JJ Husker

Bingo. And the guys who we're racking up records doing girls pushups (for lack of a better analogy-sorry Moiraine) are now up in arms because their paper lion records are being scrubbed. Personally, there isn't much from the last 15 years, if it disappears, that is going to bother me too much. Or, maybe it's nothing...

I bet they're just painting the walls in the weight room.......remodeling....something like that.

Fair enough. I wouldn't say I'm "projecting" but I sure may be perceiving things in your posts that aren't there. I guess in your book, that would be par for the course with me.....seeing things that don't exist. ;-)

I'm not pissed off at "god" any more than I'm pissed off at Zeus. I don't believe the god of the Bible is real. I have no idea where this "hate" thing is coming from. It's misplaced. I have never seen you rail on how poor of a father Zeus or Odin or Allah or any of the "others" are. You usually seem to refer to these other gods in a manner that makes it obvious that they should not be taken seriously and that they are simply imposters. But, when it comes to the God of the Bible, the Christian God, it always seems to get a bit more personal and emotion filled. I've seen it too many times to think it some kind of coincidence. At least that's the impression I have gotten. Maybe it's just that you now harbor a bit of anger for "wasting" all that time in the church and with your Bible studies. IDK.

What is it exactly that has you so pissed off at God? It is very apparent there is much more to it than simply making a case against his existence. You can't logically hate something that you claim doesn't exist.

Lots of nonbelievers have the same hangup with faith and free will as AR Husker expressed earlier. I understand it but I've also thought about it a lot and I just cannot fathom how it would work if faith were not required and if we didn't have free will. God knowing what choice we will make before we make it does nothing to interfere with us making that choice. It is still up to us. It seems people want to put humanly and earthbound constraints on a being that exists outside of time and space and that leads them to thinking "faith is a sloppy way" to run the show or it precipates accusations that God is a worse father than they are. I guess I am not arrogant enough to think that way. Earthly suffering may seem pretty horrible to us but I really don't think God views in it the same manner that we are limited to viewing it. 60, 70, 80 years on earth is but a fleeting moment compared to eternity. And without free will we could not choose to love God. Imagine for a moment there is a supernatural being that always has been and always will be and that he created us and desperately wants us to know him and love him. If he makes it too obvious, he takes away our ability to freely love him. In that scenario we would be no more than play things that could not return his love. I think he has things set up in the only manner that will allow us to truly love him. If it were any easier, we would be little more than slaves. At least that is why I do not have the same hangup with free will, faith being required, and it not being easy to that degree.

The unicorn analogy isn't maybe the best for this discussion. It might be possible to prove unicorns actually existed as, unlike God, there is at least a chance of finding fossil records. But, since it was already offered up.....you can't prove a unicorn exists or that it doesn't exist. Failure to prove one does not mean the other is correct by default. I completely understand the nonbelievers viewpoint, that they do not have to accept that God exists based on anecdotal evidence. But let's also not act like God never provides any proof of his existence. It just isn't satisfactory for people predisposed to not believing in him or for those who will accept nothing but earthbound (empirical) proof. Sorry but the nature of God does not lend itself to that type of proof. Like I stated earlier, if that is the only proof a person will find acceptable, they are not truly serious about finding God. It seems some want it to be too easy. It takes a lot of effort to discover and know God. It won't just happen. There are billions of people convinced of his existence. I guarantee you they aren't all just pushing the easy button because they don't have some alternative knowledge. I personally have had 2 experiences that I attribute directly to the existence of God. I'm not going to bother explaining them because they are not provable or falsifiable and could easily be explained away by someone so inclined. And funny enough, that is currently (billions of years later) the same situation that science finds itself pertaining to the moment before the big bang. I will acknowledge that does not mean "God" is the answer but it also sure doesn't mean he isn't. I don't have the answers for why God doesn't make it easier for us. It doesn't seem fair to be honest. Some people are given experiences that convince them while others don't seem to have the same opportunities. I do know one thing though, if you give up on trying to discover him it will only get harder, if nOT make it completely impossible. I have not given up accepting scientific evidence and considering it but it sure seems some have given up on the possibility of God. I feel sorry for those people. I guess that is my motivation for even participating in these discussions.

