God- discussion of any Godly/religous issues.

[Romy]

[hide]

[hide]

 

I'm sorry for the following short response, I don't feel very well and I'm going to go relax after this.

 

1. The Jewish understanding was people of Israel and peaceful aliens should not be killed but it was alright to kill in war. I am not a Jew so I do not care to defend their beliefs. Perhaps rabbis adapted their teachings, but even displayed by Jesus, Jews thought in the bible that thou shalt not kill was not applied to enemies for instance. When Jesus said agape [unconditional love/respect, i.e. don't kill or wrong] some people were probably appalled as this quite strange to say.

 

2. Again I am not a Jew and I will not defend their beliefs. I do not believe in the use of war until a last resort, so go duke out that issue with the ancient Israelites.

 

3. I'm sorry if you saw that as a cheap swing. That was meant more for a joke about Israel rather then provocation, I did not contemplate that effect and I did not mean to tease you.

 

4. The Word of God is eternal. Too bad the Word cannot be written and contained on paper. However, interpretations of God which form the words of the Bible can be written, and changed in opinion.

 

5. Being a homosexual has only recently been understood as psychological and medical, the Church is comprised of humans and we make errors. Gays are not evil in any sense. The gays do not commit any wrong by being gay. But by their acts of sodomy they are sinning, as even straight people committing sodomy is a sin because sex is ordered towards reproduction, a great gift. Sodomy is wrong, not being a homosexual.

 

6. Judging murderers in a secular way is not wrong. It is done for the benefit and well being and preservation of the innocent. Judgment is meant in the sense of them going to hell or heaven because of their murdering not that they're guilty or not.

 

7. It's not that the OT is some parts invalid and some parts valid. I don't speak for all Christians, as I know Protestant sects would disagree. The OT is a source of wisdom but we now understand God differently because of Jesus. Since Jesus was God, He was the Word unwritten. His command which was divine superseded the human writings of the OT, that were divinely inspired but not wholly divine because God did not issue them from his mouth.

 

8. The point of a mass is the spiritual reflection and understanding. That's why scripture is read and analyzed, to be gifted and understand wisdom. You do not store up "Jesus points" which you can then cash in to save you from a disease, or hell. They exist because this is the physical world. God does not physically intervene. It is easy to pick two things that it can be one or the other, but not comprehend the actual and third possibility. From our own free will comes our own ability to physically fall. If we consent to evil then we pay for it in purgatory because we consented to it. Someone killing you used their free will to do so, you did not consent to this though so you won't "burn" for their actions. As for the occurrence of illness, this is science. You catch the flu because you have been introduced the virus which carries what we deem the flu. There is no divine smiting, as well as physical divine intervention.

 

Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right.

 

1+2. It clearly says- "Don't commit murder" (Exodus 20:13). If a God said "Don't commit murder" and said you should go to war (Jehova), and that same God is your God, then something's wrong here.

 

3. Meh.

 

4. That would then mean the Bible is BS. If it's not the word of God (as the word of God can't be contained on paper), why follow it so devotely?

 

5. It's okay to be gay as long as you don't do anything about it. Shocking, God created human-beings with the urge to sin (have sex not "ordered towards reproduction"), without the urge to do "what's right" (have sex "ordered towards reproduction") and by that have "punished" (for the lack of a better word) them before they were even born. "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." Gene Roddenberry

 

It's absurd to say that being gay is okay as long as you don't fulfill your desires.

 

6. I should have clarified myself better here. I wasn't talking about the act of trials, presenting murderers to a judge, etc. I was talking about people who judge murderers, or make conclusions about the person himself on the basis of his acts. According to you, that's wrong. We shouldn't judge them, we should just go ahead and kill them for their sins. "Just like gays".

 

7. So, whenever, in the OT, it is said "God said" or anything similar, we should just see it as "humans said that God said"? Well, why would humans say God presented rules regarding slavery? It's either they're lying, which would make the OT pretty much disposable, or they're not lying, and God really said that- in which case: there isn't another way to understand that, God allowes slavery.

 

8.God, atleast once, intervened with the physical affairs of this world- he created it. He is also said to have helped or intervened in the physical affairs of the Bible- then why not the flu? Why would an omnipotent being, who seems to care for what humans do physically, not care how they feel physically/about the causes of their physical condition? If he can do whatever it is he wishes, why would a perfectly 'good' person ever be hurt physically?

 

Also, remember that if free will exists, God is not omniscient.

 

 

Lastly- "Our own helping others is a reflection of God's will. He does not will evil. God did not create evil either. It is a result of mistake. To err is human. Evil is those too full of pride to do what is right."

A result of mistake? Humans' I suppose? Why would humans mistakenly create evil? That would surely mean God created them with evil bits attatched? Or was it God's mistake? Is God not perfect?

If evil exists, and God created everything, then God, either willingly or unwillingly, created evil. If God is omniscient, God would know his doings would eventually cause evil- why would he want that? Why not set a better alternative?

1 & 2. Again, I'm not a Jew. You must think I'm a Jew or something as I've already explained this and you now of this. It's fine if you think if you were a Christian you wouldn't accept this reasoning, but stop bringing up the same statement again and again, you'll keep getting the same answer.

