Research on Belief in God

[BigMac]

And why create a being capable of questioning His existance? If I dare to question His existance then certainly it was Him, the creator, who gave me that ability (by creating humans imperfect). Why should I go to hell when it was God who failled me? It does not seem at all like intelligent design. It is just too random, is it not?


If a child turns out to become a sociopath, it was the parents that failed. If some man turn out to be heretic, it was the Father who failed.

If I was a follower of any Abrahamic religion, I'd feel like a piece of chess. Though certainly not a King, Queen, Rook, Bishop or Knight.

 

[The Hitch]

Here's what the bible says Hitch.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:16-17

9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;
10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed."
Rom 10:9-11

Have you done this? If not you can. If you have then you have no reason to complain. No one is without excuse. God has revealed himself through creation, through His Word, and through other Christians. People out in the world have the information. They can believe in God if they desire to.

So you believe me my family and my community and millions of others deserve to burn eternally in torment for ever and ever because we didn't believe what you demand?

If so I consider you to be a sick twisted and sociopathic individual.

Little children, suffering nonstop first degree burns for the next 10 billion years and more.

And you are so selfish you believe that and don't give a **** about our supposed plight so long as you get your eternal fun in "heaven" as a reward for nothing more than being born in the right place.

 

[Jspear]

So you believe me my family and my community and millions of others deserve to burn eternally in torment for ever and ever because we didn't believe what you demand?

If so I consider you to be a sick twisted and sociopathic individual.

Little children, suffering nonstop first degree burns for the next 10 billion years and more.

And you are so selfish you believe that and don't give a **** about our supposed plight so long as you get your eternal fun in "heaven" as a reward for nothing more than being born in the right place.

I do not demand anything. God does. You have a choice, if YOU decide to reject him that's your choice. I do care about you. That's why I'm telling you this, because I think things like eternity (and were we spend it) are important. People can call me names all they want, but I will continue (as civilly as I can) to tell the truth. It's actually good news. You can accept Gods gift of salvation.

 

[Ruby United]

So you believe me my family and my community and millions of others deserve to burn eternally in torment for ever and ever because we didn't believe what you demand?

Assuming that there is a God and you didn't believe in what he demanded than yes, that is true, as, if one does believe in God, he also believes that his particular God is the supreme being and anyone who disobeys him deserves punishment. The key word is YOU. If one does believe in God than it is not what you demanded but what God does, and assuming there is a God who controls the universe, you have misused and defied what is rightly his and what is true.

 

[rhubroma]

Man invented God, because he is a coward and cannot accept his own mortality. Actually those of the Christian-Islamic faiths, given that for thousands of years before man stood alone, with nothing but the fixity of the darkness that awaited him after death. Before the Christ was not yet invented and the gods still ruled over the cosmos and nature, there was a period in the Classical World when man's only solace was the potential to do worthy deeds in life, with no prospect of immortality. Nowhere else in history do I find such courage.

Whereas the perversion of eternal torments that await those who do not adhear to the precepts of the one true God, was an invention of the priesthoods, the sole aim of which the to place the entire flock under its clutches. The great injustices of this world, therefore, are not human responibility toward its fellow mankind and nature, nor can they be changed by it, but a preordained state that the righteous must endure to be divinely rewarded in the end.

A primitive mythology that, if it still holds great sway among humans, is only a further demonstration of man's baseness.

 

[Jspear]

Man invented God, because he is a coward and cannot accept his own mortality. Actually those of the Christian-Islamic faiths, given that for thousands of years before man stood alone, with nothing but the fixity of the darkness that awaited him after death. Before the Christ was not yet invented and the gods still ruled over the cosmos and nature, there was a period in the Classical World when man's only solace was the potential to do worthy deeds in life, with no prospect of immortality. Nowhere else in history do I find such courage.

Whereas the perversion of eternal torments that await those who do not adhear to the precepts of the one true God, was an invention of the priesthoods, the sole aim of which the to place the entire flock under its clutches. The great injustices of this world, therefore, are not human responibility toward its fellow mankind and nature, nor can they be changed by it, but a preordained state that the righteous must endure to be divinely rewarded in the end.

A primitive mythology that, if it still holds great sway among humans, is only a further demonstration of man's baseness.

