jj:I guess I'm kind of curious as to whether others are fighting this battle and what you have done or are doing about it. What goes through your head when you contemplate life and its meaning and the possiblity that there really isn't a God?
sg:and in one sense...
...we are not done until there is nothing left to smash
jj:are you saying the very act of smashing is what helps us grow and brings us a stronger and more well-defined faith? I have thought along these lines but have a nagging suspicion I'll be long in the dirt before there is nothing left to smash.
sg:then i would simply find a way to smash that nagging suspicion, as well
jj:Easier said than done, Sirg. That one just won't go away. I've often thought a lifetime on the planet just isn't enough. You're finally starting to get a clue and you're done.
i think the truth of a lot of things depend a lot on who and what and why we think we actually are
and then all the many ways we interpret and re-interpret our experience alone and together
i think it helps to get beyond the myth by also using the wisdom of the myth itself
and so in a very classic sense...
our faith is described like clay, or mud, sand, glass, stone
and if we find an aspect of ourselves to be a cracked pot
we need not be afraid to smash it to smithereens
again and again and again
til the end of time
if we must
there is a new level of liberty in knowing that "god" doesnt mind you playing with tools and blades here
this is the garage
this is the studio
this is the shop
within is each of us is some sort of domain where our view of god and ultimate truth is simply brutally tested
and our faith IS the shape of our own final answers
like the gold that is purified seven times
i think it can be a joy to learn that we truly can be gods of our own sense of faith
even though our "final answer" has just stubbornly moved on us yet again
a "god" that remains is the ultimate bounds of our concern and cognition and selfsense, among other things
it is part of why they say "god is now both father and son in one"
because our own sense of self changes
it like being given a key to a furnished room we have never really seen
we have a "work shop" where we refold and refold the steel of our own person cutting edge of experience
to the depths and degrees to which we are brutally honest with many new layers of things
we will have truer and truer interpretations of all our experiences
of course, any new thing can come as "christlike" to us at first
which is like saying..."the birth of a baby new belief system..."
any new level of belief can come as a surprise and blow your mind
some even sit you down and confuse the heck out of ya
some new belief systems are tragically forced upon us
there are a lot of disciplines of being brutally honest with the many layers of this aspect of "god"
...art forms and time-tested and peer-reviewed schools of practice
that better allow us to approach an occasion of "belief-change" with more options
(like being given a new shop full of tools)
i would even go as far to say that practices of deeper levels of ordinary self awareness
bring us closer to what some of the ancients described as "holy temples and palaces and kingdoms"
if the "father's house" is our "inward human nature"
the skeptical objective aspect of ourself is one of the "many mansions"
also, this sense to unfold and penetrate all the layers of darkness and deception
is more or less an expression of our erotic, or masculine-love drive to fix and build and improve
which is why its classically associated with fatherhood and sonship and brotherhood and ascension
as it was interpreted then
today, i might say it represents the basic evolutionary impulse to build and climb
anyway, i always think things gets much more interesting where the topics of science, sexuallity, and spirituallity merge
So I think the only logical view is that of agnosticism. There's simply not enough evidence to come to any other sort of logical conclusion, is there?
None that I can see, George. I don't think it would be all that difficult for an all-knowing and all-powerful God to make himself known should he so desire. And I suspect he would do so unequivocally. Secrecy is supposedly the key to the devil's power not God's, correct? For example, if there really was a worldwide flood, why would he obliterate the fossil record and sedimentary deposits which provide evidence of his action? Come to think of it, I can't think of any action attributed to God, not one thing, that doesn't require a leap of faith. Jeesh, there's barely any evidence that a man named Jesus even existed, much less raised people from the dead.
God proclaims he wants to be known; seek and ye shall find. Remember "to know that you know that you know?" I've found the closer I look the tougher it is to see. The more I want to believe the less I can. After years of studying and trying to know God, I'm no closer now than I ever was. In fact, I may even be farther away. Seeing through a glass darkly? That's not a good position for a child of God to be in, nor a reasonable place for a spiritual Father to commit his children.
Oh, and I keep seeing Pascal's Wager illustrated here. Well, recently I read where that might not be such a reliable test to consider/prove God's existance as much as many people think.
Suppose, in using that wager's model, that instead of the decision between simply God or no god, we have the decision between the Christian God, the Muslim one, the Hindu selection of deities, the Shinto ones, etc. The usage of the Pascal's Wager in this sense is just as valid, since you can't accept one god and not reject another, since just about all religious beliefs require that you believe in their god exclusively, to the rejection of all others. Heck even between some denominations of certain religions, you have to accept denomination A, to the exclusion of denomination B.
So, applying Pascal's Wager to this now more complicated set of selections, it no longer is a simple 50-50, 'either there is a god or not' choice, but now the odds are highly against you selecting the right one.
An inverse Russian roulette, as it were. :blink:
And yet there is not any more evidence for the theistic choices being more valid than the non-theistic choice. ... So why, when many people are looking beyond the doctrine for proof of God's existance, is there the need for this fear mongering suggestion of "Well, if there really is a God, and you choose that there isn't, ..... "
Why cannot we have irrefutable proof of His existance? Why is that a sign of immoral sin and rebellion?
If I were to do that, a purely hypothetical exercise on my part, I would be required by the rules of logic to reevaluate every principle I base my life on.
Perfect, Mo! An concise description of my current mental state and why I felt compelled to start this thread! The discussion is really about where to go from here. I long ago gave up on TWI but apparently not so much on a lot of the underlying principles. I was involved with offshoots like CES for quite some time and was even an elder in the PCUSA for awhile. I just can't get it to work.
