I apologize again for any offense.


I lkie the cut of your jib! Welcome to the site matey.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Thanks Bandini. Good to be here.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> I'd just like to say something else. If at the end of my life there turns out to be no God and I just end, nothing else after this, then I'll be fine. If there is a God and I've been following Him, then I'll be fine. I say, better safe than sorry.


Unfortunately, you missed a point. Your argument (originally worded far better by the French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascale) is equally valid for _all_ religions: for christianity, islam, buddhism, zoroastrianism, hinduism - not to mention every crackpot cult, schism, faction, denomination and sub-branch. Trouble is - all of these are _mutually exclusive_. If catholic christianity were the only religion, you could certainly apply your theory by following that faith - unfortunately for you, this would butter no parsnips with the mormons, christian scientists and rastafarians; as far as these are concerned, you would be an unbeliever and hence condemned. But if you were to follow these doctrines as well, the catholics would disown you.

Given the huge number of faiths to pick from, your chances of guessing right are little better than if you never bother to choose! A fact that Blaise Pascale, inventor of probability theory, should have been well aware of.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

If we assume hell exists and that religion is divinely inspired, we also have to assume that everybody goes to hell.

1. Hell exists.
2. Religion is the result of divine inspiration, and therefore infallible.
3. More than one religion teaches that everybody who is not a member of that religion goes to hell.
4. These religions do not allow a person to be a member of more than one religion simultaneously.
5. Therefore everybody falls into the category of "not a member of a religion that teaches that non-members go to hell".
6. Therefore everybody goes to hell.


Fortunately, hell does not exist, and religion is a social construct.

----------


## Broken

Hmm, so your claim is that if any religion is to be considered divinely inspired, then all religions must be divinely inspired? Perhaps I am missing your logic.

Fortunately, we are free to seek truth and discern where lies the line between truth and social construction.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Yeah, I am assuming that all religions are devinely inspired, and I realize that very few people believe that. However, if we assume that say, Jesus and Mohammed are the messengers of God, then everybody still goes to hell. 

This is all, of course, complete nonsense.




Bit of stand-up comedy I think is relevant:

*Rowan Atkinson* _(dressed up as satan, reading from a list as though calling the next patients into a doctor's office)_: Murders? Yes, just through here. Rapists? Bank managers? Yes, let's see here, Satanists? Yes, hello, lovely to meet you too. Atheists? Bet you feel a right lot of nit-wits now, don't you? Christians? Yes, the Jews were right after all, I'm afraid....

And so on.

----------


## blp

> What is too complex for a finite mind will look random. I often have things in mind that I have not yet expressed, which must be expressed in a particular order, before I am understood. It takes time to grow in knowledge of the ETERNAL.


So - you're saying you're smarter than Stephen Hawking? I'm impressed.




> Fortunately, hell does not exist, and religion is a social construct.


Phew. That's a load off.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Haha, Rowan Atkinson--smarter than he looks.

----------


## blp

> Fortunately, we are free to seek truth and discern where lies the line between truth and social construction.


Are you speaking as a follower of a religion?

----------


## Broken

Speaking as one with an eye toward the truth.

Sometimes religion helps and sometimes it hurts in that quest. Religion is, as an institution, a human construction - as is nearly everything around us in today's world. My personal opinion, *blp*, is that there is truth to be found within religious institutions, despite religious man's best efforts to keep that truth hidden under a weight of self-righteous and deluded thinking.

I look upon the natural world and see evidence for the existence of a creator God, and I look within myself and see a connection to something greater than what I have achieved; both of these point me to religion - so far as it is defined as 'Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.'

----------


## Bandini

I must admit to numinous moments myself. The world can be amazing. I just don't like all the 'my god's bigger than your god stuff' - and some of the patently ridiculous man made stuff that is used to enforce negative thinking and hate. I frequently find myself appreciating my life and the world and sometimes find myself, sort of offering 'thanks'. I don't believe in 'a God', so perhaps it's a hangover from my early schooling? Strangely, this song lyric just playing in the other room:

"Youre wasting your breath on life after death
Coz Im almost sure
If hell does exist than the Devils a scientist
Finding a cure"

Synchronicity - man!

----------


## BeingaBunny

> We don't pray as a means of being judged, but to interact with LOVE HIMSELF, and to learn HIS Love as Participants in the Mystery of its Fulfillment.


I did not say that people pray as a means of being judged, but certainly the christian God does judge you upon your actions in life, which would include praying. I would find it incredibly insulting to be created only to be judged by my creator at the end of the rough journey that is life. I love love, but in church the only love I see is from preacher to preacher boy and that's not my bag.

----------


## BeingaBunny

> I look upon the natural world and see evidence for the existence of a creator God.


How so?  :Bday 2:

----------


## Starving Buddha

> I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one? There's no proof of any god, but why do you make yourself believe in one/s? Is it to thank, to worship, or to praise for all the good things you have achieved? Or just for the comfort of thinking there's someone up there watching?


"God" is a focal point. I look at it this way: We have this thing called a mind that has an amazing ability to manifest what it thinks about. Ths is an incredible power, but one that quickly can get out of control. We also have this by-product called an EGO that has a tendoncy (sic) to think of itself, and its needs before anything else. Now how do we manifest? Through the projection of our emotional will, or will power. What we project out comes back onto to us because this reality is of a reflective nature. It is also psymbolic. It is through psymbols, that we are able to focus our minds and create through the use of our will power. The concept of "God" allows us to focus on something that is above the material- the spiritual. It provides us with the means of transcending the state of existence that keeps us bound physically, and which is a source of suffering because it is in the process of constantly changing. We are bound here by desire and fear. An anology would be, mind is a room, and there is a door. In order to get out of the room (spiritual release), we must have a key. The key is a psymbolic concept, and that concept is "God". It allows us to focus our will (which is the turning of the key), which leads to our opening the door. But once the door is opened, we must leave the concept behind because it was just a metaphor. To hang onto the metaphor (as if it were a literal "thing") would be to remain stuck in the room. When we pass through the door, all concepts are let go of.

