Research on Belief in God

[hrotha]

Why not?
This discussion is about what people believe. Why can't what I believe be just as true, as what you believe is true?

Because "The universe was created by God some 6000 years ago" and "The universe popped into existence some 14 billion years ago" aren't compatible.

 

[contessador]

Because "The universe was created by God some 6000 years ago" and "The universe popped into existence some 14 billion years ago" aren't compatible.

I respectfully disagree. The 6000 years ago creation story is not supportable without a dose of blind faith. But because humans came up with such a story does not mean there is not something truthful in it. The universe being 14 billion years old, give or take, holds more evidence, or at least to my mind, more evidence than the creation story but does not necessarily mean there is no God. The bible is a study in contradictions to my mind.

It is not important to understand it all perfectly or win an argument for the sake of winning. I lean toward believing an idea that God, the big bang, and evolution are somehow at work together and we have yet to discover the answers or put them down in words. I don't know. That is why I say I am agnostic, not atheist. I can't believe in a virgin birth, or take the creation story literally, but that does not rule out some truth in myths and legends entirely.

And I would not want to convert others to my opinion nor do I want to be forced to believe what someone else believes by faith. Why not just allow for choices and differences and mean it sincerely, not as just as a cliché.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

So much easier to belive if things like this happend on a regular basis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZWYCcIorDk

 

[hrotha]

I respectfully disagree. The 6000 years ago creation story is not supportable without a dose of blind faith. But because humans came up with such a story does not mean there is not something truthful in it. The universe being 14 billion years old, give or take, holds more evidence, or at least to my mind, more evidence than the creation story but does not necessarily mean there is no God. The bible is a study in contradictions to my mind.

It is not important to understand it all perfectly or win an argument for the sake of winning. I lean toward believing an idea that God, the big bang, and evolution are somehow at work together and we have yet to discover the answers or put them down in words. I don't know. That is why I say I am agnostic, not atheist. I can't believe in a virgin birth, or take the creation story literally, but that does not rule out some truth in myths and legends entirely.

And I would not want to convert others to my opinion nor do I want to be forced to believe what someone else believes by faith. Why not just allow for choices and differences and mean it sincerely, not as just as a cliché.

Bear in mind we're debating with a Bible literalist here. Those two statements regarding the age of the universe, when taken literally (as is the premise of this discussion), are incompatible.

 

[horsinabout]

But you don't show anyone respect with your willfully circumscribed, moralistic and judgmental worldview.

You have been a Nazi apologist (Priebke). You disdain modernity for its liberty (not in the false liberal sense), openness, tolerance and lack of dogma. You would prefer that society returned to the Middle Ages when the Church regime held society under a socio-religious tyranny. You claim that cultural liberalism is oppressive (how, one really doesn't know). Hard right means all of this, and the Catholic-fascism to which your sect belongs. You hypocritically preach a moral world view, when in fact you have none.

No, tollerance doesn't apply to the hard right, its ideology and the society it preaches. It is to be resisted, no more.

Where the views of Echoes expressed on this forum are extreme, and I suspect a marginalised worldview. It strikes me that you are entrenching Echoes further into his dogmatic position. Now this might be rich entertainment for the God and Religion thread, but changes absolutely nothing. Just a thought!

Well, you can study what type of morals humans or even animals seem to display. You can study how morals are influenced by sociological, psychological and biological factors. You can study what kind of a decision a person makes in a moral dillema and you can even study some aspects of why he makes that decision, but you can't study what decision he should make, in my opinion.

Animals do display morals, empathy for example, punishment another. They also show empathy to humans – inter species connections. As we are the more dominant species and have a more complex society than any animal, our morals have developed the need for religion, as that article I posted suggested. We still know through evolution, that morality is innate and primitive in origin.

Regarding your point about what moral action ‘should’ be taken. Is one for debate, or learnt through observation, experience and storytelling – which is a kind of study and not as inflexible as you imply. And for the betterment, as once something like “you should do” becomes an inflexible instruction, it can become dangerous. And why should morality be the firm responsibility of religion or the religious? It is religion that attempts to certify morality and claim full ownership. And the study of animals can be useful in showing how morality naturally works, which I suspect would include what “should not” be done. Rather than in human religions how morality can be inflexible and imposed, as in the case with “should” do or “shall” do.

 

[Christian]

Exactly.
Why can't there be different truths? Why can't everyone's* truth be, well... true?








* I'm drawing a line with people whose truth tells them to hurt other people.

"No matter how different the results, the conclusion must always stay the same... that's just science." - Stephen Colbert

 

[horsinabout]

Why not?
This discussion is about what people believe. Why can't what I believe be just as true, as what you believe is true?