Ahh, gotcha. I guess I don't think that anyone on either side really needs much help. I've gotten to the point where I just don't have the energy to try and conjure up compelling apologetics unless it's in situations and contexts where I feel like it will be taken seriously or I have personal rapport with a person that I have seen is interested. Fact of the matter is huskerboard isn't really either of those things - nobody on this board is going to convert to team Jesus because of my posts, or at least, IF that were to happen, it would probably be from being compelled by my moments of being candid and hopefully reflecting Jesus rather than from the moments of me trying to consciously convince people of an argument. If I'm honest, I became a Christian because I was an easily influenced kid in an environment conducive for the spread of cookie cutter white evangelicalism. That's not compelling to anyone, that's me being a product of my environment. But. That was 12+ years ago, and while I spent a good amount of that time in an isolated, exclusive, tribal Christian bubble, I've also spent a good amount of time, especially lately, distant from God, wandering, going through the prodigal motions, and either consciously or subconsciously trying to be done with the whole idea. And through all of what that has entailed, I can't escape the Christ. He continues to draw me back, to meet me on my own personal "road to Damascus", to awe me with wonder and hope and to chisel away at me towards gentleness, meekness and graciousness. At the end of the day, I can try to give good arguments, and I think there are plenty of them, for historical evidence in support of Christianity, or the cosmological argument, or a million other different arguments, but those aren't what my faith is founded on. I've stripped away so much bullsh#t and all that's left is encounters with a living and loving God; encounters that I can't begin to wrap my head around and definitely can't explain well. That's the only kind of thing that I think can be compelling to your typical Huskerboard poster, but that comes from above, not from me I'm just here to love God and love people, and hopefully fail a little less at both along the way. Awesome answer. Thank you. I'm getting closer to realizing that no team changing is likely to take place in this venue but I still approach it like it may happen from time to time. I would be better served to try it your way. I have the feeling I would find it far less frustrating and that I wouldnt lose my cool like I have a couple times already in this thread.

I didn't ask this question of LOMS to elicit a direct response to the question. I was more curious why he chose to post what he did which precipitated my question. I mean most people do not feel they themselves are being irrational so I was really curious why he basically said his position was, or could rightly be looked at by others, as being irrational. The definition of rationalism says, "a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response." Me deciding to zealously following the teachings of a middle-aged Jewish carpenter, believing He was God incarnate and that he resurrected from the dead definitely does not fit within the academic definition of the word I understand all that. What I don't understand is why you, widely known on this board to be a devout believer, felt compelled to point this out rather than to offer some reasons for your belief in a creator. Really, the nonbelievers don't need any help. They've already got our inability to provide satisfactory proof. I guess it wouldn't bother me coming from one of those guys but, from you? Kind of felt like you were cheering for the wrong team in Memorial Stadium in the middle of the game. IDK.

I didn't ask this question of LOMS to elicit a direct response to the question. I was more curious why he chose to post what he did which precipitated my question. I mean most people do not feel they themselves are being irrational so I was really curious why he basically said his position was, or could rightly be looked at by others, as being irrational.

Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

This statement is mostly true, I think, and would be entirely true if God was a deistic sort of God, but if we're talking about the Christian God then we are talking about millenia of intervening within space time which would naturally lead one in a rationalistic post-enlightenment culture to expect to find evidence. Oh good. You are a believer. So based on this, please post the hard evidence you have of the existence of God so we can put this to bed once and for all. I don't have any. At least not anything that couldn't just as easily be interpreted as evidence towards something else depending on a person's perspective. So does this make you and other believers irrational, since in a rationalistic post-enlightenment culture one should expect to find evidence? Or did you just want to use a bunch of long words together in one sentence with no purpose whatsoever?

This statement is mostly true, I think, and would be entirely true if God was a deistic sort of God, but if we're talking about the Christian God then we are talking about millenia of intervening within space time which would naturally lead one in a rationalistic post-enlightenment culture to expect to find evidence. Oh good. You are a believer. So based on this, please post the hard evidence you have of the existence of God so we can put this to bed once and for all.

I've been accused of being dismissive when that was not my intention or in my thoughts whatsoever. I made the mistake of pressing the "view it anyway" buttons on Moesker and Red Dead Retreads comments. They always put me in a bad mood. I will be sure to never make that mistake again. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I don't write well enough to convey what it is exactly I am feeling. But it sure seems like some people have their heads up their ass in the reading comprehension category. Or they are just looking for a fight or to be contentious. I guess I've just had enough of it for awhile.

Okay, fine....Many many innumerable amounts of people have come to the conclusion that there is no God based on lack of evidence and their own failed quest to confirm the existence of God. Happy now? f#*k! Can a guy make one simple observation without people going ape sh#t over it and assuming that is what must be thought about every nonbeliever? The reading comprehension on this board really sucks sometimes. One last parting thought. If you're looking for hard scientific evidence of God or a creator, you are going to likely be disappointed. I am amazed at the people who just can't grasp the nature of an unseen supernatural entity. You expect, nay demand, hard proof when the very nature of the being precludes hard evidence. It's like some people don't even try to understand it. I'm out.

