Is the possibility of a God not a scary thought...?

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

If I cant point to scripture or the teachings of a religion as an argument as to why to pick or believe a religion then I am at a loss tbh

My point is that you can theorise an infinite number of different religions where you don't need to invoke a "we should only expect God to understand why that is" rule. So why not choose to believe one of those instead of a religion that relies on that rule? How have you ruled out all of those religions before settling on this less plausible religion?

John Hutton

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My point is that you can theorise an infinite number of different religions where you don't need to invoke a "we should only expect God to understand why that is" rule. So why not choose to believe one of those instead of a religion that relies on that rule? How have you ruled out all of those religions before settling on this less plausible religion?

It is impossible to fully comprehend and understand all of the actions of God, something which is all powerful, all knowing etc (see again Aquinas description of the characteristics of God). Something which is not "a being" but rather, "is".

If a religion claims to have a "God" that is 100% understood by man in its nature and actions then this "God" cannot have the characteristics and attributes of God, and this religion is false.

antiskeptic

happyoutscan wrote: »

It's 2020 and people still blindly brainwashed with nonsense. Unbelievable.

You mean people aren't brainwashed by nonsense these days? Trump for President? Carry On Consuming?

What do you think the advertising industry is about?

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

It is impossible to fully comprehend and understand all of the actions of God, something which is all powerful, all knowing etc (see again Aquinas description of the characteristics of God). Something which is not "a being" but rather, "is".

If a religion claims to have a "God" that is 100% understood by man in its nature and actions then this "God" cannot have the characteristics and attributes of God, and this religion is false.

If God simply simply caused the Big Bang to happen and nothing more, then I can still believe that there is a God without relying on a "we should only expect God to understand why that is" rule to understand his moral judgement.

Likewise, if God simply created life on Earth but does not look over that life nor judges that life, then we also do not need invoke this rule to explain his morality. Why not believe in one of these (or one of the infinite similar religions) instead of a religion where you need to invoke this rule to understand why such a God would create child cancer etc.?

John Hutton wrote: »

If I cant point to scripture or the teachings of a religion as an argument as to why to pick or believe a religion then I am at a loss tbh

Also I never picked up on this point. Why is that true for you? Let's say I theorised a new religion today, e.g. the one above where a God only creates universes but doesn't observe them, and that religion makes perfect sense and clicks to you. (Not saying it does or that it's a new religion, but this is just a simple example.) Why not believe that religion that makes total sense to you? Why choose a religion that makes less sense to you just because it has scripture associated with it?

Bubbaclaus

auspicious wrote: »

A Christian knows failure to strictly adhere to his expected standards will not might, but will definitely result in eternal suffering as a consequence.

Again, such a nice guy. Definitely deserves unquestionable worship. Our supreme leader.

auspicious

auspicious wrote: »

Yes the possibility of a [ Christian ] God is a scary thought especially to a Christian which has relented his authority and transgressed his decrees.
A Christian knows failure to strictly adhere to his expected standards will not might, but will definitely result in eternal suffering as a consequence.
This is according to the Christian teaching wholly based upon the Bible. Though Jesus did say to look within.

Definitely not the God I've known for over 35 years.
One of overflowing loving-kindness and patience and faith.

Bubbaclaus

John Hutton wrote: »

Atheists often say that if God existed he would give us some sign. If you want to talk about signs, well, the incarnation is as obvious as you can get! Talk about a mallet to the head!

Sorry, but just because something happens in a book doesn't mean it's real. Otherwise I'd be off to Hogwarts. Calling out atheists and saying "here's your proof, it says it in this Christian book" is a ridiculous thing to say.

smacl

happyoutscan wrote: »

It's 2020 and people still blindly brainwashed with nonsense. Unbelievable.

Mod: Carded for breach of charter. This is not a forum where you can openly mock the faith of others. Please take time to read and understand the charter before posting here again. Thanks for your attention.

smacl

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Sorry, but just because something happens in a book doesn't mean it's real. Otherwise I'd be off to Hogwarts. Calling out atheists and saying "here's your proof, it says it in this Christian book" is a ridiculous thing to say.

Mod warning: I consider comparison of comparison of the contents of the bible and Hogwarts (i.e. children's fantasy) to be mocking of the Christian faith. Please be more considerate to the beliefs of others posting on this forum and frame your posts accordingly. All and any feedback to the feedback thread or via PM please. Do not respond in thread. Thanks for your attention.