I suppose the topic could be presented another way: If we assume there is a God, how do we learn about Him? It seems obvious to me revealed religion, e.g., the bible, isn't cutting it. Whatever the all-truth might be, the comforter doesn't seem to be leading us to it. Well, maybe a few special folks but I don't see it as a general rule and certainly not for me.
I'm trying to stay light about it but deep down its pretty painful. Reevaluating the principles you base your life on is never easy. And folks here on GS have gone through it and aren't afraid to talk about it. Pretty cool!
Well, I'm a little reluctant to say this, but I think, from the sound of your posts, that your "believer" days are all behind you. Kinda like losing your virginity, you can never go back to blissful ignorance you may have once enjoyed (or tolerated anyway). Once you start asking the kind of questions you're asking, the cat is pretty much out of the bag. Religion doesn't seem to have any really satisfying answers to basic questions like that.
I know personally, when I start to drift towards the agnostic mindset again, I kept expecting the faithful around me to come up with some really compelling reasons why God and The Bible were "it". Those reasons never came. In fact, I was really shocked at how paltry and insignificant the evidence was that believers pointed to as their reason for believing. REALLY shocked. I mean, if one holds to the tenet that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, the proofs I've heard were well shy of inadequate. Pathetic even. And I don't think I was looking for all that much. But things like "I just know" and "The Lord will show you and it will be unmistakeable", really didn't do it for me.
But maybe, like I've always surmised, God has got a big soft spot for the gullible. That would explain a lot...
Hah! Don't be reluctant George. That just about sums it up, I think. For some reason though, I just don't want to give the religious thing up. Its very frustrating and I sure don't understand it!
Why cannot we have irrefutable proof of His existence?
Because of several events in my life I have irrefutable proof of his existence outside of religious doctrine and scripture.
That said, as to why others don't have this proof I have no idea.
Whether or not others would accept the irrefutable proof I have in my own life as proof from their viewpoint I have no idea.
is there the need for this fear mongering suggestion of "Well, if there really is a God, and you choose that there isn't, ..... "
that is no more fear mongering than your suggestions that I. and countless others who follow the same path, are wasting our time and will reap no rewards in the hereafter for our dedication. It is in fact, merely the other side of the coin which you profess.
Saying that you are wasting your time for theism is one thing, and that isn't fear mongering. Perhaps it isn't something that you wish to hear, and you're entitled to that, but there is no fear attached to it.
Saying that there will be an Eternal Judgement (and of course, the Damnation that inveriably goes with it) for not believing is another, and IS fear mongering, as it appeals to the fear of what happens at the Damnation. ... you know ... Fire, Brimstone, and Eternal Torture, that sort of thing.
... The kind of thing that you don't get from someone that tells you that you are wasting your time for believing in God, hmmm?
Saying that you are wasting your time for theism is one thing, and that isn't fear mongering. Perhaps it isn't something that you wish to hear, and you're entitled to that, but there is no fear attached to it.
Saying that there will be an Eternal Judgement (and of course, the Damnation that inveriably goes with it) for not believing is another, and IS fear mongering, as it appeals to the fear of what happens at the Damnation. ... you know ... Fire, Brimstone, and Eternal Torture, that sort of thing.
... The kind of thing that you don't get from someone that tells you that you are wasting your time for believing in God, hmmm?
Garth, the mere application of Pascal's Wager is not fear-mongering. It's simply deductive reasoning. A logical construct. That construct could be applied to any given religious model of your choice, applying their dogmatic framework to the four different options available in that wager. In any case, if I'm wrong, I slip into oblivion not realizing that I was wrong, happy in my misguided fantasy. If you're wrong, you will have long time to ponder your mistake (whether that pondering happens in fire and brimstone, as you say, sitting on a cloud strumming a lute while considering your foolishness, roaming the earth as some kind of a phantasm, or crawling on all sixes as a reincarnated cockroach).
The nice part of this is, though, that your closed-mindedness prohibits you from even considering that option (although in your evangelical ranting, you criticize, ridicule, and insult theists for that very fault). To borrow a phrase, things that make you go hmmmmmm.....
David: Nice cartoon. I have always liked B.C. and I certainly agree with this cartoon's content. But why did you post it? Are you saying that the only alternative to believing in an invisible God is believing in a graven image?
Mark: I'm not much of a philosopher and I never heard of Pascal's Wager until reading this thread. But isn't there something missing from that construct, i.e., a true knowledge of God? How do you know there is life after death if God exists? How do you know there isn't if He doesn't?
From what I can gather, attaining resurrection life from God is not an easy task. Jesus said as much on several occasions. He even said there would be people who do signs and wonders in his name but still won't get there. There are other biblical examples too. Only 2 of an estimated 2 million got to see the promised land after being called out from Egypt. Not even Moses got there! What makes you think you're going to make it? Maybe you're just another idolatrous infidel in His eyes. Then again, maybe you're His precious child. How do you know where you stand?
Mark: I'm not much of a philosopher and I never heard of Pascal's Wager until reading this thread. But isn't there something missing from that construct, i.e., a true knowledge of God? How do you know there is life after death if God exists? How do you know there isn't if He doesn't?
That would depend upon the particular religious construct. The vast majority of religious traditions imply some continuation beyond death. Whether this consists of an afterlife or reincarnation or something else...almost any religion with which I am familiar believes that something happens at the end of days. Take your pick which tradition you'd want to apply.
