# God is great



## Alduriam (Jun 30, 2011)

He watches over us tenderly, from the moment of our birth to our death.

He created us without us deserving to exist, and offers us eternal life if we simply open our heart to his call and recognize him as the father he is!

We may be hurt, emotionally or physically, and yet no human being can ever separate us from him.

Praise be to God!


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

He created me, without me WANTING to exist as well...


----------



## Syndacus (Aug 9, 2011)

I separated from God a long time ago, has life changed because of it? Nope, still the same..though I still believe in a higher power, I can't call him/her a God.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

Dr House said:


> He created me, without me WANTING to exist as well...


How do you know...? You assume you wouldn't have chosen to live the life you've lived and expect to live from now on, but what if you knew you'd only have to endure a certain amount of 'years', until you came back to heaven?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

He gave us plagues, STDS, war, starvation, sins for natural desires, he makes us worship Him or burn in Hell, he is jealous, malicious, insecure, selfish.... he creates and if he doesn't like he destroys even though He created us...so he makes us knowing we'd be this way so we can live a life and then be tortured for ever or wiped off the face of the earth from anything we ever loved...

I'd rather burn in hell than worship that.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> He gave us plagues, STDS, war, starvation, sins for natural desires, he makes us worship Him or burn in Hell, he is jealous, malicious, insecure, selfish.... he creates and if he doesn't like he destroys even though He created us...so he makes us knowing we'd be this way so we can live a life and then be tortured for ever or wiped off the face of the earth from anything we ever loved...
> 
> I'd rather burn in hell than worship that.


...where do you get your information on God?


----------



## Albert11 (Jun 11, 2011)

Yes, God is faithful and has blessed me and my family abundantly. He pulled me out of a horrible life and set me on a path of healing and understanding. He is my source of strength in all situations. He loved me first and I look forward to the day when the struggles of this world will turn into rest in His Kingdom. But until then I fight the good fight with Him at my side and understand this life is temporary. I will look for the good in all things. All good things come from God. Amen.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

Albert11 said:


> Yes, God is faithful and has blessed me and my family abundantly. He pulled me out of a horrible life and set me on a path of healing and understanding. He is my source of strength in all situations. He loved me first and I look forward to the day when the struggles of this world will turn into rest in His Kingdom. But until then I fight the good fight with Him at my side and understand this life is temporary. I will look for the good in all things. All good things come from God. Amen.


However weak my faith might be these days, it makes my heart glow to encounter others with a strong, nurturing faith in God. Thank you for posting that.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

the cheat said:


> ...where do you get your information on God?


The same place everyone else does - tradition and imagination.


----------



## Alduriam (Jun 30, 2011)

Albert11 said:


> Yes, God is faithful and has blessed me and my family abundantly. He pulled me out of a horrible life and set me on a path of healing and understanding. He is my source of strength in all situations. He loved me first and I look forward to the day when the struggles of this world will turn into rest in His Kingdom. But until then I fight the good fight with Him at my side and understand this life is temporary. I will look for the good in all things. All good things come from God. Amen.


"You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers. And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other. And many false prophets will arise and mislead many. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.* But the one who endures to the end will be saved.* And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

Mathew 24: 9-14


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

the cheat said:


> ...where do you get your information on God?


The Bible.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

^You might want to look into what the Bible says about "Grace". :afr


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> ^You might want to look into what the Bible says about "Grace".


You might want to look into what the Bible says about slavery, or, for example, women (New Testament, just so you don't bring up the old red herring of 'Jesus overcame the law of the OT') in 1 Timothy: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Sure, God's a misogynistic supporter of slavery, but he offers grace in another world...somewhere, um, after you're dead.


----------



## minimized (Nov 17, 2007)

the cheat said:


> How do you know...? You assume you wouldn't have chosen to live the life you've lived and expect to live from now on, but what if you knew you'd only have to endure a certain amount of 'years', until you came back to heaven?


That is horrifically cruel, it must be said.

I don't see any reason to kneel before a "benevolent" king who would do such a thing... why would I want to go back to heaven? Am I supposed to see how bad I could have had it?


----------



## velocicaur (Aug 8, 2009)

"...beer is good, and people are crazy."


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

soundlessenigma said:


> That is horrifically cruel, it must be said.
> 
> I don't see any reason to kneel before a "benevolent" king who would do such a thing... why would I want to go back to heaven? Am I supposed to see how bad I could have had it?


When your experience here comes to an end and you go back "home", you'll see the point of all this.  
Life on earth is amazingly short and beautiful, it just seems long and painful. 
It's an illusion...if we knew without a doubt that God and heaven were real things, if it could be proven through science...the world wouldn't be what it is/has been/will be. If God does exist, it only stands to reason(to me anyway) that this place we call earth is supposed to be somewhat painful, cruel, etc. 
I can't imagine a reason why God, if he exists, would go and create a place like this, only to have it be exactly like heaven. It's meant to be different...

Oh, and you don't gotta kneel before him...if you think there is no God, then that's fine. He'll forgive you. If you believe there is potentially God, I would urge you to think about it, a lot, and find your own belief system...organized religion doesn't have a monopoly on "God".


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

the cheat said:


> When your experience here comes to an end and you go back "home", you'll see the point of all this.


Assuming there's an afterlife. There might just be an absence of consciousness, in which case no one sees the point in anything. At the very least, we have to pay attention to meaning in this life, because it's actual. It's here.



> Life on earth is amazingly short and beautiful, it just seems long and painful.


It's beautiful sometimes, it's horrific sometimes.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

Krikorian said:


> Sure, God's a misogynistic supporter of slavery


Ironically, when Christianity was new, it was quite popular with women and slaves.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

Krikorian said:


> Assuming there's an afterlife. There might just be an absence of consciousness, in which case no one sees the point in anything. At the very least, we have to pay attention to meaning in this life, because it's actual. It's here.
> 
> It's beautiful sometimes, it's horrific sometimes.