4. You devalue things so quickly. Something can be inspiring without it having to be written by God. It is considered divinely inspired which means when the authors were writing what was in the Bible they were in deep reflect of what God's will is. That means God did not write it, it is reflection. It is not BS, especially for Catholics as one of the pillars of the Church is tradition. It tries to capture the Word (which would be Jesus) as best it can, but again, we are humans, we are imperfect. We strive to be perfect. It is not perfect, but it is guidance. You can even tell in the Bible when its like the same story 3 times, obviously the Bible wasn't even one author per book, for the book of Isaiah alone it spans 400yrs and there are a theorized three prophet Isaiahs. This does not invalidate the message that we should not mistreat the poor just because it wasn't directly God or the same person. As for the NT, it is instruction from the Word. It is imperfect but it is the best we can produce in regards to God.

5. God did not physical create gay people gay purposely, it is a psychological abnormality between a heterosexual attraction. Controlling our own desire is very important. Sexual lust is also not the proper conduction of sexual activity.

6. And we shouldn't be killing anyone. Murder I find is an act that can only be committed in self defense. If you reference the Bible, Jesus says he without sin cast the first stone. Which means only God should be the one who takes the life of someone. According to me, why should we be killing gays and murderers? For all I know, there could be a murderer much holier then I who was just in a bad position and he's eternally sorrowful.

7. And why do you always jump to extremes. If you're dubbed an acting officer, you do your best to represent the policy that would be set in motion by the incumbent absent leader. The Israelites were speaking of secular matters. The Bible is divinely inspired, but there are two types of knowledge, divine and physical. Divine is in regards to judgment, God's will, etc. and physical regards to scientific, historical, etc. Just because authors were divinely inspired does not mean they were given the ability to see into the future. Even the prophets who made predictions make them on assumptions like if you treat aliens badly you will be punished, etc. Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today. They do not lie when God says either. I ask you what time the bus comes normally you say hmmm... the sign said 5PM. It's actually 4PM, but you truthfully remembered 5PM, that doesn't mean you lied or the bus stop sign wants to make people miss the bus. If you haven't payed attention the five million times I've said it, they were inspired divinely not divine, they were interpreting God's will, they were not God. God did not physically give commands over then Jesus.

8. The initial creation was out of love for humanity. Then He gave us free will. He did not create evil, but out of our free will we have the option to do whatever we please on earth that is not limited by scientific laws. We can pick to do wrong. If He removed evil from the world, then that would also eliminate our free will.

 

And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc.

 

God willingly created human. He willingly gave them free will. Humans used this free will and performed evils. Collectivisms of evil like Satan and Beelzebub are all figurative. There is no actual manifestation of a demon who tempts people. It is just a way of people putting a face to evil to understand it. Quite frankly I don't really think there is anything evil, rather there are evil acts to the extent were you can allow evil acts to consume you if you refuse to do anything but evil.

 

And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well.

 

And you get hung up with such completely stupid small details. The point of the Bible isn't that it's written by the God directly, or whatever. The point of Catholicism is to be a good person. The point is not to convert everyone, it's to learn good, do good and teach good. I believe in God, but I dare say to some extent it need not even matter if God is truly real or not. The point is be a good person. Please stop repeitively asking me the same questions that I've already like if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied. First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers. Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask.

[/hide]

 

1. I never thought or assumed that you're Jewish. As far as I've got to know Judiasm and Christianity, they have the same God- Jehova. If Jehova was ever wrong during the OT 'era', he was wrong for you too.

 

4. I'll explain my point here through slavery. If an author wrote rules regarding slavery while being 'divinely inspired', then that author gave us the closest thing to the 'word of God'. I could see, perhaps, slight changes of God's original intent, but the idea itself- rules regarding slavery- was something God intended to present, this way or another. If the word of God is eternal, then God allowes slavery, period.

 

5. Controlling our own desires? Why would a certain amount (approximately 8%) of humans be born WITHOUT the desire to 'reproduce'? I could understand, perhaps, the concept of protected sex as a sin, maybe some other sexual actions considered sin. I could understand that because these are actions of people who still have the desire to "mate" with the opposite sex. They have the 'ability' to want to fulfil God's desires.

But gays don't have that. Why would a person ever be created with the opposite of God's desires?

 

6. If such a scenario, of a murderer who is holy, or even very holy, is possible- Why did Jesus himself say it's okay to kill a murderer?

Wikipedia- "The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil,[44] and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.[45] Jesus himself repeats and expands upon the commandment, Do not murder.[46] Jesus also tells a parable in which a king justifiably destroys a group of murderers.[47] The New Testament depicts Jesus as explaining that murder, as well as other sins, come from the heart."

And- "The New Testament acknowledges the just and proper role of civil government in maintaining justice[48] and punishing evildoers, even to the point of bearing the sword.[49] One criminal on the cross contrasts his death as due punishment with Jesus death as an innocent man.[50] When Jesus appeared before Pilate, both Pilate[51] and the crowd[52] recognize the principles of bloodguilt. There is no indication in the New Testament that it is unjust, immoral, or inappropriate for secular civil governments to execute those guilty of shedding innocent blood.[53]

 

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to depict the lawful use of force by soldiers in legitimate battles as justified.[54] The profession of soldier is portrayed in a noble light when the Apostle Paul exhorts the Ephesians to put on the full armor of God.[55] Cornelius, the Roman centurion, is portrayed as a righteous and God-fearing man.[56] Jesus praises the faith of a Roman centurion on the occasion of healing the centurions servant, and states that he has not found such great faith even in Israel.[57] When John the Baptist was preaching repentance and baptizing penitent sinners in the Jordan river, soldiers came to John and asked for specific instructions regarding their repentance. John the Baptist did not demand that the soldiers renounce their profession, instead he exhorted them to be content with their pay."

