GOD EXISTS

Michael Everett wrote:Just a minor side-track.
If there is a (singular) God, why are there so many religions, with some spawning off others (Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam being one example)?
If there is a (singular) God, why are there so many polytheistic religions?
If there is a (singular) God, why have so many wars been fought in his/her/it's name(s)?

This is a duh,(no offense) the Devil. If Gods religion was the only religion then there would be no-one following the wrong religion. the false religions are to trick people into straying away from God, this is a basic for anyone whose read anything on religion. Even (or especially Islam) which claims Christ is "just a profit" and professes the "Imom" to be the "true savior". Supposedly, what the terrorists are trying to do is set up discord in the world to force him to come in and save the world. The Koran lists what he will do & what he will do to Israel and the Jews. Trouble is, what it lists as "the savior from God" as doing, the bible tells of someone doing the same things, but there he is called the "Anti-Christ" the profit of Satan. so Islam and Christianity are opposite religions by definition. (of-course to me, one of these things he is said to do is to make an agreement with Israel but then destroy Israel by going back on his word and betraying them - yea real "holy" man there...)

Michael Everett wrote:If God designed humans, why was the job done so shoddily? (I speak as someone who needs glasses and has several members of family who have suffered things like appendicitis, inexplicable kidney failure and the sudden-death of a major nerve in the leg... not all the same person, fortunately)...

Not Gods design, we were designed perfect but became corrupt our-self. Not his fault, he gave us the choice and we chose poorly.

Michael Everett wrote:...too busy...to worry about one such as myself...

of-course not, would you be too busy to look after your child? God is everywhere and concerned over all of us, we are all part of him. our conciseness stems from his-own.

Michael Everett wrote:Nevertheless, any God that condemns people to Hell simply because they don't follow a narrowly-defined highly-restrictive dogmatic path is a God that I will stand against.

(setting aside the argument of whether or not God does exists and taking that as an assumption) This world, this universe, everyone in it, stems from God. It all belongs to God and was made by him, for him. Taking that, It is all Gods home, his House. If someone comes to live with you, in your house, you have rules that they have to obey or they get thrown out. if you go to work early and hated, say, rap & your house guess constantly likes to turn up rap at 1:00 every morning and refused to stop, would you say "oh well you can do what ever you want - it's your right". NO, you'd say "GET YOUR $#!% OUT OF MY HOUSE". Worse, If they were a pyromaniac who likes to light matches and throw them lit on you carpet to see if you'll put it out, would you be OK with that or toss them out the door?what makes you think that you can live in Gods house without following his rules? There are some who think that "Hell" isn't some cave full of fire and chains but a separation from God, no longer being part of God. If we are an extension on him, part of him, and then find ourselves no-longer connected to him...think about someone who lives in a house full of family. constant noise, constant companionship, even when they are in a room by themselves, they can still hear the others in the other rooms, know that their there, even when not consciously thinking of them. One day they go out and something happens, a disaster at the house & everyone else is killed or the person is lost elsewhere & unable to come back, whatever, but that person is now alone, in a house with no-one else. The silence would be defining, the lack of other presences would be stifling. like someone use to 1 Atmosphere of Air pressure suddenly thrown into complete Vacuum, even though you don't notice the pressure, it's there and the loss, & knowledge of that loss, is painful. The same would be true of anyone who was use-to the presence of God (even if they were not consciously aware of it), then it's suddenly & permanently gone!

Those teachings do not apear to foster individual and societal growth. All those others you cite with the exception of Torah do not capture the balance between individual responsibility and pursuit of our purpose. Buddha taught a denial of the world not to make it better. Islam might have praiseworthy elements but the imperative to subjugate the entire world under Shari'a will place unbelievers in a state of second class citizens. Hindu's justify an acceptance of place/caste that makes European aristocrats look like egalitarians. The Sikhs are not far removed from many Christian concepts and beliefs. I would not be surprised to find Sikhs in Heaven. Shintoism is an attempt to describe the workings of the world with spirits and ghosts.