God created man. God has always been. He had no beginning, He has no end. He made man - man rebelled against God. Romans one says "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and Divine nature, are clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse." Mankind is without excuse. But mankind suppresses the knowledge of God - they stifle the truth because the truth challenges man's sinful lifestyle. Men, professing to be wise became fools. God gave man over to what they wanted. Man wants to pretend God doesn't exist so He allows them what they want. He is still merciful though and will save those who are humble and repent. To use your words - the cowards are those who reject God, those who can't man up to the fact that they are sinners in need of a perfect Savior. Proverbs 1:7, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

 

[rhubroma]

God created man. God has always been. He had no beginning, He has no end. He made man - man rebelled against God. Romans one says "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and Divine nature, are clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse." Mankind is without excuse. But mankind suppresses the knowledge of God - they stifle the truth because the truth challenges man's sinful lifestyle. Men, professing to be wise became fools. God gave man over to what they wanted. Man wants to pretend God doesn't exist so He allows them what they want. He is still merciful though and will save those who are humble and repent. To use your words - the cowards are those who reject God, those who can't man up to the fact that they are sinners in need of a perfect Savior. Proverbs 1:7, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Keep riffling off proverbs from the one source of "knowledge" you feel has given meaning to your existence, but just be aware that hardly anybody else in the last 10,000 years has agreed with you.

Naturally I'm talking about all the human beings whose existances have been, or will be, extinguished since that time.

 

[Jspear]

Keep riffling off proverbs from the one source of "knowledge" you feel has given meaning to your existence, but just be aware that hardly anybody else in the last 10,000 years has agreed with you.

Naturally I'm talking about all the human beings whose existances have been, or will be, extinguished since that time.

Yes, also keep in mind that for thousands of years, millions have believed the bible and they have been willing to die for their faith. That argument goes both ways. Still even if the majority believe something that doesn't automatically make it true.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

He did not refer to OT Commandments.

Jesus' commandment is : "Love one another the way I loved You"

Christians - at least traditional catholics - don't believe in the OT. The OT is ambivalent; there are good things and bad things in it. Only the Gospel matters.

That's a peculiar thing to say! I'm not a Roman Catholic myself, but I'm quite sure that the Roman Catholic Church has the books of the OT in their canon as authoritative divinely inspired scripture.

Furthermore, it is peculiar to only except the Gospels, when the Gospels and also the rest of the NT literature, cite the OT as authoritative all the time.

I'm also quite sure all christians - be they catholic, orthodox or protestant - affirm the rejection of Marcion in the early church, precisely because he tried to get rid of the OT. Marcion even had to falsify the few NT books he accepted to cut out all references to the OT.

And why create a being capable of questioning His existance? If I dare to question His existance then certainly it was Him, the creator, who gave me that ability (by creating humans imperfect). Why should I go to hell when it was God who failled me? It does not seem at all like intelligent design. It is just too random, is it not?

If a child turns out to become a sociopath, it was the parents that failed. If some man turn out to be heretic, it was the Father who failed.

If I was a follower of any Abrahamic religion, I'd feel like a piece of chess. Though certainly not a King, Queen, Rook, Bishop or Knight.

I don't think you can blaim a parent for what their child does wrong. I mean, a parent might carry some blaim, but in the end the child is responsible for what he does, not his parents. If a man is a sociopath, maybe his parents failed, but in the end it's he himself who chooses what he does. The parents might even have done everything perfectly and still the child might be for whatever reasons be compelled and choose to do something horrible.

Similarly, I don't think anybody can blaim God for the evil he himself does. God has given men a free choice. The possibility of rejecting God is inherent to that freedom. The capability of doubting his existence isn't something God directly created, but it's something inherent to human freedom. I don't feel I'm a chess piece in Gods hands at all, because he has given me a freedom to choice whatever I want. Of course he does hold me responsible for whatever I freely chose. With freedom comes a responsibility. I can't blaim the devil or God for the sins I have comitted, I have only myself to blaim.

For me, it's in a naturalistic world that I'd feel a chess piece. But a chess piece moved by mindless natural processes, instead of by a Person. If everything in the world is governed solely by naturalistic processes, I don't see much room for basic human freedom of choice at all. It's all just chemical processes in the brain and psychological constructions; no free choice. It's not the childs fault, but his parents failed. But is it then the parents fault, or is the grandparents fault for failing? In the end, there would be no fault along this line of reasoning, just mindless chemical processes in the brain.......