What people believe is an interpretation and not the truth. Truth is not a version of events or your way of seeing something. Truth is truth and no one person or religion has ownership.

 

[rhubroma]

Where the views of Echoes expressed on this forum are extreme, and I suspect a marginalised worldview. It strikes me that you are entrenching Echoes further into his dogmatic position. Now this might be rich entertainment for the God and Religion thread, but changes absolutely nothing. Just a thought!

It isn't that I entrench anyone in their dogmatic worldview, they do that entirely themselves. I just call a spade a spade. Certain provocations simply demand a response, whereas those that show no compassion shall be conceded none.

As for the rest, I entirely stand by my views.

 

[Echoes]

Exactly.
Why can't there be different truths? Why can't everyone's* truth be, well... true?

With all respect, no. That's freemasonic. Some discussions in life are subjective in which every opinion is worth each other and others are objective, which means a matter of right or wrong.

History has shown that the universalist religions (Christianism, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.) work, while atheism and tribalist ideologies do not. All these doctrines and philosophies have concrete consequences for societies.

But telling them repeatedly that they are wrong can be tiresome?

It is tiresome. I'd love to have a healthy discussion on theology and history with people who know their stuff, but I guess that CN isn't a place where I can have it.

Yet when I am under attack, I can't help counter-attack. Perhaps I should let it go (it's a weakness, I know) but when I see atheist thinking history is on their side, it drives me wild. They 've kept re-writing it, with outrageous lies and slander !

 

[The Hitch]

Who would you save as an atheist or agnostic guy, another human being or a dog?

I'd save the human though with great sorrow for the dog.

But if I were a Christian isn't the dog the correct answer? The child goes to heaven anyway, in fact he gets an extra loads of years in heaven. I also take away from him the risk that he ****s up later and goes to hell.The dog meanwhile doesn't die. By saving the dog I save both no?

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

I'd save the human though with great sorrow for the dog.

But if I were a Christian isn't the dog the correct answer? The child goes to heaven anyway, in fact he gets an extra loads of years in heaven. I also take away from him the risk that he ****s up later and goes to hell.The dog meanwhile doesn't die. By saving the dog I save both no?

You have convinced me Hitch. See you guys later. I am going to the nearest hospital to kill infants, before it is to late and they start sinning.

 

[rhubroma]

I'd save the human though with great sorrow for the dog.

But if I were a Christian isn't the dog the correct answer? The child goes to heaven anyway, in fact he gets an extra loads of years in heaven. I also take away from him the risk that he ****s up later and goes to hell.The dog meanwhile doesn't die. By saving the dog I save both no?

When you logically think through it all, it makes me wonder what Luther would have said about the matter: that is in terms of the doctrine of predestination, and faith alone (sola fede) being the exclusive requirement for salvation (for those predestined, mind you). Thus would a child who is not predestined, but cut short in life, go to heaven because without sin? Or rather, if not predestined, would the child be damned to hell a priori for ineluctable sins thereby not committed? Or, if predestined, valued by god for what would in any case have been and thus saved? Or is (or was) predestination simply the result of a de facto state of innocence: quem di diligunt, adolescens moritur (“he whom the gods favor dies young”)? And how do we assess the role of faith in salvation in such cases. Is faith only a requirement of the righteous who live long enough to be held accountable for it? Conversely if someone wasn't predestined, but has faith, is that a useless masochism?

In light tof these considerations, would the person who saved the dog be considered a hero or a knave?

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

When you logically think through it all, it makes me wonder what Luther would have said about the matter: that is in terms of the doctrine of predestination, and faith alone (sola fede) being the exclusive requirement for salvation (for those predestined, mind you). Thus would a child who is not predestined, but cut short in life, go to heaven because without sin? Or rather, if not predestined, would the child be damned to hell a priori for ineluctable sins thereby not committed? Or, if predestined, valued by god for what would in any case have been and thus saved? Or is (or was) predestination simply the result of a de facto state of innocence: quem di diligunt, adolescens moritur (“he whom the gods favor dies young”)? And how do we assess the role of faith in salvation in such cases. Is faith only a requirement of the righteous who live long enough to be held accountable for it? Conversely if someone wasn't predestined, but has faith, is that a useless masochism?

In light tof these considerations, would the person who saved the dog be considered a hero or a knave?

Dude... God works in mysterious ways, ok? Stop bothering the creator with this logical and reasonable bull****

 

[horsinabout]

It isn't that I entrench anyone in their dogmatic worldview, they do that entirely themselves. I just call a spade a spade. Certain provocations simply demand a response, whereas those that show no compassion shall be conceded none.

As for the rest, I entirely stand by my views.

Ah ...given that you responded to my thoughts like grease lightening probably means that you have not given what I wrote a moments though, but I plough on regardless, with hope and a fervent prayer.

