Why god?

[Novum]

Yet as you recognize, God is omnipotent - so he could easily give us our medicine without the pain or fear of a shot. ;)

We will have pain free, suffering free life in second time with God. This first time life is trial for God's kingdom. If we trust Him we will get to live in paradise.

I guess you've not been reading this thread, ginger, because that's just the issue. Your concept of "paradise" in heaven is simply not attractive to myself or, I would wager, billions of others.

 

[Drew]

Yet as you recognize, God is omnipotent - so he could easily give us our medicine without the pain or fear of a shot. ;)

I am not sure that this is possible even for God. I think that we may all, believers and non-believers alike, somehow think that God (if He exists) can do anything at all. I am not sure that this is the case. My intuition tells me that even God's hands may be tied.

Although I have not thought this out at all, I would say that even if God has created the "best of all possible worlds", it may not even be possible, even in principle, for such a world to be free of suffering. Perhaps in some logically necessary sense, suffering is a necessary by-product of creating such a world.

I just think that we should be open to the possibility that God simply cannot create the idealized world that we dream of - perhaps there are "trade-offs" that must be made, even for God. I think that we all may have a naive, unexplored commitment to the idea that we can have joy without suffering. Perhaps this is fundamentally not possible.

 

[Novum]

Yes, it certainly is possible that a world without suffering cannot exist. However, I cannot see how it would be empirically possible to determine whether or not this is the case.

 

[ArtGuy]

Although I have not thought this out at all, I would say that even if God has created the "best of all possible worlds", it may not even be possible, even in principle, for such a world to be free of suffering. Perhaps in some logically necessary sense, suffering is a necessary by-product of creating such a world.

I think this is a very likely possibility. Happiness exists in tandem with unhappiness, and in fact depends on its existence, just as with the ideas of light and dark, big and small. We comprehend joy by virtue of our understanding of pain. The greater our concept of pain, the greater our appreciation of joy.

To illustrate this phenomenon, I'll appeal to a show I recently saw: My Super Sweet 16. It's a show in which ridiculously spoiled children are given ridiculously extravagent parties. It makes you want to punch them, and throttle their parents. However, it shows what I'm talking about. The episode I watched had a girl who was extremely upset because her party, which cost tens of thousands of dollars, to which she arrived in a horse-drawn buggy, for which she had flown to Paris to purchase a dress, and at which she was presented with a $60,000 SUV as a present, did not have Snoop Dogg as the musical guest. Instead, she got a different musician who had merely written a song just for her. Her happiness/sadness spectrum is so skewed that abject misery for her is not having Snoop Dogg rap at her.

Yes, yes, she's a hopelessly shallow brat who has a twisted sense of priority. Still, happiness is completely relative for her, as it is for all of us. Someone who's starving would be overjoyed to get a package of ramen for dinner, while I think ramen is pretty boring. One man's joy is another man's sorrow.

I suspect that if we were born into bliss, and knew nothing but bliss, bliss would be pretty pedestrian for us. It's our ability to contrast our happiness with the great suffering in the world that gives our happiness meaning. God knows this, and I believe this is why our world is one of pain and anguish. It's so that, when we at last attain everlasting life in heaven, and are granted ultimate joy, it'll mean something to us. We'll get it. Our appreciation of paradise is contingent upon our understanding of the comparative hell on earth in which we live.

 

[Novum]

I suspect that if we were born into bliss, and knew nothing but bliss, bliss would be pretty pedestrian for us. It's our ability to contrast our happiness with the great suffering in the world that gives our happiness meaning.

Yet God, being omnipotent and all, ought to be able to construct a universe in which there was no suffering but happiness still had meaning and was not pedestrian.

God knows this, and I believe this is why our world is one of pain and anguish.

Then let's accept, for now, that pain and suffering are necessary in this world. But why isn't the pain and suffering minimized?

For example, let's suppose that X children under the age of 5 have died in Africa from starvation in the past year. Why was it not the case that X - 1 died, or X - 1000, or X - 1000000? Why does your god draw the line where he does, when there is so much unnecessary suffering?

It's so that, when we at last attain everlasting life in heaven, and are granted ultimate joy, it'll mean something to us. We'll get it.

