Do YOU believe in God?

[Evilperson]

I haven't looked at this topic for a while and I was reading when I realized why I think what I do.

 

 

 

Personally I organized religion. It is so stupid. I might believe in God, if that is what I wish to call it. The reason I most Christians and any other typical religion is they think of God of a Person or a Being or something capable of doing something. When in reality, if there even is such a being, it is supposed to be thought of more of an idea. Not something you should pray to for forgiveness or to pray for a specific event to happen. You should have your own ideals and morals.

 

 

 

Organized religion is stupid.

 

 

 

My thoughts.

 

 

 

If you don't mind me asking, how did you reach the conclusion that God would not be a person, but rather an idea? And how is people believing in a personal God justification for hating them? You said you hate organized religion, but is the belief in a personal God the only reason why you do?

 

 

 

You say that people should have their own ideas and morals - what if their idea is that a personal God exists and their morals are that we should obey it?

 

 

 

Nice point, Astra. Well made.

 

 

 

It's ironic how intolerant the people who claim tolerance are.

 

 

 

I actually said that I might believe in a god. As i said, it is what i PERSONALLY believe. See peoples opinions on somethings differ than others. What im trying to say is that religion should be kept to yourself. You are not doing any good trying to preach to other people. It should be a private event. And did i ever say i hated individuals who believed in god? No. i said i HATE ORGANIZED RELIGION. I hate the thought of it. It is the same thing as a cult except it is socially acceptable. There is a saying that goes, "Hate the sin not the sinner". My personal belief follows the same thing. As for following thier own beliefs, it should be trying to improve themselves, as opposed to harassing people to join thier specific division of religion.

 

 

 

And piano, what the hell. I never preached tolerance.

[pianofrieak2]

And piano, what the hell. I never preached tolerance.

 

 

 

And evilperson, you're wrong. You are imposing your view, that I should leave others' theological views alone, on me by saying I should shut up. You are being intolerant of my intolerant beliefs.

 

 

 

See the natural conclusion of your statement? It's hypocritical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bearofthunder,

 

 

 

Man, you're close. Really close. But you're just not there yet. Let me point this out to you and then I'm finished. Hopefully you'll understand this time. Just read it slowly. :P

 

 

 

 

 

you said, truth is unchanging.

 

 

 

The Vedas was first, so it became truth. By the time Christanity was born, the Vedas had already been the unchangeable truth for 220 years.

 

 

 

That means Christianity is false because it contradicts something that came earlier than itself.

 

 

 

I'll put forth one hypothetical question and then give you my argument.

 

 

 

"How do you know the Vedas was first?"

 

 

 

Now, you may have this wonderful source and all that, but how do you know that the Vedas is truth? You're ASSUMING that the Vedas is truth simply because it came first. Perhaps the Vedas took the truth found in God and perverted it before the Bible came along to write down God's truth.

 

 

 

Hmm? :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

God, who is omnipotent, knew when he created the universe that there would one day be evil, but he went ahead with it anyway. Evil was not a mere possibility in his mind, since he is aware of the end result of every event. God knew when he created the universe that there would one day be evil. I am sure that an omnipotent being such as him could have altered his plans and made a universe devoid of evil.

 

 

 

However, he did not do that. By creating a universe where he knew evil would one day exist, he is responsible for the creation of evil.

 

 

 

God is omnipotent. I agree.

 

He knew the universe would have evil in it in the future. I agree.

 

 

 

But the biggest question is:

 

 

 

Why would God leave evil out? If He left evil out, there would be no choice for good. We would all do good because we were forced. We would have no other option. Because we have no other option, there is no love.

 

 

 

God didn't have to create us. He in the Trinity form was in perfect peace, but He wanted something else. He wanted love, true love. And true love requires choice, so that is why He created us with the option to do evil. So that we would do good and LOVE GOD. Do you finally get it?

 

 

 

In other words, god provided the option for evil already knowing without a doubt that man would one day use that option.

 

 

 

Exactly! He did it for love. :D

[pianofrieak2]

double post. :oops:

[pianofrieak2]

oh, gosh. triple post.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Big bold font makes you right by the way.

