What if a higher being appeared, but not as described by your faith?

thirtythirty

Howdy all,
I pop in here a good bit to have a read of discussions / arguments etc., but now I'd like a pose a question of my own. I should say that I'm of the non-belief camp (i dont like the term atheist really as i feel it's becoming synonymous with arrogance and religious attacks, but you can call me so if you like!), but I have a deep interest in both questioning and understanding the why's and how's of believers, regardless of faith. I once lived with a guy in the states who's denomination I forget the name of, but he believed that word for word, the bible was correct. And I mean "word for word" - as in, everything single thing in the bible happened precisely as is described. That guy fascinated me. But I digress.

As a non-believer I have observed a few things which I (at least) would consider correct:
- all followers of a faith believe whole heartedly that theirs is the correct faith / path / etc
- most religions have a common theme of: a higher being, sometimes a prophet, and codes by which people should follow, even if the rest of the details are (vastly) different
- most followers believe that *someday*, their religion will be proven true, either through an event, return of someone/something, or some other method.

Anyway, the crux of my post is not actually a "why is.." or "how do you know.." question, because frankly they've been done to death and I pretty much know what people will say, but I have a "what if..." question:

So, what if next week a being of unimaginable power appeared. What if it appeared and:
- it said was the one who assembled the earth and formed early life
- it said everyone was connected to each other and to it
- it tried to prove itself following that statement by, I don't know, warming everybody on earth's skin or something
- it said none of the current religions are correct, and all Gods currently worshipped were false and invented by man. That over time, the story of the real "god" i.e. it, the builder, had evolved into the various religions according to where on earth the story was being told etc
- it stated that the paths of these religions were not as it [the being] had wished, and it demanded they be abandoned. Perhaps it re-affirms whatever the original message or codes were. Perhaps too, it suggests there is some unavoidable penalty for not following the correct path.


What would you do?
- Would you accept it unconditionally and believe it's word, thus causing you to abandon your current beliefs in favour of this new thing, whatever it was.
- Would you question the validity of the being / fear that it was not *your* God since it does not appear to be as your religion defines it (despite it's obvious power and attempted proof).
- Would you lie somewhere in between and perhaps massage interpretations of your beliefs so that you could follow / respect this new being without turning your back on your old beliefs in your own mind?


I'd also be interested in your reflection of your answer - what does your acceptance / rejection / questioning say about your beliefs, of religion, and of state of mind.

I have my own thoughts as well as rationale, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of people already attached to a faith.

strobe

spottyelephant wrote: »

Perhaps too, it suggests there is some unavoidable penalty for not following the correct path.

I'd ask the being what exactly that path was and if I didn't aprove of it I'd say "don't threaten me ye prick, you want to smite me, go ahead and smite me" then I'd go on my merry way. I'm not big on the whole submitting to the control of totalitarian dictators because they threaten you, thing.

thirtythirty

strobe wrote: »

I'd ask the being what exactly that path was and if I didn't aprove of it I'd say "don't threaten me ye prick, you want to smite me, go ahead and smite me" then I'd go on my merry way. I'm not big on the whole submitting to the control of totalitarian dictators because they threaten you, thing.

LoL, well i mean more along the lines of not that it would smite you, but since it (i suppose allegedly at this point) built you, the way it designed you means that, eh, your energy (or soul etc) can't do whatever it's meant to do next unless that process is followed.

gosplan

strobe wrote: »

I'd ask the being what exactly that path was and if I didn't aprove of it I'd say "don't threaten me ye prick, you want to smite me, go ahead and smite me" then I'd go on my merry way. I'm not big on the whole submitting to the control of totalitarian dictators because they threaten you, thing.

I'd smite this guy to get on the being's good side. Then, I'd ask for Australia like Lex Luthor did in Superman II.

Festus

spottyelephant wrote: »

So, what if next week a being of unimaginable power appeared. What if it appeared and:
- it said was the one who assembled the earth and formed early life
- it said everyone was connected to each other and to it
- it tried to prove itself following that statement by, I don't know, warming everybody on earth's skin or something
- it said none of the current religions are correct, and all Gods currently worshipped were false and invented by man. That over time, the story of the real "god" i.e. it, the builder, had evolved into the various religions according to where on earth the story was being told etc
- it stated that the paths of these religions were not as it [the being] had wished, and it demanded they be abandoned. Perhaps it re-affirms whatever the original message or codes were. Perhaps too, it suggests there is some unavoidable penalty for not following the correct path.


What would you do?

There's your problem.

If it had to try to prove itself by performing illusions instead of a miracle it is clearly Satan or something satanic.

So I'd go grab some Popcorn and wait for the real fight to start.

Wacker

Festus wrote: »

There's your problem.