I don't know about you, but if I could have it arranged such that there was no suffering in this world and, as a result, I wouldn't "get it" in heaven, I would do so in a heartbeat. To be able to prevent that level of pain and suffering by making such a comparatively small sacrifice on my part is incredibly attactive. I can't see why any rational being wouldn't make such a sacrifice.

 

[ArtGuy]

Yet God, being omnipotent and all, ought to be able to construct a universe in which there was no suffering but happiness still had meaning and was not pedestrian.

If happiness and sadness are simply two points along the same spectrum, and the one can only be made sense of in relation the other, then the two become inseparable. Should an omnipotent God be able to construct a universe in which everything is big, and nothing is small? The point I was getting as is that "happiness" is not an absolute concept, but a relative one. I see no reason why even an omnipotent God should be able to violate basic rules of logic and definition. You may as well criticize him for not making A = !A.

Then let's accept, for now, that pain and suffering are necessary in this world. But why isn't the pain and suffering minimized?

Who's to say it isn't?

For example, let's suppose that X children under the age of 5 have died in Africa from starvation in the past year. Why was it not the case that X - 1 died, or X - 1000, or X - 1000000? Why does your god draw the line where he does, when there is so much unnecessary suffering?

Why was it not the case that X+1 died, or X+1000, or X+1000000? Your logic cuts both ways.

I don't know about you, but if I could have it arranged such that there was no suffering in this world and, as a result, I wouldn't "get it" in heaven, I would do so in a heartbeat. To be able to prevent that level of pain and suffering by making such a comparatively small sacrifice on my part is incredibly attactive.

Really? Would you give up the opportunity of ever being in love so as to avoid the pain associated with heartbreak? Would you never eat anything other than white bread, forgoing so many wonderful types of food, in order to avoid the prospect of ever having to eat something that tasted bad?

I would think that even a long life of suffering would be a sufficient price to pay to be able to fully appreciate an eternity of bliss.

I can't see why any rational being wouldn't make such a sacrifice.

Funny. I can't see why any rational being would. ;)

 

[Novum]

I see no reason why even an omnipotent God should be able to violate basic rules of logic and definition. You may as well criticize him for not making A = !A.

That is another discussion entirely - whether or not God is "bound" by the laws of logic. Some Christians maintain he is, others argue that he is not, while still others find the question to be meaningless.

[quote:22b5f]Then let's accept, for now, that pain and suffering are necessary in this world. But why isn't the pain and suffering minimized?

Who's to say it isn't?[/quote:22b5f]

A better question would be: How could we tell if it is?

[quote:22b5f]For example, let's suppose that X children under the age of 5 have died in Africa from starvation in the past year. Why was it not the case that X - 1 died, or X - 1000, or X - 1000000? Why does your god draw the line where he does, when there is so much unnecessary suffering?

Why was it not the case that X+1 died, or X+1000, or X+1000000? Your logic cuts both ways.[/quote:22b5f]

It certainly is possible. Yet just as it is easy to see that one more person could have died, it is also easy to see that one less person could have died. As I stated above, a better question would be: How could we tell if a given amount of suffering is unnecessary?

Really? Would you give up the opportunity of ever being in love so as to avoid the pain associated with heartbreak?

No, but this is not analogous to my question.

Would you never eat anything other than white bread, forgoing so many wonderful types of food, in order to avoid the prospect of ever having to eat something that tasted bad?

No, nor is this analogous to my question.

I would think that even a long life of suffering would be a sufficient price to pay to be able to fully appreciate an eternity of bliss.

I can't begin to answer this question as it presupposes the belief in an afterlife.

 

[DivineNames]

I am not in any way opposed to opening up the Scriptures to falsification. I have several times stated my belief that there are indeed errors in the Scriptures. I do not, for example, believe that God actually ordered the slaughter of entire peoples as the OT clearly says He did.

So, please do not try to paint me as someone who is trying to "rig the game" so that the Bible cannot be subject to falsification. I am doing nothing of the sort.

I wasn't responding to what you have said in the past. I was responding to the particular post, and it did look suspiciously like a "no falsification" position to me. You say that wasn't your intention. OK.

I am merely saying that when language is arguably metaphorical (as I think it is in the passage you have quoted) and the empirical evidence suggests that a literal reading is incorrect, it is not intellectually dishonest to posit that the text is still "God's inspired word" and yet must be taken metaphorically, if a reasonable metaphorical interpretation can be made.