If there is no afterlife and no God, at the point of your death you simply won't know anything at all, because there will be nothingness. You will have whatever pain, whatever dreams, whatever else, but at the moment that the oxygen saturation in your brain drops to a level that is not capable of sustainment of the brain cells' functionality, they will cease producing their electrical impulses. You will go *poof* and there will be nothing. Total obliteration -- nothing remains one way or the other, becuase (according to this construct) man is nothing but an organic entity.
In any of the religious traditions with which I am familiar (which is hardly a complete list), there is some sort of animating essence that makes you you. This animating essence is not organic (what, exactly, it is depends upon the specific tradition to which you subscribe). At the point of organic death, as described, this essence is not obliterated, as it is not organic. What happens to this essence is again described differently according to the specific tradition in question. However, any tradition with which I am familiar all point to the existence of this essence.
Something that complicates matters, though, are impacts of hypoxia on the brain. A euphoric state occurs, often accompanied by hallucinations, when the brain is starved of oxygen. And so a person who has a "near death" experience may believe they have experienced an "out of body" situation, when all they are doing is feeling the effects of hypoxia. Although this phenomena happens, it neither validates nor invalidates the existence of that 'animating essence' described above, nor does it validate or invalidate the permanence or impermanence of that essence and the what happens to it after death. However, it is important to understand this because it explains the divergence of views from people who have experienced a near death experience (one would think that, if it was a truly spiritual event, literally every near death 'spiritual' experience would be identical...however, if it is simply an effect of hypoxia, that would not necessarily be the case).
So the bottom line is the atheistic view is that there is nothing beyond death (you won't know because you won't be capable of knowing). On the other hand, in the theistic view is that there is an awareness after death of some variety (I am happy to be corrected if there are exceptions...I just don't know of any); therefore, you will know.
You then continue,
From what I can gather, attaining resurrection life from God is not an easy task. Jesus said as much on several occasions. He even said there would be people who do signs and wonders in his name but still won't get there. There are other biblical examples too. Only 2 of an estimated 2 million got to see the promised land after being called out from Egypt. Not even Moses got there! What makes you think you're going to make it? Maybe you're just another idolatrous infidel in His eyes. Then again, maybe you're His precious child. How do you know where you stand?
That is the $64 question. I go with my own prejudices here on my answer...as does everybody else on this site...I will say this much, though, Jesus said that there all of the law could be distilled down to two concepts: love God and love your neighbor. Following those two precepts is undoubtedly the critical part of any system that I can think of. The questions develop when one asks how best to accomplish those two objectives and what should be done when one falls short of those two objectives.
Saying that you are wasting your time for theism is one thing, and that isn't fear mongering. Perhaps it isn't something that you wish to hear, and you're entitled to that, but there is no fear attached to it.
That depends I suppose on your Idea of Heaven/hell. If there is no heaven
I will never experience life without physical pain
I will never meet my paternal grandmother
I will never get to know my mothers- either my birth mother or the mother that raised me who had serious mental health issues
I will never get to bask in a love that is so overwhelming that it heals every hurt and every sorrow.
That, to me, is a very scary thing. Fear like every other emotion is individually tailored. So I understand that from your perspective it isn't fear mongering but from mine and probably others it is
As for the hellfire and brimstone--that is reserved for the devil and his minions --those angels that followed him and those who elect to worship him in this life. Being a follower of Satan is a conscious decision just like being a follower of Christ.
The rest are cast into outer darkness.
I guess what I don't understand in your argument is the reasoning that because "fear mongering" is used in religion that religion becomes somehow less valid. We use fear to teach our children-- fear of burns, fear of traffic, fear of arrest, fear of punishment, fear of unwanted pregnancy, fear of illness.... We may not teach it as fear but essentially that is what the motivation is,, if you do this bad will follow...so why religion should be exempt from the same teaching prospective is a little confusing to my mind.
I will say that your posts are always informative and I enjoy them immensely even when I don't agree
We use fear to teach our children-- fear of burns, fear of traffic, fear of arrest, fear of punishment, fear of unwanted pregnancy, fear of illness.... We may not teach it as fear but essentially that is what the motivation is, if you do this bad will follow...so why religion should be exempt from the same teaching prospective is a little confusing to my mind.
Well, Mo, all the things you listed are tangible and verifiable. If God was as obvious as, say, traffic, life would be significantly different for every one. In that case, fear might very well be a useful tool for teaching and motivation. But alas, He's not, and implications of eternal death or damnation could be viewed as fear mongering.
I will say this much, though, Jesus said that there all of the law could be distilled down to two concepts: love God and love your neighbor. Following those two precepts is undoubtedly the critical part of any system that I can think of. The questions develop when one asks how best to accomplish those two objectives and what should be done when one falls short of those two objectives.
Good points Mark. Building a concept of love into a personal philosophy of life would be bound to produce some good things. How to love God might be a subject open to debate but loving your neighbor is something so simple and easy I suspect sometimes we just overlook it.
Isn't really all that hard although the outcome gets a little dicey I think. I look to the part in the gospels where Jesus states the first great commandment, "Love God with your whole being", and adds that the second is like the first - "Love your neighbor as you love yourself".
I've asked myself the question what does it mean, the second commandment being like the first. How are they alike? How is the second like the first? If I understood the second commandment I might be able to understand more about the first.
I think the record answers that, in it's own way. When the question comes back "who is my neighbor?", or who is it that I should love as myself?
The response is a story - the man being robbed and beaten up and left on the side of the road gets helped by someone coming by, but ignored by first a priest and then a levite. But the Samaritan stops and helps, someone who would not be looked at favorably by the people asking the quesiton.
