An impersonal god?

Questioning

Long time reader, first time poster here!

I have been an atheist for a number of years now, but lately I've being thinking about god and what not a bit more. Why? No real reason, no major personal event but anyway...

I become an atheist because the idea of the RC God was laughable when I just thought about it a bit more than I had been. But lately thinking about my own atheism. I realise that the idea of a personal god is foolish, I reject the idea of a "big man in the sky" god, a god who watches every move I do and cares about what I do and say etc. But what about an... impersonal god. I use the word god here somewhat loosely simply because of what of a better word! A god who isn't a thing, who isn't even outside of our universe but a something that kicked things off, if you will. I suppose I am taking somewhat about deism.

What's more as a man of science, I've started to move myself away from 100% atheism if you will toward a more agnostic view.

Perhaps my RC up brining is still in the back of my mind because it is in to minds!

Don't really know why I posted this, methinks I just wanted to get it off my chest. Comments welcome, perhaps they might be helpful in making my mind up!

Nevyn

SO you are considering the possiblities of small gods as it were and that there is not just one god as per christian dogma but maybe many gods?

Questioning

Ugh, these things are hard to talk about it...

I won't say small gods no, like the idea of say a "earth god" and "water god" is foolish to me. Hmm, methinks I just need to go and think/write down what I am thinking about...

Nevyn

Discovering the terms and language is part of the journey, still congratultions on being able to get to the stage were you have set aside your issues with the religion of your childhood to the point you are considering there maybe other options outside of the christiand context and the christian contexts are no the be all and end all.

Questioning

Thanks!

hiorta

Please continue with your quest and congratulations on opening your mind to discarded possibilities.
The Christian notions of a 'big daddy' god are ludicrous as you say, but the living source and sustainer of all life is an entirely different matter.

philologos

hiorta wrote: »

The Christian notions of a 'big daddy' god are ludicrous as you say, but the living source and sustainer of all life is an entirely different matter.

Why?

studiorat

Don't forget OP a priest os a priest no matter what they preach or what they call themselves. You are sure to find even more charlatans than you ever knew there were within christianity.

starchild

hiorta wrote: »

Please continue with your quest and congratulations on opening your mind to discarded possibilities.
The Christian notions of a 'big daddy' god are ludicrous as you say, but the living source and sustainer of all life is an entirely different matter.

i am hopeless at using the quotes system here , this is to answer jakkass query as to why someone would refer to a big daddy god as ludicrous

This is just my opinion but i believe that you could say the christian notion of a big daddy god is ludicrous would be because of the limitations that christians believe God puts on them

for example
God says dont do this * or you will be punished

(you can replace * with whatever action you deem appropriate)


with the greatest respect to any christian i think it is this core belief belief that god will punish you for something you have done is what many others outside of the christian faith cannot understand . This is where the idea of a big daddy god seems wrong

philologos

starchild wrote: »

This is just my opinion but i believe that you could say the christian notion of a big daddy god is ludicrous would be because of the limitations that christians believe God puts on them

for example
God says dont do this * or you will be punished

(you can replace * with whatever action you deem appropriate)


with the greatest respect to any christian i think it is this core belief belief that god will punish you for something you have done is what many others outside of the christian faith cannot understand . This is where the idea of a big daddy god seems wrong

I think that is one of the most sensical things about Christianity actually is God's sense of justice, and His sense of universal morality.

It's quite simple if we presuppose that God is the creator of the world and that God is omniscient:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God knows everything about the world which He has created.
4. Therefore God knows best about living in it.

God has given us these rules so that we can live best in the world by serving Him, respecting ourselves, and serving others. God knows best what not to do and He knows best concerning what is perilous. Yet it is human nature that wants to say that we know better than God when we really don't. It's quite a funny power struggle people seem to have. People are so arrogant that they don't want to accept that God has it right when they have it completely wrong. Hence why we see so much blatent immorality in the world.

If you transgress God's law, God has authority over this world, and God has the right and juristiction to punish you. If you come before court, you will be punished. After your verdict there is no second guessing. Likewise with God, when you come before His judgement there will not be a second guessing. It is now when you can seek forgiveness through His Son Jesus Christ so that you may accept His sacrifice for your sins. If you do not, your full guilt will be upon you. As everyone has sinned, you will be deemed guilty and you will be without excuse.

Again, makes perfect sense to me.

Nevyn

Thats nice glad that works for you, but it doesn't work for everyone.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

Thats nice glad that works for you, but it doesn't work for everyone.

Someone raised an objection to Christianity. I found it interesting, I gave my reasoning on it. I am hoping for an interesting response

It's quite obvious that my views and your views are going to be at loggerheads. You think that whatever floats your boat selection wise. I personally believe there is only one authentic way to God.

John 14:6 wrote:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

If you find that offensive, there isn't much I can do apart from to agree to disagree

Nevyn

If the op wanted to discuss this from the christian point of view he would have posted in spirituality, he didn't.

Thats nice put I don't want access to JVH, and the op seems to be wanting to discover a different on deity then what he held due to his christian up bringing. Now if his searching brings him to a better understanding of deity so that he resolves his issues and goes back to being a christian and that makes him happy makes sense from him in his life then I will be pleased for him but imho if it insteads leads him to a different spirituality which makes him happy and makes more sense for him in his life I will be equally as pleased for him.

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

If the op wanted to discuss this from the christian point of view he would have posted in spirituality, he didn't.

Ah please. You know as well as I do that the point was raised. I should have the right to question why people find the Christian concept of God to be ridiculous. I'm just looking for a bit of a light discussion.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Thats nice put I don't want access to JVH

Your choice.

Thaedydal wrote: »

and the op seems to be wanting to discover a different on deity then what he held due to his christian up bringing.