If it had to try to prove itself by performing illusions instead of a miracle

Just curious: how would you know the difference?

ISAW

spottyelephant wrote: »

Howdy all,
I pop in here a good bit to have a read of discussions / arguments etc.,

Which ones did you read?

Festus

Wacker wrote: »

Just curious: how would you know the difference?

Depends on the "miracle". The OP says "warm everyones skin"

The power of suggestion could do this - how would you know it wasn't suggestion.

Think of something only God could do. That's a miracle.

ISAW

spottyelephant wrote: »

I have a "what if..." question:

So, what if next week a being of unimaginable power appeared. What if it appeared and:
- it said was the one who assembled the earth and formed early life
- it said everyone was connected to each other and to it
- it tried to prove itself following that statement by, I don't know, warming everybody on earth's skin or something
- it said none of the current religions are correct, and all Gods currently worshipped were false and invented by man. That over time, the story of the real "god" i.e. it, the builder, had evolved into the various religions according to where on earth the story was being told etc
- it stated that the paths of these religions were not as it [the being] had wished, and it demanded they be abandoned. Perhaps it re-affirms whatever the original message or codes were. Perhaps too, it suggests there is some unavoidable penalty for not following the correct path.

You have being watching "V" haven't you?

What would you do?
- Would you accept it unconditionally and believe it's word, thus causing you to abandon your current beliefs in favour of this new thing, whatever it was.
- Would you question the validity of the being / fear that it was not *your* God since it does not appear to be as your religion defines it (despite it's obvious power and attempted proof).
- Would you lie somewhere in between and perhaps massage interpretations of your beliefs so that you could follow / respect this new being without turning your back on your old beliefs in your own mind?

From a fiction point of view - watch V more for that answer.
From a faith point of view - if the "superiour being" exhibited the essence of a particular belief then i assume the people of that belief would accept it. AS this is a Christianity forum Christians would accept the return of Christ but would not accept that Christianity was a lie and anyone saying so even if supernatural would be anti Christ.

I have my own thoughts as well as rationale, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of people already attached to a faith.

I would nbe interested in your thoughts.
For an academic analysis i suggest you read Bob Altemeyer on authoritarianism or Leon Festinger on "cognitive dissonance". I found both helpful.

thirtythirty

ISAW wrote: »

I would nbe interested in your thoughts.

Ha no, I had to Google “V tv” to find out what it was!

Ok, well here’s how I see it anyway.

First, I’ve got to put aside the fact that I don’t actually believe in higher beings or creationism or anything, and ignore that so that I can think about the plausibility of all religions, and the future of the people who follow them.

So when considering the plausibility and validity of religion, I’ve got to think about “God”, “the beginning”, and the evolution of the religion in human terms.

In respect of the God, I hate that word. It insinuates some hocus pocus magical being that has a superiority complex, and thus cannot be the ‘pure’ being that [all] religion would have you believe. I would think of it more like a Grand Designer. This far more plausible when you consider where we live, and what we’re made of;

This is where “the beginning” (or creationism) ties in too. The Earth is made up of a few primary gases and minerals, and all life is carbon based. When you think about how the Earth is the perfect distance from the sun to allow life to exist, the perfect mix of minerals and gases combined to give everything we see, and the fact that everything life based requires carbon, that can seem far fetched to be coincidence (when not thinking about my other views I’ve put aside for now). The chances of all that coming together, not to mention that the “left over” minerals and gases have been neatly stored either side of us within different planets, then the idea of a Grand Designer can become highly plausible.
As for “the beginning”, the Bible says in the beginning there was light etc etc. Well strictly speaking that’s true – there was a massive flash and heat (the light), which then produced masses of gases (the heavens), which then combined due to gravity to form minerals (the earth).

So take a step back and think about what we have. We have a “God”, if you want to call it that, and creation of the earth, and then man, albeit not precisely as the bible simplifies it. But this is where the evolution of religion comes into play, and ultimately leads to my very original question in my first post.


There a few things to keep in mind now:
- all religions are at least 2000 years old
- many were simply “known” stories before being officially recorded
- people had very little understanding of the world around them then, and certainly weren’t as intelligent as they are now (in terms of understanding, concepts, and thought).
- Most, if not all, other historical recordings got slightly changed or embellished throughout history, until more recently when recorded history became “better” (e.g. think Greek battle stories vs reporting on wars today).
- Cultures and the way people think varies wildly depending on their location on the earth
- humans are notoriously unreliable and very corruptible. Sure the recent sex scandals prove that even the supposed enlightened elite are so.