All those other religions (besides Judaism and perhaps Sikhism) do not call for mankind to act as stewards to this universe God created. Those other religions disregard the importance of all human beings to a remarkable degree. Societies based Shari'a, Hinduism and Buddhism tend to stagnate. Those teachings then are not very good guides to growth. Christianity has fostered growth in people and societies. The track record is not perfect but better than the rest.

Spacekiwi wrote:And what then of the torah, the Quran, the Bayan, the teachings of buddha, the bahvad gita, sikhism, shintoism, and all the other religious texts?

PeterZ wrote:Science describes what exists in our universe, The Bible tells us why it exists.
-]

Very well then. Catholicism or protestant? Anglican? Mormonism? Baptist, presbytarian, orthodox, asyrian, puritan, metyhodism, luthertism, Jehovahs witness? which is the right branch to follow? Which creeds and verses are the ones that MUST be followed, and which don't need to be followed to get into heaven? And what of old testament vs new, and the other books of christianity that arent a part of these two collections, like the dead sea scrolls?

And do you go to heaven for making a statue of jesus, as the maker has made a graven image? Am I doomed to hell, for working on saturday and sunday, so I work on the sabbath? What about all those who swear? To be sent to hell for swearing? And the one we've all broken, do not covet/desire?


So, I've broken 3, if not 4 or more of the commandments right there, so purely on that, am i to be sent to hell?


You begin to see the problem here?

PeterZ wrote:Those teachings do not apear to foster individual and societal growth. All those others you cite with the exception of Torah do not capture the balance between individual responsibility and pursuit of our purpose. Buddha taught a denial of the world not to make it better. Islam might have praiseworthy elements but the imperative to subjugate the entire world under Shari'a will place unbelievers in a state of second class citizens. Hindu's justify an acceptance of place/caste that makes European aristocrats look like egalitarians. The Sikhs are not far removed from many Christian concepts and beliefs. I would not be surprised to find Sikhs in Heaven. Shintoism is an attempt to describe the workings of the world with spirits and ghosts.

All those other religions (besides Judaism and perhaps Sikhism) do not call for mankind to act as stewards to this universe God created. Those other religions disregard the importance of all human beings to a remarkable degree. Societies based Shari'a, Hinduism and Buddhism tend to stagnate. Those teachings then are not very good guides to growth. Christianity has fostered growth in people and societies. The track record is not perfect but better than the rest.

Actually I don't. Jesus lived, suffered and was raised from the dead to forgive mankind of its sin. Sin being defined as separation from God. What does this mean? I believe that His life, death and resurrection changed the fundamental nature of the world as it relates to God. Jesus created a link to God that was not apparent or available to humanity before His Resurrection. Now that it is there for us, loving God and following His Commandments as described in the New Testament allows us to use that link and live our lives consistent with the reason we were created in relationship with God.

We are all sinners since we are separated from God. To Love God is to reach out to him and seek a connection and use the link Jesus created to form a relationship. To treat our fellow men as we ourselves would be treated is to live this way because He asks this of us. In doing this we accept His governance of our lives.

As Jesus said these are the Greatest Commandments. I believe they are sufficient. Every other religion that does not have these two elements, does not sufficiently prepare one to both accept God and follow His basic rules. If we choose not to follow these rules, we choose not to enter His Kingdom.

These basic rules are meant to be expanded upon. That's why he gave us free will. We must do our best to embrace his basic rules into ways that are consistent with His other Revelations. Of course, like in all things humans can go overboard. The expansions can get to such detail or elaboration that the core reasons for expanding is lost. Catholicism tends to focus on works to prepare oneself for receiving Grace and relying on clergy to guide one is the works performed. Mormonism has some interesting beliefs about cosmology and works required for salvation. Do believers in either bar themselves from God's Grace? If they Love God and treat their neighbor's as they would be treated, they have not barred themselves from God's Grace. Even if they are wrong in everything else beyond the basic core and sufficient elements found in the two Great Commandments.

If one believes one will receive a world to rule as a reward in the afterlife but lives a life consistent with Jesus Greatest Commandments, one will enter the Kingdom of God. That Kingdom might not be what is expected, but it will be God's Kingdom. Heck, I doubt the Kingdom of God will be what I expect. What words of men even those words that are divinely inspired can hope to capture the essence of perfection?