I'll interpret the OP for myself. The question of the Christian God being ludicrous came up. I think if the OP wants a genuine search of Christianity a honest review of the difficulties involved might be in order too.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Now if his searching brings him to a better understanding of deity so that he resolves his issues and goes back to being a christian and that makes him happy makes sense from him in his life then I will be pleased for him but imho if it insteads leads him to a different spirituality which makes him happy and makes more sense for him in his life I will be equally as pleased for him.

Fair enough. I obviously don't share your views

togster

Hi OP.

IMO God is impersonal. There is no big guy in the sky rather a heaven on earth or Nirvan which is only accesible when we relinguish certain things, like greed, clinging and judgement. God is what connects everything to everything.

I've always found the christian definition of God as strange. Why would god put us on this earth to judge us at the end? Perhaps we are here to reach "heaven" on earth and live in the now rather than living every day with the aim of attaining something else. So many people do this in all aspects of their lifes rather than living in the moment and appraciating that "God" is all around us and in everything around us.

Jakkas can i ask you about your quote there in which it states that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ. What do you think that means?

philologos

togster wrote: »

Jakkass can i ask you about your quote there in which it states that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ. What do you think that means?

I hold it to mean that belief in Jesus Christ is the only path to God and that He is the bridge between God and humanity due to the fact that our sins separate us from God. That's just my personal opinion. I didn't quote it to get into a theological discussion, I quoted it because Thaedydal doesn't think I am reasonable for holding this belief and that's fine, she can think that if she wants

I personally am concerned with the truth, and I don't think that several different and contradictory things can be true.

Tabnabs

OP, it sounds like you are making a very interesting theological journey. It would be fascinating to hear more of your thoughts.

In my experience (as a polytheist) there are many gods who don't give a flying **** what we do or what we think of them. But if you are willing to spend time and effort trying to understand them and show them some interest, most will be happy to return the attention and interest shown in them.

togster

Jakkass wrote: »

I hold it to mean that belief in Jesus Christ is the only path to God and that He is the bridge between God and humanity due to the fact that our sins separate us from God. That's just my personal opinion. I didn't quote it to get into a theological discussion, I quoted it because Thaedydal doesn't think I am reasonable for holding this belief and that's fine, she can think that if she wants

I personally am concerned with the truth, and I don't think that several different and contradictory things can be true.

Isn't it true that there are certain discrepencies/contradictions between things in the bible? And yet it is the truth?

I think what you wrote above to describe what you think the quate means is very reasonable. I guess i would interpret it differently because my idea of what god is, is different to yours. I belive that the teaching of Jesus Christ and other teachers is the path to God. I beleve also that our sins do seperate us from god. Again i have a different interpretaion of what sin is, or rather the reason we sin. I believe that when we are sin-free, we can be with god on this earth.

philologos

togster wrote: »

Isn't it true that there are certain discrepencies/contradictions between things in the bible? And yet it is the truth?

Yes, there are differences between much of Judaism and in Christianity as divine revelation developed over time. As such my understanding of some things would be different to the Jewish understanding. Jesus Christ said that He would not abolish the law but that He would fulfil it (Matthew 5:17). Through fulfilling it Jesus gave Christians a different understanding on some issues than the Jews had. Otherwise Jewish ideology is maintained in Christianity. If you want to discuss Covenantal theology I'd suggest posting in the Christianity forum.

It's more a development of the truth over time rather than Judaism not being the truth. I consider everything in Judaism to be true, but that Judaism is not complete due to the fact they believe the Messiah has not been. I believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.

togster wrote: »

I think what you wrote above to describe what you think the quate means is very reasonable. I guess i would interpret it differently because my idea of what god is, is different to yours. I belive that the teaching of Jesus Christ and other teachers is the path to God. I beleve also that our sins do seperate us from god. Again i have a different interpretaion of what sin is, or rather the reason we sin. I believe that when we are sin-free, we can be with god on this earth.

I understand your view and your grievances. I don't believe that any other can bring us truly to God apart from Jesus Christ due to the sacrifice He made on the cross to reconcile our sins and thus bridge us to the Father. If there is a gap it must be filled before we can walk across it surely?

Interesting views though, thanks a lot

Nevyn

For some people it is not about dieties with defined personalites at all but about just a universal creative force, not good not bad that just connects all life, and that can be personafied in people as personal godhood as it were.

togster

Jakkass wrote: »

I understand your view and your grievances. I don't believe that any other can bring us truly to God apart from Jesus Christ due to the sacrifice He made on the cross to reconcile our sins and thus bridge us to the Father. If there is a gap it must be filled before we can walk across it surely?

Interesting views though, thanks a lot

I don't have any grievances at all tbh. I have my own interpretation of what Jesus did and said and you have yours and that's all cool! The gap you talk of.... with the upmost respect i know it doesn't exsist. I was going to say "believe" but .. There is no gap between us and "god". I see god as a creatice force that connects everything. When you know it..well you just know it! It makes sense. The only thing that stops the majority of people reaching god, is our "sins"/mind/attachment/clinging etc. Inner peace is the way

Oh i could go on for days, but what it comes down to, is that you have your definitions and i have mine.

togster

Thaedydal wrote: »

For some people it is not about dieties with defined personalites at all but about just a universal creative force, not good not bad that just connects all life, and that can be personafied in people as personal godhood as it were.

Exactly

philologos

togster wrote: »

I don't have any grievances at all tbh. I have my own interpretation of what Jesus did and said and you have yours and that's all cool! The gap you talk of.... with the upmost respect i know it doesn't exsist. I was going to say "believe" but .. There is no gap between us and "god". I see god as a creatice force that connects everything.