That'd be worse than being a chess piece if you ask me. At least the chess piece is moved for some purpose by the chess player.

Man invented God, because he is a coward and cannot accept his own mortality. Actually those of the Christian-Islamic faiths, given that for thousands of years before man stood alone, with nothing but the fixity of the darkness that awaited him after death. Before the Christ was not yet invented and the gods still ruled over the cosmos and nature, there was a period in the Classical World when man's only solace was the potential to do worthy deeds in life, with no prospect of immortality. Nowhere else in history do I find such courage.

Whereas the perversion of eternal torments that await those who do not adhear to the precepts of the one true God, was an invention of the priesthoods, the sole aim of which the to place the entire flock under its clutches. The great injustices of this world, therefore, are not human responibility toward its fellow mankind and nature, nor can they be changed by it, but a preordained state that the righteous must endure to be divinely rewarded in the end.

A primitive mythology that, if it still holds great sway among humans, is only a further demonstration of man's baseness.

For me, religion doesn't feel like some comfort for death or something, but more for purposelessness. So, to be honest, you're absolutely right I couldn't find solace in doing worthy deeds during this life in a naturalistic world at all. I wouldn't see the point. I'm sure I'd still be inclined to be friendly towards the people around me or something, because of basic human moral intuition, but I wouldn't even know why I'd be doing it. It seems to be - and I guess I'm reasoning more or less intuitively here - that there has to be some purpose to existence before deeds get any worth. In a modern atheistic naturalistic worldview, I guess there is no purpose to the universe or to human existence, it just happens because of mindless natural processes. I don't see in what way I could ascribe purpose and worth to my deeds, when my existence and the existence of the world around me is purposeless.

For me, it is only in God that I find purpose and meaning and therefore a motivation to strife to do worthy deeds in this life. The prospect of communion with God which I can enjoy now partly, but fully in the eschaton, is what motivates me everyday. It is the promise of forgiveness and redemption through the work of his Son that gives me hope to continue to strife in faith towards that goal, for which I believe God has created me, though I don't deserve it at all. It's what gives purpose and meaning and worth to the deeds that I do here.

I guess I just admitted I'm a coward by your standards, huh?

 

[Echoes]

That's a peculiar thing to say! I'm not a Roman Catholic myself, but I'm quite sure that the Roman Catholic Church has the books of the OT in their canon as authoritative divinely inspired scripture.

Furthermore, it is peculiar to only except the Gospels, when the Gospels and also the rest of the NT literature, cite the OT as authoritative all the time.

I'm also quite sure all christians - be they catholic, orthodox or protestant - affirm the rejection of Marcion in the early church, precisely because he tried to get rid of the OT. Marcion even had to falsify the few NT books he accepted to cut out all references to the OT.

Well, with all respect, Jesus clearly said that the New Alliance opposed to the Old one. The two cannot co-exist. That is why I reject Vatican II, by the way ...

You aren't the first to accuse me of Marcionism. Actually Marcion rejected the OT all out. It's not what I'm saying. In my opinion the OT is ambivalent. In the OT you've got universalist messages such as in the Book of Jeremiah, paving the way for Jesus but on the other hand you have the tribalist doctrine of the Judahites inventing a vengeful God that has nothing to do with Jesus but rather paved the way for the Talmud (Deuteronomy). It's actually what Jesus came for. Denouncing this treason to a Divine promise. God can only be universal, he cannot be a god for one tribe only...

 

[Ruby United]

Well, with all respect, Jesus clearly said that the New Alliance opposed to the Old one. The two cannot co-exist. That is why I reject Vatican II, by the way ...

You aren't the first to accuse me of Marcionism. Actually Marcion rejected the OT all out. It's not what I'm saying. In my opinion the OT is ambivalent. In the OT you've got universalist messages such as in the Book of Jeremiah, paving the way for Jesus but on the other hand you have the tribalist doctrine of the Judahites inventing a vengeful God that has nothing to do with Jesus but rather paved the way for the Talmud (Deuteronomy). It's actually what Jesus came for. Denouncing this treason to a Divine promise. God can only be universal, he cannot be a god for one tribe only...

