So why is it so hard to believe God is.....

[Blackshirts007]

Logic. Amusing coming from an argument that exists only as 'this old book says so, so it must be true. Even though there is absolutely no evidence. Just take the book at ts word, because the book says to. When you come up with something other than that kind of circle jerk logic, let us know.

 

I share the same sentiment, with one other thing.

 

I don't care what you believe in, just don't come out and tell me I'm wrong because I don't agree with your "opinion" of something...

It's not just an "old book." It was written collectively over a few thousand years by many people. What do you mean no evidence? Have you read the entire thing to have any kind of clue to back that up? First off the last thing you should do is take the bible literal, and thats why it may sound silly to you. The stories and scriptures were written in ways that the human race could get some sort of grasp on how everything unfolded. For instance the Adam and Eve passages. IMO the adam and eve story does not represent two people, a male and female, who start human life. Instead the story is an image for the entire human population. Adam and Eve are the male and female populations, and the "snake" who made them eat the "apple," are a reference to the devil and how his sin was cast upon the population. Also the bible has stated many things that science has backed up. The parting of the red sea was a real event and archaeologic proof dates it back to the exact time it was referenced in the bible. The bible made references about the earth being round while for years and years the earth was believed to be flat by "scientists." Many of the prophecies written in Old Testament were accurately predicted in the New Testament, which happened hundreds of years later and written by different people. I guess my biggest question is why would the bible even have been written if these things didn't take place? I mean it happened over hundreds of years and was written by many people.

 

I believe in the bible and what it has to say, but it is confusing and there is a lot of jargon from being written so long ago. I'm not one to judge people if they do not believe. I do find it interesting to see why they don't, or if they just haven't been introduced/cared. I also don't feel that you need to even be a part of a "Religion" to make it to heaven. I think the most important verse out of the bible is, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." It's plain and simple. If you believe in him, and that he came to earth and died for our sins then you are saved.

 

This is just my opinion, and it's what i believe, but hell i guess we will all just figure out the truth once we die anyways. I got into a big debate with a friend at work about extraterrestrial life. I first think that we are way to complex beings that we were created by dust or matter or whatever the scientific approach says. I don't think it's possible that we weren't created by a higher power. Anyways i fully believe there is other life out there, and probably lots and lots of different species. There are more planets than grains of sand on this planet. So if you are a science believer than i think it's inevitable to not think that one or more of those (hell i don't even know a number big enough) number of planets doesn't have conditions that could support intelligent life. I'm sure the government is already hiding other life, but until something legit gets leaked into the public this will also be a controversial subject. Back on topic with this other life, the bible does not reference any other intelligent life forms outside of the planet earth. The question is what does the other life forms believe or is there even such thing as religion to them? Also when we finally announce that there is other life forms out there, both intelligent and bacterial etc, it will q that science was able to create other life forms. Unless they abide by a higher creator or have there own set of beliefs.

 

Our brains are not nearly capable of imagining everything out there in the universe, we are microscopic in grand scheme of things. IDK i got way off on a tangent and i'm really tired and going to bed

[HuskerShark]

I never got on a "religious high horse." I've never enjoyed hearing people say, "That person's going to hell because they did such and such." Plain and simple, that's not their job to judge. If you feel like it's a cop-out then that's too bad. I haven't pushed anything, nor have I been on a high horse, so whatever man. Just giving you the answers you've been begging for.

 

So, making snarky comments in response to Strigori and myself isn't you being on your religious high horse, but proving a point that since we're not like minded like you, we are wrong? Ok, so you're not here to judge, but I can't save myself because a book told you so? It is a cop out, because you still haven't answered my question, and you're dancing around it like subhusker would have.

 

If I'm a Native American, who doesn't have the same system of beliefs or believe in god, am I soulless heathen, that is going to burn in hell? If you can't answer the question, then do you question your own faith, or lack the ability to answer tough questions?

 

My comments toward you were not snarky. I'm just giving you straight-forward answers to your questions. I understand how that can be misinterpreted through text.

 

The ones toward Strigori were a little snarky though, because quite frankly, his arguments in this thread have been atrocious. Refer back to knapplc's posts responding to him, and that's why I say that. You can't come on here, take one tiny aspect of Christianity and spin it in a way that favors your side of the argument, all while misinterpreting the entire concept that you were trying to use as an argument.