[ZOMBIE]

bums :P

[Astralinre]

I haven't looked at this topic for a while and I was reading when I realized why I think what I do.

 

 

 

Personally I hate organized religion. It is so stupid. I might believe in God, if that is what I wish to call it. The reason I hate most Christians and any other typical religion is they think of God of a Person or a Being or something capable of doing something. When in reality, if there even is such a being, it is supposed to be thought of more of an idea. Not something you should pray to for forgiveness or to pray for a specific event to happen. You should have your own ideals and morals.

 

 

 

Organized religion is stupid.

 

 

 

My thoughts.

 

 

 

If you don't mind me asking, how did you reach the conclusion that God would not be a person, but rather an idea? And how is people believing in a personal God justification for hating them? You said you organized religion, but is the belief in a personal God the only reason why you do?

 

 

 

You say that people should have their own ideas and morals - what if their idea is that a personal God exists and their morals are that we should obey it?

 

 

 

Nice point, Astra. Well made.

 

 

 

It's ironic how intolerant the people who claim tolerance are.

 

 

 

I actually said that I might believe in a god. As i said, it is what i PERSONALLY believe. See peoples opinions on somethings differ than others. What im trying to say is that religion should be kept to yourself. You are not doing any good trying to preach to other people. It should be a private event. And did i ever say i d individuals who believed in god? No. i said i ORGANIZED RELIGION. I the thought of it. It is the same thing as a cult except it is socially acceptable. There is a saying that goes, % the sin not the sinner". My personal belief follows the same thing. As for following thier own beliefs, it should be trying to improve themselves, as opposed to harassing people to join thier specific division of religion.

 

 

 

And piano, what the hell. I never preached tolerance.

 

 

 

Sorry, but you did say, "The reason I hate most Christians," not, "The reason I hate Christianity." Sorry if you intended the latter, but I was just going by what you typed. Simple mistake.

 

 

 

Now, I understand what you said in your response, but I'm trying to understand your original statements, so would you please answer the specific questions I asked about your beliefs?

 

 

 

Piano, I'm with MPC on this one; use the bold and large font sparingly, my friend. :)

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

 

 

bearofthunder,

 

 

 

Man, you're close. Really close. But you're just not there yet. Let me point this out to you and then I'm finished. Hopefully you'll understand this time. Just read it slowly. :P

 

 

 

I'll put forth one hypothetical question and then give you my argument.

 

 

 

"How do you know the Vedas was first?"

 

 

 

Now, you may have this wonderful source and all that, but how do you know that the Vedas is truth? You're ASSUMING that the Vedas is truth simply because it came first. Perhaps the Vedas took the truth found in God and perverted it before the Bible came along to write down God's truth.

 

 

 

Hmm? :wink:

 

 

 

As I said, I wasn't trying to advocate the Vedas. I'm not a Hindu. The "absolute truth" concept came from you, and I used it the Vedas as an example to show why it is flawed.

 

 

 

What you just argued:

 

 

 

Perhaps the Vedas took the truth found in God and perverted it before the Bible came along to write down God's truth.

 

 

 

is what I wished for you to understand all along - that you cannot prove whether any religion is the absolute truth. There is no way to determine whether:

 

 

 

-Vedas subverted the Bible

 

or

 

-Bible subverted the Vedas.

 

 

 

Either one could be right. Therefore, you cannot claim that Christianity is the absolute truth, or that Hinduism is the absolute truth, and so on.

 

 

 

 

God didn't have to create us. He in the Trinity form was in perfect peace, but He wanted something else. He wanted love, true love. And true love requires choice, so that is why He created us with the option to do evil. So that we would do good and LOVE GOD. Do you finally get it?[/size][/b]

 

 

 

In other words, god provided the option for evil already knowing without a doubt that man would one day use that option.

 

 

 

Exactly! He did it for love. :D

 

 

 

So, when he was making the universe, he had no qualms about all the people he will be sending to hell?

[Guest GhostRanger]

You all are having some discussions that involve the question of "God creating evil," so let me put one thing straight.