Why not? Most religions believe that their tribe ( let's take the Judahites for example) was chosen specifically for them. In the Torah for example, it says that the Jews are a special and holy nation to god above all the other nations who rejected him. Now, assuming for a second that this God is real, and the other religions rejected him besides the jews, why cant he be God for just the Jews??? They were the ones who recognised him. This applies for ALL religions and beliefs. Unless one repents and 'converts' to the tribe, God won't apply for him, even if he's in a different but the 'wrong religion.' So no, God is not universal, he is the God for only one tribe.

 

[rhubroma]

That's a peculiar thing to say! I'm not a Roman Catholic myself, but I'm quite sure that the Roman Catholic Church has the books of the OT in their canon as authoritative divinely inspired scripture.

Furthermore, it is peculiar to only except the Gospels, when the Gospels and also the rest of the NT literature, cite the OT as authoritative all the time.

I'm also quite sure all christians - be they catholic, orthodox or protestant - affirm the rejection of Marcion in the early church, precisely because he tried to get rid of the OT. Marcion even had to falsify the few NT books he accepted to cut out all references to the OT.



I don't think you can blaim a parent for what their child does wrong. I mean, a parent might carry some blaim, but in the end the child is responsible for what he does, not his parents. If a man is a sociopath, maybe his parents failed, but in the end it's he himself who chooses what he does. The parents might even have done everything perfectly and still the child might be for whatever reasons be compelled and choose to do something horrible.

Similarly, I don't think anybody can blaim God for the evil he himself does. God has given men a free choice. The possibility of rejecting God is inherent to that freedom. The capability of doubting his existence isn't something God directly created, but it's something inherent to human freedom. I don't feel I'm a chess piece in Gods hands at all, because he has given me a freedom to choice whatever I want. Of course he does hold me responsible for whatever I freely chose. With freedom comes a responsibility. I can't blaim the devil or God for the sins I have comitted, I have only myself to blaim.

For me, it's in a naturalistic world that I'd feel a chess piece. But a chess piece moved by mindless natural processes, instead of by a Person. If everything in the world is governed solely by naturalistic processes, I don't see much room for basic human freedom of choice at all. It's all just chemical processes in the brain and psychological constructions; no free choice. It's not the childs fault, but his parents failed. But is it then the parents fault, or is the grandparents fault for failing? In the end, there would be no fault along this line of reasoning, just mindless chemical processes in the brain.......

That'd be worse than being a chess piece if you ask me. At least the chess piece is moved for some purpose by the chess player.



For me, religion doesn't feel like some comfort for death or something, but more for purposelessness. So, to be honest, you're absolutely right I couldn't find solace in doing worthy deeds during this life in a naturalistic world at all. I wouldn't see the point. I'm sure I'd still be inclined to be friendly towards the people around me or something, because of basic human moral intuition, but I wouldn't even know why I'd be doing it. It seems to be - and I guess I'm reasoning more or less intuitively here - that there has to be some purpose to existence before deeds get any worth. In a modern atheistic naturalistic worldview, I guess there is no purpose to the universe or to human existence, it just happens because of mindless natural processes. I don't see in what way I could ascribe purpose and worth to my deeds, when my existence and the existence of the world around me is purposeless.

For me, it is only in God that I find purpose and meaning and therefore a motivation to strife to do worthy deeds in this life. The prospect of communion with God which I can enjoy now partly, but fully in the eschaton, is what motivates me everyday. It is the promise of forgiveness and redemption through the work of his Son that gives me hope to continue to strife in faith towards that goal, for which I believe God has created me, though I don't deserve it at all. It's what gives purpose and meaning and worth to the deeds that I do here.

I guess I just admitted I'm a coward by your standards, huh?

So, for you, the only significance of having a "purpose" to life is the promise of salvation: that there is a higher dimension waiting for us after we die in the great beyond. I sincerely hope your expectations will be met, but I find that to be shirking rather than intrinsic belief in human dignity.

 

[Jspear]

Why not? Most religions believe that their tribe ( let's take the Judahites for example) was chosen specifically for them. In the Torah for example, it says that the Jews are a special and holy nation to god above all the other nations who rejected him. Now, assuming for a second that this God is real, and the other religions rejected him besides the jews, why cant he be God for just the Jews??? They were the ones who recognised him. This applies for ALL religions and beliefs. Unless one repents and 'converts' to the tribe, God won't apply for him, even if he's in a different but the 'wrong religion.' So no, God is not universal, he is the God for only one tribe.