Jesus asks back "who was the neighbor to the person who had been robbed?", and the answer is obvious, the man who helped - the person they wouldn't have liked but who nevertheless acted in love, despite the fact that he seemingly broke religious code.
It appears to be defining loving someone as yourself in terms of being the neighbor yourself. I should be concerned about being a lover, not about who I should be loving. Love, in and of itself, is both the correct action to take and the reward, to whoever, whenever, whereever. Acting in the best interests of another person (as I would want to be treated myself) will define "true Love".
For years I thought that the similarity was in the "love", one love God, two love others. There is that similarity of course. But I can see more to it. Where the two commandments are the same is in the answer - act towards God in the same way that you would act towards yourself and be mindful that anyone, everyone, can do that, regardless of whether I think they can or not. In "good faith". (Samaritans didn't worship in Jerusalem, at "the temple", they worshipped in their own temple where they'd relocated to).
The element of faith is strong in loving another as you love yourself. It transcends whether another person is deserving or worthy. I would always think that I am worth consideration, another chance, help when I need it, understanding. If I was the person that had been robbed, I would want someone to be neighborly towards me, and act out of the pure desire to help, not restricted by anything that would prevent that.
So to me, to deny God is in a way to deny myself. To love God with a faith that doesn't rely on our own human limitations and requirements is where I think that parable goes and is like Jesus's words that we become like children, child like.
I might assume there can be no God because of the bad things I see happen in life and ask - if there is a God how could he "let" them happen? My thought on that is that God lets us live in the world we create for ouselves and at best it's going to be imperfect. I don't see that as spin, or copping a way out, rather that it's the way the world is.
If I assume there's no benefit in that, if God doesn't answer prayer for instance than what's the good in believing in God - then I'm not loving like the second commandment teaches, where the action taken is done
simply because it's the right thing to do.
Again, to me, it's a matter of "good faith" towards God. Loving God because loving God is always the right thing to do in the same way that helping you would be the right thing to do.
Do I do it? Do we? I try but I don't have some kind of perfectly lit life going 24 hours a day. But by consideration and thoughtfulness I do try as I think we all can.
Thanks for posting this thread, JJ. I've enjoyed reading it. :)
My communication skills are inadequate to express what I am writing in this particular post so forgive me in advance for not doing the subject adequate justice...
To adequately do justice to the second article of the Great Commandment (love your neighbor), it is my humble opinion that you must be capable of doing the first (to Love God).
To love God one must be first profoundly humble. This is a subject that was never adequately taught in TWI (in my experience) if it was even taught at all. To be able to sit in adoration of God, contemplating the absolute immenseness of Him, the profoundness of His love for us, and His attendence to us as individuals and collectively as a people just puts me in sheer awe when I consider it. As I said above, I wish that I could have the vocabulary and the communicative skills to adequately paint the picture for you, but I truly can't. I don't even think the words in the Gospel adequately communicate it. I am not sure that there are words to express it. Although it is supremely humbling, it is not humiliating (from the word humility)...it's just something that you <i>know</i>.
(and, btw, a couple of months ago Sudo posted to me that he was absolutely shocked when he came to the realization that I was a practicing Catholic...he thought I was far to intelligent for all of that voodoo or some such...so I don't believe that it is a matter of a lack of intelligence or common sense that causes me to believe the way I do...)
But when you end up having this "vision," this actual experience of loving God with all that you are, it is both profoundly humbling and profoundly exhillerating, because you recognize not only how much you can love God, you recognize how much He loves you. I cannot quantify it. I fully expect to be thoroughly scourged by Garth, George, et al for having the audacity of trying to explain this stupid experience (so, go for it guys...have fun).
Without that (for lack of a better term) humility, one can't truly love his neighbor. Why? Because if you haven't fully inculcated into the depths of your being an appreciation of God and an understanding of exactly what He has done for you, you won't appreciate the dignity that He has given your neighbor as being another creation in His image. And without an appreciation for the dignity that your neighbor has just by being God's creation, regardless of what that neighbor has done or not done to earn that dignity, you can't truly love him. Again, imho.
But He is-- I can not even conceive of a world with no God. Try as I might the entire concept is so alien that I cannot even for a moment visualize how that is possible.
If, for the moment, I set aside the idea of a personal relationship it still is impossible. Because no matter how many "big bangs" no body of scientific literature has ever explained where the initial building blocks, individual atoms of elements, much less the atoms themselves came from. Np matter how far you go from atoms to protons to ions to quarks they HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE and science can't tell me where that is, but God can He made them
"No matter how far you go from atoms to protons to ions to quarks they HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE and science can't tell me where that is, but God can He made them"
OK, Mo, I guess that's fine, though a little lacking in "logical progression" department. But then don't we have to ask ourselves - if we accept the idea of an all-encompassing creator - where did HE come from?
Or, more to the point, if we imply that GOD has always been around, no beginning and no end, couldn't the material of creation have the same attributes?
And the fact that God is so beyond question for you or others around does little for the rest of us. Sheesh, I know people who are convinced - beyond a shadow of a doubt - in the veracity of Astrology, numerology, herbal remedies, and Scientology. That people can be so convinced of something does little to add to it's credibility. We can all be fooled, look no further than our tenure in WayWorld for proof of that...
if we accept the idea of an all-encompassing creator - where did HE come from?
Actually the LDS church explains it quite nicely--he came from his father who came from his father etc as far back as you care to go. As an old Thai woman was explaining to a young GI about the world being carried on the back of Four elephants balancing on the back of a giant sea turtle swimming through space. The GI questioned as to what the turtle was on and she said another turtle, and again he asked what that turtle was on and she replied that it was on a turtle also. Finally after a few more rounds of questions she said "Son, it's turtles all the way down"
And you are right I can't tell you how far back the lineage goes or when it started or how or why. So that leaves us both pretty much at the same spot. Except it is far more rational in my mind for a creator that creates to exist -- as to try and explain scientifically how nothing would become something--and that is why I believe as I do.
