Lost faith

smacl · 13-09-2019 9:23pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF TRUE (whatever the hell that means) is your construction. I'm in the IF TRUE THEN territory.

IF God exists THEN x,y,z follows.

Clearly the plc has to ask whether the IF condition is satisfied or not.

Is it "TRUE" ...the plc considers to isself before deciding which output lever to pull. Not IF TRUE.

Your arguments are all predicated on the outcome of your condition having a single result though, If god exists.... If god is talking to me.... etc. To progress, it demands every if holds true. That the end condition is reachable isn't the issue because that is your starting point. You are quite literally making an enormous leap faith that has nothing to do with logic.

theological · 13-09-2019 9:32pm

smacl wrote: »

Your arguments are all predicated on the outcome of your condition having a single result though, If god exists.... If god is talking to me.... etc. To progress, it demands every if holds true. That the end condition is reachable isn't the issue because that is your starting point. You are quite literally making an enormous leap faith that has nothing to do with logic.

Sure - but so are yours. The amount of assumptions that are laden in your arguments are pretty easy to highlight, I've highlighted several and I've explained why I am in disagreement with you.

The crux of the issue for me is much simpler. On the basis of what Jesus Christ, do I trust the eyewitnesses and what they have recorded about Him, and do I take Jesus at His word, based on His testimony to us.

My answer is yes, I have my reasons why. Your answer is no, presumably you have reasons why.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 9:49pm

smacl wrote: »

Your arguments are all predicated on the outcome of your condition having a single result though, If god exists.... If god is talking to me.... etc. To progress, it demands every if holds true.

Its not a question of progress. Its a question of destination.

If the IF's are TRUE (and we can of course add in any number of other IF'S and AND's to reflect complexity) THEN we arrive at our destination: I can have objective truth even if I am the only person in the world with it.

Since you have no way of knowing whether the IF is TRUE or not, you can't make the statement you made earlier, the statement with which we commenced this discussion.

That the end condition is reachable isn't the issue because that is your starting point. You are quite literally making an enormous leap faith that has nothing to do with logic.

You'll have to explain what you mean here. What is this end condition? That God exists?

Clearly that need not be my starting point if we are following the IF TRUE THEN path.

That statement starts with Gods existence (IF God exists = TRUE) long before I existed.

It moves to an AND statement involving an act of God (..AND he choses to communicate the fact of his existence with one of his created beings).

It moves to a THEN statement (..THEN that created being knows God exists).

This is an everyday experience: IF daddy keeps on pointing to cars on the street AND he keeps on saying "CAAARRR" to his boy-in-arms whilst pointing at said car THEN the baby child will one day, to his dads's surprise and delight issue forth his first word on seeing car go by: "CAAAR".

Daddy is the one who makes it all happen. Babe-in-arms is merely the receiver. In the case of me on this thread I'm rendered but the bearer of the good news: "God exists".

Don't shoot the baby in arms. CAAAR!

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 9:56pm

theological wrote: »

Sure - but so are yours. The amount of assumptions that are laden in your arguments are pretty easy to highlight, I've highlighted several and I've explained why I am in disagreement with you.

The crux of the issue for me is much simpler. On the basis of what Jesus Christ, do I trust the eyewitnesses and what they have recorded about Him, and do I take Jesus at His word, based on His testimony to us.

My answer is yes, I have my reasons why. Your answer is no, presumably you have reasons why.

To be fair to smacl, there is absolutely no reason in the world to place your trust in some words written by some sheepherders up a hill in the middle east some 2,000 years ago on the basis of some randomers on the internet / some AR-15 totin' Texans who "love da Looord Jeeeezus" Not when there are sheepherders in locations all over the world, before and after these particular sheepherders, making pretty significant claims of their own.

I mean, from smacl's point of view, discerning which of the many options available are true, if any, is a task a little beyond figuring out which mobile phone deal represents the best value. The latter in itself a task beyond mere mortal beings...

theological · 13-09-2019 9:59pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

To be fair to smacl, there is absolutely no reason in the world to place your trust in some words written by some sheepherders up a hill in the middle east some 2,000 years ago on the basis of some randomers on the internet / some AR-15 totin' Texans who "love da Looord Jeeeezus" Not when there are sheepherders in locations all over the world, before and after these particular sheepherders, making pretty significant claims of their own.

I mean, from smacl's point of view, discerning which of the many options available are true, if any, is a task a little beyond figuring out which mobile phone deal represents the best value. That in itself a task beyond mere mortal beings...

My point is simple, both of us have come up with conclusions based on the data. Both of us have presuppositions and assumptions about the world we live in.

smacl isn't in some kind of superior position in this regard. We simply have different assumptions based on what conclusions we've drawn.

