God? you there?

[conzer16]

I used to believe in God when I was younger as I was brought up in a Roman Catholic household. I turned my back on all things religious when something rather cruel and unfair happened my life but I'm slowly realising that I found more comfort and solace in my beliefs when I was angry. I mistook that for not beliving - quite the antithesis I know - I believe that there can't be nothing there. I believe that because I want to believe it. I believe there is a God - is he the God I was brought up to believe in? I don't know - but that's exactly what I believe in now (again).

 

I go to Mass on a Sunday, bless myself when I pass a graveyard or a church, or when an ambulance passes, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

[Pit-Jr]

I see where Bard's coming from. Even if there is a god, he's left us here to live/suffer/die without any sort of intervention or appearance, so hes not a very good one. Lazy even.

[Indigo]

My idea is collaborated by evidence, and a common sense.

 

Yours is not.

 

And yes, I have the answers because I look for actual answers, not cop-out answers that religion gives us.

One thing that irritates me about this whole debate is how people such as yourself portray yourselves as the voice of 'reason' and 'common sense', while anyone who casts doubt upon atheism is looked down upon as intellectually inferior. It's arrogant, it's patronising, and it is itself based on an irrational hatred of religion.

 

Really, much of this debate isn't about the science of God. What underlies the attack of Dawkins and others on religion is an attempt to put forward their own Darwinistic* worldviews, under the guise of science.

 

Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion leads to sheer relativism - everything is permissible and nothing is meaningful. Dawkins talks on one hand of the 'selfish gene' - that we are 'robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes' - yet on the other hand, in a concession to the reality of our own personal experience of the world, he attempts to suggest that the notion of morality (a notion which we experience and intuitively accept) is somehow compatible with this. As the agnostic philosopher Anthony O'Hear says of Dawkins, 'this particular Darwinian is quite unable to explain why we have an obligation to act against our 'selfish' genes.'

 

By attempting to frame the debate as 'scientific', Darwinists disguise that this is in fact a deeply philosophical debate - one in which, if we accept the dogma of Dawkins and like, we surrender ourselves to their bitter, nihilistic worldview of which theories such as eugenics are the natural by-product.

 

 

* By Darwinism I mean the philosophical doctrine that developed from the theory of evolution - I do not mean simply the mere science of natural selection.

 

 

(Anyway, it's time I got back to writing my politics essay. This thread is too much a distraction! Apologies that I can't go into more depth.)

[Oxigen_Waste]

anyone who casts doubt upon atheism is looked down upon as intellectually inferior.

 

Well, duh.

[weeyellowbloke]

Arrgh, this is something that has been going round my head almost constantly due to my inability to believe and my girlfriends pressure for me to become a Christian.

 

Now apparantly, God does exist and is active as many Christians relate to having 'chats' with God through prayer in which they have received answers and seen miracles happening resulting in their lives becoming better. However it could be that the answers they receive are what they want or know to be the answer already, in other words ignoring the wrong course of action and taking the right one because they feel it's what God wants. However I've never had a 'chat' with God so I don't know whether this is a reality or purely psycological. Also it seems that even if everything goes wrong for a person then it's alright as it's "part of God's plan" so it seems whatever the outcome God can't go wrong. I guess that's what it means to trust in God. The other proof for God that often comes up is the yearning humanity constantly feels to be close to something greater than themselves. People try to fill this yearning with other people or possessions, but these never leave people satisfied as only a relationship with God can do that. But then I'm sure there are many people (including me) who are quite happy with there current position in life and don't find themselves yearning something greater.

 

Also, apparantly God did have a hands on approach in the past (the old testament) but we all failed him when he did that as none of us are perfect and all have sinned. Even if you have a 99% good life that last 1% will send you to hell, which God doesn't want. So he came up with a back up plan in the form of Jesus, which gave us all a choice in which by believing we could be absolved of our sins. The problem I have with that is that if Jesus was God then how could he die, because that would be God dying and God can't die as he is the begining and the end, but then if he didn't die that just ruins the whole point of him dying to free us from sin. Also Jesus apparantly cried out " My God, my God why have you abandoned me" which makes no sense if he believed he was God, how can he abandon himself, surely that would self doubt and more importantly doubt in God which is a sin, which would make Jesus imperfect.

