Do you believe in God?

pearcider wrote: »

You’re presuming a lot there pal. Clearly existence is preferable to nothing. The world is evidently beautiful despite what you believe. You’re also very angry and that comes across strongly in your posts. Jesus taught us that wrath is the work of the devil.

Are there not bible quotations warning us to beware the wrath of god? Which god is that now, the one above or below?

theological

I've been just reading the last few pages of this thread. I have to say pearcider has been offering gracious responses again and again to the posts on this thread many of them pretty impolite. I'm thankful that I can count people like pearcider as being brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'd also like to say pearcider isn't a BS peddler just because you disagree with their beliefs. pearcider is simply doing what they are called to do as Christians. Bear witness to the gospel. I'm pretty sure pearcider believes this in good faith. So do I actually.

I'm thankful this thread hasn't become an echo chamber of atheists slapping themselves on the back and proclaiming the alleged rationality of others (I don't think atheism is rational at all but I'll go with it).

So well done pearcider, I'm thankful to call you a brother or sister in Christ. Opposition is expected but the kingdom of God is unstoppable.

pearcider wrote: »

Hubbard was CIA and designed to undermine the devoutly Christian USA. He did a pretty good job. Wise people listen only to Jesus and Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hole_(Scientology)

Wow. Just wow.

theological wrote: »

I've been just reading the last few pages of this thread. I have to say pearcider has been offering gracious responses again and again to the posts on this thread many of them pretty impolite. I'm thankful that I can count people like pearcider as being brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'd also like to say pearcider isn't a BS peddler just because you disagree with their beliefs. pearcider is simply doing what they are called to do as Christians. Bear witness to the gospel. I'm pretty sure pearcider believes this in good faith. So do I actually.

I'm thankful this thread hasn't become an echo chamber of atheists slapping themselves on the back and proclaiming the alleged rationality of others (I don't think atheism is rational at all but I'll go with it).

So well done pearcider, I'm thankful to call you a brother or sister in Christ. Opposition is expected but the kingdom of God is unstoppable.

In fact quite the opposite is observable. Pearcider’s (I only agree with their user name & nothing else they write) posts have been thinly veiled personal attacks veiled in meaningless platitudes and guff, as is yours.

I see the other posts addressing the contents of Pearcider’s posts and not their person. If they, or you, take such questioning personally you should perhaps in turn question if your beliefs are so strongly held, given that their being subject to interrogation provokes personal attacks and refuge in sanctimonious bs.

blinding wrote: »

Perhaps ‘ God “ is the computer !

Perhaps god is a DJ.

Dr. Bre

Smart Bug wrote: »

Perhaps god is a DJ.

Have faithless

theological wrote: »

I have to say pearcider has been offering gracious responses

If calling people "angry" "arrogant" and "pal" is gracious.... or being the one flinging personal comments while others are discussing the actual topic..... then sure, he has. But my standards differ it seems

Playing the player rather than the ball is not gracious. It is the opposite.

We shall see though. I wrote them a long reply. Lets see if they choose to engage with my content, or with me personally. Ball is in their court now to represent their faith as well, or as poorly, as they wish.

theological wrote: »

I'd also like to say pearcider isn't a BS peddler just because you disagree with their beliefs.

I do not agree or disagree with beliefs, I evaluate them for substance. And so far no one, least of all on this thread, appears to be offering a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend a modicum of credence to the claim there is a god, or an afterlife.

It is not that I disagree with those beliefs therefore, it is that I have failed to find any substance to them. Which is not my fault it seems. It is certainly not for want of my trying.

theological wrote: »

I've been just reading the last few pages of this thread. I have to say pearcider has been offering gracious responses again and again to the posts on this thread many of them pretty impolite. I'm thankful that I can count people like pearcider as being brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'd also like to say pearcider isn't a BS peddler just because you disagree with their beliefs. pearcider is simply doing what they are called to do as Christians. Bear witness to the gospel. I'm pretty sure pearcider believes this in good faith. So do I actually.

