The God or Not God Discussion

[pureinheart]

A corrupt message.

 

I believe in God but this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome

It's not what God wanted. If it would have been anywhere it would have been in Jerusalem and the High Priest has authority. It would be as it was back in the day. No European or anyone else but a Levite should have the highest authority. It's dictated in the Bible you all read. That is why Christianity is corrupt.

 

You know, the only thing I can think of that isn't corrupt is Samaritans Purse. I'm not making excuses, although Like OB stated, weakness is a part of being human (in so many words OB) ...oh, also Paul Crouch. I'm not sure how his son is handling everything now, but Paul Crouch knew where every single penny went and had a detailed list in their Santa Ana office-

[autumnnight]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the title of the thread is "God or no God," isn't some kind of odd rant about Rome and Constantine a bit off topic....

[joystickd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the title of the thread is "God or no God," isn't some kind of odd rant about Rome and Constantine a bit off topic....

 

Yes and no. I mentioned it in reference to Christianity. While I do believe in God I just don't have those beliefs because of the possibility of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

 

Controlling a hI story is a way of controlling the masses. We can say he is this but what historian at that time as a true history of Jesus. It's kind if like Communist films. Controlling the story gives a group a certain power because it's a created foundation to why they are or should be in power.

[Weezy1973]

Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, "I am".

 

Or people wrote that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh. Or people believed Jesus to be Yahweh. Isn't there some part where Jesus says "no, but that's what you call me." I'm likely mixing things up. But my point is of course, that just because people wrote that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, or even if people genuinely believed it, doesn't mean it's true.

 

Internal from the idea that, the Muslims, for example, do not accept that Jesus was God (Yahweh), but only a prophet. Was Jesus God, or not? That is an internal debate that can be addressed, primarily, theologically.

 

Oh, I see what you mean. I don't think the question of whether or not God (or any gods) exist is only a theological question though. It's a question about the nature of the universe we live in. Did God create the universe? Is there a personal god that takes interest in our lives and answers our prayers? These are questions about reality. Truth.

 

Yes, I agree, but this is where textual criticism comes into play. Textual criticism can be used to sort out the interpolations, exaggerations, etc.

 

But even if the bible contains perfectly accurate representations of what the authors of the books actually wrote, it still doesn't mean what they wrote was true. And even if the authors believed what they wrote to be true, it still doesn't mean it actually was true. Again, for me, what's important is what actually is true, not what people believe (or believed) to be true. This seems like an obvious distinction, but we know for a fact, just because someone believes something to be true, doesn't necessarily mean it is.

 

 

But how do they know that (or hypothesize) as interpolation? They are using the same methods of textual criticism that they are using when determining the historical reliability of the gospels. That method is how they can show, in a scientific manner, what is true and what is false. Of course, to a degree. There is no 100% certainty here, but there is a scientific approach to critiquing works of antiquity.

 

I don't think it's a method that can determine what's true and false, but it can determine if the copies are an accurate representation of what was originally written (unless that's what you meant by true). The original writings may very well not be true.

 

If you are interested, Dan Wallace is working really hard to scan all existing manuscripts. Pretty interesting website!

 

Home Page

 

Checked it out - very cool!

 

 

Some of Book 18 does appear to be Josephus' writings. It is not very easy to explain it all away as interpolation.

 

That seems to be the general consensus amongst scholars. I'm sure some of it was, just not the parts referring to Jesus as the Christ, the resurrection etc. Which again seems to be the general consensus amongst scholars in the area.

 

However, the point I am making is that the way this is known is through textual criticism. Historians never work with the type of scientific data that can be analyzed and verified with a test tube. The evidence will always be incomplete and inconclusive, but historians do not just throw everything out.

 

But this is why our certainty has to be mitigated with skepticism. The evidence certainly is incomplete and inconclusive, yet people believe in the god of their particular religion with absolute certainty. Clearly those beliefs are not based on evidence or else the beliefs would be held with much less certainty.

 

 

I am a Christian that accepts that process (I can explain theological reasons if you want). Very similar to using Natural History by Pliny the Elder. Just because he described monsters in his book, does not mean his entire encyclopedia should be tossed out or that he had a conspiracy.

 

I agree, and I think there likely are parts of the bible that are historically accurate. The parts that I'm most skeptical about are the parts claiming supernatural events. Talking snakes, walking on water, living in the belly of a big fish, turning water into wine, the resurrection etc. I also think most reasonable people would (and should!) be skeptical of such claims.

 

Well, it is important to note they are written in a historical genre. In other words they were not written as intentional fictions, etc. Historical accuracy was definitely part of it. The gospels are claiming to be historical fact (John was likely not written from a historical perspective; mostly theological).

 

It's funny when I was first started reading the bible I just started at the beginning and tried to read through. When I started visiting a church to ask these sorts of questions, everybody I talked to said "nooo, start with John." I couldn't understand why, until someone said to me "John is kind of like The Bible for Dummies.." Which made me chuckle. I like those "For Dummies" books, even if they are condescending!