 

Anyway, the more investigate through church and the Alpha Course the more doubts and questions come up in my mind causing me sit very firmly on the fence (perhaps leaning a little over to the no side). Science just makes far more sense for me, although that wouldn't necessarily discount a God. The only thing which makes me want to believe is that if I'm wrong, it's a hell of a price to pay.

[Tellyn]

1-0 to the atheists.

[Slaggis]

Basically, if God does exist (I'm unsure/leaning towards doesn't) then he's a complete bollock face anyway, so does it really matter?

[jayseven]

 

Now apparantly, God does exist and is active as many Christians relate to having 'chats' with God through prayer in which they have received answers and seen miracles happening resulting in their lives becoming better. However it could be that the answers they receive are what they want or know to be the answer already, in other words ignoring the wrong course of action and taking the right one because they feel it's what God wants. However I've never had a 'chat' with God so I don't know whether this is a reality or purely psycological. Also it seems that even if everything goes wrong for a person then it's alright as it's "part of God's plan" so it seems whatever the outcome God can't go wrong. I guess that's what it means to trust in God. The other proof for God that often comes up is the yearning humanity constantly feels to be close to something greater than themselves. People try to fill this yearning with other people or possessions, but these never leave people satisfied as only a relationship with God can do that. But then I'm sure there are many people (including me) who are quite happy with there current position in life and don't find themselves yearning something greater.

I too think that it's psychological. These conversations with god are a way of listening to your own conscience. I've actually tried to have a chat with the big G a couple of times, during a panic attack once too. It was calming to sort of feel like I was putting myself in someone elses hands, to believe there was some great protector making sure I'd be alright was soothing - even though really I was just tapping into that part of my mind that knew I was going to survive, that this wouldn't kill me.

 

Anyway, the more investigate through church and the Alpha Course the more doubts and questions come up in my mind causing me sit very firmly on the fence (perhaps leaning a little over to the no side). Science just makes far more sense for me, although that wouldn't necessarily discount a God. The only thing which makes me want to believe is that if I'm wrong, it's a hell of a price to pay.

 

My ex-girlfriend's flatmate managed to get her to have an interest in christianity, and as such I went with them to an Alpha Course a couple of times. It was interesting to see what sort of close-reading they were doing, and how they interpreted parts of the bible. They were shocked when I was the first person each time to see what the extract was supposed to mean, and surprised that I seemed to actually know a bit about it all. I think it's good that you went in with an open mind and weighed up evidence yourself. I think it's important for everyone to do this - specifically I worry about those brought up not to question the scripture.

 

I'm still a skeptic. I respect the Bible for the morality it's tried to teach, and I think the guidence religion offers isn't a bad thing.

 

But the scare-tactics about going to hell if you fail to believe... well that's unfair! :P

[Indigo]

Also Jesus apparantly cried out " My God, my God why have you abandoned me" which makes no sense if he believed he was God, how can he abandon himself, surely that would self doubt and more importantly doubt in God which is a sin, which would make Jesus imperfect.

Jesus is seen as 100% human and 100% God. You also have to frame those words in the light of the Trinity, which is another paradox in itself.

 

In taking all of the sins of the world on his shoulders, Jesus was in a sense detached from God, since that is the consequence of sin. Atonement is a very hard teaching to explain, and theologians have written volumes of work about it - I'd suggest you look into it more. What is key is that Jesus didn't just die, otherwise there would no hope. Instead he overcame death in the resurrection, and in doing so liberated us from our sins. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:23-24 Through accepting this free gift of grace, we can be liberated from sin (detachment from God), meaning we can live a new life in relationship with God.

 

I hope I cleared some things up for you. I'd encourage you just to keep asking questions and get stuck into the biographies of Jesus (the gospels), preferably in an accessible translation like New Living Translation or NIV.

 

I'm still a skeptic. I respect the Bible for the morality it's tried to teach, and I think the guidence religion offers isn't a bad thing.

I think ultimately though, it comes down to a choice. Read the Gospels (John would be a good starting point) and think about the claims Jesus makes. He doesn't just claim to be a moral teacher - he claims to be "The Way, the Truth and the Life" (John 14:6), he claims to be the source of forgiveness, and he accepted worship and the words "Lord, my God".