Spacekiwi wrote:Very well then. Catholicism or protestant? Anglican? Mormonism? Baptist, presbytarian, orthodox, asyrian, puritan, metyhodism, luthertism, Jehovahs witness? which is the right branch to follow? Which creeds and verses are the ones that MUST be followed, and which don't need to be followed to get into heaven? And what of old testament vs new, and the other books of christianity that arent a part of these two collections, like the dead sea scrolls?

And do you go to heaven for making a statue of jesus, as the maker has made a graven image? Am I doomed to hell, for working on saturday and sunday, so I work on the sabbath? What about all those who swear? To be sent to hell for swearing? And the one we've all broken, do not covet/desire?


So, I've broken 3, if not 4 or more of the commandments right there, so purely on that, am i to be sent to hell?


You begin to see the problem here?

Spacekiwi wrote:Very well then. Catholicism or protestant? Anglican? Mormonism? Baptist, presbytarian, orthodox, asyrian, puritan, metyhodism, luthertism, Jehovahs witness? which is the right branch to follow? Which creeds and verses are the ones that MUST be followed, and which don't need to be followed to get into heaven? And what of old testament vs new, and the other books of christianity that arent a part of these two collections, like the dead sea scrolls?

And do you go to heaven for making a statue of jesus, as the maker has made a graven image? Am I doomed to hell, for working on saturday and sunday, so I work on the sabbath? What about all those who swear? To be sent to hell for swearing? And the one we've all broken, do not covet/desire?


So, I've broken 3, if not 4 or more of the commandments right there, so purely on that, am i to be sent to hell?


You begin to see the problem here?

*Hypers in one last time*

Spacekiwi, Michael Everett, and other Agnostics/Atheists:

Give it up, folks. We are arguing past each other, for we are coming from a totally different perspective than Peter or Mad-4A.

We take it as a given that the existence of "God" is a subject for discussion, and that any and all religions purported to have come from "God" are also subject to scrutiny and doubt. We do (or at least, try not to) take things on 'faith' and find the seach for 'truth' a neverending (and sometimes frustrating as hell) voyage.

PeterZ and Mad-4A are coming from Faith, an unshakeable (unless shaken from within, IMHO) belief that what they have learned is the Truth and that Truth brings order and serenity to their lives (under the benevolent gaze of God). That some do not accept that is something they have trouble understanding, since it is obvious to them and I'll give them credit for trying to see why it is not obvious to us--albeit they are trying to make it so.

And what the heck; I don't begrudge them that in the slightest, and no one should.

It is only when I'm told this is a "Christian" nation, or that imposing religious beliefs (Creationism in Science class, distributing Bibles in public schools) is to be accepted that I put on the brakes and start growling.

But all we 'non-believers' can do is make sure that the evidence we do know is available to those who inquire and keep Sagan's candle glowing.

But again, discussions like these point out that we are talking past each other, because we are coming from two completely different mind-sets.

*Hutch hypers out*

I've read the entire thread from the beginning. Seen agnostics, respectful believers, a single (in my opinion) zealot, the works. But I've not seen a single outspoken atheist.

I read somewhere that in the US, "atheist" was a terrible brand to bear, and most people would avoid it like the plague, even if they considered themselves atheists.

Well now. I'm an atheist myself. Made the choice when I was about 13.

Help me here. Why is atheism treated so? Why is my choice to be and atheist so horrifying to some people? I simply don't get it.

pokermind wrote:Ugh scientific atheism in the USSR of the 1930. Scientific racism of the Nazis in the 1930s. The 'White man's burden' of the late nineteenth century and twentyth century. All based on Charles Darwin's theories.

Poker

Heya Poker. Was this post of yours serious, or were you being sarcastic? Because I can't really tell.

And for the record, Darwin is in my top-ten list of greatest persons in history, right there with Newton, Euclid, Einstein and a few others.