I'm thankful this thread hasn't become an echo chamber of atheists slapping themselves on the back and proclaiming the alleged rationality of others (I don't think atheism is rational at all but I'll go with it).

So well done pearcider, I'm thankful to call you a brother or sister in Christ. Opposition is expected but the kingdom of God is unstoppable.

Would you like to try to answer any of the questions that pear is trying to avoid please?

blinding

Smart Bug wrote: »

Perhaps god is a DJ.

Spotty teenage girl is my thinking at the moment .

in terms of the question, i cant see any point engaging save for to note i dont believe in a god

if religion intrudes on the apparatus of state or society, that's where to focus on a debate

Marhay70

Len_007 wrote: »

How is it impossible?
If this omnipotent God that we both have assumed was one who created humans so that they would suffer, then the conditions you highlighted would be quite inline with this God's intentions for the world. That I think describes the God you are talking about.
However the God as revealed in the OT/NT, clearly did not create humans to experience pain and suffering. That was not his primary purpose as you read Genesis 1 & 2. (There's probably an argument to be made that pain and suffering was always part of the design, not all of it is bad, as in ouch I'm too near fire).
The primary purpose of the creation of Man was to live with God in his presence, which they forfeited when they rejected his Word and Rule over them. When that happened sin entered the world wrecking all in it's path, the devastation of which is still experienced today.
But, the God of the OT/NT is on record endeavouring to reverse the great rupture that happened in the first pages of the Bible, as I said above flick to the end to see how it all pans out.

You keep referring to an omnipotent God as if that is the only quality attributed to him by religion, it is not. He is also omniscient, ever present and above all loving and merciful.
Taking the omniscient part first, he must have known what was going to happen in the Garden of Eden but still let it go ahead, entrapment we would call that today. He must have known that the people he created were weak willed and would have succumbed to the temptation that he engineered by allowing Satan to exist. What's even more illogical to me is that knowing all this , he chose to place a guard on the the tree of knowledge after the event, why, did he expect someone else to have a go when there was nobody else or was this just to rub Adam and Eve's noses in it?
Then there's the loving and merciful bit; this is the part I really find difficult to take, that he would allow such pain and suffering to exist in a world which, remember, he loved so much that he was prepared to let his own sun suffer terrible torture and death. All this while being omnipotent, if he is omnipotent then surely he could find some other way to achieve all this. After all he had no trouble using his power to visit plagues on Egypt, or knocking down the walls of Jericho or blowing the blue blazes out of Sodom and Gomorrah to demonstrate his omnipotency to mankind, so why take the invisbility line now?
If this was being written about a human being then the conclusion I would draw is psychopath.

Len_007

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So if all inherit sin, why do some two year old children get cancer and others live long happy lives?

The real question is, why don't we all get cancer and die as two year olds?
For God (the one revealed in the OT/NT), sin is foreign to him, he his Holy. Since the great rupture of Genesis 3, we've been infected with this propensity to rebel away from Him. The Scriptures would say the penalty of this is death. You see this understanding in how Jesus responds in Luke 13 to news that a tower had fallen and lives were lost. He basically said all living deserve the same fate, but that we should see it as a warning and Repent.
It's by God's grace that we draw our next breath.

Professor Moriarty

Len_007 wrote: »

The real question is, why don't we all get cancer and die as two year olds?
For God (the one revealed in the OT/NT), sin is foreign to him, he his Holy. Since the great rupture of Genesis 3, we've been infected with this propensity to rebel away from Him. The Scriptures would say the penalty of this is death. You see this understanding in how Jesus responds in Luke 13 to news that a tower had fallen and lives were lost. He basically said all living deserve the same fate, but that we should see it as a warning and Repent.
It's by God's grace that we draw our next breath.

Okay. So let's, for argument's sake, agree that all humans are born with original sin. Are some infants born with more original sin and suffer premature and painful death as a result?

Len_007 wrote: »

The real question is, why don't we all get cancer and die as two year olds? .

And the answer is?

twowheelsonly

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If there was "a" god and was overseeing us all, different people would all come up with the same god, no? Whats to be gained from feeding them all different god stories and getting them fighting over it while telling each that the other is wrong and will go to hell for it? Seems like a ****.