 

As far as the historical genre goes. If one were to try to promote a religion as true, it would be in one's best interest to use books that were written in a historical manner, whether or not they actually represent historical truth.

 

Luke even opens up with the assertion:

 

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

Again, and not to sound like a broken record, just because it's asserted, doesn't mean it's true. Even if the author believed it to be true.

 

 

I do agree that you are raising good points, and I know our time is limited on here, but I think there is a lot of information to pour through here. Just like I expect you to be skeptical (rightfully so), I also don’t think 2000 years of historical documents can be tossed out as a conspiracy theory.

 

I sincerely hope it doesn't come across that I'm tossing the bible out as conspiracy theory! I'm not at all. I still don't think it can be used as evidence that God (or any gods) exist.

 

I agree! In a lot of cases, the gospel authors state their motivations. They were also willing to die for those motivations, which to me at least think they themselves at least believed their claims. I can't prove that, but it seems more likely than the opposite, that they were willing to die (and be imprisoned, tortured, etc.) for something they knew to be false.

 

I don't know enough to have an informed opinion about this, but I'd tend to agree that the authors of the gospels likely did believe it to be true. Again, that doesn't mean it was true.

 

 

I hope you change your mind, because it would be great to have an intelligent fellow like yourself using your logical mind to advance Christ. Long shot I know, but I can pray

 

Haha, well it's my experience that minds don't change overnight. It's a gradual process. My hope is that the believers (including yourself) can see why us non-believers don't believe. I guarantee you, my mind can be changed, as I suspect can the minds of most non-believers. But it would require compelling evidence, preferably scientific in nature.

 

And I don't think scientific evidence should be so readily dismissed by Christians as a means for determining whether or not God actually exists. And by God in this case, I'm not referring to Jesus, but to a God that currently exists, answers prayers, created the universe etc. In fact, if Christianity is true, they should embrace science as way to get the word out.

 

Again, non-believers are the fastest growing demographic in the Western world. A lot of this is because of science - science delivers. If we're looking to cure disease, or for life on other planets, of for the origins of our universe, we look to science. When we're looking for truths about our universe we look to science. If God is a truth about our universe, we should look to science.

 

One of the reasons I think people are moving away from religion what seems to be a rift between science and religion. For example, the fact that there are a significant amount of Christians (although I believe a minority) that are creationists is pushing people away from Christianity. When there are people that are ignoring real truths about life on our planet in the name of their religion, that is going to deter people from wanting to subscribe to that religion.

 

We are past the Enlightenment now. Logic, reason, critical thinking and evidence are the tools we now use to form our beliefs. The authors of the books in the bible did not live in a time that critically analyzed supernatural claims. This is a different age. Science works. Religious folks should be embracing science and not fighting it. They should be using the scientific method as a means of determining whether or not what they believe in is true. Trust me, solid, compelling scientific evidence, that God exists would do more to convince people than anything else. And the fact that religious folks refuse to go down that path, is why people are leaving religions in record numbers.

 

Well, like most academic fields, you are going to have a litany of opinions. However, there are some agree upon facts (at least by most), such as the historical Jesus, etc. One thing I think I have been able to do is just make a decision. We can also suffer what I call "paralysis by analysis" where we can become so entangled in academic debate that we cannot get anywhere. With the issue of the gospels, we will never have 100% certainty. To me, it is enough that I am convinced.

 

Yes, but if it is true, the evidence should be enough to convince everyone. Like the heliocentric theory. Or gravity. Otherwise it's just a belief that may or may not be true.

 

 

 

But I understand that is not enough for everyone. I do not claim to know your thought processes or motivations. I can only give account for myself.

 

I am seeking the truth. That's my motivation. My thought processes are way too plentiful. I often can't sleep...

 

I personally do not think I am believing based on confirmation bias.

 

Of course not - nobody thinks that. But everybody is subject to confirmation bias, and it's stronger for highly entrenched beliefs.

 

 

I actually resisted Christ for a long time (it is not something I would have naturally wanted to accept), but once I did my life was changes for the better.

 

I've heard many similar stories. I would add that the teachings of Jesus (or at least what is written in the bible to have been the teachings of Jesus) are powerful even if there is no God.

 

I agree I do not think you are going to get any one single point of evidence. Philosophically, I think this is intentional by God (that's just my opinion). However, is there enough to say that faith is not just blind, it is built upon justifications?

 

It depends on what you mean by justifications. Do you feel the same for faith in Islam and Hinduism? What about faith in Mormonism? Are those also based on justifications?

[OpenBook]

My hope is that the believers (including yourself) can see why us non-believers don't believe. I guarantee you, my mind can be changed, as I suspect can the minds of most non-believers. But it would require compelling evidence, preferably scientific in nature.

 

Oh, I totally get it - I also balk at the huge leaps of faith that are required to be a believer.

 

But may I ask why it is so important to you to get believers to understand why you don't believe? Do you want to witness them admitting they could be wrong? Would that make you feel better about not believing?

 

And I don't think scientific evidence should be so readily dismissed by Christians as a means for determining whether or not God actually exists...