The book of Isaiah and other books in the bible are very clear. God is the only true god. The other gods of the different nations were idols....man made. The people of Israel were Gods chosen people and set apart, but Gentiles could still be Gods children. All through the OT you see Gentiles repenting and coming to "the God of Israel." Isaiah 6:6 is talking to Israel and this is one of the purposes they had: "I the Lord have called you in righteousness and will hold thine hand, and will keep you, and give you for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles." The Israelites were to be a light to the Gentiles (that's us.) Gentiles and Jews alike have the same access to God.

 

[Jspear]

Well, with all respect, Jesus clearly said that the New Alliance opposed to the Old one. The two cannot co-exist. That is why I reject Vatican II, by the way ...

You aren't the first to accuse me of Marcionism. Actually Marcion rejected the OT all out. It's not what I'm saying. In my opinion the OT is ambivalent. In the OT you've got universalist messages such as in the Book of Jeremiah, paving the way for Jesus but on the other hand you have the tribalist doctrine of the Judahites inventing a vengeful God that has nothing to do with Jesus but rather paved the way for the Talmud (Deuteronomy). It's actually what Jesus came for. Denouncing this treason to a Divine promise. God can only be universal, he cannot be a god for one tribe only...

You should read the book of Hebrews in the NT to see exactly how the two different covenants work. In short the, the Old Covenant was given to separate the Israelites from the other pagan religions. All of the rituals and sacrifices were pictures (shadows) of things to come. Jesus said in Matthew 5, "do not think that I came to abolish the law. I came to fulfill the law." Jesus came on this earth bringing in a New Covenant. He was a "more perfect sacrifice." The Law (Old Covenant) shows us our need for a Savior. It shows us how we can not keep God's high moral standard. In the New Covenant Jesus came and kept the Law perfectly for us. All we have to do is believe in Jesus Christ.

 

[Ruby United]

So, for you, the only significance of having a "purpose" to life is the promise of salvation: that there is a higher dimension waiting for us after we die in the great beyond. I sincerely hope your expectations will be met, but I find that to be shirking rather than intrinsic belief in human dignity.

I would take it a step further. This world is just a corridor to the 'world to come' The only reason we are in This world is to glorify God, and justify for ourselves as high a position as possible in the world to come after we die.

 

[rhubroma]

I would take it a step further. This world is just a corridor to the 'world to come' The only reason we are in This world is to glorify God, and justify for ourselves as high a position as possible in the world to come after we die.

Ah, so God works within a managerial framework of promotions and demotions. Heaven is a rank and file of souls, who, more or less, have earned a good standing with the Almighty, and consequently get to sit closer or farther from the omnipotent one at the celestial table as merit determines. One assumes so that the stronger sources of approbation are more readily at hand, but I wouldn’t know.

Why, though, one wonders, would such an all-powerful and infinitely superior being have any need at all of such praise and devotion to feel gratified? Merely to assuage a propensity for vendetta? And from such a flawed and mean species with it? This would seem to make God no less vain and desirous of flattery, than the base creatures from which he demands veneration. The implication that God suffers from an insecurity complex, furthermore, is hardly a sign of immeasurable dignity.

I love how the religious, in claiming to know the inscrutable mind of their dominus, basically out of selfishness, reduce the Almighty to an only slightly more noble being than themselves – and only because, let’s say, of privilege of rank.

My suspicion, however, as I have previously stated, is that man only projects his own need for praise and reward onto a transcendental being to compensate for a fear of death. Whereas if God does exist, I doubt He would want to be reduced to such an unconfident and instrumental status: in short afflicted with all the weaknesses of man.

 

[Jspear]

Ah, so God works within a managerial framework of promotions and demotions. Heaven is a rank and file of souls, who, more or less, have earned a good standing with the Almighty, and consequently get to sit closer or farther from the omnipotent one at the celestial table as merit determines. One assumes so that the stronger sources of approbation are more readily at hand, but I wouldn’t know.

Why, though, one wonders, would such an all-powerful and infinitely superior being have any need at all of such praise and devotion to feel gratified? Merely to assuage a propensity for vendetta? And from such a flawed and mean species with it? This would seem to make God no less vain and desirous of flattery, than the base creatures from which he demands veneration. The implication that God suffers from an insecurity complex, furthermore, is hardly a sign of immeasurable dignity.