What does this mean for religions (IMO)? It means that there is absolutely no question (in my mind) that the stories and paths naturally deviated from the original (if we are considering there was an original). It also means now though that these stories, or historical documents depending on how you view them, have stagnated in terms of natural evolution due to how good historical recording is now.
This means a few things:
- it means as human civilisation moves on and evolves or changes, religions won’t
- it means while basic core values might remain, religions will become less and less relative or believable to a growing population (enter the term atheist)
- it means religions will not naturally converge like the human race slowly is.


Now to bring it back to my original question and what it means. I think that if people of faith cannot even consider the fact that their religion might be slightly different to the truth, due to basic human error over generations and *not* due to it just not being true, then even if this higher being was to appear, religious people would be staring what they’ve been searching for for thousands of years right in the face, and reject it simply because it doesn’t 100% match their views, which are likely to be slightly skewed as outlined above, whether they like to admit it or not.

And if THAT’S the case, then I can see a growing dissent against the various religions and their teachings over the next few generations. There will always be hardliners (or dedicated!) to every faith, but unless a more streamlined / shared global view is accepted, which adapts all religious beliefs as well as integrates what science has learned thus far too, well then perhaps we’re too stubborn as a race to be given a chance at immortality either through survival and growth as a race, or spiritually by a higher being, in the first place!

Phew, I hope my concepts come across there – I’ve had to type extremely fast without much thought cuz im in work. But that kinda outlines (on one hand) how I see things anyway.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

From a faith point of view - if the "superiour being" exhibited the essence of a particular belief then i assume the people of that belief would accept it. AS this is a Christianity forum Christians would accept the return of Christ but would not accept that Christianity was a lie and anyone saying so even if supernatural would be anti Christ.

Wow! You're so sure you're following the right religion that even if a supernatural being came down to earth and told you you were wrong you wouldn't accept it. Really shows how futile arguments on the internet are.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wow! You're so sure you're following the right religion that even if a supernatural being came down to earth and told you you were wrong you wouldn't accept it. Really shows how futile arguments on the internet are.

I've been saying that for years. Anyway, it really is no more extreme than one or two of the views that appeared on a "what would it take to convince you" thread that Jimi started on the A&A forum a while back.

MrPudding

Festus wrote: »

Think of something only God could do. That's a miracle.

Like what?

MrP

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've been saying that for years. Anyway, it really is no more extreme than one or two of the views that appeared on a "what would it take to convince you" thread that Jimi started on the A&A forum a while back.

Actually, since Christians do believe in supernatural beings other than God, it is consistent with their beliefs to feel that a supernatural being could be a demon/Satan whatever.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Actually, since Christians do believe in supernatural beings other than God, it is consistent with their beliefs to feel that a supernatural being could be a demon/Satan whatever.

Good point.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Actually, since Christians do believe in supernatural beings other than God, it is consistent with their beliefs to feel that a supernatural being could be a demon/Satan whatever.

Then surely Jesus could have been one of these beings sent to sway people away from the true faith of Islam or whatever just as easily as any supernatural being that may appear in the future could be sent to sway people away from the true faith of Christianity?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then surely Jesus could have been one of these beings sent to sway people away from the true faith of Islam or whatever just as easily as any supernatural being that may appear in the future could be sent to sway people away from the true faith of Christianity?

Yes, Jesus could have been sent to sway people away from a faith that wouldn't appear for another 600 years. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Jesus could have been sent to sway people away from a faith that wouldn't appear for another 600 years. :rolleyes:

Not much of a feat for a supernatural being that exists outside time tbh. Swaying in advance is still swaying.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not much of a feat for a supernatural being that exists outside time tbh. Swaying in advance is still swaying.

Then, since we only believe in one supernatural Being that exists outside time, that would mean Jesus was from God.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Then, since we only believe in one supernatural Being that exists outside time, that would mean Jesus was from God.

So demons/Satan/whatever are stuck in linear time like the rest of us?


edit: also, if Jesus was a demon then surely the specifics of what you believe about demons and god would be irrelevant, since what you believe about them is based on Christianity? You're arguing that Jesus was from god based on reasoning that only works if you assume Jesus was from god.

smcgiff

ISAW wrote: »

From a faith point of view - AS this is a Christianity forum Christians would accept the return of Christ but would not accept that Christianity was a lie and anyone saying so even if supernatural would be anti Christ.

You say that now, but wait until the lightening bolts start flying!

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So demons/Satan/whatever are stuck in linear time like the rest of us?

Yes

edit: also, if Jesus was a demon then surely the specifics of what you believe about demons and god would be irrelevant, since what you believe about them is based on Christianity? You're arguing that Jesus was from god based on reasoning that only works if you assume Jesus was from god.