What you have said here, seems to be a little different to what you previously said. Let me quote you-

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....

Arise, ye Christians of integrity! Do not play such games. Given the facts of the world, accept that these words are probably metaphorical

"I think we need to accept that words such as these cannot be taken literally - the evidence of life strongly shows otherwise"

You seemed to be trying to argue from an empirical basis to what the Bible must be saying. (Or is likely saying.) And such argument seemed to involve an assumption that the Bible can't be wrong. How would it be logical otherwise?

Also, in that quote, you seem to claim that the words are, "probably metaphorical". Are you sure that there is a justification to say that the words are probably metaphorical?

 

[DivineNames]

And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 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." So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen. (Mark 16:15-20 RSV)

Let us take the first example–

"in my name they will cast out demons"

I imagine that you could give a metaphorical meaning to this, but it is difficult to see that it would be a plausible interpretation. The reason is that the Bible talks about exorcism in places and it always seems to be intended literally. And we can say the same about speaking in tongues, and about spiritual healing. There is no indication, that I can see, that they are intended to be understood in a metaphorical way. So why, when it mentions drinking poison, would we think it metaphorical?

But lets imagine it actually was intended in some metaphorical way. People could have died from taking it literally! Should we blame the Bible God for any deaths? If you are going to say something like that as a metaphor, I think you need to make it very clear that it's intended as such.

 

[Drew]

Hello DivineNames:

You raise some important questions and I do not have the time to get into them right now. I hope to return to them later. Just as a teaser, I will propose that both believers and non-believers have a naive and unsophisticated way to approach the Scriptures. The fundamentalists have taken a position so extreme, and in my opinion so obviously wrong, that the non-believers are focused on responding to that view, and we all have left other positions unexplored.

In the spirit of the above, I will say the following: If someone asked Jesus whether the world was flat, He would have replied "yes". Jesus was not omniscient in the "normal" sense of the word. Many Christians have, in my view, misunderstood the nature of Christ's knowledge of the world and, understandably, non-believers have responded to that incorrect picture.

 

[ArtGuy]

I would think that even a long life of suffering would be a sufficient price to pay to be able to fully appreciate an eternity of bliss.

I can't begin to answer this question as it presupposes the belief in an afterlife.

I think this is the focus of your problem, Novum. You're trying to make sense of the concept of suffering while refusing to accept the possibility of an afterlife. Yes, if there was no afterlife, then the suffering we see wouldn't be worth it. However, for one who believes there is an afterlife, and that all of the suffering in the world is merely a temporary thing, to be followed by everlasting happiness, it is worth it. You can't divorce the notions of suffering and eternal reward without the whole thing becoming an irrational act of cruelty on the part of a malicious God.

 

[Novum]

I think this is the focus of your problem, Novum. You're trying to make sense of the concept of suffering while refusing to accept the possibility of an afterlife.

I disagree. I certainly accept that an afterlife is possible; whether there is any evidence for an afterlife is another debate. However, I don't think that this is the issue.

My main issue is that I do not believe suffering is made acceptable merely by the existence of an afterlife. You claim that things like starvation, murder, leprosy, AIDS, and other conditions are somehow redeemed by an afterlife. I have difficulty identifying with this thinking; in my view, there is no excuse for suffering and evil when an omnipotent god exists. Regardless of whether or not an afterlife exists, suffering should still be minimized and, if possible, eliminated.

Yes, if there was no afterlife, then the suffering we see wouldn't be worth it.

Worth it? To whom? I'm not quite sure what you mean here

However, for one who believes there is an afterlife, and that all of the suffering in the world is merely a temporary thing, to be followed by everlasting happiness, it is worth it.

Then why do churches organize charities with the express purpose of aiding suffering peoples in third world countries, if suffering is merely temporary? After all, if everlasting happiness is coming, who cares how many people wither away from starvation?

You can't divorce the notions of suffering and eternal reward without the whole thing becoming an irrational act of cruelty on the part of a malicious God.

Indeed. As I've posted elsewhere in this forum, it certainly seems to me like this world we live in is much more likely the product of an evil or apathetic god than a good god.

 

[Klee shay]

Whoops! Double post. Check it out underneath.

 

[Klee shay]

Been a while, sorry, I'm undergoing some major scriptural study at the moment. I'll reply to your post in red, if that's okay. :D

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.