----------


## talhaakdis

we have souls , we are energies and there is a concept of god and we can say : so there exitst a god !! and god needs to be believed ... and we need it we eat for not to starve so we need to feed our souls for not to kill it..

----------


## Starving Buddha

> we have souls , we are energies and there is a concept of god and we can say : so there exitst a god !! and god needs to be believed ... and we need it we eat for not to starve so we need to feed our souls for not to kill it..


Yes, the god concept is what allows us to feed the need. But it is the need that keeps the wheel of suffering turning. At some point in one of our innumerable lives, we will all reach the conclusion that we have had enough, and we will then seek to get off the ride. The concept of soul is analogous to the concept of god (remember we are made in his image!) A Psymbol

----------


## talhaakdis

soul may not be a image...seek for kirlian photographing...yes god may be an image but this is an exam this is life yes we suffer but god does nothing every bad things comes from human beings...we devastated lands, diminished the species.. people are sometimes angels but some people sometimes devils...there exist a hell and paradise. god's books kuran, bible etc always teached peace but humans have their free wills right they sometimes need to burn devastate...I have a principal look good see good act good and wait for good dont think to much everything is complicated yes but smallest ones isnt complicated cuz they are one's...

----------


## Starving Buddha

> soul may not be a image...seek for kirlian photographing...yes god may be an image but this is an exam this is life yes we suffer but god does nothing every bad things comes from human beings...we devastated lands, diminished the species.. people are sometimes angels but some people sometimes devils...there exist a hell and paradise. god's books kuran, bible etc always teached peace but humans have their free wills right they sometimes need to burn devastate...I have a principal look good see good act good and wait for good dont think to much everything is complicated yes but smallest ones isnt complicated cuz they are one's...


Kirilian photography reveals auras. "Soul" is but another term used to denote the spiritual energy that holds matter to form. The problem with the soul concept, is that we begin to believe that when the body dies, there is something of our self that carries on. When the body dies so too do the memories that were associated with it. So too does the ego id-entity that went with it. You see, we spend so much time in life striving to affirm ourselves and who _we think we are_ not realizing that our self is temporary as is everything else. We do have an eternal part of us, that is the divine seed within, but it is non-id-entified. It is the peice of the whole that we carry with us through our lives, but returns to the source when we finally bring about our release through enlightenment. 
As far as good and evil goes, I agree, it is entirely up to man. We are the angels and we are the devils. We are the ones who cause evil and who sacrifice ourselves for the common good. We all have within us, the potentials for both extremes. As we are reflections of life and life is a reflection of us, it (life) also carries within itself the potential for both extremes... However, in order for life to survive, it must kill. In order for my body or your body to continue living something must die (be it animal or plant). To the prehistoric people, when something was consumed, it was a religious experience with that animal offering itself as a sacrifice for the person to continue living; there was a deep reverence for the whole universe. That is what we have lost in our modern world- is the deep spiritual connection and reverence for life, which we are not the masters, but merely organelles within the universal organism.
And again, hell and heaven are but metaphors, not literal places. They are states of mind (psycho-spiritual states) They are also universal archetypal psymbols found the world over because they connote the same ideas: that within us we posses the ability to rise above the suffering or to sink into the suffering. In the mystical see of life, most sink, but some learn to swim.

----------


## AuntShecky

People need God or "a god" to blame when things start going badly.

No. Seriously -- I've always thought that those who believe that their personal belief is the ultimate Truth to be
extremely smug and arrogant. On the other hand, atheists who zealously deny the existence of a supreme being are
equally arrogant.

The only answer: to keep an open mind, to listen to everything, to observe closely the world that has been either created or randomly spun itself into existence.

----------


## kari

I don't at all do the blame game when things go wrong. Sometimes I find myself feeling like I just don't get what is going on in my life, but I have never felt resentment or anything like that with God for the bad stuff that happens in my life. For the original question, I think it is nice (to believe in God), to know that no matter what, you are never truly alone. Such a big blessing, for just believing.

----------


## Joreads

I beleive that some of us need something or someone to believe in. Faith can help you through the roughest of times.

----------


## Pendragon

I can tell you this: whatever is going to happen will happen whether or not one believes in God. Take the latest disaster, the cyclone in Bangladesh. That happened, and I am certain that it hit both believers and non-believers alike. I would still choose to believe in God knowing that it changes nothing about what may happen to me. There is always hope that prayer will touch Him. And if not, I bear my load as I must anyway.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## kingdomofgod123

We need god for our happiness and to protect over selves from bad and evils.
Did you know that anything you accomplish in your life is meaningless unless you give yourself to God. Did you know that only God can give you the strength to reach your dreams. Did you know that if you achieve something without gods help that it is not real. Did you know that only those things you do that are Gods will is important. gvelc.com. With out him I cant assume this world.

----------


## Granny5

> I can tell you this: whatever is going to happen will happen whether or not one believes in God. Take the latest disaster, the cyclone in Bangladesh. That happened, and I am certain that it hit both believers and non-believers alike. I would still choose to believe in God knowing that it changes nothing about what may happen to me. There is always hope that prayer will touch Him. And if not, I bear my load as I must anyway.
> 
> God Bless
> 
> Pen


Pen, this is all so true. I'd rather be happy with my belief in God than to face life alone. I do believe that prayers are head and some are answered. Maybe it's our belief in God that helps us help ourselves? I don't know for sure, but I'm betting on the fact that it can't hurt and it helps us accept this world. When my Mother was ill, I found out that you reach a point where you stop asking for intervention and accept what is happening. When you pray for help in accepting what is going to happen and let things take the course they are sure to take, it's easier to get through it. I have to believe that God has a hand in helping us through tough times.

