Lost faith

Hotblack Desiato · 16-09-2019 5:02pm

railer201 wrote: »

You know more than Einstein then ???? You can't have it both ways - science dealing with reality and evidence you say , then when probably the world's best known scientist acknowledges God's role in creating the universe, you dismiss it out of hand. How convenient and probably no coincidence that all the science quotes above mention God !!!

Appeal to authority is a fallacy. It's another fallacy to claim that being a brilliant scientist in one's field makes one an expert on anything outside of that field.

Einstein's views on religion are constantly misrepresented by theists. Have a read of this:

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

In particular:

In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously." In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Einstein did not describe himself as an atheist, but he certainly met the definition of one - he did not believe in any theistic god or gods.

Leroy42 · 16-09-2019 5:07pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er... that's a belief of yours going on there.

What you are doing is placing Science as a God. All must worship at it's alter, for Science is the great oracle and final arbitrator of reality.

Which is a religion by your definition: since it is your feelings and beliefs about the place of Science which are being expressed.

Religion is not about belief and feelings? So its about evidence? Really?

There is a reason why it is called having faith.

As for science being a god, not at all. Science can be right or wrong, it must be backed by evidence, open to retest and be able to be provable. There is no alter, no worship. Science does nothing, it is simply the best way we currently have of finding out which is the likely reality. The great thing about science is that it doesn't need to be worshipped and the best way to get ahead in science is to prove a previous position as incorrect.

Which of course is the complete opposite of religion where even asking questions is seen as lack of faith.

I don't believe in science, I believe in the facts that people present.

smacl · 16-09-2019 5:18pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Objective? Don't you mean the conglomeration of lots of subjective views?

Now, I agree that the UN does (or has the potential to do) lots of good. But why does the distillation and consensus of lots of subjective views get to trump any one of them individually? Where does that authority come from?

If we want well defined standards on the minimal rights we accord to our fellow humans, we need to agree what those standards are. Everyone potentially will make some compromises here but this is the only way to arrive at a position that is acceptable to all. Individual standards invariably contradict one another, so the choice is to remain in conflict for ever or to reach a compromise.

And that's leaving aside the fact that the UN (or any human institution), even at its best, is riddled with compromise, apathy and cowardice. If that's the highest authority we can appeal to for justice then I fear that many of us are going to be left disappointed.

I would rather the UN with all its flaws than any brand of theocracy that would seek to inflict an archaic notion of morality based on religious dogma on those who do not even subscribe to that belief system. Again, thinking of Pakistan here initially and also the attitudes put forward by the gun toting American religious right, as already raised by Antiskeptic. Interesting that by your standard "thou shalt not kill" refers only to murder but humans rights at this stage similarly looks to abolish execution. Which would you say aspires to the higher moral standard there?

Leroy42 · 16-09-2019 5:20pm

railer201 wrote: »

You know more than Einstein then ???? You can't have it both ways - science dealing with reality and evidence you say , then when probably the world's best known scientist acknowledges God's role in creating the universe, you dismiss it out of hand. How convenient and probably no coincidence that all the science quotes above mention God !!!

I could offer some simple personal explanations to the second part of your query regarding intervention, but I figure if the scientists quoted above don't make any impression on your thinking, neither will I.

you selectively used only part of my line, the bit which you thinks you can use to make an arguement. Surely as a religious person you are well aware of taking specific lines out of context.

As I clearly said, I don;t take everything s sciencetist says as correct simply because they are a scientist. Einstein did get things wrong, he didn't know everything but the reason we know he was right is that other people have tested his theories and found that they fit even with the new knowledge that we have gained.

What exactly did Einstein say about God and his role in the universe? And how would he know, since God does not allow himself to be seen or heard?

Some scientists believe in god, some don't. That fact alone proves that one does not need a belief in a god to understand how the universe works.

So we don't need god for understanding, he cannot intervene, and he shows no evidence of caring for us.

I don't need explanations on intervention, if you believe that god intervenes great, but how do you then accept when he fails to intervene. Why no intervene to stop the slaughter of millions in WWII? why not stop all those innocent people dying in tsunamis, or floods? Why did he not interfere when the child got leukemia? or the child was being raped?

How do you square that circle?

one world order · 16-09-2019 6:05pm

It's not God's responsibility to control what happens in the world. The bible reassures us that justice will be administered. Everyone will have their day of judgement when their time on earth ends.

Leroy42 · 16-09-2019 6:16pm

one world order wrote: »

It's not God's responsibility to control what happens in the world. The bible reassures us that justice will be administered. Everyone will have their day of judgement when their time on earth ends.

Unless he makes it his responsibility, like in the flood or Moses. Or sending Jesus down.

So it would appear god is more than happy to control when he wants.

And on what basis are you claiming it isn't his responsibility? He created us but then absolved himself of any responsibility but holds each and every one of us personally responsible not only for our own actions but also for the sins of Adam and Eve.

antiskeptic · 16-09-2019 6:41pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Religion is not about belief and feelings? So its about evidence? Really?

Your definition has it about feelings and beliefs. Applied to science in your case

There is a reason why it is called having faith.

Per the dictionary (where you presumably got it from). It's merely been applied to your position

As for science being a god, not at all. Science can be right or wrong, it must be backed by evidence, open to retest and be able to be provable

So its been proven that science is the route to eatablish the nature of reality?