 

7. I could be wrong about what the sign said, but I can gurantee the sign existed, I can gurantee the bus company or w/e supplied us with the time. Just like I said on #4, the rules of slavery may not be God's specific intent, but the idea itself, the idea of supplying us with rules regarding slavery, is something God did intend to do.

 

"Those who wrote the Bible could not have known that slavery would not apply to our lives today."

Yes, but if they were inspired by God to supply such rules, then God wanted them to. Just like you said, God's word is eternal.

 

Also, I didn't "jump to extremes"- What else could it be? It's either God inteded to supply those rules, or he didn't. If he didn't, the authors made it up.

 

8. "The initial creation was out of love for humanity."

Love for humanity? How can God (or anyone for that matter) love something that doesn't exist?

 

"And no, free will and an omniscient God can exist. I've explained this many times to you but you refuse to try to even comprehend a being outside the context of time who does not predetermine events but knows them because they've happened, happening, will happen, etc."

 

There's nothing to comperhend, you didn't give me a satisfying explanation. As far as I'm concerned, you're the one to refuse to even comperhend that paradox.

To avoid any misunderstandings, I'll explain it slowly.

God is omniscient. That means God is all-knowing. All knowing means God knows everything. The future, by that definition, is something God already knows, and have known forever. If God, or any other being/creature/whatever, knows the future, then that means the future is set. You were bound to commit specific sins long before your grand-grand-grandfather was even born, it was decided whether or not you'll go to Heaven aswell. Pre-destination is something that can't not exist if God is omniscient. That also cancels the concept of free will- If someone was bound to be a murderer before he was even born, what's the point of punishing him for that?

Unless you give me a satisfying explanation that would cancel this one, the paradox stands unsolved.

 

"And as I said, by God making a "better alternative" would altering our free will as well."- Well, that could be tilted towards further explaining my previous point. Here, you're relying on logic. You admittedly say that God couldn't destroy evil, because that's a side effect of free will.

Well, I'm certain that if you will be able to explain that paradox from my previous point, you'll say something along the lines of an entity that is above logic, et cetera.

If God is above logic, wouldn't that mean he could, unlogically, allow free will and the lack of evil at the same time?

 

"if it says God says ok to slavery, then he must either (a) liked it (b-) the Jews lied."

I never said it means God liked it, I said he allowes it. Don't misquote me.

I'll explain it here for the third time. Whether the rules supplied regarding slavery are God's specific words, or the way humans grasped his words, doesn't matter, because either way, it means God atleast once related to slavery, and he wouldn't have if he didn't allow it. The only other possible scenario is that the authors made it up. Unless you can find a third scenario that eliminates both, these are your options.

 

"First of all, you're giving me two WRONG answers, if you want me to answer it at least give me a chance to speak before confining me to multiple choice with two black or white answers."

We're not physically discussing it, you get a chance every time you start typing a response. As I had explained 2 sentences ago, unless you can supply a third scenario that eliminates both others, these are your options. Feel free to disregard the options I gave you if you know of one.

 

"Secondly I've answered it profusely in different wording and yet you continue to ask."

No you didn't...

1. Firstly, as a small theological technicality, Jehova I find to be a mistranslation and German attempt to add vowels to YHWH since in middle eastern languages vowels are implied and they tried to combine Adonai and YHWH to get the incorrect name Jehova. A more accurate (but Arabic corruption) of YHWH I've heard is Yahuwaha.

 

And the God is the same. But as I said, the authors did not physically come into contact with the actual God until Jesus, therefore they had speculations of God's expectations and tried to think of how God is, that is why the OT is retained as a book of wisdom but not a book of law. Again, there will be Protestants who probably disagree with me, but I am not a Protestant nor have I taken the time to study indepth Protestant thought foundations.

 

4. As I was saying, there is divine and physical knowledge. Divine inspiration means they got through to a bit of divine knowledge but did not have even a small fraction of it. Just because they were divinely inspired does not mean they could defy logic. They did not automatically see the future, etc. An interesting discussion occurred when we were discussing the divinity and humanness of Jesus. He had 100% divine knowledge because He was part of the Trinity and thus had power to give new commandments directly. But was Jesus able to know the words of the scripture without education of them? And I answered quickly and surprised everyone no. The understanding of scripture and ability to issue commands would come naturally to Jesus. But scripture is a worldly book, which is compromised of human knowledge. Because Jesus was also fully human, he did not have the ability to know physical knowledge that he was never presented with.

 

So God did not allow slavery, simply people did. There were many things in the OT in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus goes the Scripture tells you X but I tell you Y. In the book of Isaiah if you would like me to source Scripture says that God would speak but they would not understand. We are imperfect finite beings. We will make mistakes. We can easily be shortsighted. Plus slavery was more of a secular thing then it was religious, don't think of it in terms of 1700s America, rather more then a contract for playing off debt. I'm not justifying it but it wasn't a horribly pressing issue of the day that was obviously immoral and it was being justified by saying God allows it.

 

6. "Today, the Church... refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual "or a "homosexual," and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life." That is from an encyclical by a Bishop. There is no distinction between the sexual orientation of a person and therefore it is incorrect to say someone is a homosexual therefore they will burn. The homosexual actions are what is the sin though. God does not also intend to have children born with a leg but it does occur and a physical intervention would affect our free will. Now it would be wrong of this minority of people with a leg to chop someone else's leg off just so that they must get a leg , therefore they must sustain from doing so.