 

All those things seem incredibly arrogant things - unless it's true. There are only three options - either Jesus was a mad-man, or a liar, or he was who he said he was. If you take one of the first two options, then his moral teaching is discounted. How can it be trusted if he is a madman or a liar? It can't - it can only be trusted if you believe Jesus' claims, in which case his teaching has authority on account of who he is.

[The Bard]

Then again...a big part of Abrahmic religions is based on the idea that our minds can't actually conceive such paradoxical ideas such as that god has always existed and the one Indigo presented. Well, if I'm too fucking stupid to understand, I guess that frees my from the burden of caring.

[Indigo]

Then again...a big part of Abrahmic religions is based on the idea that our minds can't actually conceive such paradoxical ideas such as that god has always existed and the one Indigo presented. Well, if I'm too fucking stupid to understand, I guess that frees my from the burden of caring.

Actually that doesn't mean that we can't understand anything about God. It means that we can never have an utterly complete conception of God. If we could fully understand God then God would only be equal to ourselves, in which case he wouldn't be God at all.

 

Consider the verse "Now we see but a poor reflection [of God] as in a mirror; then [in heaven] we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:3

 

To understand the metaphor of the mirror, bear in mind that at the time of writing, mirrors were mostly made of bronze, and hence their reflection was lacking.

 

What is significant is that now we can "know in part", through the things God has given us that point to him and hence give us wisdom (such as the Bible [which is the inspired Word of God], and creation). Ultimately though, we cannot know fully.

[darksnowman]

Indigo, maybe I missed it, but do you believe what your typing? And if so, whats your background?

[Haden]

1-0 to the atheists.

 

lol lol no offense but the forum could go 99% to 1% in favour of atheism and the fact that someone like augustine is a christian and his arguments would still convince me of christianity.

 

Majority doesnt = right churchill was the one of the only ones to say appeasement was a bad idea pre ww2 and well look at that.

[weeyellowbloke]

lol lol no offense but the forum could go 99% to 1% in favour of atheism and the fact that someone like augustine is a christian and his arguments would still convince me of christianity.

 

Majority doesnt = right churchill was the one of the only ones to say appeasement was a bad idea pre ww2 and well look at that.

 

Hasn't the majority religion throughout history in this country usually been Christianity though rather than atheism (and still is according to the 2001 census)? In which case it would be quite easy to twist the argument majority doesn't always equal right on its head.

[Haden]

Hasn't the majority religion throughout history in this country usually been Christianity though rather than atheism (and still is according to the 2001 census)? In which case it would be quite easy to twist the argument majority doesn't always equal right on its head.

 

Im against the argument of majority means anything is right. So yeh you can twist it every way as everything has highs and lows. Im against the argument in all cases just to be clear not when it suits me lol.

[Tales]

I voted that I believe in him, but I'm not sure if he actually does exist. It's hard to believe when he never reveals himself and science and simple logic denies his existence. But I want to believe.

[Indigo]

Indigo, maybe I missed it, but do you believe what your typing? And if so, whats your background?

I do believe it, yes. I'm not trying to convert anyone or anything (as often seem to be the suspicions that surround people who talk about Christianity), I just like to engage in a dialogue about my beliefs with people who are interested. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see people come to a realisation of the truth of the gospel, but that can never be done coercively, because the evidence of God is itself not coercive. As the mathematician Pascal said:

 

"Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition."

 

My background? Well my parents are Christians, if that's what you want to know. I'm aware from this it might be easy to suggest that my faith is merely a hereditary thing, but I think everyone at some point in their life reaches a stage at which they have to make decisions for themselves. That is true not only of faith in God, but with a range of lesser things such as political beliefs. I can understand though that my testimony of my faith might seem ordinary in that sense, but I could easily point to people who have come to God with no prior history of faith or hereditary influence and who have in fact been incredible hostile to Christianity. Just look at Paul in the Bible - he killed and persecuted the early Christians, and yet went on to write half of the New Testament after coming to God and accepting Christ's forgiveness and grace.

[Paj!]

*repeats for about the 34th time on this forum*

 

My brain doesn't accept the exsitence of a being made from a book. I wish I did believe, seriously. I'm terrified of death, and if I had the blissful "ignorance" (I hesitate to use that word) of believing, I think I probably wouldn't be scared.

 

Death actually haunts me.

 

So, no. There is no "God".