Leroy42

santana75 wrote: »

It was only a matter of time before someone brought the nazi's in......theres even a name for that. Goodwin's law I think it is

Change Hitler for Stalin. Or take people out of it altogether and talk about cancer or floods, earthquakes.

The point, which of course you ignored, remains the same.

We are supposed to simultaneously believe that free will means God cannot intervene, yet accept that God needs to intervene when people get too evil and he is perfectly reasonable to do so.

How do you square that circle?

Bubbaclaus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Change Hitler for Stalin. Or take people out of it altogether and talk about cancer or floods, earthquakes.

The point, which of course you ignored, remains the same.

We are supposed to simultaneously believe that free will means God cannot intervene, yet accept that God needs to intervene when people get too evil and he is perfectly reasonable to do so.

How do you square that circle?

That circle can't be squared. And the people that believe in an all powerful and loving God without question aren't going to even try squaring it. They simply are going to ignore the bad stuff and don't care.

santana75

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Sorry, but just because something happens in a book doesn't mean it's real. Otherwise I'd be off to Hogwarts. Calling out atheists and saying "here's your proof, it says it in this Christian book" is a ridiculous thing to say.

But have you read this book? I'd guess you haven't, but yet you're commenting on a book you haven't actually read for yourself. Which makes no sense. If you would just take the time to sit down and read the Bible, with an open heart and mind, I guarantee you'll get answers to a lot of the questions you have about God.

santana75

santana75 wrote: »

But have you read this book? I'd guess you haven't, but yet you're commenting on a book you haven't actually read for yourself. Which makes no sense. If you would just take the time to sit down and read the Bible, with an open heart and mind, I guarantee you'll get answers to a lot of the questions you have about God.

I've read the Bible, and Christianity made more sense to me when I only kinda sorta knew about it then when I fully knew about it. So your guarantees and false assumptions mean nothing.

Bubbaclaus

santana75 wrote: »

But have you read this book? I'd guess you haven't, but yet you're commenting on a book you haven't actually read for yourself. Which makes no sense. If you would just take the time to sit down and read the Bible, with an open heart and mind, I guarantee you'll get answers to a lot of the questions you have about God.

What makes you think I havent? Very presumptive of you. Are you omnipresent too?

I have read it and it's certainly a nice story. I can see why people would like to believe its real.

santana75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've read the Bible, and Christianity made more sense to me when I only kinda sorta knew about it then when I fully knew about it. So your guarantees and false assumptions mean nothing.

But do you "Read" the bible? As in an active verb, daily, meditation on the word of God. When Joshua succeeded Moses as the leader of the Israelites God said this to him:
"Study this book of instruction continually, meditate on it night and day so you will be sure to obey everything written in it. Only then will you prosper and succeed in everything you do"
(Joshua 1:8)
God said to study his word continually, to have it on our minds night and day. He didnt say, read it once and then forget about it. The bible is alive, its the only book every written that becomes more alive the more you read it and committ to absorbing its messages. It's even more than that though.....have you seen the matrix? The bible is literally "The red pill". It removes scales from eyes and let's people see the truth about themselves, others and life. This is what it says in 2 Corinthians 3:16
"Whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. For the Lord is spirit for wherever the spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the Glory of the Lord"

Do you see what that means? This is an amazing verse of scripture. Its saying that when you turn to God and read his word, the veil that has been placed over your eyes so to speak, is removed. Which means that the word of God takes away spiritual blindness. Reading the bible is an every day occurrence, its something that when you read it regularly it will get inside of you and transform you from the inside out. So I would implore you to read the bible again and to keep doing so every day of your time here on earth.

Bubbaclaus

santana75 wrote: »

But do you "Read" the bible? As in an active verb, daily, meditation on the word of God. When Joshua succeeded Moses as the leader of the Israelites God said this to him:
"Study this book of instruction continually, meditate on it night and day so you will be sure to obey everything written in it. Only then will you prosper and succeed in everything you do"
(Joshua 1:8)
God said to study his word continually, to have it on our minds night and day. He didnt say, read it once and then forget about it. The bible is alive, its the only book every written that becomes more alive the more you read it and committ to absorbing its messages. It's even more than that though.....have you seen the matrix? The bible is literally "The red pill". It removes scales from eyes and let's people see the truth about themselves, others and life. This is what it says in 2 Corinthians 3:16
"Whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. For the Lord is spirit for wherever the spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the Glory of the Lord"

Do you see what that means? This is an amazing verse of scripture. Its saying that when you turn to God and read his word, the veil that has been placed over your eyes so to speak, is removed. Which means that the word of God takes away spiritual blindness. Reading the bible is an every day occurrence, its something that when you read it regularly it will get inside of you and transform you from the inside out. So I would implore you to read the bible again and to keep doing so every day of your time here on earth.