ChrisJ84 · 13-09-2019 10:29pm

smacl wrote: »

If we define murder as unlawful killing it becomes dependent on who's laws we're bound by. For example, some pro-life types have declared abortion to be a form of murder, others consider assisted suicide a form of murder. I personally don't consider those to be valid definitions of murder but that is not to say they couldn't be enacted as such in law. The converse is more commonly true where I'd consider lawful forms of killing to be murderous. I don't know if you followed the Asia Bibi case for example, who was sentenced to death for blasphemy (and thankfully released some years later) but had she been executed would you consider it murder? Would you consider someone involved in assisted suicide guilty of murder? Again, I think what at face value seems like a universally acceptable moral standard has exceptions and we need to account for context.

I think what you've said here is really helpful, even though I'm going to push back

. At the outset, we should both acknowledge that moral matters can be incredibly complex. But I think we also need to make a distinction between discerning whether a certain act is right or wrong (which can be incredibly difficult, with all its context) and the basis on which we make those kinds of judgements.

I make moral judgements on the basis that right and wrong are objective values established by God. I would say that it is objectively wrong to deliberately kill the unborn, sick or infirm, and objectively wrong to kill people for blaspheming. I think those statements hold true regardless of what any government legislates one way or the other.

So, whose laws am I bound by? Ultimately, God's laws which are objectively true and valid. Our country's laws should mirror them as far as possible, and in so far as they do they are truly just and good. Where they don't, I take comfort in the fact that God is perfectly just in a way that we can only approximate and that he will, in the end, right all wrongs and make all things right.

What about you? Taking the Asia Bibi case as an example, what is your basis for saying that Pakistan would have been wrong to execute her? If it was legal there, and the people involved thought it was right, why should they take account of your subjective beliefs?

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 10:33pm

theological wrote: »

My point is simple, both of us have come up with conclusions based on the data. Both of us have presuppositions and assumptions about the world we live in.

Fair enough. It's just that I didn't come to the conclusion I came to based on the same data set available to smacl. Indeed, when I had the same data set which is available to smacl (although I didn't avail of it much) I came to the same conclusion as smacl.

smacl · 14-09-2019 9:43am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I think what you've said here is really helpful, even though I'm going to push back . At the outset, we should both acknowledge that moral matters can be incredibly complex. But I think we also need to make a distinction between discerning whether a certain act is right or wrong (which can be incredibly difficult, with all its context) and the basis on which we make those kinds of judgements.

I make moral judgements on the basis that right and wrong are objective values established by God. I would say that it is objectively wrong to deliberately kill the unborn, sick or infirm, and objectively wrong to kill people for blaspheming. I think those statements hold true regardless of what any government legislates one way or the other.

So, whose laws am I bound by? Ultimately, God's laws which are objectively true and valid. Our country's laws should mirror them as far as possible, and in so far as they do they are truly just and good. Where they don't, I take comfort in the fact that God is perfectly just in a way that we can only approximate and that he will, in the end, right all wrongs and make all things right.

What about you? Taking the Asia Bibi case as an example, what is your basis for saying that Pakistan would have been wrong to execute her? If it was legal there, and the people involved thought it was right, why should they take account of your subjective beliefs?

For an objective view with the broadest consensus and acceptance on how we should treat one another, I'd tend to go with UN Human Rights treaties, where the OHCHR has an international mandate in this respect. So while Pakistani law allows for execution for crimes such as blasphemy, it is in breach of international human rights treaties in doing so, which I, and I believe most people, would hold as the higher authority.

Where this is very different from religious morality is that these rights are arrived at by consensus and are refined as our understanding of the human condition changes. So for example as we were discussing previously, where religious dogma might state that marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman, a basic human right is not to suffer discrimination based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. While at a personal level you might subscribe to a religious code of conduct, our society is a secular one.

one world order · 14-09-2019 9:58am

smacl wrote: »

For an objective view with the broadest consensus and acceptance on how we should treat one another, I'd tend to go with UN Human Rights treaties, where the OHCHR has an international mandate in this respect. So while Pakistani law allows for execution for crimes such as blasphemy, it is in breach of international human rights treaties in doing so, which I, and I believe most people, would hold as the higher authority.

Where this is very different from religious morality is that these rights are arrived at by consensus and are refined as our understanding of the human condition changes. So for example as we were discussing previously, where religious dogma might state that marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman, a basic human right is not to suffer discrimination based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. While at a personal level you might subscribe to a religious code of conduct, our society is a secular one.

And yet the UN Human Rights is awfully quiet when the evil that control the world are using the US as their enforcer to maintain the status quo of the US petrodollar.

smacl · 14-09-2019 10:11am

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is an everyday experience: IF daddy keeps on pointing to cars on the street AND he keeps on saying "CAAARRR" to his boy-in-arms whilst pointing at said car THEN the baby child will one day, to his dads's surprise and delight issue forth his first word on seeing car go by: "CAAAR".

Daddy is the one who makes it all happen. Babe-in-arms is merely the receiver. In the case of me on this thread I'm rendered but the bearer of the good news: "God exists".

Don't shoot the baby in arms. CAAAR!