----------


## Bakiryu

Life is my god. I have no holy writ. Belief is what keeps us from madness.

----------


## Sweets America

> Pen, this is all so true. I'd rather be happy with my belief in God than to face life alone. I do believe that prayers are head and some are answered. Maybe it's our belief in God that helps us help ourselves? I don't know for sure, but I'm betting on the fact that it can't hurt and it helps us accept this world. When my Mother was ill, I found out that you reach a point where you stop asking for intervention and accept what is happening. When you pray for help in accepting what is going to happen and let things take the course they are sure to take, it's easier to get through it. I have to believe that God has a hand in helping us through tough times.


Your post and Pendragon's post are both very touching, and this is what I like in religion, the fact that it gives hope, whether there really is a God or not. The most important is to have faith, and it can help those who do have it. I don't think I have faith, but it has happened to me to pray at times. I didn't care who I was praying to, I just hoped that I would be heard.

Wait a minute: I am just realizing that what I just wrote sounds quite selfish. When I said I didn't care about which God I was praying to, it sounded as if I only thought of myself and my problem and I had no consideration for the God in question. That was not what I meant. In my prayers I try to be as respectful as I can towards the person or entity I am talking to. I try not to pray often also, I only pray when I'm desperate because I would somehow feel selfish as well if I prayed for a problem that I could solve myself with some efforts.

----------


## jon1jt

> Your post and Pendragon's post are both very touching, and this is what I like in religion, the fact that it gives hope, whether there really is a God or not. The most important is to have faith, and it can help those who do have it. I don't think I have faith, but it has happened to me to pray at times. I didn't care who I was praying to, I just hoped that I would be heard.
> 
> Wait a minute: I am just realizing that what I just wrote sounds quite selfish. When I said I didn't care about which God I was praying to, it sounded as if I only thought of myself and my problem and I had no consideration for the God in question. That was not what I meant. In my prayers I try to be as respectful as I can towards the person or entity I am talking to. I try not to pray often also, I only pray when I'm desperate because I would somehow feel selfish as well if I prayed for a problem that I could solve myself with some efforts.


well said! this reminds me of Shadowlands, one of my favorite films, where the C.S. Lewis character loses his wife to a vicious cancer and afterward says he prays because he doesn't know what else to do. 

i believe we pray when we think, too, but not always, it depends on the situation. i wonder if it's true.

----------


## Pendragon

> well said! this reminds me of Shadowlands, one of my favorite films, where the C.S. Lewis character loses his wife to a vicious cancer and afterward says he prays because he doesn't know what else to do. 
> 
> i believe we pray when we think, too, but not always, it depends on the situation. i wonder if it's true.


Yes, I believe we pray in our thoughts, Jon. I believe in a God who is able to hear them. When one takes into consideration the enormous amount of sound that this Earth produces on a daily basis, to have no faith that God can hear your prayer above all of that noise, and pick up on each individual plea, that is a God not worthy of worship. But I firmly believe that He can and does hear, and what mankind cannot understand is that "No." is a answer. Sometimes God sees what we don't. 

An example is Hezekiah from the Bible. God sent Elijah to tell him to prepare himself, for he would die. Hezekiah prayed and began to remind God of all that he (Hezekiah) had done for God. God said, "OK. Go tell him I will add 15 years to his life and give him a sign this is so." What happened? During that extra 15 years, Hezekiah managed to displease God and bring trouble on Israel. Perhaps he would have been better off just to accept God's will and go on.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## mazHur

We need a God to brush off the pain of our sufferings and to find strength in weaknesses

----------


## Sweets America

> Yes, I believe we pray in our thoughts, Jon. I believe in a God who is able to hear them. When one takes into consideration the enormous amount of sound that this Earth produces on a daily basis, to have no faith that God can hear your prayer above all of that noise, and pick up on each individual plea, that is a God not worthy of worship. But I firmly believe that He can and does hear, and what mankind cannot understand is that "No." is a answer. Sometimes God sees what we don't. 
> 
> An example is Hezekiah from the Bible. God sent Elijah to tell him to prepare himself, for he would die. Hezekiah prayed and began to remind God of all that he (Hezekiah) had done for God. God said, "OK. Go tell him I will add 15 years to his life and give him a sign this is so." What happened? During that extra 15 years, Hezekiah managed to displease God and bring trouble on Israel. Perhaps he would have been better off just to accept God's will and go on.
> 
> God Bless
> 
> Pen


Actually, what Jon and you said makes me realize that I have ALWAYS prayed in my thoughts! I don't think I have ever spoken in prayer. It had never come to my mind that perhaps God or any other deity could *not* hear my thoughts. I think I took it for granted that he/she would hear my thoughts _only_ when I wanted him/her to!  :Tongue:

----------


## weepingforloman

> I know a lot of people don't believe in a god, but to those of you who do, what's your purpose of having one? There's no proof of any god, but why do you make yourself believe in one/s? Is it to thank, to worship, or to praise for all the good things you have achieved? Or just for the comfort of thinking there's someone up there watching?


Just because there's no proof doesn't mean there's no evidence- and, if there was a God, wouldn't you be able to experience Him in some way? I know I have.

----------


## Dark Star

We can easily enough assume that there is no evidence when no one has _ever_ been able to put forth a shred of evidence for it (barring the debunked Aquinas arguments for a need for a designer which seem to be re-spun yearly and only 'provided' evidence of a DEISTIC god, not a personal one). You'd think that with thousands of years of believing in one someone would have found something by now...