 

 

 

Evil does not exist any more than "cold" exists. Cold is the absence of heat. Evil is the absence of God. God didn't create evil, he gave free will to people (and angels). Free will gives us the ability to deny God, and in the absence of God, there is evil.

 

 

 

God didn't create evil. He gave us the free will to deny him and create evil.

 

 

 

 

 

Let me put it this way bareofthunder: If you have a kid, you know the kid is going to grow up and make mistakes. Are the mistakes YOUR fault because you knew he would make mistakes? Of course not.

[bearofthunder]

 

Let me put it this way bareofthunder: If you have a kid, you know the kid is going to grow up and make mistakes. Are the mistakes YOUR fault because you knew he would make mistakes? Of course not.

 

 

 

It would be my fault if I designed the system where my child would burn in eternal damnation for making mistakes. If I were a benevolent being, I wouldn't have the child.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Let me put it this way bareofthunder: If you have a kid, you know the kid is going to grow up and make mistakes. Are the mistakes YOUR fault because you knew he would make mistakes? Of course not.

 

 

 

It would be my fault if I designed the system where my child would burn in eternal damnation for making mistakes. If I were a benevolent being, I wouldn't have the child.

 

 

 

So if you create a rule, define the punishment, and know that your child will break the rule at least once, it's your fault when they do it?

[bearofthunder]

 

So if you create a rule, define the punishment, and know that your child will break the rule at least once, it's your fault when they do it?

 

 

 

It would be my fault if I claimed to be a benevolent being.

 

 

 

Also, your example does not acknowledge the fact that once the child breaks the rule, he breaks it permanently and is punished for all eternity. Therefore, according to the organized religions' definition of god, he created the world with the intention that part of his people will go to hell.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

So if you create a rule, define the punishment, and know that your child will break the rule at least once, it's your fault when they do it?

 

 

 

It would be my fault if I claimed to be a benevolent being.

 

 

 

Also, your example does not acknowledge the fact that once the child breaks the rule, he breaks it permanently and is punished for all eternity. Therefore, according to the organized religions' definition of god, he created the world with the intention that part of his people will go to hell.

 

 

 

I failed to acknowledge that because Christianity doesn't say that. I can't reason with you because you are denying the attribute of being "just" and you are defining "good" without "just." As long as you keep doing that, you aren't talking about the God I believe in and so your point is irrelevant.

[bearofthunder]

 

I failed to acknowledge that because Christianity doesn't say that. I can't reason with you because you are denying the attribute of being "just" and you are defining "good" without "just." As long as you keep doing that, you aren't talking about the God I believe in and so your point is irrelevant.

 

 

 

God is just, as you say, by rewarding those who follow him and punishing those who do not. That is true.

 

 

 

However, god is a hypocrite because he created the system and the people involved in it.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

I failed to acknowledge that because Christianity doesn't say that. I can't reason with you because you are denying the attribute of being "just" and you are defining "good" without "just." As long as you keep doing that, you aren't talking about the God I believe in and so your point is irrelevant.

 

 

 

God is just, as you say, by rewarding those who follow him and punishing those who do not. That is true.

 

 

 

However, god is a hypocrite because he created the system and the people involved in it.

 

 

 

Going by the definition of a hypocrite, explain how that makes Him one.

[hazardmaster]

Pianofreak2, care to finally answer my questions? :roll:

[Evilperson]

 

 

 

Sorry, but you did say, "The reason I hate most Christians," not, "The reason I hate Christianity." Sorry if you intended the latter, but I was just going by what you typed. Simple mistake.

 

 

 

Now, I understand what you said in your response, but I'm trying to understand your original statements, so would you please answer the specific questions I asked about your beliefs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, my mistake, I did mean to type Christianity. I am not saying my beliefs are right, but I am simply saying it would make the world a better place if they were kept private.

 

 

 

Now I know someone is going to say, "What if your beliefs say to be public"

 

 

 

Well what would happen if my beliefs were to shoot up heroin everytime I see a blue-jay because they are sacred?