I've found my meaning, my "point of life"...I hope you find yours.:yes :hug


----------



## wootmehver (Oct 18, 2007)

I think everybody here is great no matter what they believe about deities.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

the cheat said:


> I've found my meaning, my "point of life"...


Excellent.



> I hope you find yours.


Me too, and thank you.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

Kevco said:


> I think everybody here is great no matter what they believe about deities.


Hear, hear!


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

Dr House said:


> He created me, without me WANTING to exist as well...


Well, of course He did. How can the non-existent choose to exist? :b


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

bwidger85 said:


> He gave us plagues, STDS, war, starvation, sins for natural desires, he makes us worship Him or burn in Hell, he is jealous, malicious, insecure, selfish.... he creates and if he doesn't like he destroys even though He created us...so he makes us knowing we'd be this way so we can live a life and then be tortured for ever or wiped off the face of the earth from anything we ever loved...
> 
> I'd rather burn in hell than worship that.


God did not create those things. Humanity created those things by deciding to reject God's know-better and chose to decide for ourselves what's right and what's wrong. After what Christians and Jews know as the Fall occurred, the Bible tells us that we, humanity, and the rest of God's creation, down to the very earth itself, are so intertwined that when we chose to walk away from God's plan for our lives, even the earth itself rebelled. To this we owe disease, natural disasters, etc.

Let's be clear. God is not insecure. He does not need humanity's worship. He did not create us because He was lonely or experiencing low self-esteem. He has countless angels to worship Him, He knows how amazing He is, and if it were all about ego, you and I would not be here. His motivation is the very opposite of ego, in fact. He calls us into relationship with Him... we choose infidelity... He calls us back to Him... we choose infidelity... this is the entirety of the Old Testament, or the Torah. But He so desires our hearts, He so desires to know us intimately and have us know Him in the same way, that He repeatedly opens Himself to our rejection of Him. This finally culminates in sending His only Son to 1) teach and model for us what we've failed to grasp time and time again, and 2) die in such a way that we might be reconciled to Him.

Let me say, it is understandable to have mixed or negative feelings toward God. Even the Christian who says he or she never feels negatively toward God is either lying, or a robot.


----------



## Alduriam (Jun 30, 2011)

Nikkoteeny said:


> Let me say, it is understandable to have mixed or negative feelings toward God. Even the Christian who says he or she never feels negatively toward God is either lying, or a robot.


or a Saint.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

Alduriam said:


> or a Saint.


Oh, you're right, Nikkoteeny forgot: lying, a robot, or delusional.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

This helped me....A short extract from the story of Orestes, who killed his mother to save his sister and the people from the insidiousness of their guilt and fears inflicted from a man who never took responsibility for his fears, his guilt, of this murderer who refused to feel guilt, who took his guilt on his own shoulders and lead all fear away from the city. A true story. He spoke on the day of his supposed execution to the crowd of stricken sufferers thus... [Orestes orders his master to open the doors FULL to the murderous crowd.]

A woman: I'll pluck out your eyes!

A Man: I'll eat your gizzard!

Orestes: [drawing himself up to his full height]: So here you are, my true and loyal subjects? I am Orestes, your king, son of Agamemnon, and this is my coronation day. [Exclamations of amazement, mutterings amongst the crowd.] Ah, you are lowering your tone? [Complete silence.] I know; you fear me. Fifteen years ago to the day, another murderer showed himself to you, his arms red to the elbows, gloved in blood. But him you did not fear; you read in his eyes that he was of your kind, he had not the courage of his crimes. A crime which it's doer disowns becomes ownerless - no man's crime; that's how you see it, isn't it? More like an accident than a crime?

So you welcomed the criminal as your king, and that crime without an owner started prowling round the city, whimpering like a dog that had lost it's master. You see me, men or Argos, you understand that my crime is wholly mine; I claim it as my own, for all to know, it is my glory, my life's work, and you can neither punish me nor pity me.
That's why I fill you with fear.

And yet my people, I love you, and it was for your sake that I killed. For your sake. I had come to claim my kingdom, and you would have none of me because I was not your kind. Now I am your kind, my subjects; there is a bond of blood between us, and I have earned my kingship over you.
As for your sins and your remorse, your night-fears, and the crime Aegistheus committed-all are mine, I take them all upon me. Fear your dead no longer; they are my dead. And, see, your faithful flies have left you, and come to me. But have no fear, people of Argos. I shall not sit on my victim's throne nor take the sceptre in my blood-stained hands. A God offered it to me, and I say "No". I wish to be a king without a kingdom, without subjects. Farewell my people. Try to reshape your lives. All here is anew. And for me, too, a new life is beginning. A strange life...

Listen now to this tale.. One summer there was a plague of rats in Scyros. It was like a foul disease; they soiled and nibbled everything, and the people of the city were at their wits' end. But one day a flute-player came to the city. He took his stand in the market-place. Like this [Orestes rises to his feet.] He began playing on his flute and all the rats came out and crowded round him. Then he started off, taking long strides - like this. [he comes down from the pedestal.] And he called to the people of Scyros, "make way!" [The crowd makes way for him.] And all the rats raised their heads and hesitated - as the flies are doing. Look! Look! at the flies! Then all of a sudden they followed his train. And the flute-player, with his rats, vanished for ever. Thus. [he strides out into the light. Shrieking, the Furies fling themselves after him.]


----------



## CourtneyB (Jul 31, 2010)

Who is to say that the books written in the bible are any more factual than all the other books written at/around that time as well? It was basically pick and choose.


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

CourtneyB said:


> Who is to say that the books written in the bible are any more factual than all the other books written at/around that time as well? It was basically pick and choose.


Most historians generally agree that supernatural or not, Jesus of Nazareth _was_ a real person. While we can't actually prove the events depicted in the Gospels occurred, there is good evidence in that 1) Jesus's disciples were willing to be put to death to defend their statements about him. Unlike followers of Christianity today, these disciples were people who were in a unique postion to know, absolutely, whether these things occurred or not. As Lee Strobel writes, people will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they _know _their beliefs are false. The 2nd best evidence for believing the books of the Bible is looking at the culture the Biblical stories came from. With low literacy rates, oral re-tellings of an event were the primary way anyone came to learn things or pass on information. This also means that if the story changed in any significant way from generation to generation, those hearing it would take note, because their attention to detail was much, much higher than ours is today.