And I guess what it all come downs to , at least for me, is the tremendous strength and comfort I derive from Knowing a loving Heavenly Father cares for me--that doesn't mean life will be a bed of roses, after all it is the purpose of life to test our mettle, as it were, to see if we stand or fall.
For those of you who lack my belief system--where does your comfort come from when all of mankind has deserted you and you are at the bottom of despair???
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 21
18
Jan 4
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
sirguessalot
i think the truth of a lot of things depend a lot on who and what and why we think we actually are
and then all the many ways we interpret and re-interpret our experience alone and together
i think it helps to get beyond the myth by also using the wisdom of the myth itself
and so in a very classic sense...
our faith is described like clay, or mud, sand, glass, stone
and if we find an aspect of ourselves to be a cracked pot
we need not be afraid to smash it to smithereens
again and again and again
til the end of time
if we must
there is a new level of liberty in knowing that "god" doesnt mind you playing with tools and blades here
this is the garage
this is the studio
this is the shop
within is each of us is some sort of domain where our view of god and ultimate truth is simply brutally tested
and our faith IS the shape of our own final answers
like the gold that is purified seven times
i think it can be a joy to learn that we truly can be gods of our own sense of faith
even though our "final answer" has just stubbornly moved on us yet again
a "god" that remains is the ultimate bounds of our concern and cognition and selfsense, among other things
it is part of why they say "god is now both father and son in one"
because our own sense of self changes
it like being given a key to a furnished room we have never really seen
we have a "work shop" where we refold and refold the steel of our own person cutting edge of experience
to the depths and degrees to which we are brutally honest with many new layers of things
we will have truer and truer interpretations of all our experiences
of course, any new thing can come as "christlike" to us at first
which is like saying..."the birth of a baby new belief system..."
any new level of belief can come as a surprise and blow your mind
some even sit you down and confuse the heck out of ya
some new belief systems are tragically forced upon us
there are a lot of disciplines of being brutally honest with the many layers of this aspect of "god"
...art forms and time-tested and peer-reviewed schools of practice
that better allow us to approach an occasion of "belief-change" with more options
(like being given a new shop full of tools)
i would even go as far to say that practices of deeper levels of ordinary self awareness
bring us closer to what some of the ancients described as "holy temples and palaces and kingdoms"
if the "father's house" is our "inward human nature"
the skeptical objective aspect of ourself is one of the "many mansions"
also, this sense to unfold and penetrate all the layers of darkness and deception
is more or less an expression of our erotic, or masculine-love drive to fix and build and improve
which is why its classically associated with fatherhood and sonship and brotherhood and ascension
as it was interpreted then
today, i might say it represents the basic evolutionary impulse to build and climb
anyway, i always think things gets much more interesting where the topics of science, sexuallity, and spirituallity merge
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
None that I can see, George. I don't think it would be all that difficult for an all-knowing and all-powerful God to make himself known should he so desire. And I suspect he would do so unequivocally. Secrecy is supposedly the key to the devil's power not God's, correct? For example, if there really was a worldwide flood, why would he obliterate the fossil record and sedimentary deposits which provide evidence of his action? Come to think of it, I can't think of any action attributed to God, not one thing, that doesn't require a leap of faith. Jeesh, there's barely any evidence that a man named Jesus even existed, much less raised people from the dead.
God proclaims he wants to be known; seek and ye shall find. Remember "to know that you know that you know?" I've found the closer I look the tougher it is to see. The more I want to believe the less I can. After years of studying and trying to know God, I'm no closer now than I ever was. In fact, I may even be farther away. Seeing through a glass darkly? That's not a good position for a child of God to be in, nor a reasonable place for a spiritual Father to commit his children.
-JJ
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Excellent post and very clearly put, JumpinJive.
Oh, and I keep seeing Pascal's Wager illustrated here. Well, recently I read where that might not be such a reliable test to consider/prove God's existance as much as many people think.
Suppose, in using that wager's model, that instead of the decision between simply God or no god, we have the decision between the Christian God, the Muslim one, the Hindu selection of deities, the Shinto ones, etc. The usage of the Pascal's Wager in this sense is just as valid, since you can't accept one god and not reject another, since just about all religious beliefs require that you believe in their god exclusively, to the rejection of all others. Heck even between some denominations of certain religions, you have to accept denomination A, to the exclusion of denomination B.
So, applying Pascal's Wager to this now more complicated set of selections, it no longer is a simple 50-50, 'either there is a god or not' choice, but now the odds are highly against you selecting the right one.
An inverse Russian roulette, as it were. :blink:
And yet there is not any more evidence for the theistic choices being more valid than the non-theistic choice. ... So why, when many people are looking beyond the doctrine for proof of God's existance, is there the need for this fear mongering suggestion of "Well, if there really is a God, and you choose that there isn't, .....
"
Why cannot we have irrefutable proof of His existance? Why is that a sign of immoral sin and rebellion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Perfect, Mo! An concise description of my current mental state and why I felt compelled to start this thread! The discussion is really about where to go from here. I long ago gave up on TWI but apparently not so much on a lot of the underlying principles. I was involved with offshoots like CES for quite some time and was even an elder in the PCUSA for awhile. I just can't get it to work.