 

Let's put it this way: There is nothing that we as humans can do to disprove the existence of God, or to prove His existence for that matter. But when people are trying to use a ridiculous argument against my religion, why would I not respond and set it straight?

[knapplc]

It's important to note that I was playing Devil's Advocate with my answers earlier in this thread. I know Lutheran doctrine pretty thoroughly, so I don't mind giving the doctrinal answers to those questions. Doesn't mean I believe they're right, that's just the answer. I don't see a problem in giving the "party line" answer to a question, even if I don't believe that answer is correct. I was just trying to help the conversation along.

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Regarding HuskerThor's question about whether prayer works or not, the answer is pretty definitively "No." Several studies have gone to great lengths to judge prayer's efficacy. Succinctly, it has none.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[knapplc]

Let's put it this way: There is nothing that we as humans can do to disprove the existence of God, or to prove His existence for that matter.

 

The second part, the part about proving God's existence, should be the key. If God is so absent from our lives that we cannot show definitively that he exists, we are worshiping a false god. God, the great loving father, should not be so absent that he has no influence in our lives at all. He must have some influence or he is not loving. His influence should be tangible or palpable, or it is worthless.

 

In general, believing that someone "out there" is on my side means nothing, provides nothing, and solves none of the problems that affect my life. Put another way, a completely non-influential god is as effective as no god, and therefore should not be considered to be real.

[HuskerShark]

It's important to note that I was playing Devil's Advocate with my answers earlier in this thread. I know Lutheran doctrine pretty thoroughly, so I don't mind giving the doctrinal answers to those questions. Doesn't mean I believe they're right, that's just the answer. I don't see a problem in giving the "party line" answer to a question, even if I don't believe that answer is correct. I was just trying to help the conversation along.

 

I realize this, but you still showed the inaccuracies in his arguments, which is why I credited you with that.

 

Let's put it this way: There is nothing that we as humans can do to disprove the existence of God, or to prove His existence for that matter.

 

The second part, the part about proving God's existence, should be the key. If God is so absent from our lives that we cannot show definitively that he exists, we are worshiping a false god. God, the great loving father, should not be so absent that he has no influence in our lives at all. He must have some influence or he is not loving. His influence should be tangible or palpable, or it is worthless.

 

In general, believing that someone "out there" is on my side means nothing, provides nothing, and solves none of the problems that affect my life. Put another way, a completely non-influential god is as effective as no god, and therefore should not be considered to be real.

 

I could say the exact opposite and have an equally strong opposing argument. The fact that there is nothing you or anyone else can do to disprove the existence of God says just as much about His existence as your argument does of the opposite. And that is, pretty much nothing.

 

And regarding the bolded statement, that's why it is called "free will." I would not necessarily want God hovering above the earth and physically influencing our every move. That's why things such as forgiveness and grace are such a HUGE part of Christian teaching. You have the free will to make choices for yourself, and thanks to Jesus, we can be forgiven, if only we believe in Him.

[knapplc]

No, the argument isn't as remotely as effective in the opposite. You cannot have a true relationship with someone who isn't there. You cannot experience love, support and comfort from someone who doesn't exist. For those things to be tangible and real, they must be provided by a present person/being.

 

The "free will" concept is a church cop-out. I believed in it for years and years until I recognized it for what it was. It's not a viable explanation for God's ongoing absence.

 

Further, a truly loving god would never have allowed us to be in the position of needing that forgiveness. A truly loving god would forgive you without you having to jump through hoops like this.

[carlfense]

maybe walksalone was not walking alone at all, but jesus was carrying him on the beach?

^^^^^underrated post. +1

[carlfense]

Logic. Amusing coming from an argument that exists only as 'this old book says so, so it must be true. Even though there is absolutely no evidence. Just take the book at ts word, because the book says to. When you come up with something other than that kind of circle jerk logic, let us know.

 

I share the same sentiment, with one other thing.

 

I don't care what you believe in, just don't come out and tell me I'm wrong because I don't agree with your "opinion" of something...