Right, interesting again. I personally just can't see given what is written in the New Testament how anyone could view the Crucifixion as being irrelevant in human salvation, or Jesus as not being the only way to this human salvation. It's something that could be debated on ad nauseum though, and probably has been already

Secondly, I talk of a gap between man and God. I think this is only a reasonable conclusion. You agreed that sins separate man from God, then in your next quote which I will get to you say that nothing can separate us from God. Interesting point. I would come to a middle point which would be in Christ there is nothing that can separate us from God (if you get time look up Romans chapter 8). Otherwise, our sins remain a blockage in our path to God. If our sins separate us from God, it is clear that there must be some form of gap or stoppage point in the way just thinking about it somewhat logically no?

togster wrote: »

When you know it..well you just know it! It makes sense. The only thing that stops the majority of people reaching god, is our "sins"/mind/attachment/clinging etc. Inner peace is the way

I'm not sure if you know it you just know it. I personally would think that there are defining events that one can account for religious experiences. However, whether or not people can relate to them or not is the issue.

Inner peace might be good, but I think the truth is more important than inner peace

togster

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, interesting again. I personally just can't see given what is written in the New Testament how anyone could view the Crucifixion as being irrelevant in human salvation, or Jesus as not being the only way to this human salvation. It's something that could be debated on ad nauseum though, and probably has been already

Im sure it has! But i'm new to this

I'm not saying the crucifiction is irrelevant at all. quite the opposite. I see it as a symbol of our own possible crucifiction, death (of ego and mind driven states) and subsequent resurrection of our tru spirit on this earth. Differnces again but the core reasoning is similar i guess

Jakkass wrote: »

Secondly, I talk of a gap between man and God. I think this is only a reasonable conclusion. You agreed that sins separate man from God, then in your next quote which I will get to you say that nothing can separate us from God. Interesting point. I would come to a middle point which would be in Christ there is nothing that can separate us from God (if you get time look up Romans chapter 8). Otherwise, our sins remain a blockage in our path to God. If our sins separate us from God, it is clear that there must be some form of gap or stoppage point in the way just thinking about it somewhat logically no?

OK. When i speak of "myself" i am speaking of my true nature free from ego and thoughts. So for me there is no seperation between me and god. My mind/ego does at time create this "gap" i.e. the connection is disrupted or i loose reception for a while i "sin"

Jakkass wrote: »

Inner peace might be good, but I think the truth is more important than inner peace

I believe you can only know the truth when you know inner peace

starchild

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that is one of the most sensical things about Christianity actually is God's sense of justice, and His sense of universal morality.

It's quite simple if we presuppose that God is the creator of the world and that God is omniscient:

1. God created the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God knows everything about the world which He has created.
4. Therefore God knows best about living in it.

God has given us these rules so that we can live best in the world by serving Him, respecting ourselves, and serving others. God knows best what not to do and He knows best concerning what is perilous. Yet it is human nature that wants to say that we know better than God when we really don't. It's quite a funny power struggle people seem to have. People are so arrogant that they don't want to accept that God has it right when they have it completely wrong. Hence why we see so much blatent immorality in the world.

If you transgress God's law, God has authority over this world, and God has the right and juristiction to punish you. If you come before court, you will be punished. After your verdict there is no second guessing. Likewise with God, when you come before His judgement there will not be a second guessing. It is now when you can seek forgiveness through His Son Jesus Christ so that you may accept His sacrifice for your sins. If you do not, your full guilt will be upon you. As everyone has sinned, you will be deemed guilty and you will be without excuse.

Again, makes perfect sense to me.

each to their own jakkass, we are all on the same road just some of us take a different path.

I have no problem with any of your 4 points, they make perfect sense especially where you say God knows everything about the world he has created. I would definitely agree with you that God knows best about how to live in it. This is where we differ in that you believe God set down a rulebook and well i dont.

i simply dont agree with you that God needs us to behave in a certain way.

I have no doubt you are very set in your beliefs and they help you to lead a fulfilling life which is great. I wish you the best in this. I simply view the world a little differently than you.

It is my belief that we are all one , everything and everyone of us are the same. We are all part of the world the omnisicent God created and all of us will be a part of this no matter what we do. Why because we are part of God. I do not believe that God will ever judge me and find me wanting. In my world there is no purgatory or hell. God will never punish me nor will he ever punish you or anybody else. God is forgiveness as jesus was and is forgiveness. The path of jesus christ is but one way to God, there are thousands upon thousands of others. No one religion is right and no one religion is wrong, how could they be for God created them all.

It is the simplest yet the greatest truth available to us. We are all one.


To the op i would say you are on a great path , question everything just because it is written by someone else does not make it right. Find your path to God be it a personal or impersonal one. I would also say that believing in God does not mean you are belonging to a religion. God can be a powerful diety or simply a mass of energy. Its just a way of recognising that we are all part of the same thing.

philologos

starchild wrote: »

each to their own jakkass, we are all on the same road just some of us take a different path.

I'm not sure about this hypothesis either. As a Christian I can't share the view that all roads are equally genuine.

Matthew 7:13-14 wrote:

‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

What I will agree on is that it is your choice, as a person with free will. I can't help but believing that there is one way, and one path which is true. To me it's impossible that contradictions can all be true.

starchild wrote: »

I have no problem with any of your 4 points, they make perfect sense especially where you say God knows everything about the world he has created. I would definitely agree with you that God knows best about how to live in it. This is where we differ in that you believe God set down a rulebook and well i dont.

I think God has revealed rules to us because He cares for us, and He wants us to live the best way we humanly can. He wants to save us from a lot of trouble. Think about this question:

Why on earth would a God be so cruel as to let us live in this world without giving us any guidance or showing us the correct way to live? It seems like lunacy to me that a God could exist and not lead His people to love one another and to serve the community in the best way possible.