Really?

There is no alter, no worship. Science does nothing, it is simply the best way we currently have of finding out which is the likely reality.

Best? Says who, if not merely those who believe this.

The great thing about science is that it doesn't need to be worshipped and the best way to get ahead in science is to prove a previous position as incorrect.

The same method is employed in forming a theology. Your mistaking the method for progress within the boundaries of a discipline with progress outside those boundaries.

You don't arrive at 'best way' in science. You arrive that way via a philosophy about the place of science. And philosophies are belief systems.

Which of course is the complete opposite of religion where even asking questions is seen as lack of faith

Not in my experience. My guess is that you are ignorant of what actually happens and turn to a cardboard cut out. Maybe you read Dawkins and believe what he says?

I don't believe in science, I believe in the facts that people present.

None of those facts can tell you about how closely science described reality. At best they can tell you about the extent of reality science is good at examining. The error is to extrapolate what you can see and suppose that thats all there is to see.

Science = all seeing. Faith (since there is no proof for it) in science' ability to see all (in principle and over time) = religion.

NCS · 16-09-2019 6:48pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Unless he makes it his responsibility, like in the flood or Moses. Or sending Jesus down.

So it would appear god is more than happy to control when he wants.

And on what basis are you claiming it isn't his responsibility? He created us but then absolved himself of any responsibility but holds each and every one of us personally responsible not only for our own actions but also for the sins of Adam and Eve.

You keep suggesting He has absolved Himself of responsibility for creating individuals and angels with free will, some of whom disobey Him. Yet He Himself, being incarnated, did take responsibility for the sins of all humanity - if they would turn and believe. It may not be an easy concept to grasp but that act was the intervention to end all interventions. Nothing before nor since could reconcile fallen humanity with God, no big reveal, no smiting Hitler's armies before they crossed into Poland, nothing. Because any other intervention which did not achieve that reconciliation might well save lives but could not save one single soul.

As for interventions to create belief, Satan took 1/3 of the angels with him in his rebellion. They had seen God and still rebelled. I have mentioned before that the Israelites saw the Red Sea parted, manna from heaven, a whole bunch of other physical miracles and yet fell away the moment they had an opportunity. David had what could be described as a close working relationship with God and yet fell into sin with Bathsheba. The Jews had Jerusalem and their temple yet consistently rejected the prophets who warned them of their communal conduct up until Jesus began His ministry with yet another bunch of miracles, and still had Him put to death.

Physical miracles have their place and can validate the Gospel but they cannot themselves deliver faith.

Wanderer78 · 16-09-2019 6:52pm

one world order wrote:

It's not God's responsibility to control what happens in the world. The bible reassures us that justice will be administered. Everyone will have their day of judgement when their time on earth ends.

What happens if you have no religious beliefs?

railer201 · 16-09-2019 6:56pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Appeal to authority is a fallacy. It's another fallacy to claim that being a brilliant scientist in one's field makes one an expert on anything outside of that field.

Einstein's views on religion are constantly misrepresented by theists. Have a read of this:

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

In particular:

Einstein did not describe himself as an atheist, but he certainly met the definition of one - he did not believe in any theistic god or gods.

Your fallacy thingy doesn't apply here as the creation or formation of the Universe was very much Einstein's field ( and God's of course), for example his Static Model of the Universe.

The rest I'm 'broadly speaking' aware of - but there's a difference in saying he didn't believe in a personal God - but did acknowledge more general form of God or intelligent force. De facto atheist is pushing it a bit and doesn't at all square with his 'God' quotes. Then of course one has to take in the confirmation bias of the atheist mind.

NCS · 16-09-2019 6:59pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What happens if you have no religious beliefs?

Nothing good. The only get-out clause is Rom. 2:14:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

This is a limited get-out clause, however, as access to the Bible and awareness of Christianity is much more widespread than at the time the epistle was written. And there are no guarantees in being judged by conscience versus certain redemption by faith in Jesus.

Christian75 · 16-09-2019 7:10pm

One thing is for sure - there are lots of people who feel the same way as you do.

The big question is what do you want to do about it. Just in the few replies here, there are many suggestions and offered help. At the end of the day though, it will come down to finding the path that you feel you can walk which will make things better for you. Faith, religion has one overwhelmingly common message, regardless of denomination: hope. As long as you can see your personal way and journey in it, you'll be grand.

ChrisJ84 · 16-09-2019 7:46pm

smacl wrote: »

If we want well defined standards on the minimal rights we accord to our fellow humans, we need to agree what those standards are. Everyone potentially will make some compromises here but this is the only way to arrive at a position that is acceptable to all. Individual standards invariably contradict one another, so the choice is to remain in conflict for ever or to reach a compromise.

At best what you're going to get is a pragmatic and watered down minimum standard. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, in fact it's a good thing and better than nothing, but it's a long way from objective good or justice. Our ideals for justice are that it should be perfect, so if the UN is the best we can do then either those ideals are an illusion, or we should be looking somewhere else for perfect justice.