As for your views, I was not challenging them, merely pointing out that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" or in this case dogmatism begets dogmatism. Now you have got me doing cliché and this is never a good thing.

 

[rhubroma]

Ah ...given that you responded to my thoughts like grease lightening probably means that you have not given what I wrote a moments though, but I plough on regardless, with hope and a fervent prayer. cheer up, you give me the impression you are all red faced!

As for your views, I was not challenging them, merely pointing out that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" or in this case dogmatism begets dogmatism. Now you have got me doing cliché and this is never a good thing.

Calm down horsinabout, if you think I live by dogmatism you have totally missed the point. That every action has its equal and opposite reaction holds true only in regards to the conviction with which it was made. This is in the objective sense, however, the subjective nature of the action needs to be placed within a critical context and assessed accordingly.

That being said, to me the only thing worse than mindless dogma is indifference to it. If that makes me a bit cantankerous at times, its only because I disdain hypocrisy. And let me be clear it’s not me who has any “way of life” to advocate or tell others how to live theirs by. That’s precisely the terrain of the dogmatists.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

AronRa, one of my favourite youtubers got a series on creationism, if anyone here still is on the fence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

 

[Jspear]

When you logically think through it all, it makes me wonder what Luther would have said about the matter: that is in terms of the doctrine of predestination, and faith alone (sola fede) being the exclusive requirement for salvation (for those predestined, mind you). Thus would a child who is not predestined, but cut short in life, go to heaven because without sin? Or rather, if not predestined, would the child be damned to hell a priori for ineluctable sins thereby not committed? Or, if predestined, valued by god for what would in any case have been and thus saved? Or is (or was) predestination simply the result of a de facto state of innocence: quem di diligunt, adolescens moritur (“he whom the gods favor dies young”)? And how do we assess the role of faith in salvation in such cases. Is faith only a requirement of the righteous who live long enough to be held accountable for it? Conversely if someone wasn't predestined, but has faith, is that a useless masochism?

In light tof these considerations, would the person who saved the dog be considered a hero or a knave?

Before you criticize predestination you have to have a biblical understanding of the nature of human sin.

 

[rhubroma]

Before you criticize predestination you have to have a biblical understanding of the nature of human sin.

Certainly you would care to explain, not that it has any bearing on my life.

PS. Don't think you hold a monopoly on comprehension of such theological matters simply because a believer, or that it’s beyond the basic intelligence of someone who is not. This is one of the most tedious aspects of biblical pedantry.

On the other hand "intelligence" may be an oxymoron in this instance.

 

[Jspear]

Certainly you would care to explain, not that it has any bearing on my life.

PS. Don't think you hold a monopoly on comprehension of such theological matters simply because a believer, or that it’s beyond the basic intelligence of someone who is not. This is one of the most tedious aspects of biblical pedantry.

On the other hand "intelligence" may be an oxymoron in this instance.

I do not hold a monopoly on anything. It's not "my religion". I sure didn't invent it, and I don't claim to have more "intelligence" on this issue than any of you. I simply want to you to be fair....If you address predestination, then address the other aspects of the gospel message. I could isolate anything you have said in the past(on this forum), and probably make you look like a monster. My point is that you have to take everything in context. Predestination is a very big subject that I can't do justice to right now(and that is not an excuse to avoid it), but I will try to share my basic understanding of it (please understand I am not exhaustively addressing all the issues.)

I think that before you can understand predestination, you have to have a correct understanding of human nature. All humans are sinners. We have all done at least one of the following- lied, cheated, stolen, coveted, ect. You get my drift- we are not all perfect little angels. As human being's we have no interest in God. We hate him. We are all running from him. If any human goes to hell it is their fault. Our human nature hates God.

God in His mercy has chosen people to save. He has changed their hearts, "pulled" them from this world and saved them. Ephesians 2:1-10 address all of the above. God is not some evil mean guy that just throws people in hell. The people that are in hell are people with wicked hearts. They hate God, they want nothing to do with him.(Romans 310-18)

 

[BigMac]

I do not hold a monopoly on anything. It's not "my religion". I sure didn't invent it, and I don't claim to have more "intelligence" on this issue than any of you. I simply want to you to be fair....If you address predestination, then address the other aspects of the gospel message. I could isolate anything you have said in the past(on this forum), and probably make you look like a monster. My point is that you have to take everything in context. Predestination is a very big subject that I can't do justice to right now(and that is not an excuse to avoid it), but I will try to share my basic understanding of it (please understand I am not exhaustively addressing all the issues.)