I am not God, you are correct, but I can represent him through His word contained in the bible. That is why I'm doing some study into the scriptures at the moment. I figured I've got my heart in the right place - I believe - but what exactly in God's word do I believe?

My personal opinion of God, while relevant to my experience is not much of an authority on God as he exists in the OT or what Jesus revealed in the NT.

I wonder if you perceive God according to what is written in the bible, or by your relative experience in His world? If you perceive Him by the latter, then your guess is as good as mine as to whether the God you suppose exists or not is relevant to you or not.

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.

I apologise if I've confused you. It never helps in a discussion if the issues aren't clear. I've tried to explain what I meant by authority and it's the best I can do for now. If I can reword it another way with more clarity, I'll try.

All I can add at this point is there is a big difference between what limited knowledge I have of God and God himself. The more you look for Him in the scriptures without any pre-conceived ideas beforehand; the clearer his agenda is. It's generally one of benefit for mankind; but that's just my opinion, LOL. :wink:

[quote:b1b40]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?

PETER 2:2-3 ..."As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."

The milk of the word is found in the bible. If I can urge you to start anywhere, it would be there.

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. ;)

LUKE 18:17 ..."Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

Don't think that I have quoted this as a pious threat, for I'm still trying to learn the exact meaning of it myself. Does it mean humble like a child, or innocent like a child...trusting, obedient...or all of the above?

The important thing however is to see it as an invitation to life and at least try to receive it. Can I ask you Novum, what harm it will cause you personally to believe this scripture to be true?

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.

What you will receive from the personal testimonies of others is relevant to the individuals who are seeking God for themselves. Do you want others to prescribe you an exact formula that will convert you immediately? I think we both know that is not the case because you're not that gullible. :wink: So if you are not seeking God for yourself then no-one can deliver him to you either.

The will has to come from you first. Which is to say the desire to repent of your own understanding and seek God's instead.

A good way to start is by reading the bible without any preconceived ideas of God. I may have had the ability to "feel" God in my life where you have not experienced the same - but I can tell you that I had no real idea of who God was either, until I started to read the bible. I've read it several times now and there are some chapters I haven't taken very seriously until recently.

So if its a challenge for me as a "believer" to discover who exactly God is, how much more challenging for a non-believer? You have to get over that first hurdle if you are to reach the second of understanding Him.

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?

God has inspired a whole book of scripture which you can pick up at any time; to learn how to contact God for yourself. Given your history which you've described before, this prospect wouldn't be very appealing to you. I mean how many scriptures did you read and recite at your religious school? Too many to remember hey, and all as meaningless as the next.

Because you were forced to read and recite all manner of things pertaining to God, without actually understanding why or who God was, you've rebelled as a result and gone the other way. Which is fine, it happens when you don't know why you're doing something that you're forced to do. Though I must question if you've actually rebelled against God or the man-made supposition that you HAVE TO believe.

No-one is forcing you to believe. No one is shoving the bible in your face again, forcing you to "get religion". What is being encouraged however, is that you pick up the bible of your own accord (when YOU are ready) to seek the real authority you question.

If you seek mankind's authority on God you will receive mankind's knowledge on God - which is very limited. But if you seek God's authority you will receive God's knowledge.

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

"A" is for "Answers" and I hope I've encouraged you to find them in the right direction.

No-one can suggest what you need where only God knows it and how to deliver it. To hear him you need to believe in him and this requires repentence to what you "think" you understand about 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.

If you weren't honest then this discussion would be pointless, LOL, so I'm sure we all appreciate your honesty. I hope you don't feel like I am implying that your honesty is somehow disgraced because it doesn't line up with what Christians believe. You would be surprised how many Christians get their own beliefs in God wrong (myself included) so why would your sentiments be any more heinous?

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?

Both. It's an issue for me because I've given my life to God and I want to represent His nature more than my own. Otherwise I've just put on the cloak of God while not giving him my life at all. So it's an issue for me that I represnt Him as he represented himself.

But it's also an issue with the concept of God as a whole, because without one unified voice of who God is - as represented in the Scriptures - then it gives atheists more reason to doubt because there are so many different versions of Him out there. I mean, which one do you choose?

The best place to start is with the words of Jesus, the Son of God; the word made flesh. He "alone" gave the perfect version of God's will.