It's nice that you believe every word. But a lot of people prefer critical thinking rather than taking everything they read as gospel (no pun intended).

santana75

santana75 wrote: »

But do you "Read" the bible? As in an active verb, daily, meditation on the word of God. When Joshua succeeded Moses as the leader of the Israelites God said this to him:
"Study this book of instruction continually, meditate on it night and day so you will be sure to obey everything written in it. Only then will you prosper and succeed in everything you do"
(Joshua 1:8)
God said to study his word continually, to have it on our minds night and day. He didnt say, read it once and then forget about it. The bible is alive, its the only book every written that becomes more alive the more you read it and committ to absorbing its messages. It's even more than that though.....have you seen the matrix? The bible is literally "The red pill". It removes scales from eyes and let's people see the truth about themselves, others and life. This is what it says in 2 Corinthians 3:16
"Whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. For the Lord is spirit for wherever the spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the Glory of the Lord"

Do you see what that means? This is an amazing verse of scripture. Its saying that when you turn to God and read his word, the veil that has been placed over your eyes so to speak, is removed. Which means that the word of God takes away spiritual blindness. Reading the bible is an every day occurrence, its something that when you read it regularly it will get inside of you and transform you from the inside out. So I would implore you to read the bible again and to keep doing so every day of your time here on earth.

Just because you think that the passages of the Bible are nice and interesting doesn't make them factual. I wouldn't try to use quotes from the Bible as reasons as to why Christianity is correct when having discussions with non-Christians as it just makes non-Christians (and even some Christians) cringe.

Leroy42

santana75 wrote: »

But do you "Read" the bible? As in an active verb, daily, meditation on the word of God. When Joshua succeeded Moses as the leader of the Israelites God said this to him:
"Study this book of instruction continually, meditate on it night and day so you will be sure to obey everything written in it. Only then will you prosper and succeed in everything you do"
(Joshua 1:8)
God said to study his word continually, to have it on our minds night and day. He didnt say, read it once and then forget about it. The bible is alive, its the only book every written that becomes more alive the more you read it and committ to absorbing its messages. It's even more than that though.....have you seen the matrix? The bible is literally "The red pill". It removes scales from eyes and let's people see the truth about themselves, others and life. This is what it says in 2 Corinthians 3:16
"Whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. For the Lord is spirit for wherever the spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the Glory of the Lord"

Do you see what that means? This is an amazing verse of scripture. Its saying that when you turn to God and read his word, the veil that has been placed over your eyes so to speak, is removed. Which means that the word of God takes away spiritual blindness. Reading the bible is an every day occurrence, its something that when you read it regularly it will get inside of you and transform you from the inside out. So I would implore you to read the bible again and to keep doing so every day of your time here on earth.

There is plenty of disagreement within religions about the meaning of certain parts of the bible. There are numerous variants of the Christian faith, are you of the opinion that they didn't really read the bible.

It seems massively condescending to claim that anyone that disagrees with your POV simply hasn't tried hard enough.

John Hutton

There is a lot different way to interpret the OT. Some Protestant groups believe that every word is literal and the word of God, whereas other Christians believe that much of it is metaphorical, and it is the meaning behind the words which is important. Bishop Barron, in the video I posted earlier about violence in the Bible, covers this well.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

If God simply simply caused the Big Bang to happen and nothing more, then I can still believe that there is a God without relying on a "we should only expect God to understand why that is" rule to understand his moral judgement.

Likewise, if God simply created life on Earth but does not look over that life nor judges that life, then we also do not need invoke this rule to explain his morality. Why not believe in one of these (or one of the infinite similar religions) instead of a religion where you need to invoke this rule to understand why such a God would create child cancer etc.?