The issue also remains of what you do when someone politely tells the UN to get stuffed. What is the basis on which they ought to listen? What is the critical mass of consensus that makes the UN standard "objective" and that of any individual society "subjective"?

smacl wrote: »

I would rather the UN with all its flaws than any brand of theocracy that would seek to inflict an archaic notion of morality based on religious dogma on those who do not even subscribe to that belief system. Again, thinking of Pakistan here initially and also the attitudes put forward by the gun toting American religious right, as already raised by Antiskeptic. Interesting that by your standard "thou shalt not kill" refers only to murder but humans rights at this stage similarly looks to abolish execution. Which would you say aspires to the higher moral standard there?

Who said anything about a theocracy? Seems like you're happy to inflict the UN's notions of morality on everyone whether they want them or not; what's the difference apart from that you prefer one to the other?

The UN is, or can be, a force for good. Probably one of the best that human beings can devise. But I'll keep trusting in God and his perfect law, justice and goodness. Unsurprisingly, I think he has the higher moral standard :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato · 16-09-2019 8:49pm

railer201 wrote: »

Your fallacy thingy doesn't apply here as the creation or formation of the Universe was very much Einstein's field ( and God's of course), for example his Static Model of the Universe.

No, when he ventured into speculation about "god" he was very much going outside of his field.

It's not just Einstein, though. You linked to a document with quotes from a number of scientists on the topic of religion, this is nothing other than a fallacious appeal to authority ("these guys are smart, they believe in god, therefore god must exist.")

The rest I'm 'broadly speaking' aware of - but there's a difference in saying he didn't believe in a personal God - but did acknowledge more general form of God or intelligent force. De facto atheist is pushing it a bit and doesn't at all square with his 'God' quotes. Then of course one has to take in the confirmation bias of the atheist mind.

At best he was some sort of deist - the quotes provided are very clear that he did not believe in an interventionist, personal god.

Funny that you say atheists have an "atheist mind" whatever that is, and say they have confirmation bias - after you've blantantly tried to shoehorn a theistic belief onto Einstein who clearly believed no such thing. But as he himself said, his position on religion was constantly misrepresented by believers in order to claim him as one of their own. Why they felt and still feel the need to do this, is odd.

Leroy42 · 16-09-2019 9:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your definition has it about feelings and beliefs. Applied to science in your case

My definition of science has nothing to do with feelings and belief. I was taking about religion. What, since there is no evidence, is the bases for your position on God and Jesus? Is it a belief or based on actual evidence?

Per the dictionary (where you presumably got it from). It's merely been applied to your position

antiskeptic wrote: »

So its been proven that science is the route to eatablish the nature of reality?

Really?

When did I say that? It is currently the best path we have used. It is certainly far better than relying on a book written by numerous people, over hundreds of years, based on 2nd or 3rd person memories, and for which there is little to no actual evidence and which contradicts itself numerous times.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Best? Says who, if not merely those who believe this.

If you have a better one go ahead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same method is employed in forming a theology. Your mistaking the method for progress within the boundaries of a discipline with progress outside those boundaries.

You don't arrive at 'best way' in science. You arrive that way via a philosophy about the place of science. And philosophies are belief systems.

What do you think the philosophy of science is?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not in my experience. My guess is that you are ignorant of what actually happens and turn to a cardboard cut out. Maybe you read Dawkins and believe what he says?

Your experience is that religion is open to question? There is nothing seen as sacred that should not be questioned? OK. Your guess is of no interest to me. No need to attack me personally. Your position should stand up on its own, you have god on your side afterall, so no need so the veiled attack on my ability to be critical.

antiskeptic wrote: »

None of those facts can tell you about how closely science described reality. At best they can tell you about the extent of reality science is good at examining. The error is to extrapolate what you can see and suppose that thats all there is to see.

Science = all seeing. Faith (since there is no proof for it) in science' ability to see all (in principle and over time) = religion.

Why have you added extrapolation into anything. I never mentioned it. I stated that

I don't believe in science, I believe in the facts that people present.

.

I look at what people claim, see on what it is based, and whether they can back it up. Any scientist can claim anything they like, but I would want to see more than, "well I read it in a book".

Science is he complete opposite of all seeing. Science itself acknowledges that it has huge areas that it doesn't understand, and would accept that here are huge areas that it doesn't even know of, yet alone understand.

You seem to be very determined to paint science as a religion, and I don't understand why. There is no faith in science. People may believe they are on the right path, but it is nothing more than a belief until such time as they provide evidence, in which case it long longer requires faith.

But instead of attacking science and what it is based on, use the very same questions you put to me against religion.

Leroy42 · 16-09-2019 9:19pm

NCS wrote: »

You keep suggesting He has absolved Himself of responsibility for creating individuals and angels with free will, some of whom disobey Him. Yet He Himself, being incarnated, did take responsibility for the sins of all humanity - if they would turn and believe.

I am not suggesting anything. it is the other posters that keep telling me that God cannot do this, or accept that. I am merely questioning that position.

So let me understand this. He will take on responsibility, but only if they do something for him? Not really taking on responsibility is it, it is more a bribe. And he placed the original sin on us in the first place, and now to get rid of the thing he forced on us we us do what he says. Thats blackmail.