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. ;)

I know what your feelings are :wink: but what do you KNOW to be more fruitful for every generation?

God knows and for this reason he sent his Son to represent him once and for all. He is the God of Abraham, of Issac and of Jacob...

When we pass away Novum, will the world remember what we stood for? The difference between you and me...and Abraham, Issac and Jacob is they did the will of God and were aligned with His glory. :D[/quote:b1b40]

 

[DivineNames]

without one unified voice of who God is - as represented in the Scriptures - then it gives atheists more reason to doubt because there are so many different versions of Him out there. I mean, which one do you choose?

The best place to start is with the words of Jesus, the Son of God; the word made flesh. He "alone" gave the perfect version of God's will.

One unified voice of who God is?

In the Old Testament, you have a God who gives a set of commands to be followed by a certain group of people. And that God happens to be ultra strict about the keeping of those commands. The law is said to be perfect (Psalm 19:7).

But in the New Testament the "perfect" law of God gets dumped. (Or " fulfilled" if you like...) Now the case made that God wanted his law dumped seems to be very much based on a non-literal interpretation of the Old Testament, so there is no solid basis for the claim. The New Testament completely goes against the Old Testament and we have nothing concrete to support this alleged shift in divine policy.

 

[Klee shay]

without one unified voice of who God is - as represented in the Scriptures - then it gives atheists more reason to doubt because there are so many different versions of Him out there. I mean, which one do you choose?

The best place to start is with the words of Jesus, the Son of God; the word made flesh. He "alone" gave the perfect version of God's will.

One unified voice of who God is?

In the Old Testament, you have a God who gives a set of commands to be followed by a certain group of people. And that God happens to be ultra strict about the keeping of those commands. The law is said to be perfect (Psalm 19:7).

But in the New Testament the "perfect" law of God gets dumped. (Or " fulfilled" if you like...) Now the case made that God wanted his law dumped seems to be very much based on a non-literal interpretation of the Old Testament, so there is no solid basis for the claim. The New Testament completely goes against the Old Testament and we have nothing concrete to support this alleged shift in divine policy.

You have proven my point. :wink:

Does the NT go against the OT if interpreted through what Jesus spoke, rather than what various men attributed to being the Jesus persona?

Jesus is the NT, the rest is just commentary from various men who were effected by this man's life, death and resurrection. Whether Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or Paul - we should take it as commentary but look for the will of God through them. The consistent will of God that is.

For God is consistent...he does not change. If he is revealed in the OT then he will also be in the NT thanks to the one who fulfilled the Law - His Son, Jesus.

Rather than pit the NT against the OT according to the acts of men, we should look for the consistent will of God - the very reason we believe. Is that consistent with the Law and the Commandments; of course it is. Which is why I am doing more study into the scriptures for where God speaks, rather than interpret it through the ideology I received from mankind's religious commentary.

I am in the process of discovering that one voice "God" used consistently throughout the OT and the NT; so at this point I cannot agree nor disagree with your sentiments. Until I know more, it's best I remain silent to avoid adding to the confusion more.

One thing I don't like to see however is discrediting any part of the bible as false. While it may be true there are some misguided testimonies in the NT by mankind; our Lord Jesus Christ is not one of those false testimonies.

For this reason I'll highlight the parable of the Sower and of the Seed. When it was found tares had grown up with the wheat the Sower's servants asked if they should gather up the tares, but he said: "Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest:" Matthew 13:29-30

Imagine the bible is the good soil and God planted the good seed; and then came the enemy under darkness to plant his own seed amongst the wheat. As God's servants have we been given the authority to uproot the tares from the good soil before the harvest, or were we instructed to let them be for the sake of the wheat?

It is good that we study scripture to know the one true voice of God so that we can represent it truthfully; but whether tare of wheat the bible is still the good soil and should not be plucked before the harvest.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from at this point in my walk?

 

[Novum]

Been a while, sorry, I'm undergoing some major scriptural study at the moment. I'll reply to

your post in red, if that's okay. :D

No problem. This is just an internet forum; like anything else on the internet, real life should always come first.

I wonder if you perceive God according to what is written in the bible, or by your relative experience in His world? If you perceive Him by the latter, then your guess is as good as mine as to whether the God you suppose exists or not is relevant to you or not.