Also I never picked up on this point. Why is that true for you? Let's say I theorised a new religion today, e.g. the one above where a God only creates universes but doesn't observe them, and that religion makes perfect sense and clicks to you. (Not saying it does or that it's a new religion, but this is just a simple example.) Why not believe that religion that makes total sense to you? Why choose a religion that makes less sense to you just because it has scripture associated with it?

Catholicism does make sense to me, I don't understand why the fact we don't understand everything makes you believe it is false. I also believe in objective truths, and not just believing something because it sounds good to me, or I like it.

If God is all powerful and all knowing, he can only be understood by man via what He reveals to us. I refer you again to the section on revelation in the Catholic Catechism. The whole Bible is a gradual and incremental "roll out" of revelation where God is making himself understood to man in ways which man can understand, culminating in Jesus Christ.

When you are a small child, our parents (should we have good ones) will often do things in our best interest which seem bad to our childish minds, or incomprehensible. Such as make us go to bed, or not allow us to only eat sweets. Given that the gulf in perspective and knowledge between man and God is far greater than the gulf between the child and adult mind, it is perfectly logical, and inevitable, that we will not be able to understand everything 100%. That doesn't mean we should not try to of course, searching for God is natural and good.

Through the Bible, and the NT in particular, as well as the magesterium, we understand a great deal about God and why things happen - just because mysteries remain it does not mean it does not make sense, especially when we know why such things are a mystery!

Bubbaclaus

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is plenty of disagreement within religions about the meaning of certain parts of the bible. There are numerous variants of the Christian faith, are you of the opinion that they didn't really read the bible.

It seems massively condescending to claim that anyone that disagrees with your POV simply hasn't tried hard enough.

The post was massively condescending and broke at least 2 rules in the charter. Disappointing that nothing was done about it.

Edit: well given one side of the debate is given free reign to be as condescending as they like on here without any moderation, whilst the other side is silenced, I am out. No wonder this forum is like a desert wasteland. Enjoy folks.

smacl

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The post was massively condescending and broke at least 2 rules in the charter. Disappointing that nothing was done about it.

Mod: Carded for backseat moderation

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Catholicism does make sense to me, I don't understand why the fact we don't understand everything makes you believe it is false.

That's not what I said. There are many different possible religions that make sense to you and the general public, including Christianity as well as the one that I suggested of a God that only created us but does not judge us. So why instead choose the religion that has many known contradictions, that has many interpretations, that has to justify why God created pain and suffering etc.?

John Hutton wrote: »

If God is all powerful and all knowing, he can only be understood by man via what He reveals to us. I refer you again to the section on revelation in the Catholic Catechism. The whole Bible is a gradual and incremental "roll out" of revelation where God is making himself understood to man in ways which man can understand, culminating in Jesus Christ.

I'm sure these statements sounds very deep to you, but they don't mean anything to me nor do they suggest that Christianity is correct.

John Hutton wrote: »

When you are a small child, our parents (should we have good ones) will often do things in our best interest which seem bad to our childish minds, or incomprehensible. Such as make us go to bed, or not allow us to only eat sweets. Given that the gulf in perspective and knowledge between man and God is far greater than the gulf between the child and adult mind, it is perfectly logical, and inevitable, that we will not be able to understand everything 100%. That doesn't mean we should not try to of course, searching for God is natural and good.

Yes. This is why we should science to try to advance our understanding of the universe rather than simply giving up and saying "well God did it and we could never possibly understand why he did it because of our comparatively small brains".

John Hutton wrote: »

Through the Bible, and the NT in particular, as well as the magesterium, we understand a great deal about God and why things happen - just because mysteries remain it does not mean it does not make sense, especially when we know why such things are a mystery!

You believe that you understand a great deal about God because you choose to believe in certain scripture and not in other scripture. The human race in general however knows nothing about God because we have no evidence that such a God exists. And the human race certainly does not know why such things are a mystery as you state.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what I said. There are many different possible religions that make sense to you and the general public, including Christianity as well as the one that I suggested of a God that only created us but does not judge us. So why instead choose the religion that has many known contradictions, that has many interpretations, that has to justify why God created pain and suffering etc.?

What you are saying is why would you pick a religion with "mystery or contradictions" when conceivably there are religions that have no mystery or contradictions? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I'm sure these statements sounds very deep to you, but they don't mean anything to me nor do they suggest that Christianity is correct.