----------



## Alduriam (Jun 30, 2011)

Nikkoteeny said:


> Most historians generally agree that supernatural or not, Jesus of Nazareth _was_ a real person. While we can't actually prove the events depicted in the Gospels occurred, there is good evidence in that 1) Jesus's disciples were willing to be put to death to defend their statements about him. Unlike followers of Christianity today, these disciples were people who were in a unique postion to know, absolutely, whether these things occurred or not. As Lee Strobel writes, people will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they _know _their beliefs are false. The 2nd best evidence for believing the books of the Bible is looking at the culture the Biblical stories came from. With low literacy rates, oral re-tellings of an event were the primary way anyone came to learn things or pass on information. This also means that if the story changed in any significant way from generation to generation, those hearing it would take note, because their attention to detail was much, much higher than ours is today.


Glad to see we have someone else ready to look at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus with courage!

Adding to the sincerity of the apostles argument, it's important to note that ALL of them except John died as martyrs for what they believed really happened.

25 000 manuscripts
99.5% accuracy between them
Death of Jesus in 33 and first epistles of Paul around 48!

God did make sure we have alot of evidence.


----------



## RockBottomRiser (Jun 5, 2011)

Alduriam said:


> He watches over us tenderly, from the moment of our birth to our death.


How do you reconcile this with the cruelty and suffering in this world?


----------



## Nichiren (Aug 15, 2011)

bwidger85 said:


> *He gave us plagues, STDS, war, starvation, sins for natural desires, he makes us worship Him or burn in Hell, he is jealous, malicious, insecure, selfish.... he creates and if he doesn't like he destroys even though He created us...so he makes us knowing we'd be this way so we can live a life and then be tortured for ever or wiped off the face of the earth from anything we ever loved...
> 
> I'd rather burn in hell than worship that*.


^This:idea


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

RockBottomRiser said:


> How do you reconcile this with the cruelty and suffering in this world?


If you like, just google the phrase "the problem of evil," and you'll be bombarded with pro and anti-God material. Most of the answers you'll find on both sides are fairly reasonable, so pick the ones you find to be the most emotionally-gratifying.


----------



## RockBottomRiser (Jun 5, 2011)

erasercrumbs said:


> If you like, just google the phrase "the problem of evil," and you'll be bombarded with pro and anti-God material. Most of the answers you'll find on both sides are fairly reasonable, so pick the ones you find to be the most emotionally-gratifying.


A quick scan of the problem of evil suggests that it is more in line with what i'm hinting at than the idea of a tender god who watches over us all. Which is, frankly, bullshít.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

RockBottomRiser said:


> A quick scan of the problem of evil suggests that it is more in line with what i'm hinting at than the idea of a tender god who watches over us all. Which is, frankly, bullshít.


I'll try to provide a more thorough Cliffsnotes on the topic.

"What kind of benevolent God would create a world in which bad things happen?"

"The bad things are a product of man's flawed nature."

"If God made us, why would he make us flawed in the first place?"

"The potential to do wrong is a prerequisite for free will."

And then it devolves into a debate about whether or not free will is a good thing, or if it's even possible at all in the natural world. Which in turn leads to more questions. It's an eternal cycle of debate. Basically, whatever belief you held beforehand will probably be the one you hold afterward.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Nikkoteeny said:


> Most historians generally agree that supernatural or not, Jesus of Nazareth _was_ a real person. While we can't actually prove the events depicted in the Gospels occurred, there is good evidence in that 1) Jesus's disciples were willing to be put to death to defend their statements about him. Unlike followers of Christianity today, these disciples were people who were in a unique postion to know, absolutely, whether these things occurred or not. As Lee Strobel writes, people will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they _know _their beliefs are false. The 2nd best evidence for believing the books of the Bible is looking at the culture the Biblical stories came from. With low literacy rates, oral re-tellings of an event were the primary way anyone came to learn things or pass on information. This also means that if the story changed in any significant way from generation to generation, those hearing it would take note, because their attention to detail was much, much higher than ours is today.


But people are prone to exaggerations, more so than attentiveness wouldn't you say? If the bible were accurate through that arguement it would require a universally noted drop in attentiveness. Whenever that was, is still a mystery perhaps. "*shuts down attentiveness."* Just imagine. The year it happened would have been chaos! The last man would have had to have procured the holy documents, fought his way through the crowd and out of the city to the desert somewhere. We would have had to recover his version to know the absolute word of God. So, either it existed with him, or the irascible monkeys of the city transcribed it wrongly. I know some clans imposed the death penalty for reciting the history of their people incorrectly, but even so, someone had to live to tell them. Certainly the Jews diddn't impose this law and, if it was all a hoax, you'd expect incredible storytelling and profanities such as the exile in the desert who rode his pet crocodile. I was reading something about this. Jesus may have existed, as a man. The squabble for his divinity came after his death where people "fought for the shadows of the soul" over his grave. Metaphysicians like Plato decided that was worth doing where the profound was only acknowledged so by it's obscurity for the most part, or so it was said. Quite idealistic. I've read one such work by Dante who in all honesty diddn't impress me as far as philosophy goes although it made sense for the segments it isolated. Languages die out and I read somewhere else the entire bible was rewritten by one man some years later when under pressure to relay it's details to one of the kings at the time. It's writers all contradict eachother, some deciding Jesus was a man, some a God and a man and later it was decided Mary was infact a goddess by contemporary councils because the other sects quarrelling over her divinity were hacking eachother to pieces.. The soul was a Persian idea originally, wether or not directly lifted from them, that's down to faith. Infact, the entirety of the bible can be found elsewhere at the times it was written, as the wandering Jews massacred their way from city to city. Some have suggested pure plagiarism, naturally. Infact this bible to be relayed to a king once rewritten passed through the hands of a skivvy which doesn't imply to me the respect due the word of God either. Still, the contradictory sources do suggest there was at least someone by the name of Jesus to contradict. I know Voltaire believed this and thought highly of Jesus' morality though he also belived people needed governing and lauded the quaker movement in Britain who were born pessimists. Not sure if I trust him.