I suppose both, to an extent. I've tried to supplement my reading of the bible with what science combined with my own experiences in the real world tell me.

I apologise if I've confused you. It never helps in a discussion if the issues aren't clear. I've tried to explain what I meant by authority and it's the best I can do for now. If I can reword it another way with more clarity, I'll try.

All I can add at this point is there is a big difference between what limited knowledge I have of God and God himself. The more you look for Him in the scriptures without any pre-conceived ideas beforehand; the clearer his agenda is. It's generally one of benefit for mankind; but that's just my opinion, LOL :wink:

Fair enough, I understand what you're coming from. Though, in my defense, I do try to read the bible as objectively as possible.

PETER 2:2-3 ..."As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."

The milk of the word is found in the bible. If I can urge you to start anywhere, it would be there.

I think we've been here before. ;)

LUKE 18:17 ..."Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a

little child shall in no wise enter therein."

Don't think that I have quoted this as a pious threat, for I'm still trying to learn the exact meaning of it myself. Does it mean humble like a child, or innocent like a child...trusting, obedient...or all of the above?

The important thing however is to see it as an invitation to life and at least try to receive it. Can I ask you Novum, what harm it will cause you personally to believe this scripture to be true?

The same harm that comes with accepting any scripture as true and the same harm that comes with accepting anything in this world as true. I'm a skeptic; I want to be darned certain that what I accept as true actually is true, to the best of my ability to do so. I view it as intellectually dishonest to accept claims without evidence; in this respect, the claims of the bible are exactly the same as the claims of the used car salesman.

What you will receive from the personal testimonies of others is relevant to the individuals who are seeking God for themselves. Do you want others to prescribe you an exact formula that will convert you immediately? I think we both know that is not the case because you're not that gullible. :wink: So if you are not seeking God for yourself then no-one can deliver him to you either.

And there's my issue. I cannot, for obvious reasons, follow a prescribed formula that would lead me to belief in god; I must seek him for myself. Yet, as this thread has demonstrated, I have completely failed thus far to find a reason why I ought to seek him for myself in the first place.

The will has to come from you first. Which is to say the desire to repent of your own understanding and seek God's instead.

And as I've been saying, I have not yet found a reason to develop a will to find any god in the first place. Why should I repent of my own understanding, when it has served me well so far?

God has inspired a whole book of scripture which you can pick up at any time; to learn how to contact God for yourself. Given your history which you've described before, this prospect wouldn't be very appealing to you. I mean how many scriptures did you read and recite at your religious school? Too many to remember hey, and all as meaningless as the next.

Because you were forced to read and recite all manner of things pertaining to God, without actually understanding why or who God was, you've rebelled as a result and gone the other way. Which is fine, it happens when you don't know why you're doing something that you're forced to do. Though I must question if you've actually rebelled against God or the man-made supposition that you HAVE TO believe.

I'm a bit uncomfortable about your use of the word "rebel", but otherwise, this is probably fairly accurate.

No-one is forcing you to believe. No one is shoving the bible in your face again, forcing you to "get religion". What is being encouraged however, is that you pick up the bible of your own accord (when YOU are ready) to seek the real authority you question.

But why should I pick up the bible? What do I gain from believing in god or devoting my life to a religion? Why shouldn't I pick up the Koran instead?

No-one can suggest what you need where only God knows it and how to deliver it. To hear him you need to believe in him and this requires repentence to what you "think" you understand about God.

And there's the problem.

1. I cannot hear God without believing in him.
2. I cannot believe in God without repenting.
3. Due to my nature as a skeptic, I cannot repent without a reason to do so, namely, some sign from God that he exists and I should repent.
4. But I cannot hear any signs from God without believing in him first.

The circle repeats; I get nowhere. This is the root of my problem.

But it's also an issue with the concept of God as a whole, because without one unified voice of who God is - as represented in the Scriptures - then it gives atheists more reason to doubt because there are so many different versions of Him out there. I mean, which one do you choose?

The best place to start is with the words of Jesus, the Son of God; the word made flesh. He "alone" gave the perfect version of God's will.

Which version of the words of Jesus? The KJV? The NIV? The Catholic version, the Southern Baptist version?