If you are unwilling to engage with material, then what is the point of this discussion? You are, among other things, essentially asking how to reconcile the Old and New Testaments and apparent differences in God, and when an answer is supplied you just say "that means nothing to me". You cannot on the one hand point at objectionable (to you) parts of the Bible and say "explain that!" and then when an explanation is given (within the context of what you asked about, i.e. scripture and religious teaching) just basically say that it is all nonsense anyway. What is the point of you persisting in this line of inquiry and discussion?

Yes. This is why we should science to try to advance our understanding of the universe rather than simply giving up and saying "well God did it and we could never possibly understand why he did it because of our comparatively small brains".

But no one is saying that, I directly said previously that we must not do that. In fact, the Catholic Church does what you say we should, both directly through its own direct scientific endeavors and Universities, and actually states that it is imperative that man seeks to understand the world around him, by science.

Again I ask, why do you think you would be able to 100% understand the actions of something which is omnipotent? Is it not, almost be definition, impossible for us to fully understand, beyond what that power has revealed to us, either by direct revelation, or by what we can discern about the world around us (including science)?

You believe that you understand a great deal about God because you choose to believe in certain scripture and not in other scripture. The human race in general however knows nothing about God because we have no evidence that such a God exists. And the human race certainly does not know why such things are a mystery as you state.

I direct your attention to the following for the Compendium of the Catechism:

3. How is it possible to know God with only the light of human reason?
31-36
46-47
Starting from creation, that is from the world and from the human person, through reason alone one can know God with certainty as the origin and end of the universe, as the highest good and as infinite truth and beauty.

4. Is the light of reason alone sufficient to know the mystery of God?
37-38
In coming to a knowledge of God by the light of reason alone man experiences many difficulties. Indeed, on his own he is unable to enter into the intimacy of the divine mystery. This is why he stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.

In other words, we can, through reason, satisfy ourselves as to existence of God, but beyond that we need to look to what God revealed to us, through scripture and ultimately Christ. And so, we enter into the realm of faith.

You are asking, essentially, why I think Christianity is true. Let us have this conversation, in this regard, on your terms. I ask you, how do you decide or define if something is true or not?

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

What you are saying is why would you pick a religion with "mystery or contradictions" when conceivably there are religions that have no mystery or contradictions? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, particularly the contradictions. If there is a religion that has contradictions, why choose that over the infinite amount of possible religions? Or, at least, why not read the scripture of other religions to see if you find less contradictions in those and then go from there?

John Hutton wrote: »

If you are unwilling to engage with material, then what is the point of this discussion?

The discussion is about whether the idea of God existing is a scary thing. Non-Christians do not believe the Bible is the word of God, just like you don't believe the Koran is. Quoting or referring to sections in the Bible to me means just as much as me quoting the Koran to you.

John Hutton wrote: »

You are, among other things, essentially asking how to reconcile the Old and New Testaments and apparent differences in God, and when an answer is supplied you just say "that means nothing to me". You cannot on the one hand point at objectionable (to you) parts of the Bible and say "explain that!" and then when an explanation is given (within the context of what you asked about, i.e. scripture and religious teaching) just basically say that it is all nonsense anyway. What is the point of you persisting in this line of inquiry and discussion?

I have at no point referenced any passage from the Bible nor asked you to explain such passages, no idea what you are talking about.

John Hutton wrote: »

But no one is saying that, I directly said previously that we must not do that. In fact, the Catholic Church does what you say we should, both directly through its own direct scientific endeavors and Universities, and actually states that it is imperative that man seeks to understand the world around him, by science.

Yes, but you have also said countless times that it is impossible to fully comprehend and understand all of the actions of God. There are an infinite number of religions in which you don't need to resort to this to answer the unknown. So why choose this religion where you have to just say "I dunno because God lol" for the unexplained?

John Hutton wrote: »

Again I ask, why do you think you would be able to 100% understand the actions of something which is omnipotent? Is it not, almost be definition, impossible for us to fully understand, beyond what that power has revealed to us, either by direct revelation, or by what we can discern about the world around us (including science)?

Yes, if God existed then I certainly would not expect to fully understand him (I barely understand most humans as it is). But that is not a reason for him to exist nor is it reason why you need him to exist. I do not know how how a car engine works but that does not mean that I need to resort to inventing a God to explain it.

John Hutton wrote: »

I direct your attention to the following for the Compendium of the Catechism:

Yes those are very nice words which as you know mean nothing to me.