 

In no way do I think homosexual is violent or effecting other people at all. But in the Catholic understanding, if you are a Catholic you are suppose to remain chaste as a part of your vocation. You might be thinking well we aren't talking about priests. The purity of chastity in the Catholic Church is only lost when (1) it is outside marriage [or if you really want to stretch it, having sex with someone you don't love], (2) in an act of sodomy. With this understanding, homosexual actions are wrong. God did not intend to make a homosexual a homosexual, but that's how his or her chemical balance was formed. The point of following chastity also creates a life style of inner peace and control [this is all under the assumption one if a Catholic.] Other then the preservation of marriage, the Church cannot tell non-believing homosexuals to actually adhere to a chaste lifestyle because the Catholic law is something that should be followed in the Church as opposed to in the state, which I will explain in my next point.

 

7. Please see #4 where I talk about the two types of knowledge, etc. It is not God's intention to enslave others.

 

8. Because it goes back to God being a being outside of time, therefore He loved creation before He created it since He is timeless, and it existed, was existing and will exist before He created it. This element would require the belief in God.

 

And you didn't have to explain to me your supposed paradox, I'm not thick, I very well understood what you meant. I think you were trying to tease me by saying you'd explain it slowly like I'm mentally slow or a loon.

 

God's knowledge of the future does not make it set. It means God knows what is going to happen. The murderer made the choice to kill. You're also judging this murderer by assuming he'll receive punishment by God. Perhaps his internal conflict and sorrow is enough? Christianity is all about salvation and repentance and forgiveness to those willing to accept forgiveness. Sorrow can only be decided by the murderer, thief, rapist, etc. God knows what you'll do, it doesn't mean He determined it. Since He is outside of our time, He sees all time at once. He knows what will happen from beginning to end, but it doesn't mean he determined it. It is comparable to walking the path of a mountain as opposed to the person who has the whole mountain in sight. This also explain the provincial mindedness of the Jews who wrote the laws of slavery as they only were looking at their immediate time and not the grand picture, although they could not as could not being finite beings in this time. If God had not given us free will, then why didn't He just give us the Bible of His own creation in our hands? If God is good how is there evil? It is free will. And no, since evil is a product of free will but the removing of evil it is the limiting of our own free will which would be a violate of God's gift of free will.

 

Anyway, you are understanding divine inspiration like a fundamentalist. God did not actual say to the person, hey such and such. First of all, to reach canonization of a divinely inspired document, it is a process not just writing it down. Secondly, divine inspiration is a spanning term over the books of the Bible and are inclusive of the morals. The secular rules are human fabrications. And there is no place in the Bible that say The LORD said about slavery X or YHWH your lord says Y about the practice of slavery. It just has writings of slavery by a group of nomads trying to understand God.

 

And yes, I did answer these question. What you ask me in return to my answers are answered simply extensions of the original answer.

[/hide]

 

1. Then why take any part of the OT literally?

 

4.I typed in "Jesus and the Old Testament" on Google, and that's about the first result I found-

"We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God's Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus Himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And His testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

 

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!

 

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

 

He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others."

 

To me it seems like Jesus himself would disagree with you.

 

6. What I don't get is, how comes people are born without the ability to fulfil God's desires? I can understand why a heterosexual pervert is a sinner- because he can choose not to, he can choose to change and not commit any pervert acts, and even try not to have those thoughts. But a homosexual, someone who cannot be attracted to women, cannot. How comes anything like that even exists?

 

8."And you didn't have to explain to me your supposed paradox, I'm not thick, I very well understood what you meant. I think you were trying to tease me by saying you'd explain it slowly like I'm mentally slow or a loon."

No, I wasn't. Sorry if you took it that way. I really did explain it slowly in order to try to avoid any misunderstandings, which seem to have occured regardless of that...

 

"God's knowledge of the future does not make it set."

A sentence before this one you claimed to understand the paradox I presented. That shows otherwise. If someone knows the future, that's because the future is set. If it wasn't set, he couldn't have known it.

 

"The murderer made the choice to kill."

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean he has free will. If he was going to murder long before he was born, how can you blame him for anything?

 

"God knows what you'll do, it doesn't mean He determined it."

I never said it does. I only said that a known future is a set future, regardless of who chose it. If God knows what is going to happen, he also knows person X is going to be a rapist, and if he is going to be a rapist before he was born- then again, you can't blame him. And on the same account, you can't blame any sinners, or punish any sinners.

 

"And no, since evil is a product of free will but the removing of evil it is the limiting of our own free will which would be a violate of God's gift of free will."

Yes, except that's your humane logic speaking. For a perfect being that is above time and above logic, free will can exist without evil, even if that's not logical. "God can devide by 0" is a similar statement, in a way, to "God can gift us with free will without the side effect of evilness".

 

"Anyway, you are understanding divine inspiration like a fundamentalist. God did not actual say to the person, hey such and such. First of all, to reach canonization of a divinely inspired document, it is a process not just writing it down. Secondly, divine inspiration is a spanning term over the books of the Bible and are inclusive of the morals. The secular rules are human fabrications. And there is no place in the Bible that say The LORD said about slavery X or YHWH your lord says Y about the practice of slavery. It just has writings of slavery by a group of nomads trying to understand God."

Why should we take anything Jesus didn't personally say, as literal then?

[Alg]

Why should we take anything Jesus didn't personally say, as literal then?

Building from this...

I always thought that Christianity was following the teachings of Jesus. Are there any Christian branches that focus just on that?

[Flyingjj]

Why should we take anything Jesus didn't personally say, as literal then?

Building from this...

I always thought that Christianity was following the teachings of Jesus. Are there any Christian branches that focus just on that?

Simple answer: Yes.