NCS wrote: »

It may not be an easy concept to grasp but that act was the intervention to end all interventions. Nothing before nor since could reconcile fallen humanity with God, no big reveal, no smiting Hitler's armies before they crossed into Poland, nothing. Because any other intervention which did not achieve that reconciliation might well save lives but could not save one single soul.

Right, so god has made no intervention since Jesus. OK, lets examine that for a second. What sins were so egregious prior to that time that he felt he needed to intervene then, but has seemingly felt that nothing worse has happened since. So all the prayers, masses, claims of miracles, are rubbish?

But since Jesus make the ultimate sacrifice, although dying knowing you are the eternal being of the universe doesn't seem like such an issue, all prior sins are forgiven. And you can easily argue that if anything the world is a far worse place since, certainly no better, so gods plan failed to achieve any noticeable improvements.

NCS wrote: »

As for interventions to create belief, Satan took 1/3 of the angels with him in his rebellion.

Rebellion against what? God says that to lets us know he exists would mean we no longer had free will, but obviously Satan and the angels knew of heaven etc and still rebelled? Do you expect rebellions are still happening in heaven now? How come God didn't forsee Satan having this plan? And why did god let Satan into the garden, he created it, oversaw it, yet somehow he failed to spot Satan talking to Eve?

NCS wrote: »

They had seen God and still rebelled.

Why did they rebel?

NCS wrote: »

I have mentioned before that the Israelites saw the Red Sea parted, manna from heaven, a whole bunch of other physical miracles and yet fell away the moment they had an opportunity. David had what could be described as a close working relationship with God and yet fell into sin with Bathsheba. The Jews had Jerusalem and their temple yet consistently rejected the prophets who warned them of their communal conduct up until Jesus began His ministry with yet another bunch of miracles, and still had Him put to death.

Even more examples of people getting direct knowledge of God and still having the free will to rebel. So why not simply let everyone have clear, direct evidence of god.

NCS wrote: »

Physical miracles have their place and can validate the Gospel but they cannot themselves deliver faith.

You said earlier that Jesus was the intervention to end all interventions. So miracles cannot be happening.

NCS · 16-09-2019 11:07pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

So let me understand this. He will take on responsibility, but only if they do something for him? Not really taking on responsibility is it, it is more a bribe. And he placed the original sin on us in the first place, and now to get rid of the thing he forced on us we us do what he says. Thats blackmail.

The 'doing something' is as little as researching, receiving and confessing. And at no point did God place original sin on anyone, sin is by individual free will deed, word or thought and for everyone else but Jesus, inevitable. At Eden (whether interpreted literally or allegorically), humanity rebelled against God's authority and demanded to judge good and evil, effectively to know that sin existed. The price, they were warned, was death but between Satan and their own defiance, ahead they went. They were the first but any time anyone sins, it is the same defiance. Accepting the gift of salvation (there is no work required to receive it) is not a case of blackmail, it is making a choice between rejecting or retaining one's own sinful nature.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so god has made no intervention since Jesus. OK, lets examine that for a second. What sins were so egregious prior to that time that he felt he needed to intervene then, but has seemingly felt that nothing worse has happened since. So all the prayers, masses, claims of miracles, are rubbish?

No, not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that intervention as per the plagues of Egypt, Jericho and so on are not prophesied to take place between Jesus' resurrection and second coming. Those earlier interventions were unequivocally supernatural in source and visible both to the faithful and the non- (or other believers). Jesus will not be parting the clouds to help everyone believe in Him before the second coming - and even if that was the plan, it might convince a generation but subsequent generations would still fall away just as the Israelites repeatedly did. Today's miracle becomes mythology in a very short space of time. Judas even saw miracles first-hand and still didn't wasn't convinced.

The incarnation and resurrection only had to happen once. It was prefigured by Old Testament practice and the sacrifice system, then pointed back to during the Church/Gentile age in which we currently find ourselves. All sin at any time is egregious.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But since Jesus make the ultimate sacrifice, although dying knowing you are the eternal being of the universe doesn't seem like such an issue, all prior sins are forgiven. And you can easily argue that if anything the world is a far worse place since, certainly no better, so gods plan failed to achieve any noticeable improvements.

I disagree, I don't consider any time in Old Testament history to be better for the majority of its citizens than the present day in terms of freedoms, personal safety, life expectancy, standard of living and access to medical care in most parts of the world.

But in any case, that's not a measure of the 'success' of the plan. The idea is not to make the world perfect, it cannot and won't be for now. The plan is to save as many as possible by an inversion of the disbelief which led to the Fall in the first place. The crime held against Adam was that he believed Satan over God; redemption comes from believing God over Satan. Every individual in every generation faces a similar choice - believe in Jesus and be saved or, outside of awareness of the Gospel, to live by one's conscience and hope for the best. Jesus indicated that more would be lost than saved but that this would not be for want of trying.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Rebellion against what? God says that to lets us know he exists would mean we no longer had free will, but obviously Satan and the angels knew of heaven etc and still rebelled? Do you expect rebellions are still happening in heaven now? How come God didn't forsee Satan having this plan? And why did god let Satan into the garden, he created it, oversaw it, yet somehow he failed to spot Satan talking to Eve?

Why did they rebel?