Nah. Just didn't grow up with it. It's a tradition (or lack there of) we tend to inherit from our parents. Nothing against those who did; we are nothing if not bound by social and cultural traditions. It's really not that empty or different over here, though. We're living in the same world; that is, with each other.[/size] I probably shouldn't have said "most". "Many" would have been more appropriate. I realize that many others simply were not exposed to it or brought up in a household of belief. I'm sure there are almost limitless reasons or circumstances that lead to all our belief differences. But a very common one I have seen is with people who did believe at one time and later became angry with God. Can't say I blame many of them either. Some people have experienced some indescribably bad things that would likely drive the strongest of us away from the faith. And yet others, these very bad experiences strengthened their faith. Some friends of ours lost a teenage daughter to a brain tumor. Terribly sad tragedy. Personally, I don't think I could have dealt with it but their faith helped them through it and has not driven them away from it.

Probably going to have to let this one go. You're apparently unwilling or unable to look at it in the same manner that I do. I'm not hedging my bet. If anything, I am hedging the bet for other people. I know for a fact that God was the cause. Don't ask me to prove it or explain it any further. It is a deeply held belief of mine based on my cumulative experiences. The one God creator does not have to be the specific of any one religion. You think he does yet you don't believe in him. I find it somewhat amusing that a self professed non-believer feels compelled to tell others how they need to believe and what's what with that belief. You tried it for years, attending church, leading Bible studies, etc. and you failed at it. Somewhere along the way you adopted some thoughts or beliefs that preclude you from looking at it in the same manner I do and now you actually think you've got it right and I and others have it wrong. I can't look at this natural world and think there was not an intelligent designer. Quite frankly, I don't understand how others can. IMO, belief in a creator, one creator is easy and almost unavoidable. And that belief has nothing to do with any specific God or any specific religion. Once a person accepts that there must have been a first cause, then yes, we will attempt to explain that first cause as best we can and that is where different interpretations of God and the multitude of religions come from. Have you ever wondered why people forever have felt compelled to explain his existence. Maybe it's not as simple as the non-believers like to claim it is. Maybe it's not just pushing the easy button for things we haven't fully figured out. Maybe we do have a soul and maybe there is something in it compelling us to find God. At least that seems a lot more likely to me than a few cells crawling out of the pond and here we are today having these in depth discussions but yet having absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It has been my experience that most every person who does not believe in God has some earthly reasons for it. Many did believe at one time but became angry with God for one reason or another. Usually due to the death or suffering of someone close to them. Those are hard things to deal with and some people bail out because they can't justify those things with a loving father figure of God. They take their human limited thoughts and try to understand why a loving father would let these things happen. They think, it could be so easy if he would just do this or that or the other thing. I've just come to accept that God did not intend for it to be that easy. Sure it would be easy if he would show up weekly, 4000 feet tall riding a cloud and talk to us. If he would remove all pain and suffering from our lives. If he'd just come sit down in our living rooms and explain it all to us in person. That seems to be what so many nonbelievers think should happen. I'm just not arrogant enough to think I know better than an all powerful God and I can accept his existence even with the limits that are in place.

But mine is the only logical approach to come at it from. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be Muslim. The approach that "this IS the one true god" rests SOLELY on where you were born. That's no basis for a faith so profound. You can say you believe that God would be OK with people having an infinite number of versions of him. But Zeus is a disparate and distinct god from God, as is Jupiter, Odin, Zoroaster, etc. These are NOT versions of your god, they are wholly distinct. And they were in competition with your god, and your god SPECIFICALLY SAID that he is the "One true god." He only gave you ten rules, and this is one of them! I do agree on this, though: "...all those different names and multiple versions are simply human beings attempts at describing the same, one thing." They ARE trying to describe one thing, but it's not "god," it's Something We Don't Understand. That's where religion came from - a lack of understanding. We don't know what lightning is, what earthquakes are, what the sun is, so we make up a god to explain it. Over time, different groups of people met, they had different gods, so competition arose, "My god is greater than your god." You actually see this in the Bible, with the story of Elijah vs. the prophets of Baal. If Baal worshipers existed today, Baal would have been the one to send the lightning bolt down on the altar to consume the sacrifice, not Yahweh. History is written by the victors, so Elijah's story is told as truth. People don't like things they can't explain. Ancient man explained these things with "god." That doesn't make them right, it shows they didn't understand things. You're missing my point (and I might be missing yours). I'm not saying THIS IS the one true God. I'm not saying any version IS the one true God. What I'm saying is I believe there is only one true God. I'm not claiming the Christian God or any other interpretation is correct. I think you're a little too hung up all these pssibilities and the thought that if so many are apparently wrong then they all must be wrong. I'm not using God as an excuse for things I don't know the answer to. But I would say that maybe there are things we cannot know and things that exist and happen outside the reality our human brains can process. I would say that science is not the be all, end all that so many want to treat it like. If you can't imagine a supernatural, higher power that may have been responsible for creation, without limiting him to preconceived human understandings of "gods", we'll probably just have to let this go. You're hung up on specific renditions of a god and I'm simply stating I believe there is only one true God and maybe no religion, no person has completely or properly explained him yet. And it's possible we never will. I think science and my beliefs are perfectly compatible but I don't think science or mere human beings are capable of full and complete understanding of such an entity.