Not necessarily the same God, but all would have the same basic principle behind them - that of worship / adoration / sacrifice etc. The reason 'we' don't all have the same God in name and worship methodology is because organised religions took over different parts of the world long, long before any of us were around. It's the same reason we don't all speak the same language really.

Ultimately, despite the different Gods and different ways of practicing religion all religions have the common denominator of answering to 'Someone Up There'. That's the point I was making really.
Is it real ?? Maybe as real as Aliens but no one can prove or disprove their existence right now either.

Len_007

Marhay70 wrote: »

You keep referring to an omnipotent God as if that is the only quality attributed to him by religion,

I don't think that is fair. There are many characteristics (as you point out) ascribed to God in the Bible, that was one I used that I felt fit the context.

Marhay70 wrote: »

Taking the omniscient part first, he must have known what was going to happen in the Garden of Eden but still let it go ahead, entrapment we would call that today. He must have known that the people he created were weak willed and would have succumbed to the temptation that he engineered by allowing Satan to exist. What's even more illogical to me is that knowing all this , he chose to place a guard on the the tree of knowledge after the event, why, did he expect someone else to have a go when there was nobody else or was this just to rub Adam and Eve's noses in it?

Indeed, if God is omniscient as the Bible claims him to be, then he knew how it would all go down.
Interesting that you see him being guilty of Entrapment.
Would you see life being a worthy endeavour despite the inevitability of death?
Parents have brought a life into the world knowing full well that this person will one day suffer and die, it's only a matter of time. Yet, our world is based on this fundamental principal, and we don't question the worth of doing it.

The logic of placing a guard in the way to the tree of life, was an act of grace. To live perpetually in this new state of rebellion and hatred toward God for ever was not originally intended. Therefore by God allowing a person to die, it releases them from this experience.

Incidentally, Revelation ends with mankind living with God forever with full access to the tree of life again.

Marhay70 wrote: »

Then there's the loving and merciful bit; this is the part I really find difficult to take, that he would allow such pain and suffering to exist in a world which, remember, he loved so much that he was prepared to let his own sun suffer terrible torture and death. All this while being omnipotent, if he is omnipotent then surely he could find some other way to achieve all this. After all he had no trouble using his power to visit plagues on Egypt, or knocking down the walls of Jericho or blowing the blue blazes out of Sodom and Gomorrah to demonstrate his omnipotency to mankind, so why take the invisbility line now?
If this was being written about a human being then the conclusion I would draw is psychopath.

The fact that God is "invisible" now, meaning that, he doesn't act in ways he did in the Bible, is not new. There were long stretches of time when there was "no new word from the LORD" during the time span the Bible covers. Sending plagues was not his day job. But, there were big tent pole events in Israel's history that were meant to be used at the time of judgment from God to wayward peoples, and then seen and understood as object lessons.
Less Psychopath, more a disciplining Parent.

randd1

How come people, who these days know everything they possibly could about religions and gods, still believe in God?

I can understand the poorly educated, those seeking meaning or comfort from tragedy, or those who grew up indoctrinated into religion from birth, but how can a rational person still believe in made up magic creatures, and books that are essentially a mixture of adult fairy tales and magic spells?

I honestly believe those people that genuinely believe in God are completely lacking in something of their own human self and are seeking a substitute.

Len_007 wrote: »

Less Psychopath, more a disciplining Parent.

I don't know of many disciplining parents who believe that all their children deserve to die (your Luke 13 story) but may choose to let some of them live a bit longer 'by grace' before causing them to suffer an immensely painful death.

He's definitely leaning more towards the psycho side of the coin.

stratowide

randd1 wrote: »

How come people, who these days know everything they possibly could about religions and gods, still believe in God?

I can understand the poorly educated, those seeking meaning or comfort from tragedy, or those who grew up indoctrinated into religion from birth, but how can a rational person still believe in made up magic creatures, and books that are essentially a mixture of adult fairy tales and magic spells?