Bear in mind I don't consider the Bible to be merely a rule book. It's so much more.

starchild wrote: »

i simply dont agree with you that God needs us to behave in a certain way.

I don't agree that God needs us to behave in a certain way. What I do hold is:

1) God has authority over us.
2) God wants us to behave honourably towards one another.
3) God wants us to respect Him and His creation.

starchild wrote: »

I have no doubt you are very set in your beliefs and they help you to lead a fulfilling life which is great. I wish you the best in this. I simply view the world a little differently than you.

Likewise . I don't think I'm so much "set" in them. I just trust that they are the truth. The only reason I posted in here was that people said they considered the concept of God in Christianity to be ludicrous and I wanted to as a Christian ask why. I think that's fair right?

starchild wrote: »

It is my belief that we are all one , everything and everyone of us are the same. We are all part of the world the omnisicent God created and all of us will be a part of this no matter what we do. Why because we are part of God. I do not believe that God will ever judge me and find me wanting. In my world there is no purgatory or hell. God will never punish me nor will he ever punish you or anybody else. God is forgiveness as jesus was and is forgiveness. The path of jesus christ is but one way to God, there are thousands upon thousands of others. No one religion is right and no one religion is wrong, how could they be for God created them all.

I'll go through this bit by bit:

1. Yes, we are all one.
2. Yes. God being omniscient created us.
3. We are a part of God? No. We are God's creation, but we are not God Himself. I do however believe that through baptism we become dead to our sins through the Crucifixion and raised to new life with Him to serve as Christ's body on this earth.
4. I believe there is such thing as hell, but not purgatory. Jesus talked about hell in the New Testament quite a bit.
5. I do believe that God will judge people. I believe in a God of justice, a fair God who has given His people a way to salvation should they so choose.
6. God is forgiveness, to those who repent. You say Jesus is forgiveness, yes He is to those who believe in Him. Hence why the phrase "There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus" is used by Paul. (Romans chapter 8).
7. I disagree that Jesus is but one path to God. As I've explained above it's incompatible with Christianity. Christ is the only mediator between God and man being both human and divine.
8. Again, I clearly believe that Christianity is the truth, so I can't agree with you here either . It's not that I believe that Christianity as a religion is right or wrong though, it's that I believe that God has been true, and God is right and has revealed Himself through prophets.
9. God created all religions? I think man made a lot of religions to suit onesself. People make religions and idols for themselves to follow nowadays on a daily basis. Whether literal idols or idols which are harder to find, such as alcohol dependance, drug dependance, and so on.

starchild wrote: »

It is the simplest yet the greatest truth available to us. We are all one.

Yes, we are all one, but God is also one, and because we are one, God's justice is binding on us all. This is my take on it anyway.

Questioning

Thanks Dyflin. A few days ago, when thinking about it a bit more (and doing the lawn ) I came to a possible/part conclusion.

I love science, it is my life. The aim of science is to simply understand nature and the world around us by using observation, experiments and logic.

Religions aim (does it even have one?), or the aim as I see it, is to understand god(s). This is done by revelation, the Bible etc.

As I see it (in the limited knowledge) science and religion are "looking" for the same thing, but are going about it in two very different ways. Maybe, just maybe, "god(s)" are the four(or three depending on how you look at it) forces of physics. (Gravity, weak, strong and electromagnetism)

And maybe, just maybe, the Theory of Everything, the single theory that will explain all is god...

Of course some questions still come out of this but hey, not bad for a 20 year old is it?!

As always comments welcome but if ye could keep it to the topic at hand that would be great thanks...

Nevyn

Questioning if you feel any the posts in the thread are dragging them off topic I suggest that you report them.

Questioning

Na, I don't feel the need to report them...I'd only use that for offensive material...

Joe1919

Questioning wrote: »

But what about an... impersonal god.

Below are some impersonal Gods.

Aristotle God was impersonal, a first cause,(Deism)

It might be worth looking up Spinoza's God which is pantheism.

Hegel's God is a sort of absolute spirit, the collective consciousness of all of humanity. Very interesting but complicated writer. Hegel claimed to be a Christian but some disagree.

There are also guys like this who try to combine physics and metaphysics etc. Some of his arguments are very credible.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

What I will agree on is that it is your choice, as a person with free will. I can't help but believing that there is one way, and one path which is true. To me it's impossible that contradictions can all be true.

So you're here to save us ?
What if we don't want to be saved.

Jakkass wrote:

I think God has revealed rules to us because He cares for us, and He wants us to live the best way we humanly can. He wants to save us from a lot of trouble. Think about this question:

Why does God care about us again ?
I find it funny that Christians always say that God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscience yet he cares about what Humans do.
Heres a simple riddle to prove that God and Evil cannot exist:

Epicurus wrote:

Is God willing to prevent Evil, but not able ?
Then he is not Omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing ?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing ?
Then from whence cometh evil ?
Is he neither able nor willing ?
Then why call is God.

Now I know you Christians are'nt really in the business of logic. But is you could give me an answer for my little quote I would be very surprised.

Jakkass wrote:

I don't agree that God needs us to behave in a certain way. What I do hold is:

1) God has authority over us.
2) God wants us to behave honourably towards one another.
3) God wants us to respect Him and His creation.

Why would a supreme God care what we do ?
Isn't vanity a sin ?

Jakkass wrote:

Likewise . I don't think I'm so much "set" in them. I just trust that they are the truth. The only reason I posted in here was that people said they considered the concept of God in Christianity to be ludicrous and I wanted to as a Christian ask why. I think that's fair right?