No, this whole exchange started because I pointed out that you were in error in your accusation against ISAW because his position was consistent with Christian belief. Although you are now trying to move the goalposts my point remains valid.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Yes



No, this whole exchange started because I pointed out that you were in error in your accusation against ISAW because his position was consistent with Christian belief. Although you are now trying to move the goalposts my point remains valid.

What is consistent with Christian belief is irrelevant if it turns out that christian belief is not correct when a supernatural being other than one described by Christianity appears and any argument against this supernatural being being god can be applied just as easily to Jesus so any argument that this being is not god based on it contradicting Christian belief is a circular argument. You cannot dismiss a being as a demon because it contradicts the word of another being who could also have been a demon by the same reasoning. They could both be demons distracting us from the true faith of Mormonism

Also, yet again you have misconstrued your own missing of the the point as moving the goalposts. Maybe you should read my posts again and see that my point has been consistent throughout before jumping to the conclusion of dishonesty for the millionth time. It only took you four posts this time. I'd love to say that was a record

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What is consistent with Christian belief is irrelevant if it turns out that christian belief is not correct when a supernatural being other than one described by Christianity appears and any argument against this supernatural being being god can be applied just as easily to Jesus so any argument that this being is not god based on it contradicting Christian belief is a circular argument.

Your leap of logic, of course, is that the scenario you describe has not demonstrated Christian belief to be incorrect, therefore nothing has "turned out". Probably better to sort your own logical gaps sorted out before you go accusing anyone else's reasoning of being circular.

You cannot dismiss a being as a demon because it contradicts the word of another being who could also have been a demon by the same reasoning. They could both be demons distracting us from the true faith of Mormonism

Another leap of logic here. The 'reasoning' behind rejecting this hypothetical being would be that it has not demonstrated itself to be worthy of worship, whereas Jesus has demonstrated Himself to our satisfaction to be worthy of worship.

Also, yet again you have misconstrued your own missing of the the point as moving the goalposts. Maybe you should read my posts again and see that my point has been consistent throughout before jumping to the conclusion of dishonesty for the millionth time. It only took you four posts this time. I'd love to say that was a record

Your estimation of your own consistency is misplaced.

A Christian is perfectly consistent with his belief in one supernatural being in rejecting the testimony of another supernatural being. Your attempt to mock that position in your attack on ISAW was poorly thought out, and your logical leaps since, while truly Beamonesque, haven't rendered your position any more convincing.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Your estimation of your own consistency is misplaced.

I know the point that I have been trying to make and the position I have been arguing from so your statement that my own estimation of my consistency is misplaced is absolutely ridiculous, since you would have to be inside my head and know my intentions better than I do myself in order to make such a statement. It is possible that I may not have been clear enough in making my point and that this caused you to misunderstand what I was saying but that is not the same as my position not being consistent. Also the fact that this is how the majority of interactions that I've seen you have with atheists go suggests to me that this is yet another example of:

poster: <point>
PDN: <straw man>
poster: I didn't say straw man. I said <point>
PDN: You did say <straw man>. Stop shifting the goalposts!!! You're a liar!!! Admit it. ADMIT IT!!!!

PDN wrote: »

Your leap of logic, of course, is that the scenario you describe has not demonstrated Christian belief to be incorrect, therefore nothing has "turned out". Probably better to sort your own logical gaps sorted out before you go accusing anyone else's reasoning of being circular.

Another leap of logic here. The 'reasoning' behind rejecting this hypothetical being would be that it has not demonstrated itself to be worthy of worship, whereas Jesus has demonstrated Himself to our satisfaction to be worthy of worship.
A Christian is perfectly consistent with his belief in one supernatural being in rejecting the testimony of another supernatural being. Your attempt to mock that position in your attack on ISAW was poorly thought out, and your logical leaps since, while truly Beamonesque, haven't rendered your position any more convincing.

ISAW's position was that he would dismiss this supernatural being. The idea that this being could demonstrate himself to be worthy of worship was not even considered. This being contradicts Christianity. Therefore this being is a false God. End of story. This position is consistent only if you begin with the assumption that christianity is true. Then and only then it doesn't matter what the nature of this new being is and what it does while it's here. The point is that once you realise that this supernatural being could appear before us and perform all of the acts of Jesus and more, that it could demonstrate to us everything that Jesus demonstrated and infinitely more, it becomes ludicrous to deny that this being is god based on a story in a book about a man doing some of the same things. This argument for Christianity being true in the face of other supernatural beings who can perform all of the same acts as Jesus only works if you begin with the assumption that Christianity is true. It is a circular argument.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know the point that I have been trying to make and the position I have been arguing from so your statement that my own estimation of my consistency is misplaced is absolutely ridiculous, since you would have to be inside my head and know my intentions better than I do myself in order to make such a statement.