[quote:6726a][quote:6726a]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. ;) [/quote:6726a]
I know what your feelings are :wink: but what do you KNOW to be more fruitful for every generation?[/quote:6726a]

Given my status as an agnostic atheist, I believe that just about anything would be more fruitful than the words of a god I do not believe exists. That includes opinions, and that is what I must conclude.

 

[Klee shay]

Bless you Novum. :D For all our tooing and frowing on "religion", you really are a humble individual desiring to seek the truth. And this is why I know you will find it eventually.

I wonder if you perceive God according to what is written in the bible, or by your relative experience in His world? If you perceive Him by the latter, then your guess is as good as mine as to whether the God you suppose exists or not is relevant to you or not.

I suppose both, to an extent. I've tried to supplement my reading of the bible with what science combined with my own experiences in the real world tell me.

Good on you for including the bible! For all the options you are exercising your free will with, it shows a wise mind to include even the things you doubt.

Fair enough, I understand what you're coming from. Though, in my defense, I do try to read the bible as objectively as possible.

Quite rightly. We are only as objective as we are capable of being at any given time.

PETER 2:2-3 ..."As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."

The milk of the word is found in the bible. If I can urge you to start anywhere, it would be there.

I think we've been here before. ;)

Persistent, aren't I? :-D

The same harm that comes with accepting any scripture as true and the same harm that comes with accepting anything in this world as true. I'm a skeptic; I want to be darned certain that what I accept as true actually is true, to the best of my ability to do so. I view it as intellectually dishonest to accept claims without evidence; in this respect, the claims of the bible are exactly the same as the claims of the used car salesman.

So you feel it harms your sense of ethical standards? I honestly can't say I blame you.

For there are many car salesmen out there unfortunately, peddling religion like it is God Himself. The only evidence they show of this God is that if you can't find him then you need more of their religion, LOL.

You are right to be skeptical of the used car salesmen. Even Jesus said in Matthew 24:4-5..."Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ: and shall deceive many."

So you will find the Son of God agrees with you on that one. :wink: Perhaps there is more in common you both share?

And there's my issue. I cannot, for obvious reasons, follow a prescribed formula that would lead me to belief in god; I must seek him for myself.

A wise move. :D

Yet, as this thread has demonstrated, I have completely failed thus far to find a reason why I ought to seek him for myself in the first place.

Failed? :-?

Failure is for quitters and from what I've seen of you in this thread Novum, you don't quit very easily. :

And as I've been saying, I have not yet found a reason to develop a will to find any god in the first place. Why should I repent of my own understanding, when it has served me well so far?

Many scientists took a leap of faith on a theory first, before they could develop the supporting evidence. If they didn't imagine and dream it was possible in the first place, would we have anywhere near the knowledge we do today?

I'm a bit uncomfortable about your use of the word "rebel", but otherwise, this is probably fairly accurate.

Rest assured there is nothing negative meant by the term "rebelled". I only used it to describe your reaction to religion (verb) rather than a label of you personally (noun).

But why should I pick up the bible? What do I gain from believing in god or devoting my life to a religion? Why shouldn't I pick up the Koran instead?

That is for your own conscience to decide. I wish I could give you more than that but ulimately which direction you choose is up to you.

And there's the problem.

1. I cannot hear God without believing in him.
2. I cannot believe in God without repenting.
3. Due to my nature as a skeptic, I cannot repent without a reason to do so, namely, some sign from God that he exists and I should repent.
4. But I cannot hear any signs from God without believing in him first.

The circle repeats; I get nowhere. This is the root of my problem.

And yet you're still here...is the problem that great it cannot be overcome? The free will you have is your's to exercise and you'll never lose that ability.

Just because I believe in God doesn't make me a slave or a robot. I just decided to align my will with His because frankly, His will always works better than mine. Doesn't mean I didn't choose to exercise my will against His before then however. I still haven't lost the ability to exercise my free will. :wink:

Which version of the words of Jesus? The KJV? The NIV? The Catholic version, the Southern Baptist version?

I personally use the KJV, doesn't mean you have to use that particular version yourself. I've heard that the hebrew bible is supposed to be the most accurate because it's the least changed scripture of all of them.

Given my status as an agnostic atheist, I believe that just about anything would be more fruitful than the words of a god I do not believe exists. That includes opinions, and that is what I must conclude.

Conclusions are so final but I know as a true skeptic, you won't stop questioning. :wink:

 

[DivineNames]

Does the NT go against the OT if interpreted through what Jesus spoke, rather than what various men attributed to being the Jesus persona?