How do you adhere to the bible?


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

erasercrumbs said:


> I'll try to provide a more thorough Cliffsnotes on the topic.
> 
> "What kind of benevolent God would create a world in which bad things happen?"
> 
> ...


So God's power isn't infact absolute. We could reject him but in doing so would incarcerate ourselves into the abominable abyss of hell. If hell is eternal, how do we undertake to fear something so far beyond our comprehension? It is impossible to ponder eternal torment and all evil in hell is eternal, therefore we isolate ourselves from Satan, otherwise Satan would too be all powerful and in that sense, God and Satan would have pushed the world to the furthest reaches of infinity, far away from us. This proxy war would likely destroy our planet for all power is beyond this world. How then could we know to avoid evil when there is no conception of it in this one? For everything cannot be the same as nothing, and so reason dies. It seems with our free will we are destined to damn ourselves for our limited notions of evil. It seems, either we need God or we don't. If we do, we are not free, if we don't and he still exists, then fortune favours the fortunate, not righteousness or purity of heart, unless you believe in miracles constantly intervening in nature, then again, there too we wouldn't infact be free, for God robs us of our freedom to die. We would be under God's constant supervision, and such supervision dismisses free will beyond God thus the disasters are inflicted upon us by God, or there will be no disasters. So there will be no favour in this life, no prayer will be answered, no aid in this life will avail men of God.

So why strive towards purity of heart if purity of heart never avails you in this life? Nothing you do matters in this one, not but the appropriation of the next.

But, there is greater subtelty to it than this, and pure reason stale as ever saves me nothing.


----------



## Rossy (Jan 15, 2011)

God is just a massive lie,I feel sorry for everybody brainwashed by it.


----------



## Glacial (Jun 16, 2010)

velocicaur said:


> "...beer is good, and people are crazy."


I wonder how many people got it?


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

fredbloggs02 said:


> So God's power isn't infact absolute. We could reject him but in doing so would incarcerate ourselves into the abominable abyss of hell. If hell is eternal, how do we undertake to fear something so far beyond our comprehension? It is impossible to ponder eternal torment and all evil in hell is eternal, therefore we isolate ourselves from Satan, otherwise Satan would too be all powerful and in that sense, God and Satan would have pushed the world to the furthest reaches of infinity, far away from us. This proxy war would likely destroy our planet for all power is beyond this world. How then could we know to avoid evil when there is no conception of it in this one? For everything cannot be the same as nothing, and so reason dies. It seems with our free will we are destined to damn ourselves for our limited notions of evil. It seems, either we need God or we don't. If we do, we are not free, if we don't and he still exists, then fortune favours the fortunate, not righteousness or purity of heart, unless you believe in miracles constantly intervening in nature, then again, there too we wouldn't infact be free, for God robs us of our freedom to die. We would be under God's constant supervision, and such supervision dismisses free will beyond God thus the disasters are inflicted upon us by God, or there will be no disasters. So there will be no favour in this life, no prayer will be answered, no aid in this life will avail men of God.
> 
> So why strive towards purity of heart if purity of heart never avails you in this life? Nothing you do matters in this one, not but the appropriation of the next.
> 
> But, there is greater subtelty to it than this, and pure reason stale as ever saves me nothing.


I'm not sure I agree with the implication that needing God diminishes freedom (a theologian could make the point that our need of oxygen, food, or social interaction doesn't limit our moral freedom--if anything, the fact that humans have needs only make our choices more weighty*), but I get the gist of what you're saying.

Honestly, I envy people that find one side of the debate more convincing than the other. Surely it must grant peace of mind to go about your routine convinced of your place in the universe.

*I almost slipped into yet another endless debate: that of, 'if there is no evil, can there be good?' Using one of the examples I gave, if there was no need for food, then there would not be the temptation to steal food. Thus, there would be no freedom to choose right over wrong, or vice versa. Which, in turn begs the question of why God would force us to choose between good and bad in the first place. Which bleeds back into the original argument of free will. There really are no easy answers, for me at least.


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

erasercrumbs said:


> There really are no easy answers, for me at least.


I agree with this. The fact is, there are many questions we can answer, and the Bible instructs us to use our ability to reason to answer as much as we can (At no point are we called to blind faith). But not every answer will satisfy every person, and behind every answer we do uncover, we will always find another question.

Fredbloggs02, again, I would point to the culture of that time and place where these events occurred. Are humans today more prone to exaggeration than attentiveness? Absolutely. Because that is how we are conditioned by our society. It's like playing a game of telephone. But again, in that society wherefrom the Bible originates, passing along information orally is _what they do_. As to the assertion that it could not be accurate because someone had to be alive to tell the tale, it's not as though the disciples of Jesus were executed en masse. They didn't keep the news to themselves, they went out and they evangelized until their deaths. And the people they converted went on to evangelize, and so on. Believe the story or don't, the books of the Bible are generally regarded, again by many historians, to be as valid as far as historical documents go, as any others of that same time period and society. That is not to say that most historians believe the books to be truth, but that they can be trusted as genuine documents from that time period, whether they are full of lies or not.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Nikkoteeny said:


> I agree with this. The fact is, there are many questions we can answer, and the Bible instructs us to use our ability to reason to answer as much as we can (At no point are we called to blind faith). But not every answer will satisfy every person, and behind every answer we do uncover, we will always find another question.
> 
> Fredbloggs02, again, I would point to the culture of that time and place where these events occurred. Are humans today more prone to exaggeration than attentiveness? Absolutely. Because that is how we are conditioned by our society. It's like playing a game of telephone. But again, in that society wherefrom the Bible originates, passing along information orally is _what they do_. As to the assertion that it could not be accurate because someone had to be alive to tell the tale, it's not as though the disciples of Jesus were executed en masse. They didn't keep the news to themselves, they went out and they evangelized until their deaths. And the people they converted went on to evangelize, and so on. Believe the story or don't, the books of the Bible are generally regarded, again by many historians, to be as valid as far as historical documents go, as any others of that same time period and society. That is not to say that most historians believe the books to be truth, but that they can be trusted as genuine documents from that time period, whether they are full of lies or not.