That said, I'm sure you're going to throw out gnosis as evidence (or someone else is, this tends to happen in these discussions). The problem with this is 1. Its known for having neurological causes, not any sort of mystical ones. 2. Testing has revealed that people experiencing 'gnosis' experience the exact same experience no matter what religion they're from and simply interpret it within the framework of their beliefs. On top of that, people taking psychedelic drugs get the exact same experience as those who experience gnosis. This brings up some critical problems in using it for evidence:

Which god, goddess, or gods and goddesses is providing this experience to you? How can you pick one in particular (or a particular pantheon) and use that as evidence for him/her/them when people of ALL religious beliefs share the exact same experience? And how do you explain the fact that a person tripping on LSD is experiencing the same 'gnosis' as you? Have they found a way to cheat God into giving them a feeling they don't deserve, perhaps? For that matter, _why_ assign any sort of divinity in the first place to something that is known to have neurological origins? God of the Gaps doesn't work there since that gap has been filled.

----------


## Pendragon

To play a little with the no designer theory, why do very knowledgeable and well respected scientists who are considered cutting edge in zoology, entomology, botany, marine biology, etc. keep showing us the wonder of the natural world, and it is a fabulous place full of wonders that makes my heart beat faster anyway, use the word "designed"? 

I saw a National Geographic show on the great snakes, the purpose being to decide if one could swallow a man. The term 'designed" came up over and over. The answer is no, unless, you are caught in such a way as to snap the collar bone. The shoulders must pass the mouth, which is (alert, here comes that d word) designed to stretch upward, but not sideways. The inner teeth are designed to "walk" the meal down into the serpent's belly. 

You're dead if the big snake catches you, you might as well have stood in front of a steam roller. But you won't be swallowed, unless you are very thin.

----------


## Remarkable

I don't believe in God.Not wanting to offend anyone,I will just add that I think believing in God means taking some things for granted.

----------


## Dark Star

> To play a little with the no designer theory, why do very knowledgeable and well respected scientists who are considered cutting edge in zoology, entomology, botany, marine biology, etc. keep showing us the wonder of the natural world, and it is a fabulous place full of wonders that makes my heart beat faster anyway, use the word "designed"? 
> 
> I saw a National Geographic show on the great snakes, the purpose being to decide if one could swallow a man. The term 'designed" came up over and over. The answer is no, unless, you are caught in such a way as to snap the collar bone. The shoulders must pass the mouth, which is (alert, here comes that d word) designed to stretch upward, but not sideways. The inner teeth are designed to "walk" the meal down into the serpent's belly. 
> 
> You're dead if the big snake catches you, you might as well have stood in front of a steam roller. But you won't be swallowed, unless you are very thin.


You're using the word 'design' in a completely different sense than they are. 'designed' does not necessarily mean 'designed by a cosmic, deistic force'. In the sense of that snake, it means 'designed' as in the R&D work done by evolution. I'm sure if you actually asked any of these scientists what they meant when they say 'designed' they would clarify that they don't mean what you're thinking of.

Not to mention, even if one _was_ to concede that some form of deistic designer is necessary to start everything off and put it in place there is still a LOT of leg-work necessary to show that this god is in reality the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

I recommend checking out Daniel Dennett's _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ as it deals with some of these very issues.

----------


## Etienne

The perception that things have to be created, that there must be a beginning, contrarily to what many believe is quite a preconceived idea, not a "necessary" idea. In greek mythology, for example, at the beginning there was chaos, which was always there. Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, that there was no beginning. Of course others did believe there was a creation, but my point here is that when the world was perhaps freer of some preconceived idea, that there might have been something eternal, that there was no beginning was a very reasonable position.

If you look at the reasons why one might believe today that there must be a beginning, what are the reasons for that? We cannot say that it is an evolution in human thought from the idea of an eternal "something" since there is no clear reasoning behind such an idea besides opinions really.

So using "but there must have been a beginning" argument is not rational but merely an wild guess, and in this case it is a premise which validity is based on the conclusions you are trying to justify with this premise, any syllogism using this premise therefore becomes some kind of logical snake trying to swallow it's tail.

Other point. Beginning implies a temporal perception. Time is relative to space (no space, no time) and space is relative to matter (no matter, no space) so to have time you need matter. Before the Big Bang, there was energy, no matter, also meaning no time. So time started with the Big Bang, saying that the pre-Big Bang "substance" has ALWAYS been there is a non-sense, as it was only point zero. Time is not something absolute and linear, and to talk about creation and such we have to get over this temporal perspective.

----------


## weepingforloman

> We can easily enough assume that there is no evidence when no one has _ever_ been able to put forth a shred of evidence for it (barring the debunked Aquinas arguments for a need for a designer which seem to be re-spun yearly and only 'provided' evidence of a DEISTIC god, not a personal one). You'd think that with thousands of years of believing in one someone would have found something by now...
> 
> That said, I'm sure you're going to throw out gnosis as evidence (or someone else is, this tends to happen in these discussions). The problem with this is 1. Its known for having neurological causes, not any sort of mystical ones. 2. Testing has revealed that people experiencing 'gnosis' experience the exact same experience no matter what religion they're from and simply interpret it within the framework of their beliefs. On top of that, people taking psychedelic drugs get the exact same experience as those who experience gnosis. This brings up some critical problems in using it for evidence:
> 
> Which god, goddess, or gods and goddesses is providing this experience to you? How can you pick one in particular (or a particular pantheon) and use that as evidence for him/her/them when people of ALL religious beliefs share the exact same experience? And how do you explain the fact that a person tripping on LSD is experiencing the same 'gnosis' as you? Have they found a way to cheat God into giving them a feeling they don't deserve, perhaps? For that matter, _why_ assign any sort of divinity in the first place to something that is known to have neurological origins? God of the Gaps doesn't work there since that gap has been filled.