Shooting babies aside, while a rather unusual metaphor it does bring up a rather interesting point. Why do most people believe in god? In my opinion, it is because the people they trust most, i.e. parents and teachers, tell them god exists from a young age. Why do those parents and teachers believe in god? Because their parents and teachers did the same for them. Put more simply, religious belief comes largely from tradition and is inherited from the society your born in. So for example, if you had been born in Pakistan, how likely do you think it is that you would 'know' god existed?

There are exceptions of course where people take to religion or change religion in later life, but this represents a tiny fraction of the nominally religious population.

Oh, and god takes rather more work than CAAARs, because the dad can say GODDD all day long but the baby still isn't going to see what's not there

antiskeptic · 14-09-2019 10:26am

smacl wrote: »

Shooting babies aside, while a rather unusual metaphor it does bring up a rather interesting point. Why do most people believe in god? In my opinion, it is because the people they trust most, i.e. parents and teachers, tell them god exists from a young age. Why do those parents and teachers believe in god? Because their parents and teachers did the same for them. Put more simply, religious belief comes largely from tradition and is inherited from the society your born in. So for example, if you had been born in Pakistan, how likely do you think it is that you would 'know' god existed?

There are exceptions of course where people take to religion or change religion in later life, but this represents a tiny fraction of the nominally religious population.

Oh, and god takes rather more work than CAAARs, because the dad can say GODDD all day long but the baby still isn't going to see what's not there

I understand your position. And its not an unreasonable hypothesis. Indeed, I think your are right to a significant degree.

However, we are dealing with a statement you made earlier which I have countered (and I think that counter unassailable).

Unless you assail (is that a word?), then the logic stands and your statement falls. And needs to be withdrawn.

14-09-2019 10:42am

smacl wrote: »

Why do most people believe in god? In my opinion, it is because the people they trust most, i.e. parents and teachers, tell them god exists from a young age. Why do those parents and teachers believe in god? Because their parents and teachers did the same for them.

Can't agree tbh, whether God exists or not is separate in some sense to why people believe in God. Every tribe has some sort of religious belief stretching back into pre-history. The need to believe in God reflects something deeply human in us.

Unfortunately cultural chauvinism explains this by basically saying primitive people didn't know any better, but that presumes they were incapable of having the same doubts and rationality as the rest of us.

Faith is faith for a reason, it's like colour blindness. I can't explain it to anyone else, you have to come to it as an individual.

one world order · 14-09-2019 12:41pm

God has given us a conscience and written morales on our hearts. It's those that have too much pride that have rejected God, thinking whatever the media tells us is right. According to an atheist we have descended from apes, which descended from fish, which came from bacteria, which came from atoms, which came from nothing. This is why an atheist needs more belief than anyone else.

tayto lover · 14-09-2019 12:56pm

Just saw this thread.
I have also lost my faith. I just don’t get all this bit about us really being born to be put on trial, which then determines if we go to Heaven or Hell. The reason is that we are told that “God knows all things, He is almighty”. So if he already knows how we’ll live our lives then why the big test? Also why make little kids suffer with cancer, leukemia etc?

It just doesn’t add up.

one world order · 14-09-2019 1:04pm

We have free will in this world. If I reject God, it's not God that made me do it, it is my decision. Death, disease etc exists in this world because we disobeyed God due to our sinful nature and therefore creation is now corrupted. While our time is limited in this world, it is minor when compared to the soul when it leaves this world.

tayto lover · 14-09-2019 1:10pm

one world order wrote: »

We have free will in this world. If I reject God, it's not God that made me do it, it is my decision. Death, disease etc exists in this world because we disobeyed God due to our sinful nature and therefore creation is now corrupted. While our time is limited in this world, it is minor when compared to the soul when it leaves this world.

So then you are saying that we have a vengeful God. Goes against a lot of teachings. Plus this “free will” doesn’t matter as He already knows how we’re going to behave, free will or not.

one world order · 14-09-2019 1:32pm

tayto lover wrote: »

So then you are saying that we have a vengeful God. Goes against a lot of teachings. Plus this “free will” doesn’t matter as He already knows how we’re going to behave, free will or not.

He is a loving God, it's in our best interests to put our trust in God rather than the material possessions of this world. It's never too late to turn back to God. He knows how we will behave, it's ultimately our decision.

Quandary · 14-09-2019 1:52pm

I would love to have a completely unshakeable belief that there is a god, but no matter what I read, who I listen to or how deeply I think about it, I just cannot accept that the Christian god, or really any "God" could exist. The reality I see every day screams to me that this life is all I will ever have and that when my heart stops beating and my brain dies then everything that is me will be gone forever. I believe the only part of me that will exist after death is whatever legacy I leave behind, be it my children or the way I have affected other people.

I used to find this quite bleak, but the older I've gotten the more I have learned to appreciate what I have and find happiness in seemingly little things.

I firmly believe that all of the worlds major religions are nothing more than cults which have grown to a large enough level that they are taken seriously.

This makes sense to me but I understand why this line of thinking is not palatable for everybody.

