Why god?

[Novum]

Hey Novum, I found this homily a deacon I know wrote. Thought I would post it for you.

Nice.

So I asked her a simple question: “did you ever ask for the faith to believe?†She paused and was clearly in deep thought, then said: “no one has ever asked me that before.†She then said but isn’t that a bit circular.

Yes, it is circular. If not everyone is given the faith to believe, what business has God in judging those who were born and go their entire lives without it?

I simply responded: “What do you have to lose?†She thanked me, shook my hand, and told me that maybe she will see me in the afterlife.

Pascal's Wager. That's what you have to lose, and that's why this is not a valid argument. ;)

So often we want proof, we want to know why we believe what we believe and want God to tell us, because otherwise it feels as though we’re looking for something or someone that we are not sure even exists. Such was this young girl’s approach. She wanted proof, evidence; she wanted to see the Lord. Yet, I guarantee that if God were to appear tomorrow, to her or even to us not all of us would be ready to believe. In fact, even when Jesus was right there in the midst of everyone, they still would not believe. It was only with faith that they came to believe.

Yes, I too want proof and evidence. And yes, if Jesus appeared before me, I would still doubt his existence. I could be hallucinating, or dreaming, or I could be witnessing a magic trick, or I could be being deceived by a powerful alien. Any of these explanations would be far more likely than the god of the bible appearing before me.

So what evidence or proof would it take, then? I don't know. But if your god did exist and was omniscient, he would know.

That is why, above and beyond anything else, we are people of faith. A faith we constantly profess in our prayer, our beliefs, and in the creed itself, because it takes faith to believe that prayer has an impact on our lives, that God exists, and even that bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.

Thomas doubted, and refused to believe until he saw and touched the hands and side of Jesus, but Jesus responded by telling him and us that the ones who are truly blessed are those who have not seen and have believed. Those who have seen with the eyes of faith.

I agree completely. Faith is required to believe a claim that has no supporting evidence, or to believe a claim that has conflicting evidence against it. I, and other skeptics, are not the kinds of people who believe without evidence.

In fact, our second reading tells us that: “the victory that conquers the world is our faith.†Jesus told us that with faith the size of a mustard seed we could move mountains, heal the sick, even raise the dead. To believe in the impossible, knowing that all things are possible with God.

When was the last time you saw a Christian move a mountain, heal the sick, or raise the dead?

[quote:48ddb]That young girl was desperately trying to believe on her own, without asking God for help in her unbelief.

Today then, let us not be unbelieving but believe, asking to be able to see what is unseen with the eyes of faith. Knowing that in doing so we can confidently say without touching His hands and His side, “My Lord and My God.â€Â

So, yeah... I liked it when I read it and thought it was appropriate for your OP.[/quote:48ddb]

I liked it myself, and I can understand why you posted it. But it doesn't directly answer my question. Given what I said in the OP and what has been stated in this thread, why should I have faith? What would I gain that I do not already have?

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

When was the last time you saw a Christian move a mountain, heal the sick, or raise the dead?

You'd be surprised... I sure was... but then you would ask for supporting medical evidence, and being as they were things I saw, I would have none other than my testimony.

If not everyone is given the faith to believe, what business has God in judging those who were born and go their entire lives without it?

They never asked...

But then, my post was more for reflection than debate. I see a guy who doesnt seem to want to believe because he sees no point. And I know that if you dont want it, you wont get it. So, thats a tough position to be in. And I wont bore you with mindless rhetoric.

 

[Novum]

When was the last time you saw a Christian move a mountain, heal the sick, or raise the dead?

You'd be surprised... I sure was... but then you would ask for supporting medical evidence, and being as they were things I saw, I would have none other than my testimony.

Yes, I would ask for evidence. And if what you describe really happened, why weren't scientists and doctors everywhere collectively flipping out about it? Where are the research papers that were written? Who won the Nobel Prize for their work on it? Why haven't science and medicine been revolutionized?

...or is it more reasonable to conclude that you did not see what you thought you saw?

[quote:9d97d]If not everyone is given the faith to believe, what business has God in judging those who were born and go their entire lives without it?

They never asked...[/quote:9d97d]

So they never asked. I repeat: what business has god in judging them?