Part of the general belief of Christians (or at least a great number of us) is the idea that God reveals Himself in varying degrees and ways to almost every person. The experience of drugs is, perhaps, similar, but this could be considered as a way in which God attempts to show Himself to those who would otherwise not encounter Him. I believe it is very logical that, if there is a creator God, He would use the wiring of our brains to make us aware of Him, or able to experience Him. You commit something of a fallacy here: you assume that anything which is scientific excludes God, which is in fact begging the question. If there is a God, science cannot exclude Him. He would be the very foundation of science. Neurology cannot disprove God, nor can any science, because, even if all natural knowledge is attained, yet there can be no answering of the supernatural. So how exactly do you propose we go about verifying the existence of God- how _could_ someone have "found something" by now? Or ever? God is immeasurable: after all, you cannot quantify justice, cannot measure mercy, cannot weigh out love (_agape_, that is- I have heard arguments that _eros_ can be quantified).

And, in any case, I was not referring to _gnosis_ when I said "evidence." There are several examples: a.) innate moral law. It serves no evolutionary purpose, yet is found to be a constant in almost every human. B.) the fact that Christ, who very few would call insane, claimed to be God, not in a pantheist, "we are all divine" sense, but in a much more bold, dynamic sense- He claimed to be That Which Is Before Anything Was, and He is not lightly to be brushed aside- even Einstein admired Him. C.) The very universality of the belief in God. Even if it can be sufficiently proven (and I do not believe it has, though I do not claim any great knowledge on the subject) that theism has neurological roots, the fact that it exists despite the fact that it, like moralism, serves no evolutionary purpose, would suggest that something more is at work.




> The perception that things have to be created, that there must be a beginning, contrarily to what many believe is quite a preconceived idea, not a "necessary" idea. In greek mythology, for example, at the beginning there was chaos, which was always there. Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, that there was no beginning. Of course others did believe there was a creation, but my point here is that when the world was perhaps freer of some preconceived idea, that there might have been something eternal, that there was no beginning was a very reasonable position.
> 
> If you look at the reasons why one might believe today that there must be a beginning, what are the reasons for that? We cannot say that it is an evolution in human thought from the idea of an eternal "something" since there is no clear reasoning behind such an idea besides opinions really.
> 
> So using "but there must have been a beginning" argument is not rational but merely an wild guess, and in this case it is a premise which validity is based on the conclusions you are trying to justify with this premise, any syllogism using this premise therefore becomes some kind of logical snake trying to swallow it's tail.
> 
> Other point. Beginning implies a temporal perception. Time is relative to space (no space, no time) and space is relative to matter (no matter, no space) so to have time you need matter. Before the Big Bang, there was energy, no matter, also meaning no time. So time started with the Big Bang, saying that the pre-Big Bang "substance" has ALWAYS been there is a non-sense, as it was only point zero. Time is not something absolute and linear, and to talk about creation and such we have to get over this temporal perspective.


Your argument is flawed: what about enthalpy? The universe is continually running down, it is moving from more ordered to less, and will likely reach a point of absolute chaos- a homogeneous mass of uniform matter. If we are to accept this, we must admit that a highly ordered beginning and a supremely chaotic end are necessary. The concept of eternal matter does not hold up.




> You're using the word 'design' in a completely different sense than they are. 'designed' does not necessarily mean 'designed by a cosmic, deistic force'. In the sense of that snake, it means 'designed' as in the R&D work done by evolution. I'm sure if you actually asked any of these scientists what they meant when they say 'designed' they would clarify that they don't mean what you're thinking of.
> 
> Not to mention, even if one _was_ to concede that some form of deistic designer is necessary to start everything off and put it in place there is still a LOT of leg-work necessary to show that this god is in reality the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.
> 
> I recommend checking out Daniel Dennett's _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ as it deals with some of these very issues.


Creation was never used by a canonical writer to prove the existence or identity of God- they relied on _historical_ not _pre_historical arguments.

----------


## Etienne

> Your argument is flawed: what about enthalpy? The universe is continually running down, it is moving from more ordered to less, and will likely reach a point of absolute chaos- a homogeneous mass of uniform matter. If we are to accept this, we must admit that a highly ordered beginning and a supremely chaotic end are necessary. The concept of eternal matter does not hold up.


From what you told me, I don't think you really understand what enthalpy is... As for moving to more ordered to less, I have absolutely no idea what you mean, perhaps you can elaborate on this? A homogeneous mass of uniform matter? Again, please elaborate as to the how and why with sources please... And I'd like to precise that I never talked about eternal matter expect about Aristotle's theory which I only used to show that the concept of creation has not been seen as a necessity before and that the concept of eternity made as much sense as the concept of creation to the human mind, only preconceived ideas or wild guesses will make a creation seem like a necessity. My real argument was in the second part, where I never talked about eternal matter at all.

----------


## Pendragon

> Other point. Beginning implies a temporal perception. Time is relative to space (no space, no time) and space is relative to matter (no matter, no space) so to have time you need matter. Before the Big Bang, there was energy, no matter, also meaning no time. So time started with the Big Bang, saying that the pre-Big Bang "substance" has ALWAYS been there is a non-sense, as it was only point zero. Time is not something absolute and linear, and to talk about creation and such we have to get over this temporal perspective.


And BOOM! Etienne, we're back at that first law of thermodynamics-- energy cannot be created nor destroyed and the equation of E=MCsquared.
I said that energy was God, which gave rise to the question of "Who then, created God?" Another poster disliked The Big Bang, asking "Who then struck the match?" Can you not see that all of this is simply circular logic. Or as Ambrose Bierce once put it: "Having made A the proof of B, preceding to turn around and make B the proof of A." I get a headache just thinking of the illogic. I believe the Bible, perhaps in a different matter than traditional thinking, but I am far from traditional.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Etienne

> And BOOM! Etienne, we're back at that first law of thermodynamics-- energy cannot be created nor destroyed and the equation of E=MCsquared.


No, not at all, you're again going in a temporal perception here. I think you didn't read my post carefully. Energy can have "always" been there, but I explained how saying "always" is innacurate as it implies a temporal perspective. If we want to keep this perspective, saying that it has never been there would be more accurate, but from a perspective that abstracts time, you can simply say "it was there" with no temporal referent.