John Hutton wrote: »

You are asking, essentially, why I think Christianity is true. Let us have this conversation, in this regard, on your terms. I ask you, how do you decide or define if something is true or not?

Evidence.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, particularly the contradictions. If there is a religion that has contradictions, why choose that over the infinite amount of possible religions? Or, at least, why not read the scripture of other religions to see if you find less contradictions in those and then go from there?

I would ask you to point out a contradiction in Christianity. The most commonly put forward, apparent contradiction is between the God of the Old Testament and of the New Testament. But as I have detailed, it is an apparent contradiction which is only evident when one decontextualizes scripture and does not view the Bible in its entirety, in light of the "ending", i.e. Christ. Perhaps you have another contradiction in mind?

The discussion is about whether the idea of God existing is a scary thing. Non-Christians do not believe the Bible is the word of God, just like you don't believe the Koran is. Quoting or referring to sections in the Bible to me means just as much as me quoting the Koran to you.

If I asked a Muslim "why do you believe this"? And he quoted a relevant section from the Koran, or something relevant from an Islamic scholar that would answer my question. Unless of course I didn't really want to learn why he believes what he does, but was only looking to rubbish it. In that case I would wait until he gave me a thoughtful, scholarly reply and then say "that's all nonsense, it means nothing" which would be, of course, rude.

I have at no point referenced any passage from the Bible nor asked you to explain such passages, no idea what you are talking about.

Have you not referenced the actions of God as detailed in the old testament? Maybe I have confused you with another poster.

Yes, but you have also said countless times that it is impossible to fully comprehend and understand all of the actions of God. There are an infinite number of religions in which you don't need to resort to this to answer the unknown. So why choose this religion where you have to just say "I dunno because God lol" for the unexplained?

You are now positioning me as having a "God of the gaps" position, despite my position being that given God is all knowing it is possible that things which appear evil to us, or morally incomprehensible, might have an ultimate good behind them that we cannot comprehend because of our limited perspective.

Yes, if God existed then I certainly would not expect to fully understand him (I barely understand most humans as it is). But that is not a reason for him to exist nor is it reason why you need him to exist. I do not know how how a car engine works but that does not mean that I need to resort to inventing a God to explain it.

Yet in the next breath you essentially say that you agree with me, that should God exist it is inevitable that we would not understand all the things He does because of our limited perspective?
At no stage did I say that not directly understanding why God allows things like cancer to happen is an argument for Gods existence. I have been at pains to point out that the "problem of evil", of which cancer is an example, does not discount the existence of God, and hence, is not an argument against the existence of God. It does not follow that it is an argument in favour of God.

Yes those are very nice words which as you know mean nothing to me.

What they should mean, even if you don't agree, is that there is a theological explanation for what you view as contradictory or mysterious.

Evidence.

What sort of evidence? Lets have some detail here.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

I would ask you to point out a contradiction in Christianity. The most commonly put forward, apparent contradiction is between the God of the Old Testament and of the New Testament. But as I have detailed, it is an apparent contradiction which is only evident when one decontextualizes scripture and does not view the Bible in its entirety, in light of the "ending", i.e. Christ. Perhaps you have another contradiction in mind?

Most Christians do not deny that there are many contradictions in the Bible that you are not mentioning here. Rather than list all of them, here is a short video that mentions some of them in a humours context. I'm sure that as you have suggested videos for us to watch that will also oblige us by also watching this one. After doing so, do please explain how each of these in turn are not contradictions and, more importantly, why you have decided to ignore these contradictions rather than considering a different religion with less contradictions.

John Hutton wrote: »

If I asked a Muslim "why do you believe this"? And he quoted a relevant section from the Koran, or something relevant from an Islamic scholar that would answer my question. Unless of course I didn't really want to learn why he believes what he does, but was only looking to rubbish it. In that case I would wait until he gave me a thoughtful, scholarly reply and then say "that's all nonsense, it means nothing" which would be, of course, rude.

And you would accept that as an answer because you both believe in God and because you both believe what you believe because it is likely the religion that you each know the most about. You will both bond in that sense. If I asked someone with a PhD in religions studies why they believe the religion that they do (if indeed they are not atheist), I assure you that they would not reference any scripture in their response.

John Hutton wrote: »

Have you not referenced the actions of God as detailed in the old testament? Maybe I have confused you with another poster.

I don't believe I have, but am open to correction.