 

I like the idea of "Spirit" kinda things in nature.

 

I'm also annoyed amssively by most religions. They often promote utterly pointless ideas/ideals and just monger hate (however, I am aware of the actual point of religion, as I once was a christian, so I feel I have 'an informed opinion"). What's wrong with Homosexuals? "Nothing, they're just going to hell".

 

WTF?

[darksnowman]

Ah, by background I was getting more at are you a born again Christian or a Roman Catholic?

[Paj!]

I voted that I believe in him, but I'm not sure if he actually does exist. It's hard to believe when he never reveals himself and science and simple logic denies his existence. But I want to believe.

 

As well as my simple disability to believe, that is another thing.

 

I could say that I believe that Batman is a real person, solving crimes and fighting villains. How is that any different except for the that millions don't agree with me?

[Indigo]

Ah, by background I was getting more at are you a born again Christian or a Roman Catholic?

Well from the two you'd describe me as a born again Christian. I basically believe that God seeks a personal relationship with all of us, and that through the radical power and truth of the gospel message we can be liberated and have that relationship. Hope that cleared things up for you.

*repeats for about the 34th time on this forum*

 

------------

 

I could say that I believe that Batman is a real person, solving crimes and fighting villains. How is that any different except for the that millions don't agree with me?

Surely the very persistence of the question of God and its tugging on our consciousness renders the whole batman analogy void.

[Sanchez]

Something that i've been thinking about recently.

 

By aligning myself with a religion, in most cases, am I not condemning every other religion, atheist and anyone against their morals to hell?

[darksnowman]

Well from the two you'd describe me as a born again Christian. I basically believe that God seeks a personal relationship with all of us, and that through the radical power and truth of the gospel message we can be liberated and have that relationship. Hope that cleared things up for you.

 

Sure does. Keep with it. It takes alot of (seemingly blind and foolish) faith though to keep the chin up and stick with it like.

[Haden]

Pestneb Konfucius! You come back to us now at the turning of the tide!

 

Cue Lord of the Rings music.

 

 

Yeh we theists are still gonna lose the poll lol shame odwins to mentally scarred by xpert 11 defeat to cast his 100 votes

[Indigo]

Sure does. Keep with it. It takes alot of (seemingly blind and foolish) faith though to keep the chin up and stick with it like.

Thanks. It does take faith, but it's as Jeremiah says, 'And you shall seek me and you shall find me, if you seek for me with all your heart.'

 

I do though think that my faith is rational - as one scholar puts it, "He has given evidence of Himself which is sufficiently clear for those with an open mind and an open heart, but sufficiently vague so as to not to compel those whose hearts are closed."

Something that i've been thinking about recently.

 

By aligning myself with a religion, in most cases, am I not condemning every other religion, atheist and anyone against their morals to hell?

Well from a Christian perspective you yourself are condemning no one to hell. Only God can be the judge. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7).

 

But I'd question what your conception of hell is. Hell is ultimately a state of total separation from God. From a Christian view, since God's goodness sustains all life and creation - hell then is a world devoid of God's goodness. Just as darkness is simply an absence of light, and evil is an absence of good - so it is with hell: it is a complete absence of God.

 

God made us out of love, and he seeks relationship with us, but by worshipping false gods/idols (this could come in the form not only of other belief systems but things like money etc.) we sin and hence detach ourselves from God. This then relates back to my earlier explanation of the gospel message - that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, and he who is sinless took the weight of the world and all of our sin upon his shoulders, and was nailed to the cross and died in our place as a perfect sacrifice. Then as I said before:

 

"What is key is that Jesus didn't just die, otherwise there would no hope. Instead he overcame death in the resurrection, and in doing so liberated us from our sins. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:23-24 Through accepting this free gift of grace, we can be liberated from sin (detachment from God), meaning we can live a new life in relationship with God."

 

The key in relation to your question is that we have the free will to reject this free gift of grace and this promise of new life. By doing so, we incur though the cost of our sin (which is detachment from God - hell).

 

God loves us, and wills all to be saved and have relationship with Him. He loves us to the extent that he made us in His image, and hence gave us the freedom to accept Him or not. Hell is the logical end of rejection of God.

 

I think when you approach the issue in this light, casting aside any pre-conceptions or clichéd views of hell, it seems only a logical element of belief in the personal God.