I honestly believe those people that genuinely believe in God are completely lacking in something of their own human self and are seeking a substitute.

To quote Dr. House..
'If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people'.

You cant rationalise or reason with these people.No point even trying.

randd1

stratowide wrote: »

To quote Dr. House..
'If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people'.

You cant rationalise or reason with these people.No point even trying.

Fair point.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Au contraire. One of philosophy's main strengths is its ability to resolve paradoxes by applying logic.

I think you missed my point. There are paradoxes which actually have no solution as well as problems with logic and mathematics and physics. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for example show us the false foundation upon which the know it all modern man sits. Gödel by the way was a devout Christian.

The sheer arrogance of the many atheist posters in here dismissing God shows me two things. First that the modern western world has become full of misplaced pride to a level that would have made our ancestors swoon. Second that we approach the end of this age and the great falling away of the faithful as predicted by the prophets and Jesus himself.

Professor Moriarty

pearcider wrote: »

I think you missed my point. There are paradoxes which actually have no solution as well as problems with logic and mathematics and physics. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for example show us the false foundation upon which the know it all modern man sits. Gödel by the way was a devout Christian.

The sheer arrogance of the many atheist posters in here dismissing God shows me two things. First that the modern western world has become full of misplaced pride to a level that would have made our ancestors swoon. Second that we approach the end of this age and the great falling away of the faithful as predicted by the prophets and Jesus himself.

Please explain how Godel's theorem demonstrates that modern man is ignorant.

pearcider wrote: »

The sheer arrogance of the many atheist posters

And more of the name calling. Is that all you got?

pearcider wrote: »

in here dismissing God shows me two things.

One can not dismiss what does not appear to be there. I can not complain my children do not eat their vegetables if I consistently give them plates where there are no vegetables. I do not get to pretend they are rejecting the vegetables I did not even give them.

Similarly merely saying the word "god" does not create one for us to dismiss. Until you show a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there is even a god in the first place.... then we are not "dismissing" that god, there is nothing there TO dismiss.

pearcider wrote: »

Second that we approach the end of this age and the great falling away of the faithful as predicted by the prophets and Jesus himself.

Hardly a "prediction" really. If you talk un-evidenced nonsense it is hardly a prediction to claim people will eventually notice it is un-evidenced nonsense and stop buying it.

There is a vast chasm of difference between making a prediction..... and merely starting the blatantly bleeding obvious.

There was a baby born in the UK yesterday with 6 heads and all it's fingers but no arms or hands! I PREDICT MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT BELIEVE ME! Wow look, I can "predict" stuff too

Calling someone arrogant is hardly name calling. However the banning of truthful language is the hallmark of the modern dictatorship of ideas that we find ourselves in.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Please explain how Godel's theorem demonstrates that modern man is ignorant.

I’ve made my point. It is not my problem if you haven’t the nous to see it.

pearcider wrote: »

Calling someone arrogant is hardly name calling.

It is not the word but the intent. You are playing the player not the ball in pretty much every reply you throw out. It does not matter WHAT the insult is, you can take the ones you use like "arrogant" and "angry" and so forth out and replace it with any other. The issue is that you are using that ad hominem to dodge engaging in good faith discourse on the topic with anyone who even attempts to engage with you. Assuming you reply to them at all, given how many posts you have not even deigned to do that with.

Case in point....

pearcider wrote: »

I’ve made my point. It is not my problem if you haven’t the nous to see it.

Denigrate the interlocutor, refuse to engage, retreat. That is your MO. If that is the "fruit" of being a Christian that you are representing..... you can keep it. But do keep posting and representing! It serves my purposes well.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not the word but the intent. You are playing the player not the ball in pretty much every reply you throw out. It does not matter WHAT the insult is, you can take the ones you use like "arrogant" and "angry" and so forth out and replace it with any other. The issue is that you are using that ad hominem to dodge engaging in good faith discourse on the topic with anyone who even attempts to engage with you. Assuming you reply to them at all, given how many posts you have not even deigned to do that with.

I will not engage with aggressive atheists who continue to make the same point that I have previously addressed.