 

You won't find a name/denomination like Lutheran, Episcopalian, or Methodist attached to them yet. They tend to exist under the title "non-denominational" if they use any label at all.

 

There are more "radical" branches than even that, which try to live out Jesus as much as possible. I'm currently exploring this as much as possible.

 

Book recommendation on the subject: The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne

[amadcupcake77]

I guess my opinion won't be very popular but...

 

I think believing in God (i.e. A Christian God) is just incredibly stupid; if you look at all the "evidence" for and all the evidence against a God and come to the conclusion that God exists then there has got to be something wrong with you, especially in this day and age, knowing everything that we know.

[Denith]

Why should we take anything Jesus didn't personally say, as literal then?

Building from this...

I always thought that Christianity was following the teachings of Jesus. Are there any Christian branches that focus just on that?

Simple answer: Yes.

 

You won't find a name/denomination like Lutheran, Episcopalian, or Methodist attached to them yet. They tend to exist under the title "non-denominational" if they use any label at all.

 

There are more "radical" branches than even that, which try to live out Jesus as much as possible. I'm currently exploring this as much as possible.

 

Book recommendation on the subject: The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne

 

To anyone interested, I'm a member of one of these sorts of groups.

[Rien]

I guess my opinion won't be very popular but...

 

I think believing in God (i.e. A Christian God) is just incredibly stupid; if you look at all the "evidence" for and all the evidence against a God and come to the conclusion that God exists then there has got to be something wrong with you, especially in this day and age, knowing everything that we know.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs.

[Zygimantas]

I guess my opinion won't be very popular but...

 

I think believing in God (i.e. A Christian God) is just incredibly stupid; if you look at all the "evidence" for and all the evidence against a God and come to the conclusion that God exists then there has got to be something wrong with you, especially in this day and age, knowing everything that we know.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs.

Yep, but I only believe in something if it can be proven, or else I would be believing in any story anyone told me. On the side note, I just read Exodus:21 and laughed at the notion that none of my christian friends have Hebrew slaves yet.

[Saru Inc]

I guess my opinion won't be very popular but...

 

I think believing in God (i.e. A Christian God) is just incredibly stupid; if you look at all the "evidence" for and all the evidence against a God and come to the conclusion that God exists then there has got to be something wrong with you, especially in this day and age, knowing everything that we know.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs.

 

Yep, however you can debate whether the data we find in the world, support the statements of various religious texts.

 

I guess my opinion won't be very popular but...

 

I think believing in God (i.e. A Christian God) is just incredibly stupid; if you look at all the "evidence" for and all the evidence against a God and come to the conclusion that God exists then there has got to be something wrong with you, especially in this day and age, knowing everything that we know.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs.

Yep, but I only believe in something if it can be proven, or else I would be believing in any story anyone told me. On the side note, I just read Exodus:21 and laughed at the notion that none of my christian friends have Hebrew slaves yet.

 

 

They must not be very good Christians.

[Rien]

Of course, you can debate/disprove people's interpretations under certain circumstances, but as I said, no proof exists which can either confirm or deny the existence of the supernatural. My original point was that it's hypocritical to dimiss the opposing side based on "having no evidence", since no such evidence exists in the first place, one way or another.

 

I was addressing this statement, by the way:

 

...if you look at all the "evidence" for and all the evidence against a God and come to the conclusion that God exists then there has got to be something wrong with you...

[Romy]

I guess my opinion won't be very popular but...

 

I think believing in God (i.e. A Christian God) is just incredibly stupid; if you look at all the "evidence" for and all the evidence against a God and come to the conclusion that God exists then there has got to be something wrong with you, especially in this day and age, knowing everything that we know.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs.

 

However, when someone tells you a story, and claims it to be the only truth, it's his job to prove he's correct, and not your job to disprove his story. If I posted here that the only true God is Mr.Green ( :mrgreen: ) because he's so kind, and he really did create the universe, and because I have a book of his word, none of you could prove me wrong, but that's not your job. It's my job to present proof regarding Mr.Green's doings, and the truthfulness in the book I claim to have.

 

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."- Christopher Hitchens

[Denith]

Mr. Green is hypothetical. You don't really believe in him. Stating that if you did removes the possibility that you will believe in the green face or have already. You can't really compare him to a God tangible only by the beliefs of others.

[Rien]

I guess my opinion won't be very popular but...

 

I think believing in God (i.e. A Christian God) is just incredibly stupid; if you look at all the "evidence" for and all the evidence against a God and come to the conclusion that God exists then there has got to be something wrong with you, especially in this day and age, knowing everything that we know.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs.

 

However, when someone tells you a story, and claims it to be the only truth, it's his job to prove he's correct, and not your job to disprove his story. If I posted here that the only true God is Mr.Green ( :mrgreen: ) because he's so kind, and he really did create the universe, and because I have a book of his word, none of you could prove me wrong, but that's not your job. It's my job to present proof regarding Mr.Green's doings, and the truthfulness in the book I claim to have.

 

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."- Christopher Hitchens

 

That quote of yours presents an irresponsible and somewhat closed-minded notion, to be honest.

I might even go so far as to call it childish (not to imply that you are). :mellow:

 

I'm sure everyone who subscribes to that quote is already well aware that there is no physical, concrete proof which can corroborate God's existence (or that of any other supernatural being/phenomenon), yet they still ask for definitive "evidence" anyway while stating that the original assertion can simply be dismissed if no such proof is provided. Anyone who makes this stipulation does so with no intent of hearing the other side out from the start, as they've already decided that nothing can be done to change their minds; for the most part, they merely wish to discredit their "opponents" by asking the impossible under the guise of innocent curiosity/debate. In other words, it's something of a loaded question, and really wouldn't be used by someone genuinely interested in debating this topic.