So, you think the bible survived by storytelling or survived for so long untill we misheard? At what point did we lose the art of storytelling would you say? wether the original documents were written at the time or not, a story becomes so after the event, such stories need never have taken place in reality. Accurate fables? That seems a paradox of a proposal to me. How could artful imaginings account for history when the artist willfully misguides people to their own interpretation in thick allegory and metaphor?

Why would you believe something willfully manipulated and contrived to tell a different truth/settle political disputes long after the death of it's inspiring force? An interpretation is one thing, but in this case, the original changed with the interpretations regardless of the innate aptness for fables of the time. I'm all for interpretations, all for that; but what does it matter if the disciples wrote at the time of Jesus or told good stories if the stories they told were all allegories and metaphor? If that's what you mean when you say apt storytellers, I'd agree with you.

I've infact just finished reading a book about the origins of the Jewish religion by voltaire "God And Human Beings" which was the most interesting history I've read. Shocking in parts but on the whole quite a humorous take on the hypocrisy of the church and the authenticity of the Jewish religion, plagiarism and will to add bits in here and there to suit. If he has one virtue, not to appeal to his authority it's his scrupulous use of reason and history at all costs I respect. Lets see how much I remembered to see how a modern Christian responds to his some of his contestions

First of all, the Christians slowly added gospels and interpretations over time. The bible actually grew in length since first transcribed so it's originality is out of the question as far as voltaire is concerned. Wether the disciples provided original accounts or not, they all have him in many different places at once and lie willfully to fulfill certain prophecies. I agree with you people prided themselves on storytelling in Jesus' time, I mean my mum read the histories of Livy a contemporary Roman historian at the time of Jesus' existence in whatever form, I personally thought the journey through hell in Virgil's Aenid was pretty cool. Both are full of allegory and miracles subject to a myriad of interpretations. Of course there were books at the time of Jesus and there were probably disciples of Jesus but besides that, the fictions they recite all contradict oneanother's accounts.

Numerous conflicting doctrine from the supposed original source of inspiration.

Mathew said(2:14-15) the flight of Jesus into Egypt was predicted by Hosea

Luke said he never went to Egypt.

Mathew then went on to say Jesus lived in Nazareth to fulfill the prophecy "that he will be called a Nararean" and this prophecy was found nowhere.

The bible was written over a period of time and over time added to from other religions. Infact, he went so far as to say none of the bible or originally of the Pentateuch of Moses(which is also convincingly contested to have been written by him at all) is original. All of it was infact plagiarized from other countries and religions, so, wether the teachings survived or not which seems to me unlikely as the morality of the Jews in the desert and that of Jesus are frankly incomparable when you consider the death toll of their enemies and the perversions they inflicted upon the women and children in Egyptian territory. They adopted the name of god from the Phoenicians, the angels from the Persians, the wandering arc from the Arabs, Baptism from the Indians, circumcision from Egyptian priests, so on and so forth. It really doesn't look convincing. Almost all the miracles are lifted from Classical Greek myths. The curiosity of Pandora and that of Eve, Labors of Hercules, Labors of Samsom for example.

From the Jewish return from captivity in Babylon it is argued convincingly a man named Esdras rewrote the bible years later from the old Jewish books which would've been too numerous to contain in the 600 or so pages now sold as original. Not only that but also taking into acount the fact that after this transition from the original authors, all the books exhibited the same style which suggests he interpreted much of it and the tradition has been carried forward too, he observes.

There are also incredible stories, one regarding a couple struck down by divine intervention for their refusal to give their money away to the apostles.

I don't think much of Voltaire's pessimistic view of humanity and the need of a religious dogma to suit the masses while he believed in his private God I'm going to read about soon, but I trust his historical scrupulous care for history.

I think you'd have to define "storytelling" because unless by that you'd emphasize theatrics over authenticity it would take an awful amount of blind credulity to convince me any of the original survived the even the desert.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Krikorian said:


> You might want to look into what the Bible says about slavery, or, for example, women (New Testament, just so you don't bring up the old red herring of 'Jesus overcame the law of the OT') in 1 Timothy: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
> 
> Sure, God's a misogynistic supporter of slavery, but he offers grace in another world...somewhere, um, after you're dead.


Let my people GO! He also did that.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> Let my people GO! He also did that.


The issue in Exodus wasn't slavery. It was that the slaves were "God's people." In no discussion of the slavery in Egypt or the Exodus in the Old Testament did God or Moses actually say _anything_ condemning slavery.

Also, according to Ephesians 6, slaves should serve their masters as they serve Christ.

So Jesus loves the poor and down-trodden, but wants them to grab their ankles and take it. Their reward is in heaven. Probably. Maybe. Unless they don't have enough faith, in which case they'll suffer forever in the afterlife.

But hey, at least God spoke out against Ananias and Sapphira when they didn't give him the money they said they had. So God's okay with slavedrivers, but not people who don't give him the right amount of money. Really sounds like the kind of guy you'd like to spend an eternity with. Wait, so which one's heaven and which one's hell?


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Krikorian said:


> The issue in Exodus wasn't slavery. It was that the slaves were "God's people." In no discussion of the slavery in Egypt or the Exodus in the Old Testament did God or Moses actually say _anything_ condemning slavery.
> 
> Also, according to Ephesians 6, slaves should serve their masters as they serve Christ.
> 
> ...


God loves anyone who follows Him. He doesn't like to see people suffer, but there are times where we go through things to show us what we are made of. Life is not all easy.


----------



## CourtneyB (Jul 31, 2010)

Until anyone can actually prove with solid facts and evidence that the bible really is the word of god and not just words of humans, I will continue to believe that no one truly has a clue what is "right", true, or what religion is closest to the truth. Humans will look to anything to reassure themselves of their worth and peace of mind.