Fair enough, I can't see inside your head, perhaps you do recognise that your logic has more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese, but maybe you choose to post it anyway knowing fine well that it is riddled with inconsistencies.

Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you actually thought your post had some merit.

Also the fact that this is how the majority of interactions that I've seen you have with atheists go suggests to me that this is yet another example of:

poster: <point>
PDN: <straw man>
poster: I didn't say straw man. I said <point>
PDN: You did say <straw man>. Stop shifting the goalposts!!! You're a liar!!! Admit it. ADMIT IT!!!!

"It's because I'm an atheist innit?"

No, the fact that you are an atheist is immaterial. I am addressing your post, rather than attacking the poster. Maybe you could do the same?

ISAW's position was that he would dismiss this supernatural being. The idea that this being could demonstrate himself to be worthy of worship was not even considered. This being contradicts Christianity. Therefore this being is a false God. End of story. This position is consistent only if you begin with the assumption that christianity is true. Then and only then it doesn't matter what the nature of this new being is and what it does while it's here. The point is that once you realise that this supernatural being could appear before us and perform all of the acts of Jesus and more, that it could demonstrate to us everything that Jesus demonstrated and infinitely more, it becomes ludicrous to deny that this being is god based on a story in a book about a man doing some of the same things. This argument for Christianity being true in the face of other supernatural beings who can perform all of the same acts as Jesus only works if you begin with the assumption that Christianity is true. It is a circular argument.

The OP was addressed to Christians who do, rather obviously, believe Christianity to be true.

The reasons why Christians believe Christianity to be true are many and varied (including the fact that we believe Jesus is worthy to be worshipped). So any accusation of circular reasoning is invalid unless it addresses all of those reasons.

By the way, you seem to be getting rather aggressive in this thread, so maybe you could do us all a favour and read the Forum Charter - particularly the clause that states Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack.

Sam Vimes

My 'aggression' was not an attack on anyone's faith, it was a response to yet another accusation of dishonesty. But anyway, bye now. Take my exit as an admission that you have vanquished me with your impeccable logic if you so choose

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My 'aggression' was not an attack on anyone's faith, it was a response to yet another accusation of dishonesty. But anyway, bye now. Take my exit as an admission that you have vanquished me with your impeccable logic if you so choose

Yep I would choose that. Reason and faith vanquishing those who propose a position that to mocks belief as if it is silly and backward.

ISAW

smcgiff wrote: »

You say that now, but wait until the lightening bolts start flying!

So your counter argument is based on a mythical "Zeus" ?

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

ISAW's position was that he would dismiss this supernatural being.

This being is of course "supernatural " because YOU defined them as such.
My position is that a christian god would not do something unreasonable.

The idea that this being could demonstrate himself to be worthy of worship was not even considered. This being contradicts Christianity. Therefore this being is a false God. End of story. This position is consistent only if you begin with the assumption that christianity is true. Then and only then it doesn't matter what the nature of this new being is and what it does while it's here. The point is that once you realise that this supernatural being could appear before us and perform all of the acts of Jesus and more, that it could demonstrate to us everything that Jesus demonstrated and infinitely more, it becomes ludicrous to deny that this being is god based on a story in a book about a man doing some of the same things.

Peole don't adhere to Christianity because God has power but because God has love. Other people DID come and claim Christians had it wrong - Islam for example. It is ludicrous that people should certainly leave Christianity and embrace Islam or anything else. Your stiched up senario suggests that automatically everyone who is Christian should convert to being a Muslim.

This argument for Christianity being true in the face of other supernatural beings who can perform all of the same acts as Jesus only works if you begin with the assumption that Christianity is true. It is a circular argument.

Not at all. Christ didn't go in for showmanship. The idea that all sorts of supernatural beings could arrive and do what Christians can't do is not what it is about. Jesus was showing people that WITHOUT SUPERNATURAL POWER they could live as he did. Anyone could! Personal advancement through exploitation of supernatural power was not part of the idea. if anything that would indicate a being who is anti Christian.

thirtythirty

Could I maybe drag this back on track to my hypothetical "what if" question - in particular, PDN, I noted that you said Jesus had proved worthy of worship...

I know in my original post i said the being "warms everyone's skin", but that was just an example - it's "proof" could be anything you like, for instance following the warming of everyones skin, all ailments disappeared.

Im not so much interested in what you define as a miracle, but more, if it aligned with what you viewed as worthy of miracle status, then would you still reject this being because it didn't conform explicitly to the Bible, or even further, it stated that the Bible was wrong?

Surely your faith would allow you to transfer from believing one tale of events (since that was the only thing to go on), to this new thing. You are not rejecting the God you've been worshiping all these years, you're simply ammending the details.