 

Again, non-believers are the fastest growing demographic in the Western world. A lot of this is because of science - science delivers. If we're looking to cure disease, or for life on other planets, of for the origins of our universe, we look to science. When we're looking for truths about our universe we look to science. If God is a truth about our universe, we should look to science.

 

One of the reasons I think people are moving away from religion what seems to be a rift between science and religion. For example, the fact that there are a significant amount of Christians (although I believe a minority) that are creationists is pushing people away from Christianity. When there are people that are ignoring real truths about life on our planet in the name of their religion, that is going to deter people from wanting to subscribe to that religion.

 

We are past the Enlightenment now. Logic, reason, critical thinking and evidence are the tools we now use to form our beliefs. The authors of the books in the bible did not live in a time that critically analyzed supernatural claims. This is a different age. Science works. Religious folks should be embracing science and not fighting it. They should be using the scientific method as a means of determining whether or not what they believe in is true. Trust me, solid, compelling scientific evidence, that God exists would do more to convince people than anything else. And the fact that religious folks refuse to go down that path, is why people are leaving religions in record numbers.

 

While I agree with you that there is a rift between science and religion (and there shouldn't be), I don't agree that believers should use the scientific method to determine the validity of their beliefs. Science and spirituality are two separate disciplines, each with its own unique set of principles and practices. It would be ineffective and incredibly awkward to try to "marry" the two or have one control the other. It's kinda like using the principles of swimming on the baseball field - it's just not going to happen. But that doesn't mean they can't coexist peacefully together, and even bolster each other in forwarding the evolution of the person who practices them.

 

And man does not live by "logic, reason, critical thinking and evidence" alone. What about our souls? Our love of beauty? That gut instinct we have, somewhere around our solar plexus? All those other things that totally defy logic and reasoning but nevertheless are an integral part of our humanity? The scientific method can't be applied there. Well I guess you could try to... but good luck with that.

[Robert Z]

While I agree with you that there is a rift between science and religion (and there shouldn't be), I don't agree that believers should use the scientific method to determine the validity of their beliefs.

 

There is an inherent contradiction in your statement. How can there not be a rift between religion and science when people of faith simply reject hard evidence that contradicts their beliefs?

 

Beyond that, people of faith seek to impose their faith on others, in the voting booth.

 

Science and spirituality are two separate disciplines, each with its own unique set of principles and practices. It would be ineffective and incredibly awkward to try to "marry" the two or have one control the other. It's kinda like using the principles of swimming on the baseball field - it's just not going to happen. But that doesn't mean they can't coexist peacefully together, and even bolster each other in forwarding the evolution of the person who practices them.

 

Science and spirituality are not implicitly separate. That is only true because there is no scientific evidence to support spiritual beliefs. I make this point because I believe we will eventually find evidence for things we currently deem to be magical claims.

 

And man does not live by "logic, reason, critical thinking and evidence" alone. What about our souls? Our love of beauty? That gut instinct we have, somewhere around our solar plexus? All those other things that totally defy logic and reasoning but nevertheless are an integral part of our humanity? The scientific method can't be applied there. Well I guess you could try to... but good luck with that.

 

Souls - What evidence? You are using circular logic

Love of beauty - We do understand a great deal about what makes us perceive and appreciate beauty.

Gut instincts - may all be explained by subtle perceptions, subconscious memories, forgotten experiences... There is no hard evidence for anything beyond that less one possible exception - there are some interesting experiments suggesting that ESP may be real.

 

I understand your point but you are generalizing too much.

 

Here is the best argument that I know of: Firstly, anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony are forms of evidence. So while they might be dismissed by science, science is limited in scope. This gets back to your point about the range of applicability. It the strength but also a weakness of science that it can only address limited forms of evidence. It can only handle hard evidence.

 

But like they say at SETI, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

[Iron Bubba]

I completely shut down upon hearing the phrase be open minded.

 

Those who use it mean it to be entirely one way, that you have to be open minded towards them and they never have to be open minded to you.

 

So I've to to really hate that phrase and as soon as i hear it, i simply will walk away from that person.

 

It is a statement of hypocrisy and ignorance.

[autumnnight]

[beyond that, people of faith seek to impose their faith on others, in the voting booth. QUOTE]

 

This is so tired. EVERYONE who votes on something or someone iss seeking to impose their views.

[Robert Z]

[beyond that, people of faith seek to impose their faith on others, in the voting booth. QUOTE]

 

This is so tired. EVERYONE who votes on something or someone iss seeking to impose their views.

 

 

My views are based on the Constitution, the American dream, and liberty, and not some hell, fire, and fantasy. Religious people tend to put their beliefs ahead of the right of others to the pursuit of happiness. It is un-American! A religious vote doesn't have the best interest of the country or the individual at heart.

 

They not only try to tell me how to live, but how to die. And that is why I HATE religion with a passion. It is all about controlling other people through principles based on nonsense. Religion is all about control and oppression... and control of its followers through guilt.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Robert Z

[pie2]

My views are based on the Constitution, the American dream, and liberty, and not some hell, fire, and fantasy. Religious people tend to put their beliefs ahead of the right of others to the pursuit of happiness. It is un-American! A religious vote doesn't have the best interest of the country or the individual at heart.