But then, my post was more for reflection than debate. I see a guy who doesnt seem to want to believe because he sees no point. And I know that if you dont want it, you wont get it. So, thats a tough position to be in. And I wont bore you with mindless rhetoric.

You are correct, I do not see a point in believing in god. That's exactly why I started this thread; so I could hopefully hear from others what benefits I would serve to gain from doing so. Unfortunately, no one has really come up with any substantive benefits that I don't already have.

 

[Klee shay]

Hello Novum.

Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday, I had limited time and after I replied to Divinenames I spent the next few hours trying to reply to your post. In the end I decided not to send what I had written because I wasn't entirely happy with it. Although I could not fault the logic I used, something occured to me after I decided not to send my post.

You see it has to do with authority. I was trying to use my own authority to reason with you about God's authority. The truth is however, I HAVE NO AUTHORITY when it comes to representing God. I am reliant on God's authority to represent himself according to his own word and actions.

While you are quite happy to engage in discussions about the ethics of hell without the relevance of God, I cannot engage in such a discussion devoid of God's authority. If I don't use the authority of God, then I am just another human being with my own opinions on what I think should be considered relevant and right to others.

So I cannot enter into a one-on-one debate with you about hell or the relevance of God without using the authority of God. The premise for this post was questioning what Christianity has to offer that you don't already have, and yet with every Christian perspective presented you have tried to remove God from that perspective in your interpretation. You are not allowing the evidence you require to understand what Christianity offers - and that is; the authority of God.

I'd like to think we have both walked away from this discussion with something fruitful. It is probably best I walk away now, for I cannot engage in a discussion simply revolving around my opinion of God and hell. Either God represents himself through my words or I remain silent, for anything of my own is fruitless. I hope you understand.

 

[Drew]

Hello Novum:

I agree with you that one does not to be a Christian in order to behave morally - every day, billions of non-Christians commit moral acts (as well as immoral acts).

I also agee that one does does not to be a Christian to have purpose in life. Again, it would be very hard to deny the empirical evidence that non-Christians can and do have purposeful lives.

On the other hand, I certainly would expect a typical person would prefer to live forever (under the right conditions) than to slip into non-existence (which is what I assume many, if not most, people believe).

I assume that you would become a Christian if you were to be convinced that its claims are essentially factual and if you believed it would be to your immediate and / or ultimate benefit.

I do not like many of the arguments one hears from Christian circles in respect to advocating for the faith. I do not find arguments like the following very convincing:

* One needs God to be moral
* God makes his presence abundantly clear to people through direct experience
* The "Liar, Lord, or Lunatic" argument (you may not have heard this one, but it is pretty weak)
* etc.

I do not have time right now to give my "defense" for the Christian worldview, but I will at least say the following:

* I find the words of Christ "have the ring of truth" - this is admittedly a subjective statement. For example, while I cannot explain why forgiveness cannot be given apart from the shedding of the blood of an innocent Christ, at some level it strikes me as true.

* I find the "beauty of the world" to be too "achingly rich" to admit to a non-theistic interpretation. Again, this is completely subjective. But when I am immersed in nature, there is something deep inside that suggests that this is a gift, not an "accident".

* I find the whole Biblical narrative expresses a kind of picture of loss and redemption that hangs together with remarkable coherence. I am not a literalist - I do not believe in a young earth and I do not believe God ordered the slaughter of entire nations. And yet, at a "thematic" level, there seems to a remarkable internal harmony. For example, we have the "temple" from the Old Testament serving as the "intersection" point between heaven and earth and Christ replacing the temple and serving in this very same function.

A very bright friend of mine (a hardcore atheist) finds the Christian "story" to be almost irrestistably compelling - he would probably agree with much of what I have written above. He says that "he would dearly love to believe it, if only he could be convinced it were not a big fairy tale". He would love to live forever, he agrees that the Biblical story strikes a powerful chord with him, etc.

For now, I will conclude by expressing my opinion that, perhaps in contradiction to what most Christians will say, the reality of God in the world is not at all obvious and is manifested in extra-ordinarily subtle ways. It is, in my experience anyway, by no means a self-evident truth, but I believe it to be true nonetheless.