The idea of a Christian is ludicrous. simple as.

Jakkass wrote:

5. I do believe that God will judge people. I believe in a God of justice, a fair God who has given His people a way to salvation should they so choose.

What sort of a loving father would torture his Children for all eternity becuase they don't believe in him ?
All religions make up a Hell story to get scare people into converting.

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you're here to save us ?
What if we don't want to be saved.

When did I say this in this thread? I posted personally because the OP had issues with the Judeo-Christian concept of God and that I wanted to clear some things up.

I recognise that the choice of belief is entirely up to each and every individual.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why does God care about us again ?
I find it funny that Christians always say that God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscience yet he cares about what Humans do.
Heres a simple riddle to prove that God and Evil cannot exist:

^^ The Epicurean problem of Evil doesn't entertain the possibility that evil could have a purpose to serve in this world in terms of personal development which is something that many Christians and Jews would entertain. As such it isn't entirely comprehensive. An example of this is when Joseph is sold into slavery in Egypt and he says to his brothers the following:

Genesis 50:19-20 wrote:

But Joseph said to them, ‘Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.

As for why God cares about us, I really couldn't imagine a higher power who had created the world and then abandoned it. It's a reason why I am a theist rather than a deist. Why wouldn't God not care for his creation?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now I know you Christians are'nt really in the business of logic. But is you could give me an answer for my little quote I would be very surprised.

I think you will find that Christian philosophers have responded to the Problem of Evil for a long time at this point. Infact it has been happening for centuries. I suggest that you pick up a book on Philosophy of Religion instead of claiming an arrogant stance. Infact I'll reccommend you An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies, it deals with this subject in depth. I personally studied this subject in the first semester of philosophy this year.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why would a supreme God care what we do ?
Isn't vanity a sin ?

God's laws are intended for God's creation. I thought that would have been rather obvious. I don't think it is vain that a God who created the world in all it's glory would instruct us how best to live in it, considering that He is an omniscient being in Christian interpretation. I don't see how that is vain in the slighest.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The idea of a Christian is ludicrous. simple as.

It's fine to hold that view, but give decent reasons for having your views.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What sort of a loving father would torture his Children for all eternity becuase they don't believe in him ?
All religions make up a Hell story to get scare people into converting.

God has given all people a way to repentance. People can choose to be stubborn and not to accept the offer He has given out of love. However, it is a mere fallacy to suggest that if people do not take up an offer due to their own pride that it is somehows God's fault that they didn't.

MysticalSoul

OP, personally I do not believe in the "big man in the sky" either, as to me, the God that I believe in is both male and female combined, and not male as we were raised to believe. Neither do I believe that he is constantly watching us, I believe the God of my own belief is always present, and just knows, rather than watching and scrutinising what we do. God is not the one to judge us, we reflect on our past life when we are at that in between stage of this life and the after life. I read an interesting book recently, by Michael Newton on the lives between lives (can't remember the exact title, but is along those lines), and in it it said that God does not like the word God, as us humans have made the word God too personal. Michael Newton does work on past lives etc.

When I say the word God, it is not the God I was raised to believe, but use the word God, as for a long time had an aversion to the word. Conversations with God is a fab read too, and takes some of the mystery out of some of the other beliefs that are linked to organised religion. One thing that stands out for me personally was the view on sexuality, where it is stated in the book "why would I give you a toy to play with, if I did not want you to enjoy it" - for me this stood out, as sexuality seems to one thing religion tries to control/shame us for, and for me personally, I think both spirituality and sexuality are very much connected.

philologos

God does not have any gender. Him, or He is just how most Christians relate to God, as a heavenly Father. However, there is nothing to say that God is literally male in the Biblical text.

When Moses speaks to God at the burning bush , God says "I am what I am" (Exodus 3:14). I.E God doesn't conform to human standards and is far more than we can possibly imagine. However, God has revealed Himself in limited human terms that we can understand somewhat, but there is much more we will never know about God.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

^^ The Epicurean problem of Evil doesn't entertain the possibility that evil could have a purpose to serve in this world in terms of personal development which is something that many Christians and Jews would entertain. As such it isn't entirely comprehensive. An example of this is when Joseph is sold into slavery in Egypt and he says to his brothers the following:
[QUOTE=Genesis 50:19-20 ] But Joseph said to them, ‘Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.

[/QUOTE]
I think you'll find the Epicurean model does of course entertain the possibility of evil serving a purpose for personal development.
According to your Religion God gave us the power to distinguse from good and evil for some reason that is totally unclear to even so called "Christian Scientists" and theologians. But that doesn't adress the problem Epicuras poses and that is, Why would God an all powerful and all knowing Being, allow Evil to exist in the first place ?

Jakkass wrote:

As for why God cares about us, I really couldn't imagine a higher power who had created the world and then abandoned it. It's a reason why I am a theist rather than a deist. Why wouldn't God not care for his creation?

If he cares for us then why does he torture us for all eternity if we do not praise and satisfy his bloated and immature ego ? Surely such vanity can only be a Human creation.

Jakkass wrote:

I think you will find that Christian philosophers have responded to the Problem of Evil for a long time at this point. Infact it has been happening for centuries. I suggest that you pick up a book on Philosophy of Religion instead of claiming an arrogant stance. Infact I'll reccommend you An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies, it deals with this subject in depth. I personally studied this subject in the first semester of philosophy this year.

No Chirstian theologians do not adress the problems with religion, they simply make up selective ideas to fill in the cracks of their religion.
Basically Christian theologians only operate within the boundaries that Religion sets.

Jakkass wrote:

God's laws are intended for God's creation. I thought that would have been rather obvious. I don't think it is vain that a God who created the world in all it's glory would instruct us how best to live in it, considering that He is an omniscient being in Christian interpretation. I don't see how that is vain in the slighest.