There was one rebellion, it is pointed to in Isaiah:

How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;

Jealousy, basically. Satan set himself up as equal or superior to God. Was it foreknown that he would rebel and that humanity would fall? I assume so. Into the realm of speculation now but if humanity began naked and naive eating fruit in a garden knowing nothing else, Revelation has humanity wearing white robes living in the New Jerusalem, fully aware of good and evil and never again choosing the latter. Perhaps that was the purpose?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Even more examples of people getting direct knowledge of God and still having the free will to rebel. So why not simply let everyone have clear, direct evidence of god.

For the above reasons - salvation is by faith and miracles have a limited impact.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You said earlier that Jesus was the intervention to end all interventions. So miracles cannot be happening.

My expression was figurative - by it I meant widespread/national and self-evident interventions. Individual miracles do still occur. The next 'public' intervention will mark the end of the Church/Gentile age, which is a biggie.

smacl · 17-09-2019 7:57am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

At best what you're going to get is a pragmatic and watered down minimum standard. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, in fact it's a good thing and better than nothing, but it's a long way from objective good or justice. Our ideals for justice are that it should be perfect, so if the UN is the best we can do then either those ideals are an illusion, or we should be looking somewhere else for perfect justice.

The issue also remains of what you do when someone politely tells the UN to get stuffed. What is the basis on which they ought to listen? What is the critical mass of consensus that makes the UN standard "objective" and that of any individual society "subjective"?

A minimal standard for sure, but one that has been agreed upon and broadly implemented where serious breaches are the exception. While we should all aspire to higher standards, these amount to no more than a personal morality and are of little use other than to ourselves.

Who said anything about a theocracy? Seems like you're happy to inflict the UN's notions of morality on everyone whether they want them or not; what's the difference apart from that you prefer one to the other?

The UN is, or can be, a force for good. Probably one of the best that human beings can devise. But I'll keep trusting in God and his perfect law, justice and goodness. Unsurprisingly, I think he has the higher moral standard :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to inflict the UN's notions of morality on everyone, the UN's notion of morality is the consensus position arrived at by everyone. Trust in god by all means, but realise that your trust in your god ultimately serves no one but yourself. So if we look at the likes of the Asia Bibi case, it was pressure from human rights groups that saved here life, not "thoughts and prayers" nor your higher moral standard. As for inflicting your morality and religious beliefs on others, surely that is what evangelicalism is all about

NCS · 17-09-2019 8:02am

smacl wrote: »

Trust in god by all means, but realise that your trust in your god ultimately serves no one but yourself. So if we look at the likes of the Asia Bibi case, it was pressure from human rights groups that saved here life, not "thoughts and prayers" nor your higher moral standard. As for inflicting your morality and religious beliefs on others, surely that is what evangelicalism is all about

How can you be certain she was not released in answer to those thoughts and prayers ? In which case the trust in God of all those praying for her would have served more than just themselves.

smacl · 17-09-2019 8:27am

NCS wrote: »

How can you be certain she was not released in answer to those thoughts and prayers ? In which case the trust in God of all those praying for her would have served more than just themselves.

So anything good happens, prayers answered. Anything bad happens, mysterious ways. :rolleyes:

NCS · 17-09-2019 9:47am

smacl wrote: »

So anything good happens, prayers answered. Anything bad happens, mysterious ways. :rolleyes:

Frustrating, isn't it? And yet, ask yourself what the alternative is - if God answered every prayer exactly as requested then there is no more faith. Some wag would be the first to ask Him to move a mountain and it would all go downhill from there. Prayers in accordance with God's will are answered, those which appear not to be answered are still not a waste of time. We just can't know the full outworking yet.

ChrisJ84 · 17-09-2019 10:29am

smacl wrote: »

A minimal standard for sure, but one that has been agreed upon and broadly implemented where serious breaches are the exception. While we should all aspire to higher standards, these amount to no more than a personal morality and are of little use other than to ourselves.

Like I said, I think the UN has the potential to be a true force for good. But that’s only because I think “good,” “right” and “justice” have objective meanings that the UN can, however imperfectly, reflect and approximate.

smacl wrote: »

I'm not trying to inflict the UN's notions of morality on everyone, the UN's notion of morality is the consensus position arrived at by everyone. Trust in god by all means, but realise that your trust in your god ultimately serves no one but yourself. So if we look at the likes of the Asia Bibi case, it was pressure from human rights groups that saved here life, not "thoughts and prayers" nor your higher moral standard.

That still doesn’t explain how lots of subjective beliefs at some point morph into objective ones. The UN can pontificate, note their disapproval, or even try to impose their beliefs by force, and there is a place for all of those. But mere consensus doesn’t provide a moral imperative, as societies that disagree can simply say “well that’s right for you, but this is right for us.” Saying that the UN position on, say, capital punishment is more enlightened or indicative of greater progress is just begging the question.

On why Asia Bibi was released, I think it comes back to your point of view. Pressure groups certainly seem to have played a part. On prayer, if you assume that when praying we are effectively talking to ourselves then clearly it is a waste of time. If, on the other hand, we are talking to the God of the universe, who loves us, has promised to listen to us, and to somehow weave our prayers into his perfect plans, then maybe it has more significance.

smacl wrote: »

As for inflicting your morality and religious beliefs on others, surely that is what evangelicalism is all about

Totally, we are terrible busybodies. I do my best to interfere only when it’s smoking, dancing or playing cards

smacl · 17-09-2019 11:40am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Like I said, I think the UN has the potential to be a true force for good. But that’s only because I think “good,” “right” and “justice” have objective meanings that the UN can, however imperfectly, reflect and approximate.