 

 

 

It all has to do with social acceptancy. And because we accept publicized (SP) religion, it is a commen thought that they have the right to do what they want, as long as it is for religions sake, which is a very contorted veiw.

 

 

 

 

 

And i love how i merely told Piano to shut up and he went off how that in itself was being hypocritical.

 

 

 

Piano: You get an F for failure to support your thesis with meaningful quotes and ellaborating.

[insane]

In other words, god provided the option for evil already knowing without a doubt that man would one day use that option.

 

 

 

Of course. Why would God force people to follow Him? I'd say it is more loving to let people choose "not God". The definition of hell, is "not God", or just a place without God's presence. Fire and brimstone is very much symbolic things talked about in the book of Revelation.

 

 

 

Why would God force someone who chose "not God" during his life, to be in God's presence for eternity? That's just ridiculous.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Trebor, if science is so wonderful, why does it keep changing? Science continually adapts itself to coincide with truth. Truth does not have to adapt itself because of its nature: it IS truth.

 

 

 

bear, since you didn't answer my last question, what is good?

 

What is evil?

 

 

 

Wow, just wow; no personal offence but logic and reasoning like this is what makes me stop posting here, even if I try to give a reasonable, non technical answer it just get replied with another ill thought out question or a claim that my simplified answer doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t 100% represent reality.

 

 

 

The truth doesn't change, however our ability to gather data on the truth does change. Before telescopes all the planets looked like stars, however with telescopes we could see mountains and ridges on the moon, with looks similar to the Earth (so much so that when it was first viewed people speculated that there was life on it). This doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t change the truth that the moon has earth like structure, all that has changed is our ability to gather the truth. Science changes in order to give a better representation of the truth through more accurate datasets. If all we can ever see x detail, then for everyday purposes it is the truth; however as we refine our instruments it may turn out it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t provide a 100% account of the truth and hence we refine our theories to better represent the truth. Take note, it is our comprehension of the truth that is changing; not truth itself.

 

 

 

To put it simply, good and evil is defined by social perceptions passed down to younger generations. This is why there are many things that are grey; some parents believed in x and others y, the children will make up their minds (with influences from their parents) and then pass it on to their children. Grey areas usually deal with more philosophical viewpoints. For example shooting someone is evil because you wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to get shot so why advocate it. The death penalty on the other hand has no direct effect on you so it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help guide you to conclude if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s good or evil. I really donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand why people still feel there are things like souls and ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ågood and evilÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[pianofrieak2]

 

And i love how i merely told Piano to shut up and he went off how that in itself was being hypocritical.

 

 

 

Piano: You get an F for failure to support your thesis with meaningful quotes and ellaborating.

 

 

 

Excuse me, but I already proved how that was hypocritical. Please explain why I'm lacking "meaningful quotes and ellaborating"

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

pianofrieak2, care to finally answer my questions?

 

 

 

hazard, I've already answered your questions. Even MyPurpleCrayon agreed that I did and that your points were flawed. If you continue to think so, then restate them BUT GO BACK AND READ THE RESPONSES. Maybe you missed it the first time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW, Astra and MyPurpleCrayon, I did big bold font because I had said the exact same thing 4 times. The fourth time I was tired of repeating it, so I put in BIG BOLD FONT to really give the point across. I'll try to use it more "sparingly" from now on.

 

 

 

 

 

The truth doesn't change, however our ability to gather data on the truth does change. Before telescopes all the planets looked like stars, however with telescopes we could see mountains and ridges on the moon, with looks similar to the Earth (so much so that when it was first viewed people speculated that there was life on it). This doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t change the truth that the moon has earth like structure, all that has changed is our ability to gather the truth. Science changes in order to give a better representation of the truth through more accurate datasets. If all we can ever see x detail, then for everyday purposes it is the truth; however as we refine our instruments it may turn out it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t provide a 100% account of the truth and hence we refine our theories to better represent the truth. Take note, it is our comprehension of the truth that is changing; not truth itself.

 

 

 

We're talking about the basis for truth. I agree completely with your statements, but when SCIENCE is your basis for truth, then you run into trouble. Your interpretation of truth should not keep changing because then your PERCEPTIONS of truth, as you said, keep changing resulting in different APPLICATIONS of the unchanging truth.