John Hutton wrote: »

You are now positioning me as having a "God of the gaps" position, despite my position being that given God is all knowing it is possible that things which appear evil to us, or morally incomprehensible, might have an ultimate good behind them that we cannot comprehend because of our limited perspective.

But we do not need to invent a God to explain why there is evil in the world. So in what way is your perspective not a God of the gaps perspective?

John Hutton wrote: »

Yet in the next breath you essentially say that you agree with me, that should God exist it is inevitable that we would not understand all the things He does because of our limited perspective?

I never stated that I would not think that if God existed.

John Hutton wrote: »

At no stage did I say that not directly understanding why God allows things like cancer to happen is an argument for Gods existence. I have been at pains to point out that the "problem of evil", of which cancer is an example, does not discount the existence of God, and hence, is not an argument against the existence of God. It does not follow that it is an argument in favour of God.

I was referencing Christianity, not the existence of God. The "problem of evil", e.g. allowing innocent children to suffer immense pain until they die for no apparent reason, does not need to be caused by God just because there is a God, but it does need to be caused by God if Christianity is correct. Why believe in such a religion over others?

John Hutton wrote: »

What they should mean, even if you don't agree, is that there is a theological explanation for what you view as contradictory or mysterious. .

That would not be considered an "explanation" by any non-Christian.

John Hutton wrote: »

What sort of evidence? Lets have some detail here.

You would like me to define what I would consider as evidence for the existence of God, or for Christianity being correct? I will do so once you do likewise and also state what evidence you have found.

John Hutton

Deleted User wrote: »

Most Christians do not deny that there are many contradictions in the Bible that you are not mentioning here. Rather than list all of them, here is a short video that mentions some of them in a humours context. I'm sure that as you have suggested videos for us to watch that will also oblige us by also watching this one. After doing so, do please explain how each of these in turn are not contradictions and, more importantly, why you have decided to ignore these contradictions rather than considering a different religion with less contradictions.

Why don't you pick a contradiction? I mention decontextualizing quotes from scripture, and as far as I can see that is exactly what that video does, in mocking fashion. Some atheists find it hard to understand that not all Christians and fundamental protestants who view the writings of the old testament as literal, word for word truth, with no metaphor etc. See the Catholic Church.

And you would accept that as an answer because you both believe in God and because you both believe what you believe because it is likely the religion that you each know the most about. You will both bond in that sense. If I asked someone with a PhD in religions studies why they believe the religion that they do (if indeed they are not atheist), I assure you that they would not reference any scripture in their response.

Ah, the arrogance. I only believe my religion because I know nothing or little about others. I could not have come to any personal conclusions. Let me guess, you are not such an unthinker yourself are you?



If I said to you that the only reason you are not a Catholic, a Jew, or whatever is because you did not know enough about it, you would dismiss this argument.

But we do not need to invent a God to explain why there is evil in the world. So in what way is your perspective not a God of the gaps perspective?

The argument was posed that God either couldn't exist because evil existed, or that if he did he was nasty, because of the existence of evil. Neither of these propositions logically add up. But you are moving the goal posts again.

I was referencing Christianity, not the existence of God. The "problem of evil", e.g. allowing innocent children to suffer immense pain until they die for no apparent reason, does not need to be caused by God just because there is a God, but it does need to be caused by God if Christianity is correct. Why believe in such a religion over others?

Please explain why you think, that for Christianity to be true, God needs to actively cause evil or suffering?

That would not be considered an "explanation" by any non-Christian.

"Explain these apparent contradictions in what your religion preaches" "here are some explanations from scripture and our finest theologians" "That's not an explanation".



You position in this debate is disingenuous at best, because you ask for explanations for theological conundrums, but refuse to accept or listen to theological answers, by essentially saying that its all nonsense anyway.

You would like me to define what I would consider as evidence for the existence of God, or for Christianity being correct? I will do so once you do likewise and also state what evidence you have found.

Oh no, you are the one asking for evidence, I am asking what type evidence you would like.

Leroy42

Going back to the OP, is a God scary, well since we cannot know or fully understand god, coupled with him being all powerful and always right no matter what, yes then I would suggest that it should be scary.

We only know what god has chosen to tell us about himself. We cannot know if that is the truth, or even if true if that is the full story.

Could he be withholding things from us? Well, he has let us work pretty much everything about the world with do live in by ourselves, so why would we think he has told us everything about himself.