But what you think is, by definition, subjective. Until such time as you or anyone else can demonstrate that "good" exists in any objective sense, what we tend to mean by "good" in this context is "good" according to the broadest possible consensus.

That still doesn’t explain how lots of subjective beliefs at some point morph into objective ones. The UN can pontificate, note their disapproval, or even try to impose their beliefs by force, and there is a place for all of those. But mere consensus doesn’t provide a moral imperative, as societies that disagree can simply say “well that’s right for you, but this is right for us.” Saying that the UN position on, say, capital punishment is more enlightened or indicative of greater progress is just begging the question.

If consensus doesn't provide moral imperative across large disparate groups of people representing a very broad spectrum of personal and tradition moral positions, perhaps you could suggest what does? Certainly not scripture which will be an anathema to those with different religious beliefs nor Sharia law for very much the same reason. Even within Christianity the range of moral positions is vast where the likes of a liberal Christian is going to be diametrically opposed to a gun totin' hard right bible belt Christian.

On why Asia Bibi was released, I think it comes back to your point of view. Pressure groups certainly seem to have played a part. On prayer, if you assume that when praying we are effectively talking to ourselves then clearly it is a waste of time. If, on the other hand, we are talking to the God of the universe, who loves us, has promised to listen to us, and to somehow weave our prayers into his perfect plans, then maybe it has more significance.

You might believe your prayers have some significance but I'd imagine most people incarcerated for dubious reasons in line for corporal or capital punishment would rather something a little more concrete. The phrase "Thoughts and prayers" has long since become a meme for doing nothing while highlighting to others that you really care.

Totally, we are terrible busybodies. I do my best to interfere only when it’s smoking, dancing or playing cards

Ah here, don't be interfering with my smoking, dancing and playing cards. That there is quality time.

Leroy42 · 17-09-2019 12:18pm

NCS wrote: »

Frustrating, isn't it? And yet, ask yourself what the alternative is - if God answered every prayer exactly as requested then there is no more faith. Some wag would be the first to ask Him to move a mountain and it would all go downhill from there. Prayers in accordance with God's will are answered, those which appear not to be answered are still not a waste of time. We just can't know the full outworking yet.

Why do you keep putting rules onto god? You are placing restrictions on an all powerful eternal being.

If God answered every prayer that removes faith you claim, but we know of plenty of examples (Satan, Judas, the Israelities with Moses) that have had direct knowledge of god yet they could continue with free will.

And bear in mind that we are all going to find out either way when we die, so effectively out of eternity God is hiding himself for 100 or so years from each person, so it seems ultimately pointless.

Prayers in accordance with God's will are answered

. Doesn't that suggest that God was going to do it either way, that the prayer makes no difference.

One needs to be able to square the circle of how one can attest that god can and has intervened in our lives, yet at the same time has allowed the worst occurrences in history (tsunami, WWI & WWII etc). Either he cares or he doesn't.

We just can't know the full outworking yet.

Exactly. We have no idea about any of it. No idea about god, no idea how involved he is, no idea if there is an afterlife.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-09-2019 1:04pm

Kinda hard to blame tsunamis, earthquakes or volcanoes on free will, although some do try!

ChrisJ84 · 17-09-2019 1:39pm

smacl wrote: »

But what you think is, by definition, subjective. Until such time as you or anyone else can demonstrate that "good" exists in any objective sense, what we tend to mean by "good" in this context is "good" according to the broadest possible consensus.

Sounds like pure relativism to me - which doesn't help when it comes to those who agree with neither our definition of good nor the consensus that we think adds weight to it. And why should they?

smacl wrote: »

If consensus doesn't provide moral imperative across large disparate groups of people representing a very broad spectrum of personal and tradition moral positions, perhaps you could suggest what does? Certainly not scripture which will be an anathema to those with different religious beliefs nor Sharia law for very much the same reason. Even within Christianity the range of moral positions is vast where the likes of a liberal Christian is going to be diametrically opposed to a gun totin' hard right bible belt Christian.

I think that once you ditch the idea of God then you can't consistently claim a universal moral imperative that applies to all people in all places whether they agree with it or not. If we are all entitled to our own subjective beliefs, and they are all equally valid, then it's very difficult to understand how such a thing could exist.

Individual societies can provide it in a very limited way for the people who live there, and the UN can provide it in a limited way for lots of countries, but only insofar as they all consent to be governed by it. And as we've already said, when UN members (especially the powerful ones) choose to ignore what the UN says, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. If the UN is god, then unfortunately it appears to have feet of clay.

smacl wrote: »

You might believe your prayers have some significance but I'd imagine most people incarcerated for dubious reasons in line for corporal or capital punishment would rather something a little more concrete. The phrase "Thoughts and prayers" has long since become a meme for doing nothing while highlighting to others that you really care.

I think this is another point where we will need to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, I understand that prayer is a pointless exercise from your perspective. It would be odd if you thought otherwise.

smacl wrote: »

Ah here, don't be interfering with my smoking, dancing and playing cards. That there is quality time.