 

[Novum]

You see it has to do with authority. I was trying to use my own authority to reason with you about God's authority. The truth is however, I HAVE NO AUTHORITY when it comes to representing God.

I honestly don't understand why this is a problem. I have no "authority" either, I'm just going about things here as rationally and reasonably as I am capable. I'm sure you're doing the same; so what does "authority" have to do with anything? I merely seek to learn your opinion, and you're doing the same of me.

I suspect that we might be using different definitions of "authority". Can you explain yours in more detail?

I am reliant on God's authority to represent himself according to his own word and actions.

Then he can do so. Why does this preclude you from discussing with me?

While you are quite happy to engage in discussions about the ethics of hell without the relevance of God, I cannot engage in such a discussion devoid of God's authority. If I don't use the authority of God, then I am just another human being with my own opinions on what I think should be considered relevant and right to others.

I've just stated that what I've been seeking - from you and from everyone else in this thread - are personal opinions. I really don't understand what you thought I was looking for if not personal opinions. As I stated in the OP...

"That said, I suppose I'll ask you, the forum readers, what you think. Why do I need a god?"

So I cannot enter into a one-on-one debate with you about hell or the relevance of God without using the authority of God. The premise for this post was questioning what Christianity has to offer that you don't already have, and yet with every Christian perspective presented you have tried to remove God from that perspective in your interpretation. You are not allowing the evidence you require to understand what Christianity offers - and that is; the authority of God.

I guess I'll stop responding until you can get back to me on the questions I've listed above. ;)

I'd like to think we have both walked away from this discussion with something fruitful. It is probably best I walk away now, for I cannot engage in a discussion simply revolving around my opinion of God and hell. Either God represents himself through my words or I remain silent, for anything of my own is fruitless. I hope you understand.

No, I admit that I do not understand why you feel your own opinion is fruitless.

 

[Novum]

I agree with you that one does not to be a Christian in order to behave morally - every day, billions of non-Christians commit moral acts (as well as immoral acts).

Absolutely.

I also agee that one does does not to be a Christian to have purpose in life. Again, it would be very hard to deny the empirical evidence that non-Christians can and do have purposeful lives.

Yup!

On the other hand, I certainly would expect a typical person would prefer to live forever (under the right conditions) than to slip into non-existence (which is what I assume many, if not most, people believe).

Yes, but that's the rub. I admittedly cannot conceive of any set of "right conditions" where I would prefer eternal life over nonexistence. Though I will not deny that the concept of eternal life is appealing, I just can't find any way to make it "work" for me.

I assume that you would become a Christian if you were to be convinced that its claims are essentially factual and if you believed it would be to your immediate and / or ultimate benefit.

Absolutely. My position as an agnostic atheist requires me to admit that I may be wrong. Were Christianity proved true, I would certainly re-evaluate my position.

I do not like many of the arguments one hears from Christian circles in respect to advocating for the faith. I do not find arguments like the following very convincing:

* One needs God to be moral
* God makes his presence abundantly clear to people through direct experience
* The "Liar, Lord, or Lunatic" argument (you may not have heard this one, but it is pretty weak)
* etc.

Liar, Lord, or Lunatic...that sounds like all kinds of fun. ;)

I do not have time right now to give my "defense" for the Christian worldview, but I will at least say the following:

* I find the words of Christ "have the ring of truth" - this is admittedly a subjective statement. For example, while I cannot explain why forgiveness cannot be given apart from the shedding of the blood of an innocent Christ, at some level it strikes me as true.

* I find the "beauty of the world" to be too "achingly rich" to admit to a non-theistic interpretation. Again, this is completely subjective. But when I am immersed in nature, there is something deep inside that suggests that this is a gift, not an "accident".

Certainly. I will not deny nor argue with your subjective experiences, and I admire your ability to recognize them as subjective.

* I find the whole Biblical narrative expresses a kind of picture of loss and redemption that hangs together with remarkable coherence. I am not a literalist - I do not believe in a young earth and I do not believe God ordered the slaughter of entire nations. And yet, at a "thematic" level, there seems to a remarkable internal harmony. For example, we have the "temple" from the Old Testament serving as the "intersection" point between heaven and earth and Christ replacing the temple and serving in this very same function.