As long as people aren't proselytising or adversely affecting others with their beliefs then each to their own.

theological · 14-09-2019 2:00pm

Quandary wrote: »

I would love to have a completely unshakeable belief that there is a god, but no matter what I read, who I listen to or how deeply I think about it, I just cannot accept that the Christian god, or really any "God" could exist. The reality I see every day screams to me that this life is all I will ever have and that when my heart stops beating and my brain dies then everything that is me will be gone forever. I believe the only part of me that will exist after death is whatever legacy I leave behind, be it my children or the way I have affected other people.

The bolded section is interesting to me. What I'm reality convinces you that there is no God? There's a lot in reality that convinces me of the truth of the Scriptures (such as our indwelling desire for justice, or our appeals to objective morality in the event of wrongdoing, or the corruption of the world and our role in that, or the uniformity of nature in our creation that allows us to make repeatable observations concerning it in the first place).

Often I think the quality of discussion on threads like this is rather poor. Why? We never delve into our assumptions and presuppositions.

We simply assert "Yes, there is a God" or "No, it's a fairy tale" without exploring the assumptions behind our positions. That's something I've hinted at in some replies to smacl.

Quandary wrote: »

As long as people aren't proselytising or adversely affecting others with their beliefs then each to their own.

Christianity is an evangelical religion. It requires us to share it with others. It's all over the Bible. So I will prayerfully attempt to share my faith with my friends and neighbours.

That's my freedom in the same way as you can do the opposite.

Quandary · 14-09-2019 2:24pm

theological wrote: »

The bolded section is interesting to me. What I'm reality convinces you that there is no God? There's a lot in reality that convinces me of the truth of the Scriptures (such as our indwelling desire for justice, or our appeals to objective morality in the event of wrongdoing, or the corruption of the world and our role in that, or the uniformity of nature in our creation that allows us to make repeatable observations concerning it in the first place).

Often I think the quality of discussion on threads like this is rather poor. Why? We never delve into our assumptions and presuppositions.

We simply assert "Yes, there is a God" or "No, it's a fairy tale" without exploring the assumptions behind our positions. That's something I've hinted at in some replies to smacl.

Christianity is an evangelical religion. It requires us to share it with others. It's all over the Bible. So I will prayerfully attempt to share my faith with my friends and neighbours.

That's my freedom in the same way as you can do the opposite.

The discussion and attempted ratification of my opinion, or yours for that matter is of no interest to me. I have heard and read it all before in a variety of different guises, and it bores me at this point. I do not find it stimulating in the slightest, because at its base we are too far apart for their to be any fruitful result.

I do however take umbrage at people using a book that was written by the hands of men to try and make granite claims.

Just because the bible says something doesn't give it some standardised irrefutable level of general acceptance. That's just what you think and believe, and it is part of the reason why I cannot have a meaningful discussion with you.

That's not to say I am offended by you, just that prolonged discussion with you is a waste of my time.

Your faith is your own, not mine.

uck51js9zml2yt · 14-09-2019 2:29pm

Quandary wrote: »

The discussion and attempted ratification of my opinion, or yours for that matter is of no interest to me. I have heard and read it all before in a variety of different guises, and it bores me at this point. I do not find it stimulating in the slightest, because at its base we are too far apart for their to be any fruitful result.

I do however take umbrage at people using a book that was written by the hands of men to try and make granite claims.

Just because the bible says something doesn't give it some standardised irrefutable level of general acceptance. That's just what you think and believe, and it is part of the reason why I cannot have a meaningful discussion with you.

That's not to say I am offended by you, just that prolonged discussion with you is a waste of my time.

Your faith is your own, not mine.

I think you're in the wrong forum then having read your post.

Perhaps you should try the gardening or farming fora!!

Quandary · 14-09-2019 2:44pm

Charlee Yellow Redcoat wrote: »

I think you're in the wrong forum then having read your post.

Perhaps you should try the gardening or farming fora!!

Agreed.

Perhaps not on the gardening or farming, but my time is better spent elsewhere.

As a parting comment for the OP....

Losing one's faith might seem difficult at first, but having faith is not necessary for everybody to find meaning and happiness in their existence. It might be integral for some people but not all.

All the best OP.

14-09-2019 3:37pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Just saw this thread.
I have also lost my faith. I just don’t get all this bit about us really being born to be put on trial, which then determines if we go to Heaven or Hell. The reason is that we are told that “God knows all things, He is almighty”. So if he already knows how we’ll live our lives then why the big test? Also why make little kids suffer with cancer, leukemia etc?

It just doesn’t add up.

Don't confuse theology with faith though. Personally, I view the Gospels as a decent philosophy to live by, whether it is handed down from on high or not, but crap that gets added to it, and the interpretation of it, is where most of the problems start.

one world order · 14-09-2019 3:49pm

Quandary wrote: »

I do however take umbrage at people using a book that was written by the hands of men to try and make granite claims.
.