Dunno, might need to refer it to the UN for arbitration!

NCS · 17-09-2019 8:00pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why do you keep putting rules onto god? You are placing restrictions on an all powerful eternal being.

??? I'm not putting any rules on to God, I'm going by how He has dealt with humanity through the Bible and what we can expect during the Church/Gentile age. The Old Testament prophecies and practices pointed to the coming of the Messiah and prophesied of a great end-time struggle. Jesus duly arrived and expanded the narrative, all the subsequent public demonstrations carried out by Himself and His disciples were to validate His claims. What is next on the prophetic agenda is that end-time struggle. He didn't promise ongoing miracles and deliverances for believers on the same public scale as had been the case with the Israelites. As a nation, they had been intended to demonstrate the holiness, mercy and power of God amongst the surrounding nations so public demonstrations accompanied their claims of worshipping the only true God. With Jesus' resurrection, the biggest miracle - a bridge between God and man - had already been accomplished. Thereafter, the Holy Spirit received by the believer took the place of the external Old Testament law and rather than a nation united by physical descendancy, the church became a virtual body united by spiritual communion. There are plenty of accounts of personal and small-scale miracles taking place within that communion over the past two thousand years, but outside of what Jesus Himself had to say about the last days, I am not expecting to see any seas being parted or plagues of Egypt until those last days begin. That's not me limiting God, that's just what He has determined will happen.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If God answered every prayer that removes faith you claim, but we know of plenty of examples (Satan, Judas, the Israelities with Moses) that have had direct knowledge of god yet they could continue with free will.

He doesn't work for us, remember, we work for Him. We have no right to demand anything - but we are encouraged to ask. Prayers will not always have the answer we are expecting, but they will be heard.

In the Church/Gentile age and through the indwelling Holy Spirit we have access to far more power than the Israelites ever had - but this is the power to be changed on the inside. It may be frustrating to someone looking for big physical evidence but some power has to be at work to transform as many lives as the Gospel has, starting with Paul himself. Far better that inner power than the occasional big ticket miracle and a list of rules for everyone to try to follow.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And bear in mind that we are all going to find out either way when we die, so effectively out of eternity God is hiding himself for 100 or so years from each person, so it seems ultimately pointless.

That's true of course and it would be better to find out now from a judgement perspective. God is certainly not hidden, in fact quite the opposite. There is the Bible itself which represents a quite astonishingly coherent narrative from Genesis through to Revelation despite being compiled by multiple authors over a considerable time. There is the evidence of those who have been reformed out of alcohol or drug abuse and transformed by becoming Christians. And there is humanity itself with a mind and physique far beyond that required for an evolved Darwinian hunter/gatherer and whose capabilities we are still freshly discovering.

Leroy42 wrote: »

. Doesn't that suggest that God was going to do it either way, that the prayer makes no difference.

God certainly might have done it either way - but to say that the prayer makes no difference is inaccurate. Firstly, Christians will be judged for reward based on how they have lived by their faith. Per Thessalonians,

"Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus."

Meaningful praying is being obedient so even if the specifics of the prayer do not match God's will, the intention will be rewarded.

Leroy42 wrote: »

One needs to be able to square the circle of how one can attest that god can and has intervened in our lives, yet at the same time has allowed the worst occurrences in history (tsunami, WWI & WWII etc). Either he cares or he doesn't.

The terms of that intervention have changed since Jesus' resurrection and the sending of the Holy Spirit as I've said above. Every believer has received a personal and ongoing intervention and the offer is open to all. As for natural disasters and wars, Jesus warned that they were coming. There is a spiritual battle in the world which provides some explanation for how objectively evil characters like Hitler, Stalin or Mao come to power and how they attained the status of demigods. Neither Satan nor any other demon are the equal of God or we wouldn't be around to discuss it, clearly God has limited Satan's power and the eventual victory is assured. But it is interesting that all those antichristian figures had an agenda of persecuting and outlawing religious faiths yet replaced them with a quasi-religion of their own statues, images, folk heroes and scriptures.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly. We have no idea about any of it. No idea about god, no idea how involved he is, no idea if there is an afterlife.

Just because we don't see the complete picture doesn't mean we can't glimpse, understand and engage with what we need of it. And the fact is that God has revealed Himself through creation, through history, His word is there in the Bible and the historical Jesus can be researched by anyone with an internet connection. And the afterlife is going to be very, very interesting :cool:

Leroy42 · 17-09-2019 11:06pm

All of that post is your interpretation. You completely lost me when you said

There is the Bible itself which represents a quite astonishingly coherent narrative from Genesis through to Revelation despite being compiled by multiple authors over a considerable time.

The bible is one of the incoherent collection of books ever. God demands blood sacrifice, do not kill. Old testement is not real, live by the 10 commandments. Christ was born in Bethlehem because of a census, no census took place. None of the disciples thought it a good idea to actually write the stories themselves. There are numerous books that have been left out of the bible, so what we get to read isn't even the real collection. And God didn't bother to sort out the issue of language, choosing to let it be written in a language that would die out.

I'm not going to list them all here, there are simply too many to go through and he point is not each individual one, but a book that he supposed to be God new way is poorly written, lacks vital details and god didn't even bother to ensure that evidence was preserved.