 

They not only try to tell me how to live, but how to die. And that is why I HATE religion with a passion. It is all about controlling other people through principles based on nonsense. Religion is all about control and oppression... and control of its followers through guilt.

 

Regulating behavior is just a part of life, at least in America.

 

I would be very happy if I could freely jaywalk whenever I wanted. I'm a grown adult...I can decide if it's safe to cross or not, and I'd be much happier not walking all the way to the end of the street to cross! Well, I am free to decide either way, but could easily suffer the consequences of jaywalking (like get a ticket). But, the rules are there for a reason (not that I always abide by the jaywalking law!).

 

So, there are many ways in which my "pursuit of happiness" is hindered by the laws of society. To some people who come from other countries, some of our rules can feel quite oppressive (like countless coding laws, traffic laws, rules of conduct, tax laws, etc etc etc). But, those laws are there for the ultimate good of everyone.

 

And that's how many people view adherence to religious guidelines: not as something that's out to harm others, but as something that's there for good. I think we all have standards of behavior we think should be regulated (i.e. murder, theft, abuse). Obviously, the dilemma arises when people disagree on which standards of behavior need to be regulated, and which don't.

 

But I don't think it's fair to accuse the religious of "demanding oppressive rules", when we all live by quite strict rules every day.

[TheFinalWord]

Or people wrote that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh. Or people believed Jesus to be Yahweh. Isn't there some part where Jesus says "no, but that's what you call me." I'm likely mixing things up. But my point is of course, that just because people wrote that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, or even if people genuinely believed it, doesn't mean it's true.

 

Sure, but it doesn’t mean it’s not true either. So, it just gets back to this how can you know anything at all? How do I know you exist, just because there is a user named Weezy posting, for all I know, I may have multiple personality disorder, create a dual account just to argue with myself. I can’t prove that is not occurring. But I think the odds are pretty low as to be essentially bankrupt. At some point, we all draw a conclusion based on enough evidence to satisfy our own selves (I think therefore I am...I've tried to avoid philosophy up until now lol). I think there is enough theological evidence for me to confidently draw the conclusion, Jesus is Yahweh. Of course that is assuming a lot, but I am definitely not out of the mainstream here. Most of Christian history backs up what I am saying, so I’m not totally making this up. I can at least have high certainty of that. haha

 

Oh, I see what you mean. I don't think the question of whether or not God (or any gods) exist is only a theological question though. It's a question about the nature of the universe we live in. Did God create the universe? Is there a personal god that takes interest in our lives and answers our prayers? These are questions about reality. Truth.

 

The first question, may be better answered by philosophy or science. The second question, I think is mainly theological. Philosophy or science could probably at best get you to a deistic worldview. Theologically, if Jesus was God, and the gospels are true, than I think the answer to your second question is yes.

 

But even if the bible contains perfectly accurate representations of what the authors of the books actually wrote, it still doesn't mean what they wrote was true. And even if the authors believed what they wrote to be true, it still doesn't mean it actually was true. Again, for me, what's important is what actually is true, not what people believe (or believed) to be true. This seems like an obvious distinction, but we know for a fact, just because someone believes something to be true, doesn't necessarily mean it is. I don't think it's a method that can determine what's true and false, but it can determine if the copies are an accurate representation of what was originally written (unless that's what you meant by true). The original writings may very well not be true. [

 

I agree. This is where the issues of historical reliability come into play. How do we know anything about the past is true? Historians have criteria that can get us close to the truth. But it can only operate in the realm of likelihood or relative certainty. History from antiquity is not repeatable, in that sense. However, concerning the gospels, we have more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other work of history from antiquity such as Pliny, Plato, etc.

 

It's funny when I was first started reading the bible I just started at the beginning and tried to read through. When I started visiting a church to ask these sorts of questions, everybody I talked to said "nooo, start with John." I couldn't understand why, until someone said to me "John is kind of like The Bible for Dummies.." Which made me chuckle. I like those "For Dummies" books, even if they are condescending!

 

Hey me too! Well, we can’t all be experts at everything. I think those types of books are really handy.

 

Haha, well it's my experience that minds don't change overnight. It's a gradual process. My hope is that the believers (including yourself) can see why us non-believers don't believe. I guarantee you, my mind can be changed, as I suspect can the minds of most non-believers. But it would require compelling evidence, preferably scientific in nature.

 

Definitely! Well, I used to be one of those non-believers, so I do know where you are coming from.

 

And I don't think scientific evidence should be so readily dismissed by Christians as a means for determining whether or not God actually exists. And by God in this case, I'm not referring to Jesus, but to a God that currently exists, answers prayers, created the universe etc. In fact, if Christianity is true, they should embrace science as way to get the word out.

 

Again, non-believers are the fastest growing demographic in the Western world. A lot of this is because of science - science delivers. If we're looking to cure disease, or for life on other planets, of for the origins of our universe, we look to science. When we're looking for truths about our universe we look to science. If God is a truth about our universe, we should look to science.