The bible is God's message to us. Between the old and new testaments it spans 1,500 years. God communicated his message to the 40 authors and it all points towards Jesus coming into this world and dying for our sins. It's the most powerful book ever written and for many people they would simply rather not know.

Leroy42 · 14-09-2019 4:17pm

one world order wrote: »

tayto lover wrote: »

So then you are saying that we have a vengeful God. Goes against a lot of teachings. Plus this “free will” doesn’t matter as He already knows how we’re going to behave, free will or not.

He is a loving God, it's in our best interests to put our trust in God rather than the material possessions of this world. It's never too late to turn back to God. He knows how we will behave, it's ultimately our decision.

I don't think you understand love if you include retribution and punishment to the other person simply for not doing want you demand of them.

If he already knows how we will behave, its not really free will.

If all mankind rejected evil would disease and accidents stop? Would no children or mothers die at childbirth?

I assume you agree that there can be no free will in heaven, as such why bother testing us on free will when it forms no part of our future?

OP, you are a nice person, kind, loving, friendly and caring because of you. Not because of a being that may or may not exist but who is unable to intervene regardless. You were a loving follower and his indifference or inability has led to you being in so much pain and anguish.

He either doesn't care or can't, neither are any use to you.

Any loving God will accept you into his heart, into the kingdom of heaven for the efforts you have made.

If God cannot be to blame for evil, then it stands to reason he cannot be the source of good. If he was the source of your goodness then he has abandoned you, not the other way around.

Leroy42 · 14-09-2019 4:20pm

one world order wrote: »

Quandary wrote: »

I do however take umbrage at people using a book that was written by the hands of men to try and make granite claims.
.

The bible is God's message to us. Between the old and new testaments it spans 1,500 years. God communicated his message to the 40 authors and it all points towards Jesus coming into this world and dying for our sins. It's the most powerful book ever written and for many people they would simply rather not know.

Which part of the Soddam and Gomorrah story points to Jesus?

Or the flood when god vengefully and without mercy murdered ever living thing on the planet?

one world order · 14-09-2019 5:10pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which part of the Soddam and Gomorrah story points to Jesus?

Or the flood when god vengefully and without mercy murdered ever living thing on the planet?

When people rejected God and lived sinful lives he rightfully punished them. A new agreement was ultimately required as we have a sinful nature, which eventually led to Jesus paying the fine on our behalf by dying on the cross.

Leroy42 · 14-09-2019 5:19pm

So why not tell them? Why summarily murder them without trial, explanation or a chance to redeem themselves.

And do you honestly believe that everyone, apart from Noah and his family, were evil?

How were those people showed about Jesus? Why are you being given a second chance but not them?

And a new agreement? So the first agreement didn't work, since God designed it all surely that's on him? But now we still have evil so this is yet another failure.

But wait, free will. Why is god getting involved at all? Those people exercised free will and he, as you claim, rightfully punished them. But now people like Hitler get left alone until they die.

one world order · 14-09-2019 5:24pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think you understand love if you include retribution and punishment to the other person simply for not doing want you demand of them.

If he already knows how we will behave, its not really free will.

If all mankind rejected evil would disease and accidents stop? Would no children or mothers die at childbirth?

I assume you agree that there can be no free will in heaven, as such why bother testing us on free will when it forms no part of our future?
.

Free will is the ability to choose ourselves. It's not God's responsibility to individually intervene and tell us to do something different as it would alter our individual decisions.

We have already seen in the garden of edan that mankind was tempted by the devil and now future generations live with the consequences. Can you see mankind rejecting evil giving there is so much evil and sin in the world?

Leroy42 · 14-09-2019 5:29pm

God created a world where everything was irredeemablly evil? Surely the fault lies with him, but it appears he blamed the living for exercising the very free will that he deemed essential.

Without trial, without a chance to explain. Children included? You think that is justifiable? You derm that merciful and just?

And why no longer? Why are clearly evil people like Hitler, abusive Priests etc not summarily executed by god in the same way to rid the world of evil.

Either he can intervene, which you believe, and thus not to intervene is his choice and he should explain why he mo longer has an issue with evil, or he can't in which case neither good or bad has anything to do with him.

Leroy42 · 14-09-2019 5:32pm

one world order wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think you understand love if you include retribution and punishment to the other person simply for not doing want you demand of them.

If he already knows how we will behave, its not really free will.

If all mankind rejected evil would disease and accidents stop? Would no children or mothers die at childbirth?

I assume you agree that there can be no free will in heaven, as such why bother testing us on free will when it forms no part of our future?
.

Free will is the ability to choose ourselves. It's not God's responsibility to individually intervene and tell us to do something different as it would alter our individual decisions.

We have already seen in the garden of edan that mankind was tempted by the devil and now future generations live with the consequences. Can you see mankind rejecting evil giving there is so much evil and sin in the world?

I understand what free will is, but god seems to have had a habit of intervening in free will when it suited him.