It's not just an "old book." It was written collectively over a few thousand years by many people. What do you mean no evidence? Have you read the entire thing to have any kind of clue to back that up? First off the last thing you should do is take the bible literal, and thats why it may sound silly to you. The stories and scriptures were written in ways that the human race could get some sort of grasp on how everything unfolded. For instance the Adam and Eve passages. IMO the adam and eve story does not represent two people, a male and female, who start human life. Instead the story is an image for the entire human population. Adam and Eve are the male and female populations, and the "snake" who made them eat the "apple," are a reference to the devil and how his sin was cast upon the population. Also the bible has stated many things that science has backed up. The parting of the red sea was a real event and archaeologic proof dates it back to the exact time it was referenced in the bible. The bible made references about the earth being round while for years and years the earth was believed to be flat by "scientists." Many of the prophecies written in Old Testament were accurately predicted in the New Testament, which happened hundreds of years later and written by different people. I guess my biggest question is why would the bible even have been written if these things didn't take place? I mean it happened over hundreds of years and was written by many people.

It's not just an old book . . . it's an old book with several authors? Well, sign me up.

[KJ.]

No, the argument isn't as remotely as effective in the opposite. You cannot have a true relationship with someone who isn't there. You cannot experience love, support and comfort from someone who doesn't exist. For those things to be tangible and real, they must be provided by a present person/being.

 

The "free will" concept is a church cop-out. I believed in it for years and years until I recognized it for what it was. It's not a viable explanation for God's ongoing absence.

 

Further, a truly loving god would never have allowed us to be in the position of needing that forgiveness. A truly loving god would forgive you without you having to jump through hoops like this.

[sd'sker]

Logic. Amusing coming from an argument that exists only as 'this old book says so, so it must be true. Even though there is absolutely no evidence. Just take the book at ts word, because the book says to. When you come up with something other than that kind of circle jerk logic, let us know.

 

I share the same sentiment, with one other thing.

 

I don't care what you believe in, just don't come out and tell me I'm wrong because I don't agree with your "opinion" of something...

It's not just an "old book." It was written collectively over a few thousand years by many people. What do you mean no evidence? Have you read the entire thing to have any kind of clue to back that up? First off the last thing you should do is take the bible literal, and thats why it may sound silly to you. The stories and scriptures were written in ways that the human race could get some sort of grasp on how everything unfolded. For instance the Adam and Eve passages. IMO the adam and eve story does not represent two people, a male and female, who start human life. Instead the story is an image for the entire human population. Adam and Eve are the male and female populations, and the "snake" who made them eat the "apple," are a reference to the devil and how his sin was cast upon the population. Also the bible has stated many things that science has backed up. The parting of the red sea was a real event and archaeologic proof dates it back to the exact time it was referenced in the bible. The bible made references about the earth being round while for years and years the earth was believed to be flat by "scientists." Many of the prophecies written in Old Testament were accurately predicted in the New Testament, which happened hundreds of years later and written by different people. I guess my biggest question is why would the bible even have been written if these things didn't take place? I mean it happened over hundreds of years and was written by many people.

It's not just an old book . . . it's an old book with several authors? Well, sign me up.

the history of the bible should cause concern for any one who puts a lot of stock into it. it was translated over and over again from dead languages, changed at a king's whim, re-translated, and so on and so forth. not to mention, the christian testament was written decades after jesus' death.

and the jewish testament had an incredibly violent and vengeful god, but no hell. the christian testament creates a loving and caring god, but also hell.

[CornHOLIO]

What people rely on to make themselves feel better? Walks, you’re assuming that because you’ve not experienced God that nobody else has either. In fact, when Jesus departed he sent back the Holy Spirit. You could read about it in the New Testament, if you were so inclined. But more importantly, it’s something that people can actually experience for themselves. Oddly though, not everyone can experience it. I’m not sure why that is. The role of the Holy Spirit is quite controversial within the various flavors of Christiandom. Many church-going folks who consider themselves Christians go their whole lives without ever having the joy of being overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit. Anyway, the point I’m making is that if you had ever experienced the Holy Spirit, you’d do a 180 and be a believer. The mere fact that you haven’t—and probably won’t—does not mean that others haven’t.

 

I believe in spirituality, I believe in myself, and I have a moral compass, but I don't need some dude who got nailed to a cross to save me, I can do that myself, just fine..