 

One of the reasons I think people are moving away from religion what seems to be a rift between science and religion. For example, the fact that there are a significant amount of Christians (although I believe a minority) that are creationists is pushing people away from Christianity. When there are people that are ignoring real truths about life on our planet in the name of their religion, that is going to deter people from wanting to subscribe to that religion.

 

We are past the Enlightenment now. Logic, reason, critical thinking and evidence are the tools we now use to form our beliefs. The authors of the books in the bible did not live in a time that critically analyzed supernatural claims. This is a different age. Science works. Religious folks should be embracing science and not fighting it. They should be using the scientific method as a means of determining whether or not what they believe in is true. Trust me, solid, compelling scientific evidence, that God exists would do more to convince people than anything else. And the fact that religious folks refuse to go down that path, is why people are leaving religions in record numbers.

 

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing your valuable insights. I do agree, although I do not think scientific enlightenment, at least among the general population, is the only reason. America is not very strong in terms of science education. If you speak to many college students, they can’t tell you anything about science (or the religion for that matter). I think the church has mainly failed to provide what people need in America (I can only speak for my country). They have also moved towards moral relativism and in a sense, undermined their own selves. If I recall, did not most of that demographic, still identify as spiritual and believing in God, just not identifying with a religion? Please correct me if I am wrong. I was trying to find the Gallup poll, but short on time at the moment. Maybe you can provide. However, in other countries like China, Christianity is growing rapidly.

 

Yes, but if it is true, the evidence should be enough to convince everyone. Like the heliocentric theory. Or gravity. Otherwise it's just a belief that may or may not be true.

 

 

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of scholars in these areas have been convinced. However, we can always just say “confirmation bias” j/k

 

I've heard many similar stories. I would add that the teachings of Jesus (or at least what is written in the bible to have been the teachings of Jesus) are powerful even if there is no God.

 

Very cool! Well, hey, you are on the right track. Jesus told the crowds he preached to that if they won't believe in Him, to at least believe in the works that he did.

 

For me, it is a little bit more than that. The moment I asked Christ into my life, a number of personal, destructive behaviors left me (I had not anticipated these). Also, I received a peace that I never had before. Like you, I used to lose a lot of sleep because of the uncertainty of life. Until I met the author of life

 

It depends on what you mean by justifications. Do you feel the same for faith in Islam and Hinduism? What about faith in Mormonism? Are those also based on justifications?

 

I mean a belief does not just pop out of nowhere. It can be rooted in some evidence (that doesn't mean it has to though!). In terms of comparing one religion against another, I do think the justifications for those belief systems differ in terms of plausibility. Most of these religions have a sacred text, so we could examine each of them. Mainly what we would be doing here is a theological analysis (systematic theology). I have given a few about Islam, such as their assertion Jesus did not die. That basically goes against all historical scholarship (even the most skeptical like Bart Ehrman). So, I think from the historical perspective (that is mainly what we have discussed), there is more justification for Christianity than Islam.

 

Mormonism is an unorthodox branch of Christianity. Very similar to Islam, the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, supposedly received his updated gospel from an angel (Paul warned us twice about getting updated gospels from angels!!). The main way to examine the justifications would be to contrast the claims of Christ against Mormonism and see if they distort the gospel. Since this religion is internal to Christianity and claiming to provide a new revelation (prior to this only Moses and Jesus stated to provide new revelations and they both backed it up with miracles) the default position should be to error on the gospel, similar to how the Jews erred on the side of Moses. The gospels are closer to Christ than the Book of Mormon, so I think it a better case can be made to justify orthodox Christianity.

 

Hinduism, at least the branch I know about, is polytheistic. My advisor was Hindu, but converted to Christianity. I have examined it in the past, but you would have to give me a couple of specifics as I do not want to get on a rabbit trail. I do think there is a spiritual dimension to various religions as well (I know you probably do not) so many of them can appear very credible, but actually be a deception (this is what the bible teaches as well. It doesn't limit this only to other religions, but even within Christianity).

 

But I agree, with you we should examine various religions for justification and compare them one against the other. I personally believe Christians need to go to a higher level in their understanding (I believe the bible teaches this too). Many have no knowledge about other religions, history of the bible, doctrine, theology, apologetics, etc. Paul would debate with Greek philosophers and the Jews. Peter said to grow in knowledge to provide others with a reason for our hope.

Edited July 26, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[Weezy1973]

But may I ask why it is so important to you to get believers to understand why you don't believe?

 

I think for one, trying to understand the reasons why people believe in certain things or don't believe in certain things brings people closer together. Instead of creating an "us" and "them" it's just all of us together trying to figure things out. Hopefully with empathy and compassion.

 

But also, as my desire is to know what's true about the nature of our universe, if believers understand what my reasons (and others) are specifically for not believing, they can tackle those concerns, as opposed to just dismissing those concerns as being invalid.

 

Do you want to witness them admitting they could be wrong?