But if as you say it is unlikely that mankind can reject evil given how much there is then surely a just and merciful god can see that and will excuse evil.

one world order · 14-09-2019 5:33pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why not tell them? Why summarily murder them without trial, explanation or a chance to redeem themselves.

And do you honestly believe that everyone, apart from Noah and his family, were evil?

How were those people showed about Jesus? Why are you being given a second chance but not them?

And a new agreement? So the first agreement didn't work, since God designed it all surely that's on him? But now we still have evil so this is yet another failure.

But wait, free will. Why is god getting involved at all? Those people exercised free will and he, as you claim, rightfully punished them. But now people like Hitler get left alone until they die.

God did tell them. They rejected the scriptures and built temples worshipping false Gods. We have seen the Jewish people turning away from God, falling into trouble, crying out to God and God saving them multiple times.

Hitler is in hell now for eternity. Would it be better to not know God now and suffer the consequences after death?

one world order · 14-09-2019 5:36pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

God created a world where everything was irredeemablly evil? Surely the fault lies with him, but it appears he blamed the living for exercising the very free will that he deemed essential.

Without trial, without a chance to explain. Children included? You think that is justifiable? You derm that merciful and just?

And why no longer? Why are clearly evil people like Hitler, abusive Priests etc not summarily executed by god in the same way to rid the world of evil.

Either he can intervene, which you believe, and thus not to intervene is his choice and he should explain why he mo longer has an issue with evil, or he can't in which case neither good or bad has anything to do with him.

You need to remember our time on earth is a small blip compared to our total existence. Those who have done evil in this world will suffer the consequences.

Leroy42 · 14-09-2019 5:51pm

Suffer the consequences is fine by why the inconsistency? Why do some things require god to intervene but others don't. Israelites as slaves in Egypt, God intervenes.

Millions get killed by Hitler, and plenty of others like Pol Pot etc, and nothing. Unmoved.

Why has God changed?

Leroy42 · 14-09-2019 5:53pm

one world order wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

God created a world where everything was irredeemablly evil? Surely the fault lies with him, but it appears he blamed the living for exercising the very free will that he deemed essential.

Without trial, without a chance to explain. Children included? You think that is justifiable? You derm that merciful and just?

And why no longer? Why are clearly evil people like Hitler, abusive Priests etc not summarily executed by god in the same way to rid the world of evil.

Either he can intervene, which you believe, and thus not to intervene is his choice and he should explain why he mo longer has an issue with evil, or he can't in which case neither good or bad has anything to do with him.

You need to remember our time on earth is a small blip compared to our total existence. Those who have done evil in this world will suffer the consequences.

But that itself seems unjust. How one behaves in a portion of a mere blip in eternity is the basis for eternal judgement?

From what other being would you accept that from? Jesus says to forgive, yet god doesn't.

Leroy42 · 14-09-2019 6:43pm

So we can forgive but god can't?

Why would he demand we forgive each other when he doesn't forgive us?

smacl · 14-09-2019 7:09pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't agree tbh, whether God exists or not is separate in some sense to why people believe in God. Every tribe has some sort of religious belief stretching back into pre-history. The need to believe in God reflects something deeply human in us.

Unfortunately cultural chauvinism explains this by basically saying primitive people didn't know any better, but that presumes they were incapable of having the same doubts and rationality as the rest of us.

Faith is faith for a reason, it's like colour blindness. I can't explain it to anyone else, you have to come to it as an individual.

You compare faith to like colour blindness, i wonder if you mean lack of faith in the religious sense. If you think that atheists don't have faith, you might want to think again. I have faith that my wife will always have by back when I'm under pressure, just as I have hers. I have faith that my children are and will continue to be truly wonderful people. I have faith in my close friends and extended family. I have a broad faith in humanity; that people are intrinsically good until shown to be otherwise. I have faith the sun will rise in the morning and I have faith that when I die I will cease to exist in any subjective sense. I don't believe in a god or gods and I don't entirely trust those who would have me believe otherwise. What do you have faith in?

smacl · 14-09-2019 7:24pm

one world order wrote: »

God has given us a conscience and written morales on our hearts. It's those that have too much pride that have rejected God, thinking whatever the media tells us is right. According to an atheist we have descended from apes, which descended from fish, which came from bacteria, which came from atoms, which came from nothing. This is why an atheist needs more belief than anyone else.

If the atheist you're referring to is Charles Darwin, you might want to get your facts straight. Darwin was an agnostic in later life, never an atheist, and even trained for some time to be an Anglican pastor in hist younger years. As for the theory evolution, it is accepted as accurate by the majority of Christians in the world today and taught as part of the science curriculum in most schools in Christian majority countries.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-09-2019 9:50pm

one world order wrote: »

According to an atheist we have descended from apes, which descended from fish, which came from bacteria, which came from atoms, which came from nothing. This is why an atheist needs more belief than anyone else.

The evidence for evolution is right there in the fossil record and the genetic record.

The Big Bang (which was first postulated by a catholic priest) is a logical conclusion from the observed fact that our universe is expanding exponentially.

railer201 · 15-09-2019 8:36am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The evidence for evolution is right there in the fossil record and the genetic record.