Sure, and while this is another subjective experience of yours, I would point out that we can spend all day listing off famous works of english literature - from Shakespeare to T.S. Eliot to James Joyce, there are many works of writing out there with "remarkable internal harmony", beautiful symbolism, resonating character development, and so on.

A very bright friend of mine (a hardcore atheist) finds the Christian "story" to be almost irrestistably compelling - he would probably agree with much of what I have written above. He says that "he would dearly love to believe it, if only he could be convinced it were not a big fairy tale". He would love to live forever, he agrees that the Biblical story strikes a powerful chord with him, etc.

While I disagree with his desire to live forever, I can understand where he's coming from. ;)

For now, I will conclude by expressing my opinion that, perhaps in contradiction to what most Christians will say, the reality of God in the world is not at all obvious and is manifested in extra-ordinarily subtle ways. It is, in my experience anyway, by no means a self-evident truth, but I believe it to be true nonetheless.

Again, I have no desire to argue with your subjective experience.

However, I'd like to try and get back to the OP and ask you this directly: In your opinion, what do I gain from belief in god?

 

[JM]

On the topic of hell.....

I (and other Christians - some who contribute to these forums) have come to believe that the Scriptures in fact do not teach the existence of an eternal hell - the wages of sin is death, not eternal suffering.

From the 123 Christianforums statement of faith: We believe that heaven is a real place where the saved will dwell forever, and that hell is a literal place of torment where unbelievers will suffer forever.

 

[Drew]

On the topic of hell.....

I (and other Christians - some who contribute to these forums) have come to believe that the Scriptures in fact do not teach the existence of an eternal hell - the wages of sin is death, not eternal suffering.

From the 123 Christianforums statement of faith: We believe that heaven is a real place where the saved will dwell forever, and that hell is a literal place of torment where unbelievers will suffer forever.

Hi JM:

This issue has come up in the past. More specifically, a now-departed moderator argued that discussions of a non-eternal hell violated the TOS and I was asked to "get in line or get out".

I suspect that the following is actually the case: There is enough ambiguity about the eternality of hell to warrant allowing discussions of the topic.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the message that is sent when positions such as the "non eternal hell" position become banned topics of discussion (when their proponents have in no way badgered, harassed, or behaved inappropriately). The clear message is this: The doctrine of an eternal hell is so weakly supported by the Scriptures and / or other considerations, that the doctrine cannot survive rational debate and must be imposed by censoring competing doctrines.

I cannot imagine a more sure-fire way for non-believers to become convinced of the non-truth of the Christian world-view.

Having said this, I do not (yet anyway) understand you as invoking the "statement of faith" specifically in order to impose a ban on further arguments in support of a non-eternal hell.

 

[JM]

Having said this, I do not (yet anyway) understand you as invoking the "statement of faith" specifically in order to impose a ban on further arguments in support of a non-eternal hell.

I don't want to ban any posting at all or prevent you from posting in the Apologetics Forum, but I believe it's important to show that your views are not those held by the Church, expressed in the Creeds, and every major statement of faith by Christians.

http://creeds.net/

 

[Drew]

Having said this, I do not (yet anyway) understand you as invoking the "statement of faith" specifically in order to impose a ban on further arguments in support of a non-eternal hell.

I don't want to ban any posting at all or prevent you from posting in the Apologetics Forum, but I believe it's important to show that your views are not those held by the Church, expressed in the Creeds, and every major statement of faith by Christians.

http://creeds.net/

That's entirely reasonable and I thank you for allowing the topic to be discussed.

 

[DivineNames]

When was the last time you saw a Christian move a mountain, heal the sick, or raise the dead?

You'd be surprised... I sure was... but then you would ask for supporting medical evidence, and being as they were things I saw, I would have none other than my testimony.

Let me quote something from the Bible:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. (Mark 16:17-18 RSV)

Would you like to drink some poison as a demonstration of the truth of Christian faith?

 

[thessalonian]

Would you like to drink some poison as a demonstration of the truth of Christian faith?