Anyone care to present any solid factual evidence? The bible and historians "confirming" something doesn't count either.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> God loves anyone who follows Him.


I thought God was supposed to love everyone. So God actually only loves people who believe in him?



> He doesn't like to see people suffer, but there are times where we go through things to show us what we are made of. Life is not all easy.


So God wants to see what this kid's made of?

God wanted to see what she was made of?

You're giving me a whole new perspective on God's "love."


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

CourtneyB said:


> Until anyone can actually prove with solid facts and evidence that the bible really is the word of god and not just words of humans, I will continue to believe that no one truly has a clue what is "right", true, or what religion is closest to the truth. Humans will look to anything to reassure themselves of their worth and peace of mind.
> 
> Anyone care to present any solid factual evidence? The bible and historians "confirming" something doesn't count either.


I'm not being a smartass, but am genuinely inquiring (which I want to clarify because it can be so hard to read a person's tone over the Internet). What type of proofs would you consider to be valid or factual?


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

Krikorian said:


> God wanted to see what she was made of?
> 
> You're giving me a whole new perspective on God's "love."


This is such an unfortunate misunderstanding of God's nature, and an unfortunately common one. God does not want this any more than you do. People who say that God allows, or even causes, suffering are, in my humble opinion, well-meaning and yet misguided. God allows suffering, but He does not cause it. I honestly believe that God mourns for the suffering human right along with us.


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

fredbloggs02 said:


> So, you think the bible survived by storytelling or survived for so long untill we misheard? At what point did we lose the art of storytelling would you say? wether the original documents were written at the time or not, a story becomes so after the event, such stories need never have taken place in reality. Accurate fables? That seems a paradox of a proposal to me. How could artful imaginings account for history when the artist willfully misguides people to their own interpretation in thick allegory and metaphor?
> 
> Why would you believe something willfully manipulated and contrived to tell a different truth/settle political disputes long after the death of it's inspiring force? An interpretation is one thing, but in this case, the original changed with the interpretations regardless of the innate aptness for fables of the time. I'm all for interpretations, all for that; but what does it matter if the disciples wrote at the time of Jesus or told good stories if the stories they told were all allegories and metaphor? If that's what you mean when you say apt storytellers, I'd agree with you.
> 
> ...


I'm curious, why do you find the omission of Jesus's time in Egypt in Luke's Gospel to be contradictory? If it explicitly stated that he never spent time in Egypt, I would concede. However, I don't view it not being mentioned as creating a contradiction in stories. In fact, if every Gospel contained all the same stories down to the letter, I would honestly find that suspicious. Different biographers will, inevitably, assign greatest importance to different events in a person's life. I actually think that makes the Gospels more credible, if anything.

In my research, most scholars believe "He shall be called a Nazarene" to refer to Isaiah 11:1, which says, "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit." The Hebrew word for "branch" is "nazar," the root word for Nazareth. Because this explanation is relatively new to me, I don't have any particular commentary on whether I find it satisfying. It's something I'm honestly chewing over right now.

As to the assertion that the New Testament documents are dated from the 2nd Century or later, it is my understanding that even to this day that is a "fact" that is highly debated. I am not educated in paleography myself, and there's not much more I contribute to that argument, beyond quoting one historian after another. I continue to learn and grow and search for answers to questions as they surface, and this is one more I can now add to the list of exciting topics to study. Thank you for bringing it up.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

God does things because he can - he can and has done it to us.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> God does things because he can - he can and has done it to us.


I thought God was supposed to do things because he's good, not because he can.



Nikkoteeny said:


> This is such an unfortunate misunderstanding of God's nature, and an unfortunately common one. God does not want this any more than you do. People who say that God allows, or even causes, suffering are, in my humble opinion, well-meaning and yet misguided. God allows suffering, but He does not cause it. I honestly believe that God mourns for the suffering human right along with us.


He may not cause suffering, but being able to stop it and not doing that makes him an accomplice to suffering.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Krikorian said:


> I thought God was supposed to do things because he's good, not because he can.
> 
> He may not cause suffering, but being able to stop it and not doing that makes him an accomplice to suffering.


Not exactly. There are also EVIL presences. They remind us of what is good.

Job is a perfect example - he was righteous, yet lost all of his family members, friends, house, got bad acne, etc. God let Satan have his way as long as he didn't destroy Job - he still made it through. God does things to show who He is. You seem to think if life is not a utopia, then God is a fool. That's not right at all.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

millenniumman75 said:


> Not exactly. There are also EVIL presences. They remind us of what is good.
> 
> Job is a perfect example - he was righteous, yet lost all of his family members, friends, house, got bad acne, etc. God let Satan have his way as long as he didn't destroy Job - he still made it through. God does things to show who He is. You seem to think if life is not a utopia, then God is a fool. That's not right at all.


I respect you milleniumman75. I agree with you at the same time in your last point when you say: "there is no utopia, there is no God." Such points are made by pseudo intellectuals who endeavour to appeal en masse to a society where mediocrity is lauded, psyhopaths are everywhere and the artist is a criminal. Not sound arguement, simple arguement, politically motivated arguement.

At the same time, it draws my attention to the first quote which struck me as rather sad. I know well you'd be a better God than the one you profess a belief in. If you possessed absolute power, you'd still find yourself in other people's positions before damning them forever, however insignificant they were to you, for their insignificance is relative to you, not to them. If not, then you'd become Orestes, and you'd still give them freedom despite the torture but you unlike a God would be stronger still, for no God suffers as we humans do. NO OMNIPOTENT BEING TAKES THE WORLD ON HIS SHOULDERS SO HAS NO POWER TO CONDEMN. EVEN DANTE'S INFERNO IN ALL IT'S VIOLENCE IS LIGHTER THAN THE HUMAN CONDITION, trust me. Unless of course we'd believe in the poetic innocence, designed not for heaviest hearts. In that sense God is no more than a poet's dark heart. IF MY GUILT DAMNS ME DEEPER THAN HIS POWER; then I am the strength to bear it he lacks. I am not dead and a choice is yours. If you stand with free will, all that remains to be said is, I choose to be alive without you. You could say that at any time and nothing more hinges upon it than that, no death of family carries it's inscription of debt, that debt exists with a name, the name is not the power but the incision. No sooner than you say it, does that strength become yours. Your condition is yours to defer up to God or bear on your shoulders. Even if such a God did exist as many great minds of antiquity believed, I know any human being with a soul would pierce his eyes with human vengence before stepping into those hands. He is our dark heart so long as we believe an inscription alleviates the darkness. This is not a question of fath, it is a question of conscience.