I suppose the topic could be presented another way: If we assume there is a God, how do we learn about Him? It seems obvious to me revealed religion, e.g., the bible, isn't cutting it. Whatever the all-truth might be, the comforter doesn't seem to be leading us to it. Well, maybe a few special folks but I don't see it as a general rule and certainly not for me.
I'm trying to stay light about it but deep down its pretty painful. Reevaluating the principles you base your life on is never easy. And folks here on GS have gone through it and aren't afraid to talk about it. Pretty cool!
-JJ
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Yes, seek and you will find
how long will we give it?
Give and it shall be given unto you
give what? what you have in your mind
which is what you are doing JJ
and this is where it is returned to you
Ask......yeah ask.....
ask who? for one must believe that there is a god to ask
staying set in stone that there is not one stops this aspect
again how long do you want to give it?
as long as it takes
looking has many possibilities
what may have been ruled out
can be reconsidered
what hasn't been considered?
there's so many clues that i see
one must see them for themselves
cuz it's for you and about you
yet you must step aside to see it
and only the Lord can show it to you
it's his/her thing not ours
seeing thru a glass darkly.....
as a child
growing is hard to do sometimes
old things die and new things live
to become a man and see is the step
in this context
fear stops many and most
fear of "judgement"
which is not understood
because it's really something we want
and sheds more light then most can handle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
JJ,
Well, I'm a little reluctant to say this, but I think, from the sound of your posts, that your "believer" days are all behind you. Kinda like losing your virginity, you can never go back to blissful ignorance you may have once enjoyed (or tolerated anyway). Once you start asking the kind of questions you're asking, the cat is pretty much out of the bag. Religion doesn't seem to have any really satisfying answers to basic questions like that.
I know personally, when I start to drift towards the agnostic mindset again, I kept expecting the faithful around me to come up with some really compelling reasons why God and The Bible were "it". Those reasons never came. In fact, I was really shocked at how paltry and insignificant the evidence was that believers pointed to as their reason for believing. REALLY shocked. I mean, if one holds to the tenet that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, the proofs I've heard were well shy of inadequate. Pathetic even. And I don't think I was looking for all that much. But things like "I just know" and "The Lord will show you and it will be unmistakeable", really didn't do it for me.
But maybe, like I've always surmised, God has got a big soft spot for the gullible. That would explain a lot...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Hah! Don't be reluctant George. That just about sums it up, I think. For some reason though, I just don't want to give the religious thing up. Its very frustrating and I sure don't understand it!
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Because of several events in my life I have irrefutable proof of his existence outside of religious doctrine and scripture.
That said, as to why others don't have this proof I have no idea.
Whether or not others would accept the irrefutable proof I have in my own life as proof from their viewpoint I have no idea.
that is no more fear mongering than your suggestions that I. and countless others who follow the same path, are wasting our time and will reap no rewards in the hereafter for our dedication. It is in fact, merely the other side of the coin which you profess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Saying that you are wasting your time for theism is one thing, and that isn't fear mongering. Perhaps it isn't something that you wish to hear, and you're entitled to that, but there is no fear attached to it.
Saying that there will be an Eternal Judgement (and of course, the Damnation that inveriably goes with it) for not believing is another, and IS fear mongering, as it appeals to the fear of what happens at the Damnation. ... you know ... Fire, Brimstone, and Eternal Torture, that sort of thing.
... The kind of thing that you don't get from someone that tells you that you are wasting your time for believing in God, hmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth, the mere application of Pascal's Wager is not fear-mongering. It's simply deductive reasoning. A logical construct. That construct could be applied to any given religious model of your choice, applying their dogmatic framework to the four different options available in that wager. In any case, if I'm wrong, I slip into oblivion not realizing that I was wrong, happy in my misguided fantasy. If you're wrong, you will have long time to ponder your mistake (whether that pondering happens in fire and brimstone, as you say, sitting on a cloud strumming a lute while considering your foolishness, roaming the earth as some kind of a phantasm, or crawling on all sixes as a reincarnated cockroach).
The nice part of this is, though, that your closed-mindedness prohibits you from even considering that option (although in your evangelical ranting, you criticize, ridicule, and insult theists for that very fault). To borrow a phrase, things that make you go hmmmmmm.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
David: Nice cartoon. I have always liked B.C. and I certainly agree with this cartoon's content. But why did you post it? Are you saying that the only alternative to believing in an invisible God is believing in a graven image?
Just looking for a bit more clarity.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
And so it goes that narrow is the way to life
NOW not later
for later we will all see
those who seek with intense seeking will find and
defeat the demons within
for it is within that there is darkness
that is what has to be explored
few have the courage to look at the un seen
because it is in the dark
and the least shall be the greatest
and the greatest shall be the least
a riddle... yeah....
to find the un findable
to see the unseeable
for wether it's believed or not
it will be believed
now or later
why place limits on your own self
for it is the self that will be dissolved and changed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Mark: I'm not much of a philosopher and I never heard of Pascal's Wager until reading this thread. But isn't there something missing from that construct, i.e., a true knowledge of God? How do you know there is life after death if God exists? How do you know there isn't if He doesn't?
From what I can gather, attaining resurrection life from God is not an easy task. Jesus said as much on several occasions. He even said there would be people who do signs and wonders in his name but still won't get there. There are other biblical examples too. Only 2 of an estimated 2 million got to see the promised land after being called out from Egypt. Not even Moses got there! What makes you think you're going to make it? Maybe you're just another idolatrous infidel in His eyes. Then again, maybe you're His precious child. How do you know where you stand?