 

That's definitely not my motivation. If something is not true though, I think acknowledging that and moving on would be better for humanity as a whole. For example, creationism is (likely) not true. Let's move on. Astrology is (likely) not true. Let's move on. Let's direct our time, energy and resources to more useful things.

 

Would that make you feel better about not believing?

 

I feel rather neutral about not believing. I'm open minded in the sense that my mind can be changed. Getting closer to, or a clearer picture, of what is true would make me feel better, and part of that process would be dismissing ideas that aren't true, so perhaps in that broad sense, there would be some satisfaction. Keep in mind that I would have a similar sense of satisfaction if it was determined that Christianity actually is true, and then we could dismiss other belief systems that aren't true.

[pureinheart]

 

 

My views are based on the Constitution, the American dream, and liberty, and not some hell, fire, and fantasy. Religious people tend to put their beliefs ahead of the right of others to the pursuit of happiness. It is un-American! A religious vote doesn't have the best interest of the country or the individual at heart.

 

They not only try to tell me how to live, but how to die. And that is why I HATE religion with a passion. It is all about controlling other people through principles based on nonsense. Religion is all about control and oppression... and control of its followers through guilt.

 

Do you realize that the secular faith you adhere to has no freedom? I have never found anything so confining as Secularism (which is Socialism/Communism). I understand why most Secularists are so hateful, I was there at one point, but broke free thank God!

 

I don't hate secularism because it doesn't scare me, what I do disapprove of however, is how their immorality is shoved down societies throats and causing so much destruction it isn't funny.

 

Robert, please look at society today now that Secularists are basically running it... immorality is rampant- God didn't build that, the libs did.

 

****not sure what's going on, but this should be Robert's quote****

[BetheButterfly]

 

Do you realize that the secular faith you adhere to has no freedom? I have never found anything so confining as Secularism (which is Socialism/Communism).

 

Actually, secularism does have freedom. Communism is a bit different than secularism. There are many secular/Atheist capitalists, same as there are many Christian capitalists. However about communism, it's interesting that the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were able to live in a communal way until they began to get heavily persecuted: (I boldened some in the passage below.)

 

"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." - Acts 2:42-47 (NIV)

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+2&version=NIV

 

That's beautiful and is a godly form of "communism."

 

 

I understand why most Secularists are so hateful, I was there at one point, but broke free thank God!

Some aren't hateful though.

 

I don't hate secularism because it doesn't scare me, what I do disapprove of however, is how their immorality is shoved down societies throats and causing so much destruction it isn't funny.

I think some secular people feel like Christians are shoving their beliefs down their throats, and they don't appreciate it. As a Christian however, I can't help talking about Jesus Christ, since I love him.

 

Robert, please look at society today now that Secularists are basically running it... immorality is rampant- God didn't build that, the libs did.

Immorality is found everywhere, including the Church.

[Iron Bubba]

 

Do you realize that the secular faith you adhere to has no freedom? I have never found anything so confining as Secularism (which is Socialism/Communism). I understand why most Secularists are so hateful, I was there at one point, but broke free thank God!

 

I don't hate secularism because it doesn't scare me, what I do disapprove of however, is how their immorality is shoved down societies throats and causing so much destruction it isn't funny.

 

Robert, please look at society today now that Secularists are basically running it... immorality is rampant- God didn't build that, the libs did.

 

****not sure what's going on, but this should be Robert's quote****

 

I have never found any sort of freedom when i was a Chritians for the same reasons you list.

 

But in my ripe old age, I've found out that what the real cause of loss of freedom is the value and demand of conformity.

 

And religious and non religious people of all stripes demand conformity.

 

There is absolutely no freedom in conformity.

 

Please, don't mistake conformity for secularism.

 

Real individuality allows people to go their own way.

[pureinheart]

 

Actually, secularism does have freedom. Communism is a bit different than secularism. There are many secular/Atheist capitalists, same as there are many Christian capitalists. However about communism, it's interesting that the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were able to live in a communal way until they began to get heavily persecuted: (I boldened some in the passage below.)

 

"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." - Acts 2:42-47 (NIV)

 

 

 

That's beautiful and is a godly form of "communism."

 

 

You appear to be a firm believer in Communism. To each his own:) I think it's going a bit far to equate the fellowship of the Apostles and Jesus to Communism.

 

 

I think some secular people feel like Christians are shoving their beliefs down their throats, and they don't appreciate it. As a Christian however, I can't help talking about Jesus Christ, since I love him.

 

I hear this quite a bit and still don't get it. They can walk away at any time and don't have to listen. Secularism has taken over most everything, to the point of where I need to watch everything (and needed to also with my kids) my grandkids are being taught- so who's shoving what down who's throat? The educational system is only one example BTW.

 

Immorality is found everywhere, including the Church.

 

...and look at how liberal the 'church' is today, but I'm sure that works for you.

[pureinheart]

 

I have never found any sort of freedom when i was a Chritians for the same reasons you list.

 

But in my ripe old age, I've found out that what the real cause of loss of freedom is the value and demand of conformity.

 

And religious and non religious people of all stripes demand conformity.

 

There is absolutely no freedom in conformity.