God wants us to worship him indefinatly and thank him for our life.
If we do not thank him for our life we are tortures forever.
I believe it was Jesus that siad a Sinner should cut off his tongue because it is better he does not have a tongue then us it to blasphemy against the Lord.

Jakkass wrote:

It's fine to hold that view, but give decent reasons for having your views.

Apparently my creator doesn't think it's fine and now wants to "cast me down into a lake of fire" for my traitorous ways.

Jakkass wrote:

God has given all people a way to repentance. People can choose to be stubborn and not to accept the offer He has given out of love. However, it is a mere fallacy to suggest that if people do not take up an offer due to their own pride that it is somehows God's fault that they didn't.

If God existed and truely loved us, he would give us his love unconditionally, he certainaly wouldn't make us conform to any Human institution or book and would speak to us directly.
Alas there is no God or no afterlife, the promise of an paradise for believers and Hell for non believers was designed to get people into that Religion and keep them in it.

Give me proof of Gods existence and I will happily convert, if you can't give us proof then you are nothing but a long line of crackpot Zealots trying restrict the ways in which we live our lives.

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think you'll find the Epicurean model does of course entertain the possibility of evil serving a purpose for personal development.
According to your Religion God gave us the power to distinguse from good and evil for some reason that is totally unclear to even so called "Christian Scientists" and theologians. But that doesn't adress the problem Epicuras poses and that is, Why would God an all powerful and all knowing Being, allow Evil to exist in the first place ?

Many Christians have already dealt with this question in the past from Augustine right up to the late Herbert McCabe in the philosophy of religion. There are several different theories that Christians have. My inkling is that evil serves a purpose in our lives and our personal development, and that if there were no such thing as evil there would be no appreciation for what is good, i.e if everything was good it would be just "normal" not good. Again, as I say that is merely my take on it, and people will disagree on that issue. I don't see it as a problem that evil is allowed if evil has a purpose and a reason for its existence.

In Epicurus' logical problem of evil there is no room for this argument. God could have in his omniscience seen that evil has a purpose in the development of who we are and permitted it on that reasoning. Or that evil has a purpose but we as finite human beings are unable to discern it. There is a great analogy in a book, which has a whole chapter on this very subject, that I read about a year ago about this:

Okay then imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bears confidence but he cannot do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs. The bear however thinks that this is an attack and that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn't realise that this is being done out of compassion. Then in order to get the bear out of the trap, the hunter has to push him further into the trap to release the tension on the spring. If the bear were semiconscious at that point, he would be even convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reached the incorrect conclusion because he is not a human being

^^ And we can reach the incorrect conclusion because we are not God.

Another analogy:

"I remember when one of my daughters was about four or five years old, and she was trying to thread a needle in Brownies. It was very difficult for her . Every time she tried, she hit herself in the finger and a couple of times she bled. I was watching her, but she didn't see me. She jsut keep trying and trying.
My first instinct was to go and do it for her, since I saw a drop of blood. But wisely I held back, because I said to myself, 'She can do it.' After about five minutes she finally did it. I came out of hiding and she said, "Daddy, daddy - look what I did! Look at what I did!" She was so proud that she had threaded the needle that she had forgotten all about the pain.
That time the pain was a good thing for her. I was wise enough to have foreseen it was good for her. Now, certainly God is much wise than I was with my daughter. So it's at least possible that God is wise enough to foresee that we need some pain for reasons which we may not understand but which he foresees as being necessary to some eventual good. Therefore, He's not being evil by allowing that pain to happen.

I prefer the evidential argument by the atheist William Rowe in comparison to the Epicurean problem of evil merely because it's much more effective than the Epicurean argument, because it doesn't say that God definitely doesn't exist, but rather it says if there is a loving God it is unlikely that it exists. I appreciated this argument a lot more than the logical argument of Epicurus because it makes much more sense in the long run that an atheist would argue this way given that God is by definition unfalsifiable.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If he cares for us then why does he torture us for all eternity if we do not praise and satisfy his bloated and immature ego ? Surely such vanity can only be a Human creation.

You've got it the wrong way around. God cared so much for the world that He gave us rules to protect us because He loves us. God then after His people messed up sent prophets to warn them. They did not listen. Then, God gave us Jesus Christ, the Messiah to save us from our sins by His saving death. Why? Because God loved us. It was revealed to us that if we believe in Him and seek out His will for us, we would have forgiveness and a clean shot before the final days.

Whereas people still to this day ignore this through their bloated egos, and through their arrogance. Yes, the vanity of man is mans creation, especially when it leads them to think that God's love is merely vanity.

No Chirstian theologians do not adress the problems with religion, they simply make up selective ideas to fill in the cracks of their religion.
Basically Christian theologians only operate within the boundaries that Religion sets.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

God wants us to worship him indefinatly and thank him for our life.
If we do not thank him for our life we are tortures forever.
I believe it was Jesus that said a Sinner should cut off his tongue because it is better he does not have a tongue then us it to blasphemy against the Lord.

Hm, it seems a bit perculiar to me that if God were the creator that one wouldn't thank Him for our wonderful existence.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Apparently my creator doesn't think it's fine and now wants to "cast me down into a lake of fire" for my traitorous ways.

God doesn't want to send anyone to hell, rather He wants us to come into a meaningful relationship with Him:

Hosea 11:8-9 wrote:

How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and no mortal, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.

2 Peter 3:9 wrote:

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

I find it interesting that people are so willing to criticise that which they do not really understand.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If God existed and truely loved us, he would give us his love unconditionally, he certainaly wouldn't make us conform to any Human institution or book and would speak to us directly.
Alas there is no God or no afterlife, the promise of an paradise for believers and Hell for non believers was designed to get people into that Religion and keep them in it.