I love how the religious, in claiming to know the inscrutable mind of their dominus, basically out of selfishness, reduce the Almighty to an only slightly more noble being than themselves – and only because, let’s say, of privilege of rank.

My suspicion, however, as I have previously stated, is that man only projects his own need for praise and reward onto a transcendental being to compensate for a fear of death. Whereas if God does exist, I doubt He would want to be reduced to such an unconfident and instrumental status: in short afflicted with all the weaknesses of man.

God does not work like this at all. I don't know where you and Ruby got these ideas, but they don't come from the Bible. Just FYI.

 

[rhubroma]

God does not work like this at all. I don't know where you and Ruby got these ideas, but they don't come from the Bible. Just FYI.

Apart from I was responding to what Ruby said, of which mine was pure speculation - though the irony went over you - about 1700 years of orthodox art should give you a pretty decent idea about from where such ideas came. And they aren't mine.

Jspear you have a problem with reading things too literally. Let me give you a heads-up: when everything is taken verbatim, this often means your conclusions were wrong and that one is easily fooled.

 

[BigMac]

I don't think you can blaim a parent for what their child does wrong. I mean, a parent might carry some blaim, but in the end the child is responsible for what he does, not his parents. If a man is a sociopath, maybe his parents failed, but in the end it's he himself who chooses what he does. The parents might even have done everything perfectly and still the child might be for whatever reasons be compelled and choose to do something horrible.

Similarly, I don't think anybody can blaim God for the evil he himself does. God has given men a free choice. The possibility of rejecting God is inherent to that freedom. The capability of doubting his existence isn't something God directly created, but it's something inherent to human freedom. I don't feel I'm a chess piece in Gods hands at all, because he has given me a freedom to choice whatever I want. Of course he does hold me responsible for whatever I freely chose. With freedom comes a responsibility. I can't blaim the devil or God for the sins I have comitted, I have only myself to blaim.

For me, it's in a naturalistic world that I'd feel a chess piece. But a chess piece moved by mindless natural processes, instead of by a Person. If everything in the world is governed solely by naturalistic processes, I don't see much room for basic human freedom of choice at all. It's all just chemical processes in the brain and psychological constructions; no free choice. It's not the childs fault, but his parents failed. But is it then the parents fault, or is the grandparents fault for failing? In the end, there would be no fault along this line of reasoning, just mindless chemical processes in the brain.......

That'd be worse than being a chess piece if you ask me. At least the chess piece is moved for some purpose by the chess player.

See that I did not write one can blame the parents for what their child does wrong. I said that if a child turns out to become a sociopath, it is their parents' fault - not entirely and not always. But psychologically talking, most of the times, yes. Now, I did not write anything on how they act upon being a sociopath. Obviously, ultimately, most of the times, acting wrong is one's choice. But a sociopath may not act wrong at all: he may have a psychopathic personality filled with antisocial behavior and live a life fully distanced from crime and harassing to others. Like not all pedophiles are child molesters. It is common sence among psychologists and psychiatrists that most of the situations when dealing with sociopathy, the disorder was caused by a failed or alienated upbringing. It was a simple analogy which should not even have had intrigued you since I was comparing the profane to the sacred. Man with supernatural. It's is not really valid.

To your second paragraph, again, why allow men to doubt His existence. He could have simply introduced his divinity to the human subconscious. Remember we're talking about intelligent design here. God's project. It has nothing to do with being free.

On your third paragraph your are ignoring the human social condition. Are you saying that an atheist society cannot have order and cope with laws?

For me, religion doesn't feel like some comfort for death or something, but more for purposelessness. So, to be honest, you're absolutely right I couldn't find solace in doing worthy deeds during this life in a naturalistic world at all. I wouldn't see the point. I'm sure I'd still be inclined to be friendly towards the people around me or something, because of basic human moral intuition, but I wouldn't even know why I'd be doing it. It seems to be - and I guess I'm reasoning more or less intuitively here - that there has to be some purpose to existence before deeds get any worth. In a modern atheistic naturalistic worldview, I guess there is no purpose to the universe or to human existence, it just happens because of mindless natural processes. I don't see in what way I could ascribe purpose and worth to my deeds, when my existence and the existence of the world around me is purposeless.