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
JumpinJive,
You said,
That would depend upon the particular religious construct. The vast majority of religious traditions imply some continuation beyond death. Whether this consists of an afterlife or reincarnation or something else...almost any religion with which I am familiar believes that something happens at the end of days. Take your pick which tradition you'd want to apply.
If there is no afterlife and no God, at the point of your death you simply won't know anything at all, because there will be nothingness. You will have whatever pain, whatever dreams, whatever else, but at the moment that the oxygen saturation in your brain drops to a level that is not capable of sustainment of the brain cells' functionality, they will cease producing their electrical impulses. You will go *poof* and there will be nothing. Total obliteration -- nothing remains one way or the other, becuase (according to this construct) man is nothing but an organic entity.
In any of the religious traditions with which I am familiar (which is hardly a complete list), there is some sort of animating essence that makes you you. This animating essence is not organic (what, exactly, it is depends upon the specific tradition to which you subscribe). At the point of organic death, as described, this essence is not obliterated, as it is not organic. What happens to this essence is again described differently according to the specific tradition in question. However, any tradition with which I am familiar all point to the existence of this essence.
Something that complicates matters, though, are impacts of hypoxia on the brain. A euphoric state occurs, often accompanied by hallucinations, when the brain is starved of oxygen. And so a person who has a "near death" experience may believe they have experienced an "out of body" situation, when all they are doing is feeling the effects of hypoxia. Although this phenomena happens, it neither validates nor invalidates the existence of that 'animating essence' described above, nor does it validate or invalidate the permanence or impermanence of that essence and the what happens to it after death. However, it is important to understand this because it explains the divergence of views from people who have experienced a near death experience (one would think that, if it was a truly spiritual event, literally every near death 'spiritual' experience would be identical...however, if it is simply an effect of hypoxia, that would not necessarily be the case).
So the bottom line is the atheistic view is that there is nothing beyond death (you won't know because you won't be capable of knowing). On the other hand, in the theistic view is that there is an awareness after death of some variety (I am happy to be corrected if there are exceptions...I just don't know of any); therefore, you will know.
You then continue,
That is the $64 question. I go with my own prejudices here on my answer...as does everybody else on this site...I will say this much, though, Jesus said that there all of the law could be distilled down to two concepts: love God and love your neighbor. Following those two precepts is undoubtedly the critical part of any system that I can think of. The questions develop when one asks how best to accomplish those two objectives and what should be done when one falls short of those two objectives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
That depends I suppose on your Idea of Heaven/hell. If there is no heaven
I will never experience life without physical pain
I will never meet my paternal grandmother
I will never get to know my mothers- either my birth mother or the mother that raised me who had serious mental health issues
I will never get to bask in a love that is so overwhelming that it heals every hurt and every sorrow.
That, to me, is a very scary thing. Fear like every other emotion is individually tailored. So I understand that from your perspective it isn't fear mongering but from mine and probably others it is
As for the hellfire and brimstone--that is reserved for the devil and his minions --those angels that followed him and those who elect to worship him in this life. Being a follower of Satan is a conscious decision just like being a follower of Christ.
The rest are cast into outer darkness.
I guess what I don't understand in your argument is the reasoning that because "fear mongering" is used in religion that religion becomes somehow less valid. We use fear to teach our children-- fear of burns, fear of traffic, fear of arrest, fear of punishment, fear of unwanted pregnancy, fear of illness.... We may not teach it as fear but essentially that is what the motivation is,, if you do this bad will follow...so why religion should be exempt from the same teaching prospective is a little confusing to my mind.
I will say that your posts are always informative and I enjoy them immensely even when I don't agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Well, Mo, all the things you listed are tangible and verifiable. If God was as obvious as, say, traffic, life would be significantly different for every one. In that case, fear might very well be a useful tool for teaching and motivation. But alas, He's not, and implications of eternal death or damnation could be viewed as fear mongering.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Good points Mark. Building a concept of love into a personal philosophy of life would be bound to produce some good things. How to love God might be a subject open to debate but loving your neighbor is something so simple and easy I suspect sometimes we just overlook it.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Assuming for a moment that there is no God...
Isn't really all that hard although the outcome gets a little dicey I think. I look to the part in the gospels where Jesus states the first great commandment, "Love God with your whole being", and adds that the second is like the first - "Love your neighbor as you love yourself".
I've asked myself the question what does it mean, the second commandment being like the first. How are they alike? How is the second like the first? If I understood the second commandment I might be able to understand more about the first.
I think the record answers that, in it's own way. When the question comes back "who is my neighbor?", or who is it that I should love as myself?
The response is a story - the man being robbed and beaten up and left on the side of the road gets helped by someone coming by, but ignored by first a priest and then a levite. But the Samaritan stops and helps, someone who would not be looked at favorably by the people asking the quesiton.
Jesus asks back "who was the neighbor to the person who had been robbed?", and the answer is obvious, the man who helped - the person they wouldn't have liked but who nevertheless acted in love, despite the fact that he seemingly broke religious code.
It appears to be defining loving someone as yourself in terms of being the neighbor yourself. I should be concerned about being a lover, not about who I should be loving. Love, in and of itself, is both the correct action to take and the reward, to whoever, whenever, whereever. Acting in the best interests of another person (as I would want to be treated myself) will define "true Love".
For years I thought that the similarity was in the "love", one love God, two love others. There is that similarity of course. But I can see more to it. Where the two commandments are the same is in the answer - act towards God in the same way that you would act towards yourself and be mindful that anyone, everyone, can do that, regardless of whether I think they can or not. In "good faith". (Samaritans didn't worship in Jerusalem, at "the temple", they worshipped in their own temple where they'd relocated to).