Is Christianity a human institution? I personally believe it is of God, rather than of man. As for the Bible being a book, it may be a book, but it is believed to be divinely inspired.

As for saying there is no God, or no afterlife. That's good for you, but again, what can you do to suggest that is the case?

And of course, I believe the existence of hell and heaven is to serve God's justice. God is a God of mercy for those who are willing to seek mercy, but God will punish those for their deeds unless they seek out this mercy. If you do not seek out mercy that isn't God's fault for not offering, but rather mankinds fault for not seeking it.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

Many Christians have already dealt with this question in the past from Augustine right up to the late Herbert McCabe in the philosophy of religion. There are several different theories that Christians have. My inkling is that evil serves a purpose in our lives and our personal development, and that if there were no such thing as evil there would be no appreciation for what is good, i.e if everything was good it would be just "normal" not good. Again, as I say that is merely my take on it, and people will disagree on that issue. I don't see it as a problem that evil is allowed if evil has a purpose and a reason for its existence

And thats the problem, Christian theologians only allow themselves to seek conclusions based on the laws of their religions. This means that they will never reach a logical conclusion.
Just as the Bible was proven wrong with the creation in life as described in Genesis they will be proven wrong in more things as science advances.
Humans say that God created Humans in his image, but I wonder what they will say when we inevitably make contact with extra terestrial life in the future.

Jakkass wrote:

I prefer the evidential argument by the atheist William Rowe in comparison to the Epicurean problem of evil merely because it's much more effective than the Epicurean argument, because it doesn't say that God definitely doesn't exist, but rather it says if there is a loving God it is unlikely that it exists. I appreciated this argument a lot more than the logical argument of Epicurus because it makes much more sense in the long run that an atheist would argue this way given that God is by definition unfalsifiable.

Another example of Christians theologians thinking only inside the boundaries that their Religion sets.

Jakkass wrote:

You've got it the wrong way around. God cared so much for the world that He gave us rules to protect us because He loves us. God then after His people messed up sent prophets to warn them. They did not listen. Then, God gave us Jesus Christ, the Messiah to save us from our sins by His saving death. Why? Because God loved us. It was revealed to us that if we believe in Him and seek out His will for us, we would have forgiveness and a clean shot before the final days.

Yes, God cares about me so much that he gave me life then restricts that life with countless rules, of which if I don't follow I will be sent to hell.

Jakkass wrote:

Whereas people still to this day ignore this through their bloated egos, and through their arrogance. Yes, the vanity of man is mans creation, especially when it leads them to think that God's love is merely vanity.

Do you think people deny it because of logic rather than vanity ?

Jakkass wrote:

Hm, it seems a bit perculiar to me that if God were the creator that one wouldn't thank Him for our wonderful existence.

Theres a difference between the Creator accepting our praise and demanding that we praise him like a spoilt child at the threat of Hell.

Jakkass wrote:

God doesn't want to send anyone to hell, rather He wants us to come into a meaningful relationship with Him:

If God doesn't want to send people to Hell then why does he ?

Jakkass wrote:

Is Christianity a human institution? I personally believe it is of God, rather than of man. As for the Bible being a book, it may be a book, but it is believed to be divinely inspired.

The first Pope of the RC church was St.Peter and all Prodestant churchs are descended from that church.
Yes, they are all Human institutions.

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And thats the problem, Christian theologians only allow themselves to seek conclusions based on the laws of their religions. This means that they will never reach a logical conclusion.
Just as the Bible was proven wrong with the creation in life as described in Genesis they will be proven wrong in more things as science advances.
Humans say that God created Humans in his image, but I wonder what they will say when we inevitably make contact with extra terestrial life in the future.

I don't think this is the case. Many Christian thinkers have been open to logic if you merely read their material. I personally think that not many can beat Thomas Aquinas in terms of his logic, particularly on morality and ethics. Likewise C.S Lewis in terms of his logic in Mere Christianity and Miracles is quite extraordinary.

As for the Bible being proven wrong on creation that also depends on how one views Genesis. You know that and I know that.

As for extraterrestial life, you should really look to the Christianity forum for a thread on this. Most Christian posters do not see it as a problem at all. Rather it means that God's creation is much more sophisticated than we ever could have imagined. I think it's a bit of a leap on your part to say that it is "inevitable" though.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Another example of Christians theologians thinking only inside the boundaries that their Religion sets.

I don't see how. I mean most atheists will rarely give the supernatural any serious consideration. So aren't they not also restricting their understanding on the same note?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, God cares about me so much that he gave me life then restricts that life with countless rules, of which if I don't follow I will be sent to hell.

Restriction? I think it is a freedom that I am able to be free of the negative pressures of this world and that I am able to live a fulfilling life in the knowledge of God. Have you ever noticed that the theme that runs through the New Testament is actually freedom rather than restriction.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you think people deny it because of logic rather than vanity ?

Atheists don't have a monopoly on logic. Many Christian thinkers have shown themselves to be logical, and many Christians have been involved in science over the centuries. I consider it highly illogical to even employ this argument.

Likewise anyone who claims to have a purely rational assessment of the world is just plain wrong. Humans are emotional beings and emotions will always impact how they are doing. Even if they were purely rational, reason isn't the source of all knowledge. Empiricism is needed before we even reason in the first place. The different between atheists and theists is not reason, but rather their sources of empiricism which they use to begin with.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Theres a difference between the Creator accepting our praise and demanding that we praise him like a spoilt child at the threat of Hell.

I have yet to see what is remotely childish about God giving us laws to protect us.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If God doesn't want to send people to Hell then why does he ?