Considering bwg believe in an eternal hell, I doudt he will think this is too good an idea. Your encouraging such things is rather sad. Do you truly take such matters as eternal destiny so lightly. Are you so sure that you are correct that you would encourage someone to take their life?

Very sad.

 

[Klee shay]

You see it has to do with authority. I was trying to use my own authority to reason with you about God's authority. The truth is however, I HAVE NO AUTHORITY when it comes to representing God.

I honestly don't understand why this is a problem. I have no "authority" either, I'm just going about things here as rationally and reasonably as I am capable. I'm sure you're doing the same; so what does "authority" have to do with anything? I merely seek to learn your opinion, and you're doing the same of me.

I suspect that we might be using different definitions of "authority". Can you explain yours in more detail?

In order to share the nature of God I have to use God's authority - not my own authority, otherwise I am demonstrating my nature and not God's. I'm sure I've probably done this more times than not, but I'm trying to avoid the temptation of using my "opinions" on God to represent him.

I am reliant on God's authority to represent himself according to his own word and actions.

Then he can do so. Why does this preclude you from discussing with me?

Well it doesn't preclude me from discussing it with you, but every time I try and use God's authority in discussing the subject matter, you bring it back to my authority. While we can debate the pros and cons all day long as it matters to this world, that will not bring you any closer to the reality of God in the next. You may have this life sewn up with a great set of ethics that pertain to mankind here, but what of the next life?

I've just stated that what I've been seeking - from you and from everyone else in this thread - are personal opinions. I really don't understand what you thought I was looking for if not personal opinions. As I stated in the OP...

Misguided perhaps, but I thought you were seeking God by involving the personal testimonies of other Christians. I wanted to point you towards God rather than just another man-made opinion on yet another religious subject.

"That said, I suppose I'll ask you, the forum readers, what you think. Why do I need a god?"

I think I said in my very first post, that I (probably no-one) can tell you why you need God. No-one can give you your faith based on their personal opinions of God, or their personal opinions on life or their personal philosophies in general, etc, etc.

What you are asking for is more man-made opinions with which you have the authority to debate. Will this help you understand why you need God though?

While you resist the authority of God you will never understand why you need him. And while you continue to debate with the authority of men, you will believe that your understanding is superior than all the Christians put together. By that I'm not saying you believe you are superior than any other human being - I believe you're more humble than that - just your understanding of God being "irrelevant" to mankind.

No, I admit that I do not understand why you feel your own opinion is fruitless.

Because I'm just another human being trying to convince you of my way of life, if I utilise my opinions on God. That is not fruitful to God. You will continue to find fault in my understanding and reiterate the fact God brings no benefit to you.

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. MARK 13:31. What then when I pass away - will my "opinions" on God remain - or will the Lord's words remain. What will be more fruitful to you and every generation after you? :wink:

 

[DivineNames]

Would you like to drink some poison as a demonstration of the truth of Christian faith?

Considering bwg believe in an eternal hell, I doudt he will think this is too good an idea. Your encouraging such things is rather sad. Do you truly take such matters as eternal destiny so lightly. Are you so sure that you are correct that you would encourage someone to take their life?

Very sad.

How am I encouraging someone to take their own life? Do you believe that the Bible is wrong?

 

[Drew]

Let me quote something from the Bible:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. (Mark 16:17-18 RSV)

Would you like to drink some poison as a demonstration of the truth of Christian faith?

While some find this question objectionable, I think it serves to underscore an important principle - interpretation of scripture needs to be done "hand in hand" with knowledge of what the real world of experience shows us.

Many Christians argue that we need to take the Scripture "at its plain literal reading". If so, then it would be true that no true believer could be poisoned through drink. Is anyone prepared to say that no Christian has been harmed through drink? I have no statistics, and in total fairness to the "literalist", one should indeed check. Perhaps there is evidence that believers are not poisoned by drink. Wouldn't it be remarkable if it were true?

But, sadly, I suspect that it is not.

I think that the part about laying on off hands is more clear - if it is to be taken at face value, we reach the remarkable conclusion that the laying on off hands will produce recovery. I am pretty sure that there are counterexamples - cases where people did not recover despite laying on of hands.