 

 

 

Get it?

 

 

 

 

To put it simply, good and evil is defined by social perceptions passed down to younger generations. This is why there are many things that are grey; some parents believed in x and others y, the children will make up their minds (with influences from their parents) and then pass it on to their children. Grey areas usually deal with more philosophical viewpoints.

 

 

 

I agree, for you can't force your belief on others. But I WILL say that parents play a vital role in setting the foundation for morality to their children. Mostly through their actions as compared to their words, though.

 

 

 

For example shooting someone is evil because you wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to get shot so why advocate it.

 

 

 

That's more of utilitarianism than of a straight morality.

 

 

 

The death penalty on the other hand has no direct effect on you so it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help guide you to conclude if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s good or evil. I really donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand why people still feel there are things like souls and ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ågood and evilÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Evilperson]

Actually Pianofreak, I said that because you randomly say that I am intolerant.

 

 

 

What makes you think that again?

 

:roll:

[pianofrieak2]

Actually Pianofreak, I said that because you randomly say that I am intolerant.

 

 

 

It's actually quite obvious. Everyone is intolerant of others' beliefs. Christians are intolerant of atheists' viewpoints and atheists are intolerant of Christians' viewpoints.

 

 

 

Now why you're so offended, I don't know. I merely pointed out your inconsistency and all of a sudden you make random posts slamming me. If it's because you don't like being proven to be hypocritical, then change your belief systems, don't talk, or grow up and accept it.

[bearofthunder]

 

Going by the definition of a hypocrite, explain how that makes Him one.

 

and

 

Of course. Why would God force people to follow Him? I'd say it is more loving to let people choose "not God". The definition of hell, is "not God", or just a place without God's presence. Fire and brimstone is very much symbolic things talked about in the book of Revelation.

 

 

 

Why would God force someone who chose "not God" during his life, to be in God's presence for eternity? That's just ridiculous.

 

 

 

I figured out why Ghost's original example was inaccurate.

 

 

 

Here is the correct example:

 

A mother will have two children. She is a psychic, and she knows that child #1 will become a successful doctor, while child #2 will become a drug addict who is brutally killed by thugs on the street. Why should she even have child #2?

 

 

 

=> Because the mother was aware before child #2's birth that he will ultimately become a drug addict, she is responsible for his suffering because she created him anyway.

 

 

 

We're talking about the basis for truth. I agree completely with your statements, but when SCIENCE is your basis for truth, then you run into trouble. Your interpretation of truth should not keep changing because then your PERCEPTIONS of truth, as you said, keep changing resulting in different APPLICATIONS of the unchanging truth.

 

 

 

Get it?

 

 

 

I think we've already established that your definition of truth is wrong. As I said here:

 

 

 

What you just argued:

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the Vedas took the truth found in God and perverted it before the Bible came along to write down God's truth.

 

 

 

 

 

is what I wished for you to understand all along - that you cannot prove whether any religion is the absolute truth. There is no way to determine whether:

 

 

 

 

-Vedas subverted the Bible

 

or

 

-Bible subverted the Vedas.

 

 

 

Either one could be right. Therefore, you cannot claim that Christianity is the absolute truth, or that Hinduism is the absolute truth, and so on.

 

[HugATree]

 

Thats kind of the point; if it didn't change it wouldn't be science, just some primitive explanations hundreds of years later that no longer matches the evidence.

 

 

 

Do you not see what you're saying? You're abandoning the nature of truth.

 

I'm not abandoning the "nature of truth", science is a reliable method when it comes to understanding this truth; new evidence is taken into account and studied.

 

Science, I agree, is supposed to change, but it should not be your basis for truth.

 

Given its acceptence of new discoveries, theres going to be nothing better than it when it comes to explaining the universe.

[Mr_Hyde1218]

i believe in God, but i also believe that he gave us free will. However, i don't believe that Christ is God. i am a Christian, but i won't force my beliefs on anyone who doesn't want them.