Fanny Cradock

All of us, of course, have the potential of devaluating experience and dismissing evidence. But if something has been proved, either as an objective truth or as something altogether more subjective - which I suggest functionally amounts to the same thing - then you surely have your answer.

thirtythirty

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

All of us, of course, have the potential of devaluating experience and dismissing evidence. But if something has been proved, either as an objective truth or as something altogether more subjective - which I suggest functionally amounts to the same thing - then you surely have your answer.

I know what you are trying to say, but [and really, no offence!], it's these type of loose statements or comments that bring the end of a good discussion.
Surely you can say what you would do [in said hypothetical situation] in plain and succinct english, with logical rationale.

Would you accept it? Yes/no + why?
Keeping in mind:
- it would be evidence in your face, while the Bible has been under man's control for a long time, and man is all but perfect..
- it would not require you to denounce "your" god

PDN

spottyelephant wrote: »

Could I maybe drag this back on track to my hypothetical "what if" question - in particular, PDN, I noted that you said Jesus had proved worthy of worship...

I know in my original post i said the being "warms everyone's skin", but that was just an example - it's "proof" could be anything you like, for instance following the warming of everyones skin, all ailments disappeared.

Im not so much interested in what you define as a miracle, but more, if it aligned with what you viewed as worthy of miracle status, then would you still reject this being because it didn't conform explicitly to the Bible, or even further, it stated that the Bible was wrong?

Surely your faith would allow you to transfer from believing one tale of events (since that was the only thing to go on), to this new thing. You are not rejecting the God you've been worshiping all these years, you're simply ammending the details.

If this hypothetical being lived a perfect life, showed infinite love, and then sacrificed itself for me in a most painful way then, yes, I would give it a hearing. Otherwise I would reject it as clearly inferior.

Fanny Cradock

spottyelephant wrote: »

I know what you are trying to say, but [and really, no offence!], it's these type of loose statements or comments that bring the end of a good discussion.
Surely you can say what you would do [in said hypothetical situation] in plain and succinct english, with logical rationale.

Would you accept it? Yes/no + why?
Keeping in mind:
- it would be evidence in your face, while the Bible has been under man's control for a long time, and man is all but perfect..
- it would not require you to denounce "your" god

Given the spirit of your post and how readily you dismissed mine, I think it is best that I drop out of this debate.

thirtythirty

PDN wrote: »

If this hypothetical being lived a perfect life, showed infinite love, and then sacrificed itself for me in a most painful way then, yes, I would give it a hearing. Otherwise I would reject it as clearly inferior.

Well presumably it wouldn't HAVE to sacrifice itself, maybe it could stick around and do some good!

But thanks, thats a good answer. What i've been interested in this whole time is whether devout religious people (regardless of faith), just want to follow what they've been taught blindly and will always just say "nope, you're wrong we're right), or whether there is enough cognisance to be able to take what they believe and at least reflect on their current beliefs, and ultimately accept why people might believe other things.

See, that was what fascinated me with that guy i lived with who believed the bible word-for-word. I found it utterly astounding how resoundingly stubborn, and almost aggresivly ignorant at times, he could be. Sure, he told me I was going to hell! The statement itself I don't mind because I don't believe, but he delivered it almost matter-of-fact with a twinge of venom and smugness. And i just thought "what hope do humans have, if the people themselves who think they're on THE righteous path, could be so evil"!

edit: apologies fanny it seemed so, just wanted to keep this rational/logical rather than philosophical.

Fanny Cradock

spottyelephant wrote: »

edit: apologies fanny it seemed so, just wanted to keep this rational/logical rather than philosophical.

I believe my post was both rational and logical. In short, unless a person is being intellectually dishonest, a proposition that is "proved" will be accepted as true. If the God of Christianity was proved not to exist in the form revealed in the Bible, then, as difficult as it would be to shift away from a lifetime's faith, that surely is the only option if one is interested in honesty. That might sound philosophical, but it isn't an abstract philosophy. I think at heart we are all philosophers.

rugalo

thats a really interesting question spottyelephant, and one ive often thought about myself.firstly i dont believe in a particular organised religion for exactly the point that they have ALL been manipulated by mans ego and wish to control.but what i will say is that i am very spiritual (i know its the in word:rolleyes:), the important point im making is that it doesnt matter what our perseption of god is as it is what we take from it and most mainstream religions have a common denominator (a divine creator) plus we are as humans, fundamentally flawed, so NO religion is 100% correct. so back to your question, if a divine being was to come to earth and "prove" their divinity, then i feel we as a race regardless of what religious sect we follow could only accept it as divine.:).well that my take on it anyways

ISAW

rugalo wrote: »

thats a really interesting question spottyelephant, and one ive often thought about myself.firstly i dont believe in a particular organised religion for exactly the point that they have ALL been manipulated by mans ego and wish to control.but what i will say is that i am very spiritual (i know its the in word:rolleyes:), the important point im making is that it doesnt matter what our perseption of god is as it is what we take from it and most mainstream religions have a common denominator (a divine creator) plus we are as humans, fundamentally flawed, so NO religion is 100% correct. so back to your question, if a divine being was to come to earth and "prove" their divinity, then i feel we as a race regardless of what religious sect we follow could only accept it as divine.:).well that my take on it anyways

No they could be supernatural but not good? Just like the idea of "V" i mentioned earlier.
Indeed a religion of V worshipers springs up!