The Big Bang (which was first postulated by a catholic priest) is a logical conclusion from the observed fact that our universe is expanding exponentially.

The Big Bang derived from an infinitely small amount of hot and dense matter - the seed from which the universe expands and continues to do so. Science is the first to tell us we can't get derive matter from nothing.

Christians can continue to hold on to their Christian beliefs until science comes up with the answer to where this tiny seed of infinitely hot dense matter which kicked off the Big Bang and the subsequent creation of the universe came from.

That creationists believe the universe was created in 6 days is irrelevant to the main point of general Christian belief that the universe was created and by God.

Leroy42 · 15-09-2019 9:14am

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

He cannot tolerate nor overlook sin as by definition, sin is contrary to God's nature. We can forgive each other because we're all sinners and know how hard it is not to be.

But God doesn't know how hard it is? That seems very strange that we, as humans, can empathise with others but God cannot. And you say he cannot tolerate nor overlook but he is merciful is he not? And there are plenty of examples of Jesus forgiving people. So which is it. He can or cannot?

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

Moreover if we don't forgive sins against us, it makes us hypocrites as we expect Him to forgive us when we fail. But all sin is against God and stands to be judged - and sin leads to death for the offender.

It makes God a hypocrite. He wants us to forgive but won't or can't do the same.

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

All generations sinned before Jesus was born, so to provide a means for forgiveness, God instituted a system of sacrifice as an outwardly expression of an inward desire to be forgiven and reconciled with Him. The animal sacrifices were symbolic and could not in themselves be effective to make that reconciliation. Instead in due course God sent Jesus - Himself made human - to be that sacrifice to fulfil the faithfulness of those prior generations as well those who came after. Forgiveness and reconciliation with God are now as easy as believing, confessing and repenting because that punishment of death has been served - if it is accepted by faith.

Symbolic? So God simply let people carry on sacrificing animals for nothing and didn't bother telling anyone to stop? But wearing two different types of fabric was something he needed to ensure people knew!

Leroy42 · 15-09-2019 9:24am

railer201 wrote: »

The Big Bang derived from an infinitely small amount of hot and dense matter - the seed from which the universe expands and continues to do so. Science is the first to tell us we can't get derive matter from nothing.

Christians can continue to hold on to their Christian beliefs until science comes up with the answer to where this tiny seed of infinitely hot dense matter which kicked off the Big Bang and the subsequent creation of the universe came from.

That creationists believe the universe was created in 6 days is irrelevant to the main point of general Christian belief that the universe was created and by God.

But even if science never comes up with the answers, surely the best way is not simply to make something up? What evidence will satisfy you that a God didn't create the universe, because at the moment there is zero evidence he did, only a lack of evidence of what did.

And even if it is shown that a god did create the universe, that doesn't deal with the apparent lack of input into its running. It goes back to either God can intervene or he can't. Many seem to believe in prayer, that God someones helps them get better, or get a job, or conceive, or win a match. But then seem to suggest that God can't intervene in things like WWII or aids or hunger because that would impinge on mankinds free will.

It is this contradiction that I cannot understand. Why does god seemingly intervene to save one person in a crash but let others die? And why that person?

smacl · 15-09-2019 11:51am

railer201 wrote: »

That creationists believe the universe was created in 6 days is irrelevant to the main point of general Christian belief that the universe was created and by God.

If you believe the universe was created by your god, surely you are a creationist? Just one with a different time line based on our current consensus understanding of the universe. Probably also worth noting that the big bang theory isn't the only model out there and that a number of cyclic or oscillating models based around brane theory are also considered credible by academics. That said, if you consider god responsible for the big bang, you could also do the same for a cyclical model, albeit without any actual creation event.

railer201 · 15-09-2019 12:34pm

smacl wrote: »

If you believe the universe was created by your god, surely you are a creationist? Just one with a different time line based on our current consensus understanding of the universe. Probably also worth noting that the big bang theory isn't the only model out there and that a number of cyclic or oscillating models based around brane theory are also considered credible by academics. That said, if you consider god responsible for the big bang, you could also do the same for a cyclical model, albeit without any actual creation event.

You're free to explain an alternative to how the universe was created by the God this forum pertains to.
My explanation is simple God created it. So in a nutshell what's your explanation of how the universe came about or always was.

smacl · 15-09-2019 1:04pm

railer201 wrote: »

You're free to explain an alternative to how the universe was created or always was.
My explanation is simple God created it. So in a nutshell what's your explanation of how the universe came about or always was.

Well of course you can say 'God did it' as a response to just about anything if that's what your belief system entails. It certainly seems rather more pragmatic than trying to reconcile biblical events with emerging human understanding where the two come into conflict, which sees the position of young earth creationists become increasingly marginalised.

antiskeptic · 15-09-2019 7:54pm

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

Neither the fossil nor genetic record are complete, they record the development of living things but do not and indeed cannot indicate their origin and how self-organisation could ever spontaneously occur in the first place nor survive long enough to gain a foothold and multiply. This initial origin is necessarily accepted by faith (a science of the gaps) and will continue to be until some self-sustaining, replicating organism is created under similar conditions in a laboratory which will be a step towards proof.