Here you are directely associating moral and existencial nihilism with atheism as if one was symbiotic or mutualistic to the other. They may work together, but an atheist per se is not a nihilist. And though an atheist MIGHT not find purpose in his life or the world (one could argue a naturalistic purpose like reproducing...) he certainly can add value to it. And with value find worth in his deeds.

For me, it is only in God that I find purpose and meaning and therefore a motivation to strife to do worthy deeds in this life. The prospect of communion with God which I can enjoy now partly, but fully in the eschaton, is what motivates me everyday. It is the promise of forgiveness and redemption through the work of his Son that gives me hope to continue to strife in faith towards that goal, for which I believe God has created me, though I don't deserve it at all. It's what gives purpose and meaning and worth to the deeds that I do here.

It honestely seems to me that you are not being intellectually honest with your life. You idolatrate God because the idea of his existance gives your life purpose ignoring the logic (or lack of it) behind it.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Well, with all respect, Jesus clearly said that the New Alliance opposed to the Old one. The two cannot co-exist. That is why I reject Vatican II, by the way ...

I don't think one can equate old alliance or covenant or whatever you want to call it with the old testament. I guess we'll just keep on disagreeing here, because for me it is very clear that Jesus affirms the authority of the Old Testament in the way he cites it. Jesus refers to Old Testament commandments as the word of God; he cites it all the time as authoritative in discussions with the scribes and pharisees and one could go on for quite a while giving examples where the authority and divine inspiration of the Old Testament is implicit in the teachings of Jesus.

As for the particularism of the Old Testament; Jesus himself says that salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22). Through faith us gentiles can share in the promise God gave to the people of Israel and in this way through Christ God offers salvation universally to all the peoples of the world.

But indeed accusing you of Marcionism is way too harsh. Marcion came up with a bunch of silly stuff and falsified some New Testament books, which obviously you don't do.

So, for you, the only significance of having a "purpose" to life is the promise of salvation: that there is a higher dimension waiting for us after we die in the great beyond. I sincerely hope your expectations will be met, but I find that to be shirking rather than intrinsic belief in human dignity.

I didn't know the word 'shirking'. All I could think of was the sin of 'shirk' as described in Islam which I guess I'm guilty of as well, but it would be a peculiar accusation coming from you. But after looking it up the accusation seems less peculiar.

Furthermore, I guess to me to purpose of life is to love the Lord my God with all my heart, all my soul and all my strength and to love my neighour as myself. This harmonious relationship with God and with my fellow human beings will be restored through the salvation brought by Jesus Christ. We can enjoy this here in part and we can enjoy it fully after the final resurrection and judgement in the 'new Jerusalem', as described with vivid but very difficult to interpret imagery in the book of Revelation.

I guess in my worldview any worth is derived ultimately from God. So the intrinsic human dignity is there, because I believe humans were created 'in the image of God.' So ultimately I guess I don't have an intrinsic belief in human dignity, but an intrinsic belief in God, from which my belief in human dignity is derived. I'd find it difficult to give some sort of rational argument for human dignity in a naturalistic worldview. I can see that there are in fact many people who adhere to a naturalistic worldview and still retain the value of human dignity, I just don't see where they get it from. Maybe they have to take human dignity as a kind of moral axiom? Anyway, however they reach the value of human dignity, I'm very glad they do reach it. It makes peaceful coexistence with them much easier.

 

[Jspear]

Apart from I was responding to what Ruby said, of which mine was pure speculation - though the irony went over you - about 1700 years of orthodox art should give you a pretty decent idea about from where such ideas came. And they aren't mine.

Jspear you have a problem with reading things too literally. Let me give you a heads-up: when everything is taken verbatim, this often means your conclusions were wrong and that one is easily fooled.

Sorry I understand what you were saying. My comment still stands to what Ruby said though.

 

[Jspear]

To your second paragraph, again, why allow men to doubt His existence. He could have simply introduced his divinity to the human subconscious. Remember we're talking about intelligent design here. God's project. It has nothing to do with being free.

Romans 1 perfectly answers this. I quoted part of it earlier. God has put his existence into the subconsciousness of man. Man has suppressed this knowledge.

 

[Ruby United]

God does not work like this at all. I don't know where you and Ruby got these ideas, but they don't come from the Bible. Just FYI.

The talmud and commentators on it say that Moses asked God why the righteous suffer in this world whilst the 'wicked' often seemed to have an enjoyable time. One of the opinions is that God answered because the more the righteous suffer now the less they will after they die. Contrastly the 'wicked' are using all their enjoyment now and will suffer after they die.