The point is that this supernatural being should be a good decent being.
Now how do you decide what it good and decent?
You see you conscience has to be informed from somewhere doesn't it?

You have decided for yourself that all religions are wrong and don't represent God's view.
Others base their belief of "good" on what they have learned of people in history.
Would that not be more important than a being doing "magic tricks"?

You remind me of the room in the House in CS Lewis book where there is a choice between Aslan and Tash.

Overheal

I dont think I could possibly fathom how I would react in that situation. Except to say that it would require you to completely reformat your world view. In fact in many people the sheer mental trauma of that crisis of thought alone might be enough to induce everything from clinical shock to depression or suicides. And even then theres no telling. How many people would react violently, declaring the being (as some have already suggested here) as Satan and reacting accordingly, either by attempting to kill the diety or religious-driven sacrifice of anyone swayed by the diety. How many people would be in such abject denial that they thought they were experiencing a lucid dream state? There's surely a billion or more ways people might possibly react.

Theres just an overwhelming number of If's, for that hypothetical. It makes it hard to make any predictions/guesstimations either way.

CiDeRmAn

I'm surprised more people haven't read Black Easter by James Blish, very good indeed, even to a crusty atheist like me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Easter

PDN

PDN wrote: »

If this hypothetical being lived a perfect life, showed infinite love, and then sacrificed itself for me in a most painful way then, yes, I would give it a hearing. Otherwise I would reject it as clearly inferior.

I would consider a God who did not take original sin into account when deciding where I go for eternity as superior. Then the sacrifice would be completely unnecessary and everyone could go home happy.

I don't see how God's sacrifice based on his own moral standard is impressive. If he sacrificed himself to save us from Satan, fair enough.. But he turned us into sinners and then saves us from it.. Quite unnecessary.

thirtythirty

ISAW wrote: »

Now how do you decide what it good and decent?

Well answer that and you could make a nice bit of €a$h money! (And bring about world peace and understanding).


Unfortunately, I think there can never be an answer to that, as the bar is continually moved.

Since we have the concept of "good and bad", that means that there will be always be a "bad" - it just depends on context.

For example today, "Good" is donating a million euro to charity. "Bad" is stealing a million euro from charity. Now imagine you somehow removed the "bad" from the world so that didn't happen.

Well the concept of bad still exists, so now "bad" could be only donating a million euro to charity, and "good" is donating everything. The bad here is obv way better than our current view of "bad", but in that society, only donating a million euro could be an absolute atrocity, and a crime against humanity!

That's a silly example, but you see what I mean. So if the higher being did appear to the world, it's impossible to say what it's demonstration of being "a good decent being" would need to be, as it would be relative to the society it appears to!

chozometroid

spottyelephant wrote: »

So, what if next week a being of unimaginable power appeared. What if it appeared and:
- it said was the one who assembled the earth and formed early life
- it said everyone was connected to each other and to it
- it tried to prove itself following that statement by, I don't know, warming everybody on earth's skin or something
- it said none of the current religions are correct, and all Gods currently worshipped were false and invented by man. That over time, the story of the real "god" i.e. it, the builder, had evolved into the various religions according to where on earth the story was being told etc
- it stated that the paths of these religions were not as it [the being] had wished, and it demanded they be abandoned. Perhaps it re-affirms whatever the original message or codes were. Perhaps too, it suggests there is some unavoidable penalty for not following the correct path.


What would you do?
- Would you accept it unconditionally and believe it's word, thus causing you to abandon your current beliefs in favour of this new thing, whatever it was.
- Would you question the validity of the being / fear that it was not *your* God since it does not appear to be as your religion defines it (despite it's obvious power and attempted proof).
- Would you lie somewhere in between and perhaps massage interpretations of your beliefs so that you could follow / respect this new being without turning your back on your old beliefs in your own mind?


I'd also be interested in your reflection of your answer - what does your acceptance / rejection / questioning say about your beliefs, of religion, and of state of mind.

I have my own thoughts as well as rationale, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of people already attached to a faith.