 

But organized religion, and christianity is one of the most destructive organizations on the planet. For a group that bases itself on "love", its sure easy to kill some body or belittle them if they don't agree with you. Christianity forces itself upon those who do not share the same belief structures or simply do not care.

Yeah, sadly I agree with much of what you've said. (Probably not the part about being one of the most destructive organizations on the planet. LOL) In my post above I was just trying to mention what some people have the great good fortune to experience. If you can believe that--that some Christians experience the Holy Spirit--it might help explain why some Christians are so vehement in their convictions. It might also might help explain why Christianity hasn't died out over the past two thousand years.

I've actually had one of those Holy Spirit encounters. Enough to feel a surprising "Deja Vu" thing while attempting to read some of the new testament and be able to pick out the inaccuracies.

 

Still, I cannot rule out the possibility that God is both man made and also can exist through some sort of time warp.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

The second part, the part about proving God's existence, should be the key. If God is so absent from our lives that we cannot show definitively that he exists, we are worshiping a false god. God, the great loving father, should not be so absent that he has no influence in our lives at all. He must have some influence or he is not loving. His influence should be tangible or palpable, or it is worthless.

 

In general, believing that someone "out there" is on my side means nothing, provides nothing, and solves none of the problems that affect my life. Put another way, a completely non-influential god is as effective as no god, and therefore should not be considered to be real.

 

knapp- This entire post is simply your opinion. That is fine and you're sure entitled to your opinion but it would seem that you are trying to present your opinion as the way things really are or how things really should be. I guess I don't presume to attempt to tell God how he should or should've done things. I just accept things the way they are. If we could concretely prove his existence or if he were as present in our lives as you feel he should be, just imagine how game changing that situation would be. Sure it would make a hell of a lot of things much easier but I don't see how, in that situation, we could have free will or freely choose to love him and I think those two issues are vital in the grand plan.

[JJ Husker]

No, the argument isn't as remotely as effective in the opposite. You cannot have a true relationship with someone who isn't there. You cannot experience love, support and comfort from someone who doesn't exist. For those things to be tangible and real, they must be provided by a present person/being.

 

The "free will" concept is a church cop-out. I believed in it for years and years until I recognized it for what it was. It's not a viable explanation for God's ongoing absence.

 

Further, a truly loving god would never have allowed us to be in the position of needing that forgiveness. A truly loving god would forgive you without you having to jump through hoops like this.

 

It looks to me like you are now claiming that God does exist. The black bolded statement is true. I can absolutely guarantee you that there are thousands- no millions of people who experience love, support, and comfort from God. I watched both my parents and a grandmother die and there is no doubt whatsoever that they were comforted by God's love. I have also seen that comfort in a teenage girl, and her friends and family, who died of brain cancer. That one was actually tougher on me than losing family members but it is simply amazing the courage and strength their beliefs provided. You can use any argument you want about how you feel things should be but it is absolutely real for many people. The fact that some other people haven't experienced it, I believe says a lot more about those people than it does to disprove anything about Gods existence. You can also claim it is a false sense of comfort if you wish but there is no questioning the comfort and strength it provided whether real or imagined. Sometimes there is absolutely no difference between perception and reality.

[knapplc]

 

 

The second part, the part about proving God's existence, should be the key. If God is so absent from our lives that we cannot show definitively that he exists, we are worshiping a false god. God, the great loving father, should not be so absent that he has no influence in our lives at all. He must have some influence or he is not loving. His influence should be tangible or palpable, or it is worthless.

 

In general, believing that someone "out there" is on my side means nothing, provides nothing, and solves none of the problems that affect my life. Put another way, a completely non-influential god is as effective as no god, and therefore should not be considered to be real.

 

knapp- This entire post is simply your opinion. That is fine and you're sure entitled to your opinion but it would seem that you are trying to present your opinion as the way things really are or how things really should be. I guess I don't presume to attempt to tell God how he should or should've done things. I just accept things the way they are. If we could concretely prove his existence or if he were as present in our lives as you feel he should be, just imagine how game changing that situation would be. Sure it would make a hell of a lot of things much easier but I don't see how, in that situation, we could have free will or freely choose to love him and I think those two issues are vital in the grand plan.

 

Think outside your box. It's not hard, you just have to want to try.