"I said that energy was God, which gave rise to the question of "Who then, created God?""

I never asked you this. But why/how would this energy create books and stuff? I mean energy was used in atomic bombs to kill people, energy is used to create evil? Are you claiming that we are using God to do evil? The previous and official solution to the problem of evil was that evil is the absence of God. Saying God is energy (and by extension matter) means that is omnipresent and that the problem of evil becomes a major problem to you. As not only evil is made in the presence of God, but it is with the PARTICIPATION of God.




> Another poster disliked The Big Bang, asking "Who then struck the match?" Can you not see that all of this is simply circular logic.


Well let's consider the cyclic Bing Bang/Big Crunch theory. Let's start when the Universe is in a Big Crunch, suddenly the universe shrinks back to pure energy, time stops, the following Big Bang can be "immediate" but since time has stopped saying "immediate" is wrong since it's a temporal word used to describe a not temporal reality, from a temporal perspective, the Big Bang is immediate to the Big Crunch, there doesn't even exist anything in-between the two as a temporal perspective can only exist where there is time.

The fact that pre-Big Bang had no time doesn't really mean that it was always there but that it was never there as well depending on your perspective. So no one "pulled the trigger" or anything, things started at the beginning. I'll repeat it you have to understand carefully the implication of this absence of time. Saying "who triggered it" is mostly the same kid as a kid saying "who closed the lights (the sun)".

----------


## Dark Star

> Part of the general belief of Christians (or at least a great number of us) is the idea that God reveals Himself in varying degrees and ways to almost every person. The experience of drugs is, perhaps, similar, but this could be considered as a way in which God attempts to show Himself to those who would otherwise not encounter Him.


Similar? Try 'exactly the same', just as it is the same feeling people of every other religion experience. This does beg a question, though, why does he 'show Himself' to people of other religious beliefs when they are performing religious activities involving deities other than him when this will surely do nothing but make their faith in un-true deities more strong?




> IYou commit something of a fallacy here: you assume that anything which is scientific excludes God, which is in fact begging the question. If there is a God, science cannot exclude Him.


I disagree. Science, by its very nature, excludes the supernatural. It deals only in things we can or will have physical evidence for; until God presents physical evidence for his existence he is excluded by science. 




> Neurology cannot disprove God, nor can any science, because, even if all natural knowledge is attained, yet there can be no answering of the supernatural.


I never said that it can 'disprove' God. I simply don't see a need to add a supernatural explanation to something that has known natural causes; it would be like saying the reason the planets orbit around the sun is because God is shooting pool with them. We already know a natural explanation for why it happens, so why try to tack on an unnecessary supernatural one?




> So how exactly do you propose we go about verifying the existence of God- how _could_ someone have "found something" by now? Or ever? God is immeasurable: after all, you cannot quantify justice, cannot measure mercy, cannot weigh out love (_agape_, that is- I have heard arguments that _eros_ can be quantified).


How we go about verifying the existence of such a deity is your problem, not mine. As you may recall, it wasn't me that made the claim that there is evidence of him.  :Wink: 




> And, in any case, I was not referring to _gnosis_ when I said "evidence." There are several examples: a.) innate moral law. It serves no evolutionary purpose, yet is found to be a constant in almost every human.


False. It serves a VERY important evolutionary purpose; it is absolutely necessary for our species to survive. A species does not survive if they all take a dog-eat-dog approach and kill each other for anything they want. Group morality is necessary for survival and this has even been displayed in primates. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology This should be a nice start.




> B.) the fact that Christ, who very few would call insane, claimed to be God, not in a pantheist, "we are all divine" sense, but in a much more bold, dynamic sense- He claimed to be That Which Is Before Anything Was, and He is not lightly to be brushed aside- even Einstein admired Him.


This is a rather bad argument which has several problems:

1. Muhammad and Joseph Smith claimed to be prophets of God. There were many people, even in Jesus' time that claimed to be God. How do you know this person was right? How is it that you can know the other scriptures are not divinely inspired and that is?
2. This argument presumes the historical existence of Jesus which is far from certain. The man has to have existed to have made these claims and a set of contradictory documents written from 60 to 100 CE, when no one felt the need to write about him or seemed to know anything about him during his lifetime, makes it rather difficult to say its certain. And that's the tip of the iceberg of the Jesus-as-myth argument.
3. Throughout history, many, many have claimed to be God aside from the ones following in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheistic traditions. In many cultures (Rome and Egypt come to mind) the head of state was thought of as a god. Why is their testimony to being god not proof of their actually being god, or of the existence of the Roman or Egyptian pantheons?
4. Being widely admired (even by Einstein) does not constitute evidence for divinity. For that matter, I find it quite irrelevant since Einstein was quite open about not believing Jesus was divine as were many other 'admirers'. What they admired was moral system (excluding all the hellfire), which I may add, dates back to thousands of years before the writing of the Gospels.




> C.) The very universality of the belief in God. Even if it can be sufficiently proven (and I do not believe it has, though I do not claim any great knowledge on the subject) that theism has neurological roots, the fact that it exists despite the fact that it, like moralism, serves no evolutionary purpose, would suggest that something more is at work.


This is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum. Something being popular does not mean it is true. You also seem to fail to take into account that there are MANY forms of theism and that it cannot be applied to one particular deity. There were theistic communities that worshipped other deities long before Judaism or Christianity even existed; why is the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one the true deity? Because its the one most commonly believed in now? Religious opinions shift greatly over time. I'm curious if theism will no longer be true when it phases itself out or a different deity is being worshipped instead of the Christian one?




> Creation was never used by a canonical writer to prove the existence or identity of God- they relied on _historical_ not _pre_historical arguments.


False. See: Aquinas' arguments which are still used today. And the historicity of those arguments is debatable, at best.