Due to the fact that God is both a God of justice and mercy. God reconciled mercy and justice on the Cross where Jesus was offered to pay the price of our sins on the understanding that we remain loyal to God before the Final Judgement. If one does not accept this atonement for ones sins, one will have to pay for them ones self by eternal punishment.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The first Pope of the RC church was St.Peter and all Prodestant churchs are descended from that church.
Yes, they are all Human institutions.

1. We do not know that Peter was the first Pope. We do not even know if Peter died in Rome.
2. Protestantism is descended from independence and free reading and interpretation of the Bible.

Some people think that Catholicism was the sole Christian church from day one, it simply wasn't. We have the Jewish Church of James the Righteous, the Armenian Apostolic Church of Barnabas and Jude, the Indian Church of Thomas, the Gentile Church of Paul all of these existed before the Roman Catholic Church.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

I don't think this is the case. Many Christian thinkers have been open to logic if you merely read their material. I personally think that not many can beat Thomas Aquinas in terms of his logic, particularly on morality and ethics. Likewise C.S Lewis in terms of his logic in Mere Christianity and Miracles is quite extraordinary.

Christian theologians are restricting them selves due to their vary nature as Christian theologians.
Let me give an example: If a Christian theologian found undoubted proof that God did not exist then they would have to ignore this evidence becuas eif they didn't they would not be "Christian" theologians.

Jakkass wrote:

As for the Bible being proven wrong on creation that also depends on how one views Genesis. You know that and I know that.

Another example, once Christians where proven wrong on creationism they took the theory of evolution, inserted it into their belifes, and said that Genesis must be a paroble, despite the fact it was treated as truth by the Abramic religions for hundreds of year.

"Hmm, this whole creation thing doesn't seem to be working in our favour lads, what should we do ?"
*Commence head scratching*
"I know, why don't we take this Darwin fellows theory and fit it nice and snuggly into our own religion, by saying Genesis is a story not to be taken seriously and that Adam was some form of Monkey man, we can carry on as normal."
*Commence appulse from Christians, Jews and Muslims around the world.*

Jakkass wrote:

As for extraterrestial life, you should really look to the Christianity forum for a thread on this. Most Christian posters do not see it as a problem at all. Rather it means that God's creation is much more sophisticated than we ever could have imagined. I think it's a bit of a leap on your part to say that it is "inevitable" though.

But if Man was made in Gods image, and these Alians don't look like Humans, then surely these Alians don't look like God.
Or is that another part of Genesis that is a story ?

Jakkass wrote:

I don't see how. I mean most atheists will rarely give the supernatural any serious consideration. So aren't they not also restricting their understanding on the same note?

You're confusing Atheism with Humanism.
Atheists don't believe in a creator, Humanists ignore all supernatural phonomina. Many Atheists are also Humanists, but not all.
I am an Atheist but not a Humanist.

Jakkass wrote:

Restriction? I think it is a freedom that I am able to be free of the negative pressures of this world and that I am able to live a fulfilling life in the knowledge of God. Have you ever noticed that the theme that runs through the New Testament is actually freedom rather than restriction.

You didn't answer my question, why did God give us the freedom to see right form wrong only to bombard us with countless rules such as no sex before marrige, don't drink, don't smoke, etc.

Jakkass wrote:

Atheists don't have a monopoly on logic. Many Christian thinkers have shown themselves to be logical, and many Christians have been involved in science over the centuries. I consider it highly illogical to even employ this argument.

To consider something is illogical.

Jakkass wrote:

Likewise anyone who claims to have a purely rational assessment of the world is just plain wrong. Humans are emotional beings and emotions will always impact how they are doing. Even if they were purely rational, reason isn't the source of all knowledge. Empiricism is needed before we even reason in the first place. The different between atheists and theists is not reason, but rather their sources of empiricism which they use to begin with.

If God is perfect then why didn't he allow us to understand his endless ego that needs to be constantly praised ?

Jakkass wrote:

I have yet to see what is remotely childish about God giving us laws to protect us.

To protect us from what ? Himself ?
Surely he doesn't need to give us laws to protect us from himself ?
And yes, your picture of God is childish. He creates us, gives us freedom of choice, askes us to worship him by our own choice, and if we choose not to he has a hissy fit and sends us to hell.
Why did he bother giving us free will at all ?

Jakkass wrote:

Due to the fact that God is both a God of justice and mercy. God reconciled mercy and justice on the Cross where Jesus was offered to pay the price of our sins on the understanding that we remain loyal to God before the Final Judgement. If one does not accept this atonement for ones sins, one will have to pay for them ones self by eternal punishment.

Torturing someone forever is hardly for not believing in you is hardly justice.

Jakkass wrote:

1. We do not know that Peter was the first Pope. We do not even know if Peter died in Rome.

1. We don't know that God exists but that hasn't stopped Christians before.

Jakkass wrote:

2. Protestantism is descended from independence and free reading and interpretation of the Bible.

Protestantism is descended from the movement of Martain Luther, a German monk who rightly accused the RC church of heresy for charging people money to get into heaven.

Jakkass wrote:

Some people think that Catholicism was the sole Christian church from day one, it simply wasn't. We have the Jewish Church of James the Righteous, the Armenian Apostolic Church of Barnabas and Jude, the Indian Church of Thomas, the Gentile Church of Paul all of these existed before the Roman Catholic Church.

Actually, I didn't know this.
Thanks for the information.

Nerin

could you guys start a new thread to discuss this please?
i like seeing debates on here, especially without mud slinging and childishness, but its kinda detracting from this thread and taking over.

thanks.

Iwasfrozen

No problem, I opened up a new thread.