I think you'll find your last point will take the form of self-replicator produced in a lab involving the full application of man's intelligence (a.k.a. a serious leg up). After this, the conditions by which that self-replicator was brought about in the lab will be stated to be the conditions which prevailed at the time pond soup brought about a self-replicator.

Its a bit like the search for extra terrestial life. The presumption is that life emerged here therefore spending billions on the search for e.t. life is both sensible and justified.

ChrisJ84 · 15-09-2019 10:16pm

smacl wrote: »

For an objective view with the broadest consensus and acceptance on how we should treat one another, I'd tend to go with UN Human Rights treaties, where the OHCHR has an international mandate in this respect. So while Pakistani law allows for execution for crimes such as blasphemy, it is in breach of international human rights treaties in doing so, which I, and I believe most people, would hold as the higher authority.

Where this is very different from religious morality is that these rights are arrived at by consensus and are refined as our understanding of the human condition changes. So for example as we were discussing previously, where religious dogma might state that marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman, a basic human right is not to suffer discrimination based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. While at a personal level you might subscribe to a religious code of conduct, our society is a secular one.

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?

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.

railer201 · 15-09-2019 11:07pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

But even if science never comes up with the answers, surely the best way is not simply to make something up? What evidence will satisfy you that a God didn't create the universe, because at the moment there is zero evidence he did, only a lack of evidence of what did.

And even if it is shown that a god did create the universe, that doesn't deal with the apparent lack of input into its running. It goes back to either God can intervene or he can't. Many seem to believe in prayer, that God someones helps them get better, or get a job, or conceive, or win a match. But then seem to suggest that God can't intervene in things like WWII or aids or hunger because that would impinge on mankinds free will.

It is this contradiction that I cannot understand. Why does god seemingly intervene to save one person in a crash but let others die? And why that person?

The two, God or Science are not mutually exclusive in providing the answers to the origin of the Universe. Some quotes as follows from various well known scientists including this one from Einstein, which which would also align with my thoughts on the matter.

http://catholicstraightanswers.com/assets/RCIA-Scientists-Quotes.pdf

antiskeptic · 16-09-2019 9:21am

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?

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 also wonder about smacls "execution for crimes such as blasphemy".. The US and China..along with a host of others use execution as a means to deal with crimes "such as".

I don't know the ins and outs of any UN declaration on human rights but presumably execution is either not considered a transgression of those rights. Or China and the US abstained and a somewhat less than united set of nations ploughed ahead with their very subjective view - a view not shared by the US and China.

Suffice to say: the UN isn't in any way objective. It just that their subjective happens to coincide with smacls subjective. Making it 'objective'

Leroy42 · 16-09-2019 12:35pm

railer201 wrote: »

The two, God or Science are not mutually exclusive in providing the answers to the origin of the Universe. Some quotes as follows from various well known scientists including this one from Einstein, which which would also align with my thoughts on the matter.

http://catholicstraightanswers.com/assets/RCIA-Scientists-Quotes.pdf

I never said they were. Religion deals with peoples feelings and belief, science deals with reality and evidence. It is the religious that constantly claim that both are equal, in which case when a disagreement happens then one must pick one over the other.

What well known scientists say is not relevant, they can say that Liverpool are the greatest team in the world but they need to back that up with evidence to have any relevance. Or, are you of the opinion that since they are the ones doing the work in science and are thus experts then their word carries greater significance? Because the majority of scientists, I seem to recall, would not adhere to the biblical version of creation and thus by extension the entire legitimacy of the bible.

But again, even if it is ever proved that god did indeed create the universe, there is simply no evidence that he plays any role in it. indeed, to do so would take away Free Will, the very cornerstone of the reason of why god allows evil to happen.

An earlier poster claimed that Jesus did intervene, without giving any explanation of why he didn't to it before or since. And God only seems to intervene in some of those that believe in him, and ignores all those that have never had a chance to believe in him. A hindu, muslim or whatever. Can they be held responsible for not believing when they have never been told (take a yound child for example)? Do you think a muslim child dying and going to hell is just or merciful?

God could come out tomorrow and prove he exists. He would change the world in an instant. If people not only believed, but actually knew, that God existed the amount of evil the world would reduce dramatically. But god chooses to let innocent people suffer rather than intervene, except in those individual cases where he does intervene!

I have never heard a good reason as to why God needs to remain hidden. Free will seems to be the answer most trotted out, but then that simply shows that god is, although it is by his own decision, powerless.

Ah, but Jesus and the bible are a pretty big intervention, so why is that allowed but nothing else? Why were the people back then allowed to see direct evidence but I am not? Surely that is not even remotely fair?

Lost faith

Comments