The element of faith is strong in loving another as you love yourself. It transcends whether another person is deserving or worthy. I would always think that I am worth consideration, another chance, help when I need it, understanding. If I was the person that had been robbed, I would want someone to be neighborly towards me, and act out of the pure desire to help, not restricted by anything that would prevent that.
So to me, to deny God is in a way to deny myself. To love God with a faith that doesn't rely on our own human limitations and requirements is where I think that parable goes and is like Jesus's words that we become like children, child like.
I might assume there can be no God because of the bad things I see happen in life and ask - if there is a God how could he "let" them happen? My thought on that is that God lets us live in the world we create for ouselves and at best it's going to be imperfect. I don't see that as spin, or copping a way out, rather that it's the way the world is.
If I assume there's no benefit in that, if God doesn't answer prayer for instance than what's the good in believing in God - then I'm not loving like the second commandment teaches, where the action taken is done
simply because it's the right thing to do.
Again, to me, it's a matter of "good faith" towards God. Loving God because loving God is always the right thing to do in the same way that helping you would be the right thing to do.
Do I do it? Do we? I try but I don't have some kind of perfectly lit life going 24 hours a day. But by consideration and thoughtfulness I do try as I think we all can.
Thanks for posting this thread, JJ. I've enjoyed reading it. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
JJ,
My communication skills are inadequate to express what I am writing in this particular post so forgive me in advance for not doing the subject adequate justice...
To adequately do justice to the second article of the Great Commandment (love your neighbor), it is my humble opinion that you must be capable of doing the first (to Love God).
To love God one must be first profoundly humble. This is a subject that was never adequately taught in TWI (in my experience) if it was even taught at all. To be able to sit in adoration of God, contemplating the absolute immenseness of Him, the profoundness of His love for us, and His attendence to us as individuals and collectively as a people just puts me in sheer awe when I consider it. As I said above, I wish that I could have the vocabulary and the communicative skills to adequately paint the picture for you, but I truly can't. I don't even think the words in the Gospel adequately communicate it. I am not sure that there are words to express it. Although it is supremely humbling, it is not humiliating (from the word humility)...it's just something that you <i>know</i>.
(and, btw, a couple of months ago Sudo posted to me that he was absolutely shocked when he came to the realization that I was a practicing Catholic...he thought I was far to intelligent for all of that voodoo or some such...so I don't believe that it is a matter of a lack of intelligence or common sense that causes me to believe the way I do...)
But when you end up having this "vision," this actual experience of loving God with all that you are, it is both profoundly humbling and profoundly exhillerating, because you recognize not only how much you can love God, you recognize how much He loves you. I cannot quantify it. I fully expect to be thoroughly scourged by Garth, George, et al for having the audacity of trying to explain this stupid experience (so, go for it guys...have fun).
Without that (for lack of a better term) humility, one can't truly love his neighbor. Why? Because if you haven't fully inculcated into the depths of your being an appreciation of God and an understanding of exactly what He has done for you, you won't appreciate the dignity that He has given your neighbor as being another creation in His image. And without an appreciation for the dignity that your neighbor has just by being God's creation, regardless of what that neighbor has done or not done to earn that dignity, you can't truly love him. Again, imho.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
But He is-- I can not even conceive of a world with no God. Try as I might the entire concept is so alien that I cannot even for a moment visualize how that is possible.
If, for the moment, I set aside the idea of a personal relationship it still is impossible. Because no matter how many "big bangs" no body of scientific literature has ever explained where the initial building blocks, individual atoms of elements, much less the atoms themselves came from. Np matter how far you go from atoms to protons to ions to quarks they HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE and science can't tell me where that is, but God can He made them
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"No matter how far you go from atoms to protons to ions to quarks they HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE and science can't tell me where that is, but God can He made them"
OK, Mo, I guess that's fine, though a little lacking in "logical progression" department. But then don't we have to ask ourselves - if we accept the idea of an all-encompassing creator - where did HE come from?
Or, more to the point, if we imply that GOD has always been around, no beginning and no end, couldn't the material of creation have the same attributes?
And the fact that God is so beyond question for you or others around does little for the rest of us. Sheesh, I know people who are convinced - beyond a shadow of a doubt - in the veracity of Astrology, numerology, herbal remedies, and Scientology. That people can be so convinced of something does little to add to it's credibility. We can all be fooled, look no further than our tenure in WayWorld for proof of that...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Actually the LDS church explains it quite nicely--he came from his father who came from his father etc as far back as you care to go. As an old Thai woman was explaining to a young GI about the world being carried on the back of Four elephants balancing on the back of a giant sea turtle swimming through space. The GI questioned as to what the turtle was on and she said another turtle, and again he asked what that turtle was on and she replied that it was on a turtle also. Finally after a few more rounds of questions she said "Son, it's turtles all the way down"
And you are right I can't tell you how far back the lineage goes or when it started or how or why. So that leaves us both pretty much at the same spot. Except it is far more rational in my mind for a creator that creates to exist -- as to try and explain scientifically how nothing would become something--and that is why I believe as I do.
And I guess what it all come downs to , at least for me, is the tremendous strength and comfort I derive from Knowing a loving Heavenly Father cares for me--that doesn't mean life will be a bed of roses, after all it is the purpose of life to test our mettle, as it were, to see if we stand or fall.
For those of you who lack my belief system--where does your comfort come from when all of mankind has deserted you and you are at the bottom of despair???
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
George-
"all-encompassing creator"
this and other terms You keep coming up with
like-all knowing omnipotent- and more
where do you get these ideas?
and why do you attribute them to people who have not said it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.