Whilst Jesus being sent down is seen as giving us a path back to god, it could just as well be seen as a signal to drive more people towards belief for whatever reason. Maybe in the battle with Satan, whomever gets more souls ends up the master of the universe and we are just pawns in that game. Maybe they need us to believe to avoid us 'looking behind the curtain'. (I am not looking for anybody to discuss this actual point, it is merely an example of the many things that maybe other that what we think).

We tend to be scared of what we don't know or don't understand. From lighting, comets, thunder etc back before they were explained. Earthquakes etc were previously believed to be the wrath of a god.

The god we believe in, the one presented to us by god himself, if taken from the POV of Jesus being the true god rather than the OT incarnation, then of course if sounds wonderful, and peaceful, kind, loving, honest, generous etc. What is not to like. A man that sacrificed himself to save the entire world. There is no greater power to feal secure in than that.

But we don't know what happened to Jesus after, we don't know (only believe) what happens to us when we pass. We believe that everything happens as part of his plan, even when that plan seems entirely unfair and unrelated to how we believe in god.

So if a person has found belief and faith, both through the word of god and or through his actions, then they will feel that god is the very opposite of scary. It is the safety and happiness and life everlasting in love an harmony.

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Why don't you pick a contradiction? I mention decontextualizing quotes from scripture, and as far as I can see that is exactly what that video does, in mocking fashion. Some atheists find it hard to understand that not all Christians and fundamental protestants who view the writings of the old testament as literal, word for word truth, with no metaphor etc. See the Catholic Church.

It's not decontexualising, and it's not only the old testament that is mentioned in that video. As there are so many contradictions mentioned, how about just sticking to the numbers round, as that can't be decontextualized?

Or, better yet, actually spend time going through all of them over the next few weeks and making sure that they are simply decontextualized as you claim? If your beliefs are important to you, then I've sure it will be worth it.

John Hutton wrote: »

Ah, the arrogance. I only believe my religion because I know nothing or little about others. I could not have come to any personal conclusions. Let me guess, you are not such an unthinker yourself are you?

But based on the fact that you didn't deny it last time, it is true isn't it? You don't know anywhere near as much about as e.g. Islam as you do about Christianity? Why is that not a valid point in your eyes? I wouldn't try to debate what is the best movie in the world with someone who has watched many movies, just because I've watched only one movie but have seen trailers and quotes from many other movies.

John Hutton wrote: »

If I said to you that the only reason you are not a Catholic, a Jew, or whatever is because you did not know enough about it, you would dismiss this argument.

For me personally? Yes. For the average person, I most certainly wouldn't. There are very obvious geographical, social and temporal reasons as to why the majority of people are the religion they are. I do not believe that you have a brain that is skewed towards believing Christianity, but that humans have brains that are skewed towards following the beliefs of their society. I strongly believe that if you were adopted as a baby and brought up instead in a Muslim-dominated society, that you would instead now be Muslim. Do you believe that too, or do you believe that you would still be Christian? And what about the average person?

John Hutton wrote: »

The argument was posed that God either couldn't exist because evil existed, or that if he did he was nasty, because of the existence of evil. Neither of these propositions logically add up. But you are moving the goal posts again.

Yes, they do no logically add up, because they are not the only two options. God can still exist without him having created evil, but that is not what Christians believe (Isaiah 45:7).

John Hutton wrote: »

Please explain why you think, that for Christianity to be true, God needs to actively cause evil or suffering?

I never said that, but Christians do believe that he created it (as above). Again, why believe in such a God over the infinite number of other Gods who didn't create evil?

John Hutton wrote: »

"Explain these apparent contradictions in what your religion preaches" "here are some explanations from scripture and our finest theologians" "That's not an explanation".

Yes, I want you to explain contradictions in the scripture. And no, I do not want you to quote scripture to try to explain the mystery of God. You have combined two completely unrelated things to try to make it sound like you've made a point.

John Hutton wrote: »

You position in this debate is disingenuous at best, because you ask for explanations for theological conundrums, but refuse to accept or listen to theological answers, by essentially saying that its all nonsense anyway.

Yes because the question posed is a general one and does not require the need to focus on the scripture from any one particular religion from anyone on either side to answer it.

John Hutton wrote: »

Oh no, you are the one asking for evidence, I am asking what type evidence you would like.

You are the one asking me how I define what is true or not, I am not asking for anything.