PeterZ wrote:If you recall my earlier posts, the core element of my belief derives from the primal cause of the Big Bang. That cause somehow transitioned between the absence of everything and all the energy in our universe. While science is the cat's meow for describing our universe, it has no useful referents in the period I am discussing. The very physical laws that allow science to predict and describe the universe do not exits.

In that context one can only know anything in the way I used the word. Of course there is no proof. There is NOTHING before the Big Bang.

Actually we don't know that. There are competing models that disagree on that and the test data is still inconclusive on which are right.


So once again the honest thing to do here is say "we don't know yet"... not make up magical fairy tale explanations to fill in the gaps. The God of the Gaps always gets diminished with every gap filled by science. And this one will get filled eventually too. And then you'll have to find some other things science hasn't gotten around to explaining yet and declare "Aha! That's because God!"

MAD-4A wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:Just a minor side-track.
If there is a (singular) God, why are there so many religions, with some spawning off others (Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam being one example)?
If there is a (singular) God, why are there so many polytheistic religions?
If there is a (singular) God, why have so many wars been fought in his/her/it's name(s)?

This is a duh,(no offense) the Devil.

Who... being as or more powerful than God... cannot be stopped by God?

peke wrote:I've read the entire thread from the beginning. Seen agnostics, respectful believers, a single (in my opinion) zealot, the works. But I've not seen a single outspoken atheist.

I read somewhere that in the US, "atheist" was a terrible brand to bear, and most people would avoid it like the plague, even if they considered themselves atheists.

Well now. I'm an atheist myself. Made the choice when I was about 13.

Help me here. Why is atheism treated so? Why is my choice to be and atheist so horrifying to some people? I simply don't get it.

One entirely plausible reason:

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavio ... -believers

Hutch wrote:
*Hypers in one last time*

Spacekiwi, Michael Everett, and other Agnostics/Atheists:

Give it up, folks. We are arguing past each other, for we are coming from a totally different perspective than Peter or Mad-4A.

We take it as a given that the existence of "God" is a subject for discussion, and that any and all religions purported to have come from "God" are also subject to scrutiny and doubt. We do (or at least, try not to) take things on 'faith' and find the seach for 'truth' a neverending (and sometimes frustrating as hell) voyage.

PeterZ and Mad-4A are coming from Faith, an unshakeable (unless shaken from within, IMHO) belief that what they have learned is the Truth and that Truth brings order and serenity to their lives (under the benevolent gaze of God). That some do not accept that is something they have trouble understanding, since it is obvious to them and I'll give them credit for trying to see why it is not obvious to us--albeit they are trying to make it so.

And what the heck; I don't begrudge them that in the slightest, and no one should.

It is only when I'm told this is a "Christian" nation, or that imposing religious beliefs (Creationism in Science class, distributing Bibles in public schools) is to be accepted that I put on the brakes and start growling.

But all we 'non-believers' can do is make sure that the evidence we do know is available to those who inquire and keep Sagan's candle glowing.

But again, discussions like these point out that we are talking past each other, because we are coming from two completely different mind-sets.

*Hutch hypers out*

I would agree with most of your post. Religion is a predominantly matter of faith. However, I don't consider the question of God's existence as purely a matter of faith. God's existence is a metaphysical question but not a religious one.

As I posted before, science describes the Big Bang as the beginning of everything. Before the Big Bang as Spacekiwi so eloquently phrased it, everything was absent. Everything including the laws that governs science's ability to predict was also absent. The change from the absence of everything to containing all the energy in the universe was caused by something. By definition, then, science cannot answer the question of what that primal cause was. The answer has to be inferred from whatever evidence is available.

If absolute proof that sheer chance was the cause of all creation, then I would have to conclude that I am wrong. I am not sure how that would impact my moral views, but I doubt I can remain religious.

Absent that absolute proof, the next question is religious and does involve faith. Do I accept that unless my Creator appears before me, I should act as if my life has no objective purpose? Or do I search for that objective purpose without His direct intervention, knowing that I cannot answer this question definitively?

Having sat uncomfortably between the horns of that dilemma, I decided accept the belief that there is an objective purpose after all. The rest is just as you describe, Hutch. It is a matter of faith directing one's conscience to how to best fulfill that objective purpose.