I think that before you can understand predestination, you have to have a correct understanding of human nature. All humans are sinners. We have all done at least one of the following- lied, cheated, stolen, coveted, ect. You get my drift- we are not all perfect little angels. As human being's we have no interest in God. We hate him. We are all running from him. If any human goes to hell it is their fault. Our human nature hates God.

God in His mercy has chosen people to save. He has changed their hearts, "pulled" them from this world and saved them. Ephesians 2:1-10 address all of the above. God is not some evil mean guy that just throws people in hell. The people that are in hell are people with wicked hearts. They hate God, they want nothing to do with him.(Romans 310-18)

I could write a long answer, but I am not in the mood at the moment. I'll just ask, if people have wicked hearts, and some reject god - because he does not give any logic evidence of his existance - and those who run from him go to hell, why would he create humans predestined to sin (and reject him) in the first place? Seems like a game to me.

 

[Froome19]

I could write a long answer, but I am not in the mood at the moment. I'll just ask, if people have wicked hearts, and some reject god - because he does not give any logic evidence of his existance - and those who run from him go to hell, why would he create humans predestined to sin (and reject him) in the first place? Seems like a game to me.

I don't really agree with the poster you quoted, but according to him I would say that G-D created humanity in order to give, with providing life being the essence and epitome of giving of yourself.

Thus G-D may have created man as creatures of sin, but also created within them the ability to recognise him and further his recognition throughout the world, in addition and in conjunction with good deeds and all that. Whilst by creating idealistic and altruistic humans free of an inclination to sin, there would be no true gain for humans in recognising G-D and performing his will etc as that is their innate inclination anyways and thus humanity would gain no benefit from achieving such.

 

[Jspear]

I could write a long answer, but I am not in the mood at the moment. I'll just ask, if people have wicked hearts, and some reject god - because he does not give any logic evidence of his existance - and those who run from him go to hell, why would he create humans predestined to sin (and reject him) in the first place? Seems like a game to me.

He has given logical evidence of His existence. Creation, the Bible, there are thousands and thousands of Christian missionaries all over the world teaching His precepts. No human is without an excuse. Read Romans 9....It will answer your question.

 

[rhubroma]

I do not hold a monopoly on anything. It's not "my religion". I sure didn't invent it, and I don't claim to have more "intelligence" on this issue than any of you. I simply want to you to be fair....If you address predestination, then address the other aspects of the gospel message. I could isolate anything you have said in the past(on this forum), and probably make you look like a monster. My point is that you have to take everything in context. Predestination is a very big subject that I can't do justice to right now(and that is not an excuse to avoid it), but I will try to share my basic understanding of it (please understand I am not exhaustively addressing all the issues.)

I think that before you can understand predestination, you have to have a correct understanding of human nature. All humans are sinners. We have all done at least one of the following- lied, cheated, stolen, coveted, ect. You get my drift- we are not all perfect little angels. As human being's we have no interest in God. We hate him. We are all running from him. If any human goes to hell it is their fault. Our human nature hates God.

God in His mercy has chosen people to save. He has changed their hearts, "pulled" them from this world and saved them. Ephesians 2:1-10 address all of the above. God is not some evil mean guy that just throws people in hell. The people that are in hell are people with wicked hearts. They hate God, they want nothing to do with him.(Romans 310-18)

Hence we once again arrive at the concept of being among "the elect." Listen the glorification of virtues befitting of children made at the expense of more virile and intellectual qualities, permits me to detect under that narrow vapid innocence and the fierce intransigence of the sectarian in presence of forms of life and thought which are not your own, the insolent pride which makes you value yourself about others, and your voluntarily circumscribed vision. I speedily tire of such captious arguments.

At least the ancient religions of the Classical World didn't yoke men to any dogma whatsoever, but lent themselves, on the contrary, to interpretations as varied as nature itself; they allowed austere spirits who desired to do so to invent for themselves a higher morality, but they did not bind the masses by precepts so strict as to engender immediate constraint and hypocrisy. Three quarters of today’s intellectual performances, however, are no more than decorations upon a void; I wonder if that increasing vacuity is due to the lowering of intelligence or to moral decline; whatever the cause, mediocrity of mind is matched everywhere by shocking selfishness and dishonesty.

 

[Descender]

Only the living suffer death.

A child dying who would most probably have had a life worth living is something to be avoided according to pretty much all consequentialist theories of morality.

That's before we factor in other beings.

 

[Echoes]

God in His mercy has chosen people to save. He has changed their hearts, "pulled" them from this world and saved them. Ephesians 2:1-10 address all of the above.

I'm not a Paulinian but I see nothing in the Ephesians to support the claim that God chose/elected people to grant His mercy too.

God's grace was given to everybody. In other words, everybody's equal against the law. Then it's ours to accept it freely or not.

The opposite is old-testamentary, and got more to do with ideology than with religion.