 

Now, under normal circumstances, it would be natural to expect the opposing side in a debate to present evidence which supports their claims/arguments, but here we're debating over our personal beliefs concerning the possible existence and nature of "God" - a supposedly supernatural being. Because of this, neither side (those who believe in some form of diety and those who do not) can possibly find/provide evidence as support for their claims, since we live in a strictly "natural" world; the "supernatural" is, by definition, beyond our reach and unable to be tested. All we have to use in this debate are our own personal beliefs/feelings, and so it's ridiculous to try to levy the so-called "burden of proof" on one party alone and insinuate that they must be wrong unless they can satisfy an impossible condition (that of finding "proof" to confirm/deny the existence of the supernatural). Attempting to do so is merely a lazy deflection; neither side has any real evidence to support their beliefs, so it's unreasonable (not to mention hypocritical) to waste everyone's time trying to make either party "prove" anything.

---------------------

 

Concerning the remainder of your post:

 

As Surrealist said, Mr. Green cannot realistically be compared to the concept of "God". Mr. Green is a forum emoticon, while "God" (in one form or another) is a being who has existed in the minds of billions of humans for several thousands of years. In many ways, God is already "real" despite whether or not he actually exists; belief in God has had a much more profound and lasting effect on the human race than any single person or group of people can ever hope to have. Even if there's no definitive evidence to attest to God's existence, it's noteworthy that such a staggering number of people have held a belief in him/her/it for so long. The concept of God is not so easily "dismissed" as you claim, or at least shouldn't be by any open-minded, reasonable person. It's a worthy topic for debate and study, and so shouldn't be trivialised as you appear to be doing.

[Zygimantas]

I guess my opinion won't be very popular but...

 

I think believing in God (i.e. A Christian God) is just incredibly stupid; if you look at all the "evidence" for and all the evidence against a God and come to the conclusion that God exists then there has got to be something wrong with you, especially in this day and age, knowing everything that we know.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs.

 

However, when someone tells you a story, and claims it to be the only truth, it's his job to prove he's correct, and not your job to disprove his story. If I posted here that the only true God is Mr.Green ( :mrgreen: ) because he's so kind, and he really did create the universe, and because I have a book of his word, none of you could prove me wrong, but that's not your job. It's my job to present proof regarding Mr.Green's doings, and the truthfulness in the book I claim to have.

 

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."- Christopher Hitchens

 

That quote of yours presents an irresponsible and somewhat closed-minded notion, to be honest.

I might even go so far as to call it childish (not to imply that you are). :mellow:

 

I'm sure everyone who subscribes to that quote is already well aware that there is no physical, concrete proof which can corroborate God's existence (or that of any other supernatural being/phenomenon), yet they still ask for definitive "evidence" anyway while stating that the original assertion can simply be dismissed if no such proof is provided. Anyone who makes this stipulation does so with no intent of hearing the other side out from the start, as they've already decided that nothing can be done to change their minds; for the most part, they merely wish to discredit their "opponents" by asking the impossible under the guise of innocent curiosity/debate. In other words, it's something of a loaded question, and really wouldn't be used by someone genuinely interested in debating this topic.

 

Now, under normal circumstances, it would be natural to expect the opposing side in a debate to present evidence which supports their claims/arguments, but here we're debating over our personal beliefs concerning the possible existence and nature of "God" - a supposedly supernatural being. Because of this, neither side (those who believe in some form of diety and those who do not) can possibly find/provide evidence as support for their claims, since we live in a strictly "natural" world; the "supernatural" is, by definition, beyond our reach and unable to be tested. All we have to use in this debate are our own personal beliefs/feelings, and so it's ridiculous to try to levy the so-called "burden of proof" on one party alone and insinuate that they must be wrong unless they can satisfy an impossible condition (that of finding "proof" to confirm/deny the existence of the supernatural). Attempting to do so is merely a lazy deflection; neither side has any real evidence to support their beliefs, so it's unreasonable (not to mention hypocritical) to waste everyone's time trying to make either party "prove" anything.

---------------------

 

Concerning the remainder of your post:

 

As Surrealist said, Mr. Green cannot realistically be compared to the concept of "God". Mr. Green is a forum emoticon, while "God" (in one form or another) is a being who has existed in the minds of billions of humans for several thousands of years. In many ways, God is already "real" despite whether or not he actually exists; belief in God has had a much more profound and lasting effect on the human race than any single person or group of people can ever hope to have. Even if there's no definitive evidence to attest to God's existence, it's noteworthy that such a staggering number of people have held a belief in him/her/it for so long. The concept of God is not so easily "dismissed" as you claim, or at least shouldn't be by any open-minded, reasonable person. It's a worthy topic for debate and study, and so shouldn't be trivialised as you appear to be doing.

Well, I still stand by my stance that I only believe in things that can be proven. I still hold the possibility that god may exist but only if actual evidence is found, and not like my friend said " I know he is real because of faith." He was just using Mr.Green as an example, he wasn't comparing it to god. He could have used anything else like fairies or elves, mr.green is no different. Its the same as if he would have used the flying spaghetti monster as an example. Anything not proven that may exist=god

[Romy]

Mr. Green is hypothetical. You don't really believe in him. Stating that if you did removes the possibility that you will believe in the green face or have already. You can't really compare him to a God tangible only by the beliefs of others.