Knapp, the problem with that approach is that you are allowing for there being multiple or different gods based on how people have chosen to describe him. When you approach it from there being only one true God who created everything, you can more easily see that all those different names and multiple versions are simply human beings attempts at describing the same, one thing. I don't happen to believe that what I believe in is absolutely correct or the only way. And, I don't believe that those who believe differently are inherently wrong. But the one thing that I know, from deep in my being, is that there is one God, one creator. My Catholic Christian faith may very well not have him nailed down (no pun intended) perfectly. I realize my more specific beliefs are the result of where and when I was born and where and how I was raised. That does not force me (unlike you) to demand that one way has to be right and all others wrong. I think that one all-powerful creator would be more than capable of dealing with an infinite number of people's versions of him. So, my and other Christians way to salvation may be the belief that Jesus Christ died for us and our religions may say that is the only way. Personally, I think there may be other ways, especially for people who have never been exposed to that knowledge. I sure am not going solely rely on my lowly human brain to limit the possibilities of an all powerful omniscient being. Maybe all we can do is the best we can do and that would allow for the Christian way being correct for Christians and the Hindu way being correct for Hindus, etc. What if they're all right?

Google "inventory tracking systems" and you'll get all the information you could ever hope for.

Interesting that you'd make that statement. Which would be more difficult to create from scratch, a brass watch or the bed of clovers that it is lying on? Given enough time and the right machinery I could make a brass watch. But all the world's resources and intelligence working for a decade could not create one single, reproducing clover plant. Right. We're saying the watch has a creator, because we can replicate its creation. We can't make that argument with the clover. We can't replicate billions of years of natural selection in a decade. Wait, wut? I no understand your logic. If we know something as simple as a pocket watch has a creator, wouldn't something as incredibly complex as all the biological systems on earth be even more likely to have a creator? It's the easy way out. People that don't know God or that can't define him to their satisfaction simply say it must be random chance. See what I did there?

Sorry, I totally fail to see why this is important, or even relevant, when the only question on the table is; is this by accident or is it by design? I know you feel it is some sort of deal breaker but I just don't see it. I am absolutely convinced there is a God and that he is responsible for all of creation. Doesn't matter if some call him Allah and others call him Odin and yet others call him the spaghetti monster. People can be wrong. Peoples beliefs would have absolutely zero effect on the reality of an all powerful creator. Can you explain why you think it is important that a person has to box in their mind to some preconceived or predetermined notion of exactly which "god" it is they believe is the creator? I'm really trying to understand why you so strongly feel that human created multiple versions of God preclude the existence of one true God.

I disagree. A person does not have to decide which god or which religion to come to the conclusion that a higher power caused this all to come about. And it is a logic leap to claim that because humans have come up with multiple versions of God that there must be more than one and for some reason now we have to choose which one. What if there really is only one true God and mankind's attempt to explain him has simply left us with all these multiple "gods" and religions you trot out in every thread like this? I think there is one true God with a multitude of human attempts at explaining him. Sure doesn't mean there is really more than one, and if there isn't more than one, then it is not necessary to choose which one and it doesn't matter where you were born or the predominate religion in the area. Too many people get hung up on the constraints generated by mere human beings. Yeah, humans probably don't have it right. So what? The existence of one God, one creator, one all powerful being, is not dependent on our ability to explain him. Once a person can accept that there is one true God (however, whoever that may be) then it becomes very easy to realize we were created and not just some random accident. Then the only challenge is figuring out which religion, which explanation, which description of God a person is going to gravitate towards. Then, at that point, you are correct, it depends where your were born, how your were raised and what you were exposed to. But none of those human inspired details are the least bit important to come to the conclusion that there must be a higher power, an architect, a God. Even if there is one true God, that doesn't mean that any of man's religions is correct. God's existence doesn't automatically point to a known religion as being true. I think the fact that there are so many religions points to man having a need to create ways to explain things he does not understand. The concept of God is likely not completely understandable to humans thus, its likely no earthly religion is the truth. I wouldn't disagree with that. In fact, surprisingly, I really agree with that. Although I would modify it slightly and say that, logically, some earthly religions must be closer to the truth than others.