 

Please, don't mistake conformity for secularism.

 

Real individuality allows people to go their own way.

 

I should have been more specific. IMO true Christianity (and thats what I was referring to) is freedom, and also my opinion that it cannot be experienced until one becomes a true believer in Jesus Christ.

 

Mans laws demand conformity as well as many 'faiths'. I put emphasis on the term faiths due to the fact that there are many 'confining', shall we say, religions out there. My God is anything but confining... now He has 'rules', per se, that if I choose not to follow them it's usually bad for me. The 'rules' He has put forth are for my own good.

 

I became an individual after receiving Jesus... if being an individual requires you to not have faith, then more power to you, although if you take a real look at secularism ... wow the laws, rules and regs are unreal. I live in So Cal... we get a ton of new laws every year... peoples existence needs to be justified you know.

[BetheButterfly]

You appear to be a firm believer in Communism. To each his own:) I think it's going a bit far to equate the fellowship of the Apostles and Jesus to Communism.

 

How does quoting from the Bible make me "appear to be a firm believer in Communism"? I'm a Christian capitalist who very much admires that the Jewish followers of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem "had everything in common.": "All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." - Acts 2:44-47 (NIV)

 

Do you not admire how they lived? I do. Is that capitalism, having everything in common? Do Christians today do that?

 

I hear this quite a bit and still don't get it. They can walk away at any time and don't have to listen. Secularism has taken over most everything, to the point of where I need to watch everything (and needed to also with my kids) my grandkids are being taught- so who's shoving what down who's throat? The educational system is only one example BTW.

It depends on who one talks to, I guess.

 

 

...and look at how liberal the 'church' is today, but I'm sure that works for you.

Do you not love me anymore since I disagree with you? Regardless, I love you even though you disagree with me, and I'm a firm believer in obeying Jesus Christ, including being pure and loving.

 

God bless you

Edited July 27, 2015 by BetheButterfly

[joystickd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the title of the thread is "God or no God," isn't some kind of odd rant about Rome and Constantine a bit off topic....

 

Not really. The Bible which forms our beliefs about God are translations. We read the King James Version and others that on some level deviate from that. The story of Jesus and the woman getting stoned wasn't originally in the New Testement. For a long time the Bible was in Latin and that meant one group has power and wanted to keep it by limiting the knowledge. If I control the story then I can dictate the ideas, meanings and interpretation of these words that are written. We see it in numerous books not included in different versions of the Bible. Let's look at the misinterpretation of the Curse of Ham and the Mark of Cain. A person can take things like this and use it to justify treating groups like second class citizens or enslave them. We all work on limited knowledge of what religion really is because of failure to read and study or because we take the word of religious leaders of ideas as truth. It's why Joseph Smith can believe the Darkie as they called it to be cursed or a young boy of European descent can be in the priesthood of Aaron and not be a Levite. It's why if they are 12 tribes of Israel and one tribe the Tribe of Dan can be excluded in Revelation as one of the 144000 sealed. They split the Tribe of Joseph. It's also how we can now pick and choose the things we want that benefit. Prime example Jesus helped the poor but we have people that claim religion but refuse to help the poor. Is it that you don't truly believe or you just don't want to help the poor but hate to admit it for fear of not being truly Christian?

[pureinheart]

 

How does quoting from the Bible make me "appear to be a firm believer in Communism"? I'm a Christian capitalist who very much admires that the Jewish followers of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem "had everything in common.": "All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." - Acts 2:44-47 (NIV)

 

Do you not admire how they lived? I do. Is that capitalism, having everything in common? Do Christians today do that?

 

It depends on who one talks to, I guess.

 

 

Do you not love me anymore since I disagree with you? Regardless, I love you even though you disagree with me, and I'm a firm believer in obeying Jesus Christ, including being pure and loving.

 

God bless you

 

Of course I do!!!!! Debating/disagreeing does not equal not loving!

[pureinheart]

Bethy, with all due respect I must communicate where I'm coming from and this isn't meant to be uncool... this is hard for me to write for the most part because believe it or not, I hate confrontation and saying how I really feel and think in certain cases/people/areas. So forgive me if I've been angry- I have been angry, very angry (mixed with a little disgust) ...

 

First, I don't hate the sinner, although I do hate the sin, I hate my own sin first and trust me, there is a lot of it.

 

I hate how things are going nationally and worldwide, but am mostly a nationalist. I believe people in other countries need to take responsibility for their own mess, if there is one. But anyone who is into Bible Prophecy knows these things will happen- IMO we are here and Jesus probably will crack the clouds soon.

 

It's really frustrating seeing the watered down Jesus/Christianity that I see today- now I know many will take this and say ...ah, you are into 'fire and brimstone'... to a degree this is true, but I'm not a legalist or without compassion.

 

Watering down the Word IMO is the single most detriment to a broken society and we are broken, that is fact. I've watered down the Word before to fit my own agenda/actions and that is how I am possibly able to see it now.

 

I think now is the worst possible time to water down Gods Word.. not being much into evangelism, I'm finding that evangelism is of the essence. Before anyone wants to tear me up on this note, keep in mind I am a WIP.