 

What you don't understand is that Mr.Green is a perfectly fit analogy of God.

Whether I do or don't believe in Mr.Green does not validate his existence any more/less, and if you want, you can take my argument as if I really did believe in him, and compare it to 'God'. You'll see it can't be proven, and can neither be disproven- but that does not mean that we should necessarily believe in it or be agnostic towards it. If it wasn't Mr.Green, it could be Apollo, it could be Ra, it could be FSM, and it could be fairies.

[Romy]

I'm sure everyone who subscribes to that quote is already well aware that there is no physical, concrete proof which can corroborate God's existence (or that of any other supernatural being/phenomenon), yet they still ask for definitive "evidence" anyway while stating that the original assertion can simply be dismissed if no such proof is provided.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for proof for something as important as a human perspective or as a way of life. Anyone who lives his life believing in something that cannot and will not be proven, is a fool IMO.

 

Anyone who makes this stipulation does so with no intent of hearing the other side out from the start, as they've already decided that nothing can be done to change their minds;

Mind you, I belonged to the other side myself. I was the perfect believer, I did anything I could think of to "reach God", I studied, I preached, I read, and I even defended God from people like me.

I'm also willing to hear the other side, and have done so, times and times again.

Unless I see proof, I'm not going to enslave myself in the favor of a fairytale, yet I'm all ears to anyone who wishes to show me the other way with proof

 

for the most part, they merely wish to discredit their "opponents" by asking the impossible under the guise of innocent curiosity/debate. In other words, it's something of a loaded question, and really wouldn't be used by someone genuinely interested in debating this topic.

Oh, I'm geniunely interested in debating this topic, but after years of thought and debate, I don't believe the other side can present anything new. I am, however, fully willing to keep hearing the other side, and explaining myself aswell.

 

Now, under normal circumstances, it would be natural to expect the opposing side in a debate to present evidence which supports their claims/arguments, but here we're debating over our personal beliefs concerning the possible existence and nature of "God" - a supposedly supernatural being.

At one point, Apollo fit that description exactly, today Apollo is nothing but mythology. The fact that a large part of the world's population believes in something does not mean the "burden of proof" no longer stands.

 

Because of this, neither side (those who believe in some form of diety and those who do not) can possibly find/provide evidence as support for their claims, since we live in a strictly "natural" world; the "supernatural" is, by definition, beyond our reach and unable to be tested.

Technically, FSM is "beyond our reach and unable to be tested", but that does not mean that we should be agnostic towards it or not "levy the burden of proof" on anyone who truely believes in FSM (even if no one fits that description).

You see, only one truth can exist. There can't be no God and at the same time be, it's not possible that both Christianity and Hinduism are correct. And so, I think not believing in any specific God is the natural thing any of us would have done if our parents and/or society did not present the concept in front of us. As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'.

 

All we have to use in this debate are our own personal beliefs/feelings, and so it's ridiculous to try to levy the so-called "burden of proof" on one party alone and insinuate that they must be wrong unless they can satisfy an impossible condition (that of finding "proof" to confirm/deny the existence of the supernatural). Attempting to do so is merely a lazy deflection; neither side has any real evidence to support their beliefs, so it's unreasonable (not to mention hypocritical) to waste everyone's time trying to make either party "prove" anything.

For that paragraph alone, I can present the Mr.Green case again.

 

---------------------

 

As Surrealist said, Mr. Green cannot realistically be compared to the concept of "God". Mr. Green is a forum emoticon, while "God" (in one form or another) is a being who has existed in the minds of billions of humans for several thousands of years.

Read my previous post for an answer.

 

 

In many ways, God is already "real" despite whether or not he actually exists; belief in God has had a much more profound and lasting effect on the human race than any single person or group of people can ever hope to have. Even if there's no definitive evidence to attest to God's existence, it's noteworthy that such a staggering number of people have held a belief in him/her/it for so long. The concept of God is not so easily "dismissed" as you claim, or at least shouldn't be by any open-minded, reasonable person. It's a worthy topic for debate and study, and so shouldn't be trivialised as you appear to be doing.

Again, the fact that many believe/believed in God at one time or another doesn't make him "real" by the original meaning of the word. Apollo was widely believed in at one time, and in the same way you claim God to be real, so is Apollo.

[Romy]

Well, I still stand by my stance that I only believe in things that can be proven. I still hold the possibility that god may exist but only if actual evidence is found, and not like my friend said " I know he is real because of faith." He was just using Mr.Green as an example, he wasn't comparing it to god. He could have used anything else like fairies or elves, mr.green is no different. Its the same as if he would have used the flying spaghetti monster as an example. Anything not proven that may exist=god

 

I'm a she :wink: .

[amadcupcake77]

Do you guys think that the Bible is a credible source of information?

 

I often hear people cite the Bible as their reason for believing in God etc, and can't help thinking 'it's just a book'.

 

I know that it has historical factual content, yet in most cases it was written and compiled hundreds of years after the events, which makes the explicit details of the story (i.e. They marched around the city 7 times, so God destroyed the walls for them etc) completely unreliable, as that is exactly the kind of thing that will get added given the chinese whisper effect of a story having to survive from word of mouth for so long, the same goes for Jesus and all his 'miracles'.

[Alg]

As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist?

[Romy]

As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist?

 

The way I see it, theists provided the "story". Atheists just doubt that story, so I don't think it's their job to disprove it.