 

It's demonstrably not an opinion. God is not here. You can no more show me God than I can show you a unicorn or a dragon. God is not present, he is not palpable, you cannot carry on a conversation with him, shake his hand, exchange phone numbers with him. God is no more present in your life than Mr. Spock, and that is not an opinion, it is a fact demonstrated over the last 2,000 years (all time, actually, but we'll stick to Christianity's existence) of God not being here.

 

Show me God. Show me, today, with verifiable proof, that God is amongst us right now. Then your point has veracity.

 

When you can't - and you can't - then you must start thinking outside that box you've put yourself in. If you choose not to, if you choose to continue to pretend that someone with a less demonstrable existence than the Loch Ness monster is actually real, that's on you. That is an opinion, unsupported by fact, unsupported by evidence, unsupported by anything other than a group of people who collectively believe the same thing.

 

But collective belief is not of itself a proof - many, many people collectively believe that a man comes down their chimney every Christmas night and give them presents, but sadly, that man is not real. Collective belief is simply a group of people who think the same about something. It is not proof of anything.

[knapplc]

No, the argument isn't as remotely as effective in the opposite. You cannot have a true relationship with someone who isn't there. You cannot experience love, support and comfort from someone who doesn't exist. For those things to be tangible and real, they must be provided by a present person/being.

 

The "free will" concept is a church cop-out. I believed in it for years and years until I recognized it for what it was. It's not a viable explanation for God's ongoing absence.

 

Further, a truly loving god would never have allowed us to be in the position of needing that forgiveness. A truly loving god would forgive you without you having to jump through hoops like this.

 

It looks to me like you are now claiming that God does exist. The black bolded statement is true. I can absolutely guarantee you that there are thousands- no millions of people who experience love, support, and comfort from God. I watched both my parents and a grandmother die and there is no doubt whatsoever that they were comforted by God's love. I have also seen that comfort in a teenage girl, and her friends and family, who died of brain cancer. That one was actually tougher on me than losing family members but it is simply amazing the courage and strength their beliefs provided. You can use any argument you want about how you feel things should be but it is absolutely real for many people. The fact that some other people haven't experienced it, I believe says a lot more about those people than it does to disprove anything about Gods existence. You can also claim it is a false sense of comfort if you wish but there is no questioning the comfort and strength it provided whether real or imagined. Sometimes there is absolutely no difference between perception and reality.

 

It looks to you like God actually does exist, so it's not hard to see why you'd choose to believe something that I'm very much not saying. The bolded statement is not true in the least. I watched my mother die as well, and she no more was comforted or saved by God from a withering death than anyone else. She still died, in a quite tragic way, and she did not deserve to die that way, then, in the least. She deserved much more life than she was given, and while she believed in God to the day she died, God did not provide anything for her - he couldn't, because he's not real.

 

The comfort you talk about comes from the person, not from "god." A person can convince themselves of something that is not true (hint, hint) to such a degree that the very thought of its truth provides comfort. But that's not external, it's internal.

 

Amazing courage and strength exists in every human. It does not require an external source, a "god," to exist. It's part of our genetic makeup, one of the key components that has allowed our species to continue and thrive on this planet.

 

Further, that same comfort of God's love you claim was given to the people you speak of can be found all over this world, from any number of gods, and is not exclusive to the Christian God, or that belief. Muslims around the world, dying in similar circumstances to your family's and my mother's, have experienced similar comfort from Allah. Buddhists have experienced the same comfort from their beliefs. Hindus are comforted by Shiva. The list goes on and on. Were God (the Christian God) to be unique, there would have to be some difference in the comfort these people, whom you believe worship false gods, receive than the comfort our families received. But it's not different at all. It's the exact same experience, same descriptions, same feeling.

 

It's funny that you accuse me of now claiming that God does exist, because your last sentence seems to hedge your bet that, even if God doesn't exist, the "perception" of God is just as comforting. I totally agree with that, and that's one of the reasons I think Christianity is a worthy and meritorious thing despite no longer being Christian. If your parents and grandmother were comforted by their belief, where is the harm in that? None whatsoever that I can see. Same with my mother. It's the reason I don't in any way try to convert my family to my current belief - they are very happy in their belief, it hurts nobody, and it adds to their lives. So fine, let them believe what they want.