 

This is an incredible period of time, we are literally seeing Bible Prophecy come to pass before our very eyes and now is not the time to tickle peoples ears... they need the truth. The truth is love.

 

I think we share some doctrinal differences which is what we should probably debate.

 

If what I'm saying here applies to you (or anyone who reads this), then take it and receive it, if not, let it die and fall to the ground.

 

Anyway, this is where I'm coming from, there is no time for games and what we think is important, I can guarantee you isn't concerning Gods timeframe.

[BetheButterfly]

Bethy, with all due respect I must communicate where I'm coming from and this isn't meant to be uncool... this is hard for me to write for the most part because believe it or not, I hate confrontation and saying how I really feel and think in certain cases/people/areas. So forgive me if I've been angry- I have been angry, very angry (mixed with a little disgust) ...

 

Ah Pureinheart, anger isn't a sin; it just can be easy to sin when angry (Ephesians 4:26). Anyways, you haven't been mean like call me names or anything. I just was surprised at how you thought I was a Communist, that's all.

 

First, I don't hate the sinner, although I do hate the sin, I hate my own sin first and trust me, there is a lot of it.

 

Understood. I hate my sin too. That's why I'm so thankful for God's amazing grace and love!!!

 

 

I hate how things are going nationally and worldwide, but am mostly a nationalist.

 

Jesus said though that things would get worse. While Jesus Christ wasn't an American, he lived in the regenerated Israel before the Romans destroyed the Temple (which Jesus prophesied would be destroyed). This is very sobering what he said, and it's true:

 

"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." - Matthew 24:6-14 (NIV)https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat+24&version=NIV

 

 

 

I believe people in other countries need to take responsibility for their own mess, if there is one. But anyone who is into Bible Prophecy knows these things will happen- IMO we are here and Jesus probably will crack the clouds soon.

 

Yep.

 

It's really frustrating seeing the watered down Jesus/Christianity that I see today- now I know many will take this and say ...ah, you are into 'fire and brimstone'... to a degree this is true, but I'm not a legalist or without compassion.

 

The watered down Christianity fits into Jesus' prophecy though.

 

Watering down the Word IMO is the single most detriment to a broken society and we are broken, that is fact. I've watered down the Word before to fit my own agenda/actions and that is how I am possibly able to see it now.

 

Ever since Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, life on earth has been broken.

 

I think now is the worst possible time to water down Gods Word.. not being much into evangelism, I'm finding that evangelism is of the essence. Before anyone wants to tear me up on this note, keep in mind I am a WIP.

 

What is a WIP?

 

This is an incredible period of time, we are literally seeing Bible Prophecy come to pass before our very eyes and now is not the time to tickle peoples ears... they need the truth. The truth is love.

 

Aye so true!!!

 

I think we share some doctrinal differences which is what we should probably debate.

 

If what I'm saying here applies to you (or anyone who reads this), then take it and receive it, if not, let it die and fall to the ground.

 

Anyway, this is where I'm coming from, there is no time for games and what we think is important, I can guarantee you isn't concerning Gods timeframe.

 

Ok. Blessings and hugs

 

Love you!!! (Love isn't a game.)

[joystickd]

 

You appear to be a firm believer in Communism. To each his own:) I think it's going a bit far to equate the fellowship of the Apostles and Jesus to Communism.

 

 

 

 

I hear this quite a bit and still don't get it. They can walk away at any time and don't have to listen. Secularism has taken over most everything, to the point of where I need to watch everything (and needed to also with my kids) my grandkids are being taught- so who's shoving what down who's throat? The educational system is only one example BTW.

 

 

 

...and look at how liberal the 'church' is today, but I'm sure that works for you.

 

Communism no. Remember Karl Marx saw religion as an opiate of the masses. Jesus was a believer of monarchy. He wasn't a capitalist. You had rich people but it wasn't the corrupt pseudo democracy we have now.

 

In Proverbs it said this: Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

 

In Matthew it says this: No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

 

I believe in God and believe in helping everyone not just the people that are job creators. In a sense at certain level with capitalism you serve a master and that is money. Money becomes God. People convincing you that voting against or looking down on a poor person is ok. As a conservative or liberal who will you serve God or Money?

 

In Romans it says this: For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

 

One must not fall into these idolatrous politicians that have convinced people of what Communism is or what capitalism is. If you are convinced by them then they have become your master and not God.

[nouedis]

I believe there is a powerful entity, but I don't know about a God.

Who knows, we all perceive this world oh so differently than others.

[autumnnight]

I can tell you this....

 

God gave pretty clear instructions as to what we were to be doing. And I see a whole lot of Christians who are too busy waving signs, blasting the leaders they are supposed to honor (Romans 13), and showing anything BUT Christlike love rather than fulfilling the Great Commission - which is the ONLY real way to change the world. Jesus used 12 men, trained 12 men, taught 12 men, and sent them to do the work. Washington was NEVER His backup plan.

 

Let's stop fiddling and get busy doing what HE said instead of what makes us feel vindicated.