So what do we Christians do? I think we need to accept that words such as these cannot be taken literally - the evidence of life strongly shows otherwise. We could, as many do, maintain the doctrine that all Scripture is to be taken literally, while secretly living with the contradictory knowledge that not all recover when hands are laid.

Arise, ye Christians of integrity! Do not play such games. Given the facts of the world, accept that these words are probably metaphorical and do indeed teach us something important if not what they say literally - perhaps the general truth that the presence of a living God can play a real role in winning some of the battles of life - battles against depression, meaninglessness, loneliness. But do not take them as a guarantee of immunity to poison drink.

 

[Novum]

In order to share the nature of God I have to use God's authority - not my own authority, otherwise I am demonstrating my nature and not God's. I'm sure I've probably done this more times than not, but I'm trying to avoid the temptation of using my "opinions" on God to represent him.

I don't see how you possibly could represent God's nature for the simple reason that, well, you are not God. Again, I don't really see why this is a problem; given that all I've been doing is asking for your personal opinions and beliefs.

Well it doesn't preclude me from discussing it with you, but every time I try and use God's authority in discussing the subject matter, you bring it back to my authority.

I wasn't aware that you were using anyone's "authority" other than your own. I suppose I'm still not quite clear on the whole authority bit.

While we can debate the pros and cons all day long as it matters to this world, that will not bring you any closer to the reality of God in the next.

Then how can I possibly gain enough knowledge to convert to Christianity? How can anyone?

You may have this life sewn up with a great set of ethics that pertain to mankind here, but what of the next life?

I think you already know what I would say to this. ;)

Misguided perhaps, but I thought you were seeking God by involving the personal testimonies of other Christians. I wanted to point you towards God rather than just another man-made opinion on yet another religious.

Yet as we've shown before, your god does not seem to desire to contact me right now. Fair enough; if he exists and is who the bible says he is, he certainly can decide when to contact me on his own time. But until then, I have no other means of learning about your god except from the personal testimonies of others.

I think I said in my very first post, that I (probably no-one) can tell you why you need God. No-one can give you your faith based on their personal opinions of God, or their personal opinions on life or their personal philosophies in general, etc, etc.

Then I suppose only your god can do that. Yet he does not seem to care enough to contact me. How am I deserving of either heaven or hell, then?

What you are asking for is more man-made opinions with which you have the authority to debate. Will this help you understand why you need God though?

Yes. A number of people in this thread have listed a number of reasons why they believe they need god. For each of these reasons presented thus far, I have determined that I have other resources available to me that fulfill the same need. This leads me to conclude that either:

A) There exists at least one need that God can fulfill that I cannot on my own, but no one has yet suggested it, or
B) There does not exist such a need, and there is no reason for me to develop a belief in god

While you resist the authority of God you will never understand why you need him. And while you continue to debate with the authority of men, you will believe that your understanding is superior than all the Christians put together. By that I'm not saying you believe you are superior than any other human being - I believe you're more humble than that - just your understanding of God being "irrelevant" to mankind.

I am being as forthright and honest as I can. And I certainly mean no offense to you or anyone else, but based on what I've read thus far in this thread, your god (and gods in general) do appear to be irrelevant for me.

Because I'm just another human being trying to convince you of my way of life, if I utilise my opinions on God. That is not fruitful to God. You will continue to find fault in my understanding and reiterate the fact God brings no benefit to you.

Perhaps. But is this an issue with you personally, or an issue with the concept of god as a whole?

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.MARK 13:31. What then when I pass away - will my "opinions" on God remain - or will the Lord's words remain. What will be more fruitful to you and every generation after you? :wink:

Again, I have a feeling you already know what I would say to this. ;)

 

[gingercat]

Novum,

Have you read the whole Bible?

 

[Novum]

Novum,

Have you read the whole Bible?

No, but I've read most of it. I've been meaning to finish my reading, though I have yet to find the time to do so. Rest assured it's on the agenda. ;)

 

[gingercat]

Novum,

Have you read the whole Bible?

No, but I've read most of it. I've been meaning to finish my reading, though I have yet to find the time to do so. Rest assured it's on the agenda. ;)

I am sure you will be facinated by it :D