Satre's point in the play quoted earlier was that EVEN IN THE DARKNESS, I STILL CARRY IT WITH ME ALWAYS AS PENANCE BEFORE ANY GOD COULD INFLICT GREATER. IF MURDER IS GUILTY THEN THAT MURDER IS MINE and watch how I bear it, watch. I am heavier than you now. Whensoever vaunted power over me was in my guilt and never besides that. I AM TOO GUILTY FOR A GOD NOW, MY GUILT RUNS DEEPEST. The silence of the crowd corroborated this!, listen!... His point was, only a murderer can free us and God is a necessity because, there are those who care more for a life without freedom.

There is no difference and if in my powerlessness I am guilty before him, then, my only sin, a crime without a murder and a will to misplace all previous desires I consider ignoble in form to the grotesqueries of satan. There are things I cannot bear to watch, however the rest foisted upon me, it is for those things a God is powerless to intercede! They are notj ust my own! If God doesn't help me, or any other without him, he has already inflicted hell upon them! there no longer remains a choice, for no longer diametrically opposed opposites exist. they are irreconcilable! I can still do that and hold myself responsible from a heavier burden than the human condition, which is the prerogative of ANY human soul. If there were absolute sin and nothingness and in that emptiness we'd still feel superfluously guilty, then let that be so, but that guilt is mine!

I've been on this website for over a year now and in that time I've noted how friendly you are to newcomers. It strikes me as unjust you disavow these acts as though you were powerless before them. I can understand you don't feel you'd have followed them through without a God, at the same time I find it sad you don't take credit for yourself when there is nothing in my view to suggest there was anything short of your of your own will to help them involved. That weight is yours, the inscription is not. If the inscription brings you more weight than a heavy conscience, then it also regulates the potential for heaviest. There are people who have taken their own lives in my family who did so for the noblest of reasons and couldn't possibly have condemned themselves to hell. I swear to you. If they were it wouldn't be justice and it would be an easier ride let me assure you lol.

I hate Voltaire's philosophy on God! I don't want to see people controlled for the cessation of death! I want to see people free in life and if so bringeth death upon themselves, for freedom they bled and if so impotent ot hear, then stooped so listened to the weight of deafness. This is why Faust interests me because, even a man who makes a pact with the devil, still he subjugates himself and suffers for it, whereas Voltaire describes God as the tool of the state to govern people's crimes of conscience.:|:|:| I believe our sorrows judge us themselves too distinctly, not just from the mind but from the body. This is the paradox of Christianity. Unless a God can be in one place and every one place at once, he cannot feel for us. Do we judge by the extent of suffering or by the extent of God to believe this so? If by God, then our faith is COMPULSED to feel stronger than EVERY DISTINCT, PLAGUED CONSCIENCE, without that, we are ujustified... I am no God, my faith could not supercede conscience, that weight is beyond me to carry, so I must carry mine.


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> Not exactly. There are also EVIL presences. They remind us of what is good.
> 
> Job is a perfect example - he was righteous, yet lost all of his family members, friends, house, got bad acne, etc. God let Satan have his way as long as he didn't destroy Job - he still made it through. God does things to show who He is. You seem to think if life is not a utopia, then God is a fool. That's not right at all.


The addition of "got bad acne" in this explanation made me LOL. :clap


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

Krikorian said:


> He may not cause suffering, but being able to stop it and not doing that makes him an accomplice to suffering.


In all honesty and humility, what action would you have him take, as a Creator of free will beings? How would you affect that change, if you were God?


----------



## zomgz (Aug 17, 2009)

I was under the impression this forum was _not_ for debate.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Nikkoteeny said:


> In all honesty and humility, what action would you have him take, as a Creator of free will beings? How would you affect that change, if you were God?


.... God made us free.... "to choose"...... But the effects of our freedom "to choose" i.e. "to burn a man's face off" needn't enact themselves through our freedom "to choose?"

How is it we find it to reduce God to to a human level to criticize but to punish he is without a doubt justified? And not because he's God, that's bliidy cheating

The very law that dictates the truth that through suffering there comes ecstasy would have to have been written by God. Are you argueing that we in our finite freedom saw about this change in our history... By our freedom to torture we grew accustomed to torture maybe, even sadism?.. Perhaps a God could intervene in the causes of our freedom rather than our carrying it through?

*Stop that man's face from falling off when we burn him* for example. The choice to burn was ours, we enacted it, but the result needn't pertain to the action? ... We live in a finite world, with finite freedom. If it were our choices that God emphasized rather than the wanton destruction such choices reaped, the result wouldn't be at all significant.... Or would it?

I don't mean to criticize your arguement Nikkoteeny. I'd just rather see why you really believed in this(and I belive you do). Perhaps you don't think it's something translatable. I could probably defend something infinite convincingly though, not that I'd believe it. The reason why God is so interesting to me isn't the reasonable arguements, but the criticisms of reasonable arguements and personal experience. The difference between the internal and way people generally consider the external to reflect the internal... If that makes sense... Those sort of debates grant freedom.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

zomgz said:


> I was under the impression this forum was _not_ for debate.