----------


## Pendragon

> No, not at all, you're again going in a temporal perception here. I think you didn't read my post carefully. Energy can have "always" been there, but I explained how saying "always" is innacurate as it implies a temporal perspective. If we want to keep this perspective, saying that it has never been there would be more accurate, but from a perspective that abstracts time, you can simply say "it was there" with no temporal referent.
> 
> "I said that energy was God, which gave rise to the question of "Who then, created God?""
> 
> I never asked you this. But why/how would this energy create books and stuff? I mean energy was used in atomic bombs to kill people, energy is used to create evil? Are you claiming that we are using God to do evil? The previous and official solution to the problem of evil was that evil is the absence of God. Saying God is energy (and by extension matter) means that is omnipresent and that the problem of evil becomes a major problem to you. As not only evil is made in the presence of God, but it is with the PARTICIPATION of God.


I would not put it that way. The Tree in the Garden was Pure. Knowledge in and of itself is neither good nor evil. But in tasting of the tree, man had knowledge now, and the choice of what to do with it: Good or evil. Man has indeed done much good with what knowledge he had. He made that knowledge grow, he discovered how to make concrete and steel, how to build cities. He found cures for diseases. He also discovered horrible things best left alone. But he could not, for he was curious. Thus, poisons, airborne bacterial warfare, nucular warfare and worse became man's toys.

Man himself will destroy his world if not stopped. Right now the wrong person pushing the wrong button and we're slag.

----------


## mazHur

things seem going off topic apparently.

Simply we could say we need God because we need Him, we do need a creator of all causes,,,,no cause no effect !

----------


## Etienne

> I would not put it that way. The Tree in the Garden was Pure. Knowledge in and of itself is neither good nor evil. But in tasting of the tree, man had knowledge now, and the choice of what to do with it: Good or evil. Man has indeed done much good with what knowledge he had. He made that knowledge grow, he discovered how to make concrete and steel, how to build cities. He found cures for diseases. He also discovered horrible things best left alone. But he could not, for he was curious. Thus, poisons, airborne bacterial warfare, nucular warfare and worse became man's toys.
> 
> Man himself will destroy his world if not stopped. Right now the wrong person pushing the wrong button and we're slag.


My point is that if God is the energy, that means he is everything and participating in everything since he is also omnipotent. That means he is participating to every action, good and evil, high and low, far and near.

The thing is that theists usually find an answer to a single issue by dodging arguments, but they cannot construct a whole solid and coherent structure to explain their belief rationally. And let's go further, how can we explain that people who are considered saints or having had revelations had conceptions of God that are outdated by science and theology has evolved. Theology is not supposed to be an "evolutive" science since it is based on dogmas, and therefore the interpretation and message should have been the same unchanging one since the beginning.

Your best bet is to drop rationality and go back to the original _credo quia absurdum_. Keep all your beliefs and dogmas as you want, that's not what I'm saying but remember this: _credo quia absurdum_, I believe because it is absurd.

And more, any religion can be defended in the same way as your perspective of it, so then the usual answer "but I feel, I know deep withing me, etc. etc." Well this is not rational, so since you cannot explain rationally the belief of X over Y, explaining X rationally is deemed to failure.

----------


## Pendragon

> Well this is not rational, so since you cannot explain rationally the belief of X over Y, explaining X rationally is deemed to failure.


The point is, my friend, you are so certain that there is no God, any proof that doesn't line up with what you have determined to be true you can find ways to dismiss. Well, I have put out ways to prove God's existence using your own science, and It got me called Jesus, and told to shut up. I find science proving God not disproving him. You Have a nice day.

Good Bless

Pen

----------


## Etienne

I didn't tell you to shut up, and I didn't read anywhere, stop acting like a martyr. Is it that you cannot find anymore arguments and are trying to end it in a way that you save your face and put the blame of your exit on me? I'm sorry, if you want to end this, don't put the blame on me.

That you find science proves God is your choice, however you have to be able to show it, I've given refutations to your arguments, of "your ways to prove God's existence" (there is nothing in what you said to prove God's existence, it was merely trying to find a place for God in scientific concepts, by the way) you just end the discussion by saying "well it's my opinion". Science is not a matter of opinion but of rational argument, so if you believe what you're saying you should be able to refute my arguments, not just evade them or call it a day and go away. Falling back on your positions like this and ending discussion tends to show the underlying cause of your belief: faith, and not rationality, like you are trying to tell us.

I am not certain there is no God, I just see no reason to believe there is one, there is a fundamental difference. And I do not think science is disproving God, but I think that the opposition reality vs historical theology tends to show that most beliefs in God were are absolutely irrational, and coherent with many psychological observations toward other phenomenon. So the only rational data we can form a judgment from seems to lead toward the idea that religious feelings are that, nothing more than a feeling. But there is no formal proof anywhere, clues would be a better term.

----------


## Niamh

*mod note:can we please just discuss the question asked without personally offending other members or misinterpreting posts. Everyone is intitled to their opinons and beliefs. We are here to discuss topics and not preach our personal beliefs.
Merry Christmas everyone.
And be nice.*

----------


## Pendragon

> I didn't tell you to shut up, and I didn't read anywhere, stop acting like a martyr. Is it that you cannot find anymore arguments and are trying to end it in a way that you save your face and put the blame of your exit on me? I'm sorry, if you want to end this, don't put the blame on me.
> 
> That you find science proves God is your choice, however you have to be able to show it, I've given refutations to your arguments, of "your ways to prove God's existence" (there is nothing in what you said to prove God's existence, it was merely trying to find a place for God in scientific concepts, by the way) you just end the discussion by saying "well it's my opinion". Science is not a matter of opinion but of rational argument, so if you believe what you're saying you should be able to refute my arguments, not just evade them or call it a day and go away. Falling back on your positions like this and ending discussion tends to show the underlying cause of your belief: faith, and not rationality, like you are trying to tell us.
> 
> I am not certain there is no God, I just see no reason to believe there is one, there is a fundamental difference. And I do not think science is disproving God, but I think that the opposition reality vs historical theology tends to show that most beliefs in God were are absolutely irrational, and coherent with many psychological observations toward other phenomenon. So the only rational data we can form a judgment from seems to lead toward the idea that religious feelings are that, nothing more than a feeling. But there is no formal proof anywhere, clues would be a better term.