Could you expand on this? I am not really sure what you are trying to say.

For God is consistent...he does not change. If he is revealed in the OT then he will also be in the NT thanks to the one who fulfilled the Law - His Son, Jesus.

Not necessarily. God could be revealed in the Old Testament but not the New Testament.

Rather than pit the NT against the OT according to the acts of men, we should look for the consistent will of God - the very reason we believe.

It is not clear to me what you are trying to say here.

I am in the process of discovering that one voice "God" used consistently throughout the OT and the NT

If you are in a process of discovery, then how can you be so sure that there is one consistent voice of God to be found throughout scripture?

One thing I don't like to see however is discrediting any part of the bible as false. While it may be true there are some misguided testimonies in the NT by mankind; our Lord Jesus Christ is not one of those false testimonies.

So it may be true that there are "misguided testimonies" in the New Testament? Are you not saying that parts of the Bible may be false?

I can certainly agree (in part) that Jesus hasn't given a false testimony in the New Testament, because Jesus didn't write any of the books. (Setting aside the issue of divine inspiration.) But obviously what Jesus is quoted as saying (whether or not his genuine words) could be false.

By the way, if you believe there could be "misguided testimonies" in the New Testament, then how can you be sure what Jesus did or didn't say?

Imagine the bible is the good soil and God planted the good seed; and then came the enemy under darkness to plant his own seed amongst the wheat.

What are you saying exactly? That parts of the Bible come from the devil?

 

[ArtGuy]

My main issue is that I do not believe suffering is made acceptable merely by the existence of an afterlife. You claim that things like starvation, murder, leprosy, AIDS, and other conditions are somehow redeemed by an afterlife. I have difficulty identifying with this thinking; in my view, there is no excuse for suffering and evil when an omnipotent god exists. Regardless of whether or not an afterlife exists, suffering should still be minimized and, if possible, eliminated.

The degree to which suffering is acceptable or not is determined by the rewards that are realized as a result. I sometimes let my daughter fall on her butt, because she'll learn to be more careful, and this knowledge will be very valuable to her in the future. She suffers a small degree of discomfort now so that she can reap much greater rewards in the future.

Now, realize that when we talk about the afterlife, we talk about nigh-unlimited bliss, such that just about any suffering that a mortal man might comprehend is insignificant in comparison. Calling God cruel for requiring suffering in exchange for eternal happiness is like calling a parent cruel for sometimes letting his child fall down and hurt himself in order to teach the child a lesson about caution and independence.

Of course, this presupposes that the suffering we see is a necessary prerequisite for eternal happiness. Why would this be the case? Well, I can think of a few reasons. One might be that in allowing suffering, God gives us a means to test and improve ourselves. A world devoid of suffering would be a world devoid of compassion, sacrifice, and many other of the most noble human traits. What's the point of giving something up to aid another when nobody lacks for anything? Another reason might simply be a biproduct of a universe where there exists free will, and in which imperfect people are left to live their lives. Free will allows people to choose to commit acts of evil. Imperfection denies people the ability to unerringly avoid such mishaps as natural disasters. God could've created a race of robots programmed to only do good and never make mistakes, but what would be the point of such creatures?

Yes, if there was no afterlife, then the suffering we see wouldn't be worth it.

Worth it? To whom? I'm not quite sure what you mean here[/quote]

Suffering is only of value when it results in a net benefit, be it a tangible reward, increased wisdom, and so on. If someone suffers and dies and reaps no reward, then the suffering was not "worth it".

Then why do churches organize charities with the express purpose of aiding suffering peoples in third world countries, if suffering is merely temporary? After all, if everlasting happiness is coming, who cares how many people wither away from starvation?

Because caring people will seek to minimize the suffering of others? Given that we don't know exactly why God created the universe as He did, it would be unkind to write off the anguish of others as simply the "will of God". We were created to exhibit compassion, and we're encouraged by God to do so.

Indeed. As I've posted elsewhere in this forum, it certainly seems to me like this world we live in is much more likely the product of an evil or apathetic god than a good god.

If God is evil, he's certainly incompetent. I could imagine a much more evil existence without even really trying. I don't really think it's rational to look at all the happiness in the world and suppose that God is evil.