I think everything entirely depends on your proposal of the being "proving" itself. All sorts of displays of power and miracles would certainly be dismissed as works of Satan by believing Christians if it was not consistent with what we know of Christ's return. Calling down fire from the sky and performing healing miracles are not going to cut it. The being's message and relationship with mankind would be important. I would see if it makes sense of things, but also ask the being where it's "message" to mankind has been all these years. Where and when did it give it and to whom? Why was he not able to preserve the message over the years?

If it was possible for it to prove itself to be the truth and make me "know" it was true, then I would certainly be in a crisis of faith. If this new knowledge perfectly explained the source of everything I had come to believe and how it was all wrong, I would have to reevaluate everything and accept this new truth. But while I may be thoroughly convinced that I have received the "real" truth, in the end, I may still wonder if my perception of reality is even accurate, and if it is all just an dream/illusion/mind experiment.

As it stands, the number of religions claiming to be true actually supports my current belief in my religion.



:eek:
Actually, I just thought of one way this being could prove itself:
I would ask it to recite to me my last 100 inaudible "thought" prayers to "my" God. I don't believe Satan can read minds, so this would be proof for me.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If this hypothetical being lived a perfect life, showed infinite love, and then sacrificed itself for me in a most painful way then, yes, I would give it a hearing. Otherwise I would reject it as clearly inferior.

Isn't that some what pointlessly circular since Christians define these concepts (perfection, love etc) in relation to your god.

If God doesn't exist doesn't that change what these concepts mean? Should they not be defined based on the god that does exist? Or would you use your own judgement of these things?

Fanny Cradock

You want to redefine love?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't that some what pointlessly circular since Christians define these concepts (perfection, love etc) in relation to your god.

I love these generalisations about 'Christians'.

I can only speak for myself, but it's certainly much more complex than simply defining 'love' in relation to God.

Being attracted to Jesus Christ in the first place was largely due to the way in which His qualities as revealed in Scripture answered to needs in my own heart.

If Jesus had wandered through Israel abusing children and robbing people then I doubt very much that you would find many posters holding him up as an example of love, or claiming that such actions therefore define love.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I love these generalisations about 'Christians'.

Yes weird to generalise about a group of people that identify themselves based on a commonly shared belief system :pac:

PDN wrote: »

Being attracted to Jesus Christ in the first place was largely due to the way in which His qualities as revealed in Scripture answered to needs in my own heart.

Fair enough.

My point was simply that if Jesus was in fact false deviation from the true creator of the universe then you would be in fact moving towards what is in essence "evil", if we consider good to be the wishes of the universal creator.

Is there any difference between that and someone thinking that the God of the Bible is a cruel hateful being?

PDN wrote: »

If Jesus had wandered through Israel abusing children and robbing people then I doubt very much that you would find many posters holding him up as an example of love, or claiming that such actions therefore define love.

Could you equally say that if God decided to genocide entire civilizations under the sword of his chosen people you would not get many posters holding him up as an example of love, of that such actions come from a being that is the source of all goodness and love. Yet that is exactly what you do find.

The common excuse given for this (and I hope I'm not generalizing to much here) is who are you to judge what God did, God is the source of all goodness and love.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes weird to generalise about a group of people that identify themselves based on a commonly shared belief system :pac:

Not weird, just standard practice for those who perpetuate stereotypes and then justify it by pretending that having shared core beliefs is the same as agreeing on every philosophical detail. Thankfully, outside of boards.ie, I find such people are comparatively rare in real life.

Fair enough.

My point was simply that if Jesus was in fact false deviation from the true creator of the universe then you would be in fact moving towards what is in essence "evil", if we consider good to be the wishes of the universal creator.

Is there any difference between that and someone thinking that the God of the Bible is a cruel hateful being?

Yes, there is a difference between waffle and Dawkinism.

Could you equally say that if God decided to genocide entire civilizations under the sword of his chosen people you would not get many posters holding him up as an example of love, of that such actions come from a being that is the source of all goodness and love.

No, because we are talking about God's overall character as revealed in Scripture, with the fullest revelation being that of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1). It is perfectly reasonable to say that we find that revelation to be overwhelmingly loving, but that there are some Old Testament passages which are puzzling or troubling to us.

Yet that is exactly what you do find.

No it isn't. We see what you're trying to pull - but epic fail for the reason given above.

The common excuse given for this (and I hope I'm not generalizing to much here) is who are you to judge what God did, God is the source of all goodness and love.

No, it's not "the common excuse". It's what one or two people have said (not me) and you are generalising too much.

Inquitus

lmaopml

Aww Cute :rolleyes:


..those eyes..hmmm

Self portrait? or some new trendy type hat for your head of some sort?