That post seems to have been deleted, and no it wasn't you, Etienne, my friend. I'm not going to be a martyr. and wouldn't mind refuting any points I disagreed with. My point was about the 2ond law of thermodynamics, and pointing out that God could have been there all along, that energy was God. People still want to know who created God then? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Flat statement made scientifically, yet they wont accept it from me. When God enters the equation, however much the formula fits, I will be told I'm wrong. That I don't understand science. I seem to understand science much better that you will ever allow yourself to understand God.

God Bless

Pen

Sorry Niamh. If this seems rough delete it, but I have taken worse,

----------


## Etienne

> My point was about the 2ond law of thermodynamics, and pointing out that God could have been there all along, that energy was God.


Yes it "could", however that doesn't fit with theological views of God, I'm not saying it's "scientifically" impossible.




> People still want to know who created God then?


I guess you totally missed my point? Go back to where I explain how time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there was not really any creation, only a beginning. And if you really cannot accept that things just began, then there are other scientific theories that I have already pointed out, like the infinite cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch. What I observe is that you always come around the same arguments completely ignoring ignoring the refutations I have made of it.




> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.


Ill repeat creation or destruction implies time, and time has no grip on energy. If there is only energy, no matter, it also means there is no time. So energy was not created before the Big Bang, it was just there in a timeless state, so basically saying it was never there or always there are both as right and wrong, as the language, and even the human mind, implies a temporal perspective, therefore to figure it it has to be abstracted. Do understand this please and stop saying I'm just saying you don't understand science, when in fact you I bring you arguments, you ignore them and turn them into personal attacks against you.




> Flat statement made scientifically, yet they wont accept it from me.


Putting the "2nd law of thermodynamic" doesn't make a statement scientific. A scientific statement implies a method. Your statement was an hypothesis. God might be that initial energy. Ok it can, however that doesn't prove anything and there is no argument towards believing this, it is simply a supposition that comes from an initial belief in God, therefore the argument is simply your belief.




> When God enters the equation, however much the formula fits, I will be told I'm wrong. That I don't understand science.


Well address the refutations, you are simple going back on your positions and act like an offended virgin so you don't have to address these refutations, it seems.




> I seem to understand science much better that you will ever allow yourself to understand God.


You are accusing me of resorting to ad hominem arguments simply because I offer arguments against your hypothesis, and then yourself, use ad hominem arguments.

I find your statement contrary to what has happened in this thread. I wonder how many time will I have to repeat you my arguments for you to address them or take them in consideration instead of considering being refuted as being an ad hominem argument and discarding the refutation for that reason.

I find your attitude very deplorable and at the same time pretty typical, when you are at the end of the rope of your arguments, try to find a way out saving your face and putting the blame on the other.

----------


## Tosca

I do not want to argue. I do not have time to read all 23 pages. But, I have read the title of the topic and would like to post my comment on it.

We need God. He sent his Son, Jesus, to die on the cross, to shed blood, so that we may be saved. No God, no Jesus. No Jesus, no salvation...no salvation means Hell for all of us. Without a personal realtionship with Jesus (who came from God) we are not going to Heaven. So of course we need God  :Smile:

----------


## Logos

*General Mod Note to All:* 

Please discuss the TOPIC and not EACH OTHER.

Thank you  :Smile:

----------


## Pendragon

> I find your attitude very deplorable and at the same time pretty typical, when you are at the end of the rope of your arguments, try to find a way out saving your face and putting the blame on the other.


You are always telling me to refute arguments you have put forth. I have no interest in what some philosopher may have said. You do not deal with the equation at hand. You find ways to circumnavigate it. The 2ond Law of Thermodynamics will not and can not be circumnavigated. I said my self that time doesn't enter the picture until after the creation. Time has no effect on the 2ond law of thermodynamics. E=squared. The energy capable of creating a universe. That is God my friend. Chance could not create something as complex as bacteria. 
I have been patient, but you reject God. On the day of judgment, my hands will be clean.I will still pray for you. 

1Cor.14

1. [38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

----------


## LadyW

On a personal level, I don't believe that all the members of one religion believe and worship in the same God, in the same way. It means something different to each individual. Some may believe there really is a physical presence somewhere overlooking everything whereas others may believe that God is not a physical being, but all the goodness and hope in the world. Maybe, some people aren't sure yet and are willing to go through life trying to learn and come to a conclusion about the whole thing. When you're totally alone, when you're hurt, what's there for you? Is it your conscience, your own mind, or something else? I personally believe we are never really alone.

----------


## mazHur

> you seem to be beside me 
> when none other is around.


According to mystics God only enters the heart when all others depart. It is this feeling which makes us


> believe we are never really alone.


the One who is with us in our loneliness is none except God!

----------


## LadyW

exactly  :Smile:

----------


## Etienne

> You are always telling me to refute arguments you have put forth. I have no interest in what some philosopher may have said. You do not deal with the equation at hand. You find ways to circumnavigate it. The 2ond Law of Thermodynamics will not and can not be circumnavigated. I said my self that time doesn't enter the picture until after the creation. Time has no effect on the 2ond law of thermodynamics. E=squared. The energy capable of creating a universe. That is God my friend. Chance could not create something as complex as bacteria.


Have you even read my posts???????? You know these part about time that took 90% of my posts?




> I have been patient, but you reject God. On the day of judgment, my hands will be clean.I will still pray for you.


Don't even bother praying for me, if God is what we are told he is, he doesn't need prayers to know who deserves anything.

----------