Is god the war monger of Soddam and Gormorah or is he the turn the other cheek type of Jesus. And it just so happened that Jesus was born and raised in a place that just happened to already believe. Not China, or South America.

I get that your believe all this stuff, just as I am sure that you believe lying with another man is a sin, and wearing two different fabrics is a sin, or working on the sabbath is a sin. And Jesus never once claimed to be starting a new religion, he never once claimed that Judaism was wrong, so while I understand the reason for Christianity, I fail to see how we moved away from the rules that Jesus himself adhered to.

But whether you believe it or not is not the issue. Does losing ones faith mean the OP is a different person? No, because clearly it is not faith that made them good. Just as there are very evil people with faith, very good people without faith and vice versa.

The only thing we can say, as we see examples across multiple religions and non religions, across time, is that religion an faith is not the deciding factor. So if you need the comfort blanket of faith to make you feel that after this life is over then you will be to heaven then that fine. But know that God has killed many multiples of people for sin without a chance to repent and thus I would not be to sure that no matter how hard you try God won't simply get in a huff and send you out of heaven.

NCS · 17-09-2019 11:52pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

All of that post is your interpretation. You completely lost me when you said

The bible is one of the incoherent collection of books ever. God demands blood sacrifice, do not kill.

The ask was animal sacrifice and for people not to kill each other outside judicial procedure. Was execution mandated in the Old Testament ? Yes it was - but you have also suggested God should intervene to punish evil. The giving of those laws was intervention.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Old testement is not real, live by the 10 commandments.

Who says the Old Testament isn't real? Jesus validated it at the time and the Dead Sea scrolls indicate good faithfulness in recording of the actual words.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Christ was born in Bethlehem because of a census, no census took place.

If you're suggesting there's evidence to suggest there wasn't a census at that time, then what leads you to suppose that evidence is any more trustworthy than that recorded by witnesses near the time? Have you researched this?

Leroy42 wrote: »

None of the disciples thought it a good idea to actually write the stories themselves.

Is there reason to doubt that the Gospels were authored by anyone other than the disciples concerned? Why automatically accept contemporary conclusions 2000 years later over what was accepted 100 years afterwards?

Leroy42 wrote: »

There are numerous books that have been left out of the bible, so what we get to read isn't even the real collection.

Why conclude that ? Other contemporary books excluded from the Canon are available to read if anyone chooses. Some still appear as Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible and a few are even quoted by the apostles. There's no secrecy involved. The upshot is that the Bible represents everything that is required, additional reading is up to yourself but be aware it may not be as reliable.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And God didn't bother to sort out the issue of language, choosing to let it be written in a language that would die out.

The language didn't die out, there are line by line comparison reference books if you care to check them out. What universal language would you prefer God used?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is god the war monger of Soddam and Gormorah or is he the turn the other cheek type of Jesus. And it just so happened that Jesus was born and raised in a place that just happened to already believe. Not China, or South America.

Both. Truth and love. Although I wouldn't agree with the 'war monger' label, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged - for why, I suggest you read the account if you haven't already. Jesus promised mercy and forgiveness for faith and repentance but also judgement for rejection. He caused uproar amongst the merchants in the Temple, castigated liberal and legalist Jews and warned that everyone, believer and non-believer would be judged.

Why would you be surprised that Jesus would be born as a Jew ? And the fact is that most Jews rejected Him anyway throughout His ministry.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I get that your believe all this stuff, just as I am sure that you believe lying with another man is a sin, and wearing two different fabrics is a sin, or working on the sabbath is a sin. And Jesus never once claimed to be starting a new religion, he never once claimed that Judaism was wrong, so while I understand the reason for Christianity, I fail to see how we moved away from the rules that Jesus himself adhered to.

Ah, well He fulfilled the Law as it applied to the Jews - all the food restrictions, all the feasts and dates. Being sinless included observing every one of the details which He did, freeing us up from pretty much everything but the basic 10 commandments.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But whether you believe it or not is not the issue. Does losing ones faith mean the OP is a different person? No, because clearly it is not faith that made them good. Just as there are very evil people with faith, very good people without faith and vice versa.

The only thing we can say, as we see examples across multiple religions and non religions, across time, is that religion an faith is not the deciding factor. So if you need the comfort blanket of faith to make you feel that after this life is over then you will be to heaven then that fine. But know that God has killed many multiples of people for sin without a chance to repent and thus I would not be to sure that no matter how hard you try God won't simply get in a huff and send you out of heaven.

Respectfully disagree. God doesn't lie - if He says we will live with Him forever, then that's what will happen. Creating people who have no chance to repent is the act of an insanely cruel deity and if that were the case, we'd be living out some Dante-esque nightmare every day which, hyperbole aside, we aren't.

one world order · 18-09-2019 12:14am

Yes the OP is a different person because he lost his faith. The reality is the Devil tempts us all the time and it is a constant battle to move away from sin. It is why those with strong faith can find clarity in their lives and inner peace.

In the Old Testament we see God punishing those that lived sinful lives that already had access to the early scriptures, like in Sodom and Gomorrah. When society turns it's back on God, people are not held accountable by a higher purpose and this is why we see so many problems developing in society today.

Lost faith

Comments