That's not saying that they shouldn't point things out, or explain themselves, etc. that's saying that since there either is a God, or there isn't, and neither statement can be proven, the logical thing to do is not follow God (that's my opinion, to avoid any misunderstandings), just as you wouldn't believe in the monster under the bed despite the lack of evidence of it's inexistence.

[fakeitormakeit2]

As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist?

 

The way I see it, theists provided the "story". Atheists just doubt that story, so I don't think it's their job to disprove it.

That's not saying that they shouldn't point things out, or explain themselves, etc. that's saying that since there either is a God, or there isn't, and neither statement can be proven, the logical thing to do is not follow God (that's my opinion, to avoid any misunderstandings), just as you wouldn't believe in the monster under the bed despite the lack of evidence of it's inexistence.

Through experience of faith one could feel that is all the evidence they need to follow a god. But that is what is required, faith. And faith cannot be simply pieced together in a formula of some sort, it is a developed and involuntary result of a human being. Therefore atheists do not experience the evidence theists have, and so it would be more logical if they were agnostic as they do not have definitive 'no' information.

[Romy]

As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist?

 

The way I see it, theists provided the "story". Atheists just doubt that story, so I don't think it's their job to disprove it.

That's not saying that they shouldn't point things out, or explain themselves, etc. that's saying that since there either is a God, or there isn't, and neither statement can be proven, the logical thing to do is not follow God (that's my opinion, to avoid any misunderstandings), just as you wouldn't believe in the monster under the bed despite the lack of evidence of it's inexistence.

Through experience of faith one could feel that is all the evidence they need to follow a god. But that is what is required, faith. And faith cannot be simply pieced together in a formula of some sort, it is a developed and involuntary result of a human being. Therefore atheists do not experience the evidence theists have, and so it would be more logical if they were agnostic as they do not have definitive 'no' information.

 

So because you, or any other theist, claims to have felt such experiences, I should be agnostic towards said experiences?

 

You may be surprised, but people from different (or even very different) religions claim to have had those experiences. That automatically means that basing any specific religion on these experiences is pointless. What does Christianity has to offer that Islam does not? What does Islam has to offer that Buddhism does not? etc...

[fakeitormakeit2]

As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist?

 

The way I see it, theists provided the "story". Atheists just doubt that story, so I don't think it's their job to disprove it.

That's not saying that they shouldn't point things out, or explain themselves, etc. that's saying that since there either is a God, or there isn't, and neither statement can be proven, the logical thing to do is not follow God (that's my opinion, to avoid any misunderstandings), just as you wouldn't believe in the monster under the bed despite the lack of evidence of it's inexistence.

Through experience of faith one could feel that is all the evidence they need to follow a god. But that is what is required, faith. And faith cannot be simply pieced together in a formula of some sort, it is a developed and involuntary result of a human being. Therefore atheists do not experience the evidence theists have, and so it would be more logical if they were agnostic as they do not have definitive 'no' information.

 

So because you, or any other theist, claims to have felt such experiences, I should be agnostic towards said experiences?

 

You may be surprised, but people from different (or even very different) religions claim to have had those experiences. That automatically means that basing any specific religion on these experiences is pointless. What does Christianity has to offer that Islam does not? What does Islam has to offer that Buddhism does not? etc...

Can you disprove any of our theistic experiences that we have claimed to be testimony?

[Alg]

As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist?

 

The way I see it, theists provided the "story". Atheists just doubt that story, so I don't think it's their job to disprove it.

That leads to an interesting double standard if only one side is required to actually prove its side.

If I were to say that I do believe in a God would I just be doubting the atheist's 'story'? I would be rejecting the notion that a god doesn't exist.

[Romy]

As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist?

 

The way I see it, theists provided the "story". Atheists just doubt that story, so I don't think it's their job to disprove it.

That's not saying that they shouldn't point things out, or explain themselves, etc. that's saying that since there either is a God, or there isn't, and neither statement can be proven, the logical thing to do is not follow God (that's my opinion, to avoid any misunderstandings), just as you wouldn't believe in the monster under the bed despite the lack of evidence of it's inexistence.

Through experience of faith one could feel that is all the evidence they need to follow a god. But that is what is required, faith. And faith cannot be simply pieced together in a formula of some sort, it is a developed and involuntary result of a human being. Therefore atheists do not experience the evidence theists have, and so it would be more logical if they were agnostic as they do not have definitive 'no' information.

 

So because you, or any other theist, claims to have felt such experiences, I should be agnostic towards said experiences?

 

You may be surprised, but people from different (or even very different) religions claim to have had those experiences. That automatically means that basing any specific religion on these experiences is pointless. What does Christianity has to offer that Islam does not? What does Islam has to offer that Buddhism does not? etc...

Can you disprove any of our theistic experiences that we have claimed to be testimony?

 

Ofcourse not, these are personal experiences. Asking that is as rediculous as asking you to prove any of your experiences.

[Romy]

As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists'.

But if it's an atheist stating that there is no god do theists still have to provide proof that there is? Or is it the atheist's job to prove that no god(s) can exist?

 

The way I see it, theists provided the "story". Atheists just doubt that story, so I don't think it's their job to disprove it.

That leads to an interesting double standard if only one side is required to actually prove its side.

If I were to say that I do believe in a God would I just be doubting the atheist's 'story'? I would be rejecting the notion that a god doesn't exist.

 

I'm kind of repeating myself here, but if I presented Mr.Green as the one true God, it would be my job to prove that's the truth, and not yours to disprove it. The story I'm presenting is "Mr.Green is our God", you, on the other hand, not presenting a story by saying "Not true until proven otherwise".