All my ideas originate from the bible or commentators on it.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

@bigmac, whoops I somehow missed your post

To your second paragraph, again, why allow men to doubt His existence. He could have simply introduced his divinity to the human subconscious. Remember we're talking about intelligent design here. God's project. It has nothing to do with being free.

Well surely being free means you have the possibility of rejecting God if you want to. Furthermore, almost everybody in the world does have some hunch that there is something divine. It took quite some time and philosophy and reasoning to try to get rid of the idea of God(s) or something like that, which up to this very day still seems perfectly obvious to the vast majority of the worlds population.

Now of course we can imagine a world in which God's existence would be (even more) obvious. Now why didn't he create such a world? I don't have a clue and to be honest it doesn't particularly bother me.

Gods existence seems obvious enough to me and I'm fascinated by the fact that there are apparently some people to whom it doesn't seem obvious.

On your third paragraph your are ignoring the human social condition. Are you saying that an atheist society cannot have order and cope with laws?

Nope, I'm saying that from a naturalistic worldview a belief in determinism should logically follow. Hence there would be no free choice and without free choice I don't see the point of ethics. Now that doesn't mean an atheistic society, where everybody believes in naturalism, can't still do it all fine in practice, I'm just saying I can't follow the theory behind that practice.

Here you are directely associating moral and existencial nihilism with atheism as if one was symbiotic or mutualistic to the other. They may work together, but an atheist per se is not a nihilist. And though an atheist MAY not find purpose in his life or the world (one could argue a naturalistic purpose like reproducing...) he certainly can add value to it. And with value find worth in his deeds.

Note I specifically talk about 'naturalistic atheism'. But yes, I am indeed associating naturalism with nihilism. To me it seems to be the logical conclusion, even though I know in practice many atheists are not nihilists. I'm glad people can be atheists and not nihilists, I just don't understand them.

I doubt one can find a naturalistic purpose. I think you can explain human behaviour and ethics in a naturalistic way, but I don't think you can go from there to a normative statement which is needed for a purpose in the sense I'm talking about. So I mean you might be able to argue that the purpose of human behaviour is reproduction because of evolution and so on. But that's a descriptive statement, not a normative statement, which will be needed for ethics. You can describe why people do what they do based on natural processes, but you can't tell them what to do. Or least, I've never met a naturalist telling me I should go on and reproduce because that's the purpose of my life, or anything along those lines.

And sure, you can add value to things yourself. I guess that's how most atheists go along. They're their own god, ascribing value and meaning and purpose to whatever they like. They're truly autonomous; a law unto themselves. Fortunately because of general human moral consciousness, cultural conditioning, law enforcement and so on, it doesn't go out of control. But you know, to me - maybe I'm a coward again - I can see this type of thinking lapse into moral anarchy without using much imagination.

It honestely seems to me that you are not being intellectually honest with your life. You idolatrate God because the idea of his existance gives your life purpose ignoring the logic (or lack of it) behind it.

You won't be surprised to find out I strongly disagree with this. Logic and reason are very important for me and I don't see how my faith contradicts those at all. All arguments against Christianity I'm familiar with I don't find to be very threatening at all. Some pose a challenge, but not one that can't be overcome. Now, I guess it's up to you whether you believe I reached those conclusions in an intellectually honest way or whether I'm being intellectually dishonest. Can't help you much with your (lack of) faith in my intellectual honesty I guess.

I'm a bit inclined to argue that you're doing yourself what you're blaming me for. Adding value yourself, as you describe it, seems to be awfully close to that. Basically it is admitting that there is no intrinsic value or worth in reality, so you just make it up yourself. You make up some values that exist nowhere but in your imagination, to steer clear of nihilism. Isn't that more or less what you're blaming me for? Only I take it a step further and add some imaginary elaborate metaphysical system to it to support my made up values. Anyway, I'd need to put some more thought in it, but it'd be fun to argue that.

But I put in enough thought for today. It's time for me to stop thinking now and drink a beer. Have a nice evening!

 

[Ruby United]

To your second paragraph, again, why allow men to doubt His existence.
.

This is merely a test for humans. We need to show that we have faithfulness to God, and if he is integrated automatically inside us than we are.proving nothing by believing in him.