It's my mistake, I started it. I hopped on into this discussion one night in a mad bluster to type out an entire page of a play which spoke about a God that preyed on fear. I was innocent at the time because I literally had no control over myself, wether that frailty now shames me, that's not for me to say... lol.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Nikkoteeny said:


> I'm curious, why do you find the omission of Jesus's time in Egypt in Luke's Gospel to be contradictory? If it explicitly stated that he never spent time in Egypt, I would concede. However, I don't view it not being mentioned as creating a contradiction in stories. In fact, if every Gospel contained all the same stories down to the letter, I would honestly find that suspicious. Different biographers will, inevitably, assign greatest importance to different events in a person's life. I actually think that makes the Gospels more credible, if anything.
> 
> In my research, most scholars believe "He shall be called a Nazarene" to refer to Isaiah 11:1, which says, "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit." The Hebrew word for "branch" is "nazar," the root word for Nazareth. Because this explanation is relatively new to me, I don't have any particular commentary on whether I find it satisfying. It's something I'm honestly chewing over right now.
> 
> As to the assertion that the New Testament documents are dated from the 2nd Century or later, it is my understanding that even to this day that is a "fact" that is highly debated. I am not educated in paleography myself, and there's not much more I contribute to that argument, beyond quoting one historian after another. I continue to learn and grow and search for answers to questions as they surface, and this is one more I can now add to the list of exciting topics to study. Thank you for bringing it up.


Mathew said(2:14-15) the flight of Jesus into Egypt was predicted by Hosea

Luke said he never went to Egypt.

Mathew then went on to say Jesus lived in Nazareth to fulfill the prophecy "that he will be called a Nararean" and this prophecy was found nowhere.

That segment I lifted from the book I'd been reading. You say omission, Voltaire thinks Luke contradicted Mathew explicitly.... So.... Bow down mere mortal! ... Joking. Honestly, you wouldn't acknowledge the first two extracts contradict eachother? And the third, well, that surely contradicts himself and every other author Voltaire read (and he read everything) at the time of Jesus. Unless you'd argue in the first instance Mathew's motivation for adding this was not infact his own exposition regarding the validity of the prediction, rather marking the occassion by a conversation with a jolly street preacher instead. If the latter is true I'd be inclined to cast a shadow on the rest of his work, or perhaps Luke's... Maybe Mathew was wrong after all. Who's to say? If there is no authority to say for certainty, why should anyone regard any of it? A story changes a life and our perspective on the world and everything, however, history never cited "The Bridge On The River Kwai."

I'm not argueing the bible isn't true, I'm argueing that two of it's authors explicitly contradict eachother in that instance. Wether you found Luke acknowledging Jesus' travel into Egypt or found the journey mentioned somewhere else, the point stands, the bible can be wrong on occasion, and it's our job to decide when that happens, not to pick and choose which information seems plausible to us right? If we did that we'd become demi-God's ourselves. It seems unavoidable though, once our minds require a certain ground for such divine authority. I seem to find myself caring for it's historicity, metaphor, allegory whereas you seem to care more for it's ability to be all encompassing and big enough to swallow the world regarding the subject I raised due to it's contradictory nature of crucial information regarding the whereabouts of Jesus at the time of his gang rape.... Sorry *coughs* I meant "life.".. pardon me... That was juvenile. :mum

Understand I'm not criticizing you, I'm trying to figure out why you believe: I'm not asking you to defend the Bible.. Just putting the point to you, that the bible makes mistakes on occasion in specific instances. If you then went on to find something that mitigated this prior mistake all power to you, however, had I but read that single page and put the bible down again or been burdened from birth with poor memory of the mitigating circumstances, quoting the bible may well have gotten me in trouble with God I think you'll concede. That in turn prompts me to ask, if God wouldn't smite me for that reason, when would he smite anyone and, who if not the sole authors of God's divine word grants you authority on the subject?


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

fredbloggs02 said:


> It's my mistake, I started it. I hopped on into this discussion one night in a mad bluster to type out an entire page of a play which spoke about a God that preyed on fear. I was innocent at the time because I literally had no control over myself, wether that frailty now shames me, that's not for me to say... lol.


We are to fear God, but not entirely the way you have it portrayed. God is also a comforter, a friend, a mentor, a rescuer, a guide, a father, and a redeemer.

We are only responsible for the choices we make and the things we do - if God doesn't like it, we usually know. He will still do what He wants, whether we like it or not. God is just and is fair - he is not going to do anything without a reason. Sometimes, it is our sin - sometimes, it is the sins of a people.


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

fredbloggs02 said:


> Mathew said(2:14-15) the flight of Jesus into Egypt was predicted by Hosea
> 
> Luke said he never went to Egypt.
> 
> ...


Luke never explicitly says that Jesus never went to Egypt. In fact, I read over Luke's gospel after reading your post, so that I could be sure. It omits anything about Egypt, but rather than denying the event occurred, it simply never mentions it.

Let's pretend for a second that it does say that, though. Does that make the entire history recorded in the New Testament unreliable? Hmm. That's a question to mull over. If Voltaire is wrong about the contradiction existing between the two gospels, is his entire work on the NT unreliable? Ahhh, so many questions!


----------



## Nikkoteeny (Aug 15, 2011)

fredbloggs02 said:


> .... God made us free.... "to choose"...... But the effects of our freedom "to choose" i.e. "to burn a man's face off" needn't enact themselves through our freedom "to choose?"
> 
> How is it we find it to reduce God to to a human level to criticize but to punish he is without a doubt justified? And not because he's God, that's bliidy cheating
> 
> ...


To be honest, I don't quite understand your suggestion towards the freedom to choose our actions, without effecting consequences through those actions. What meaning does choice have if choosing doesn't... do anything? I mean no disrespect or criticism in saying so, but it just doesn't really make sense to me.

I think it's less the universal truth that there can be no pleasure without pain, but rather, what we most memorably learn through Joseph in the Old Testament. That while God does not create or inspire suffering, he can and will make a plan to use that suffering that we cause ourselves or others to endure, for their ultimate benefit. Or as Joseph says in the Book of Genesis, "You intended to harm me, but God meant it for good, to save many people alive."

To me, I am convinced on multiple levels of the goodness and the existence of God: Philosophically, I've found it to be the most intellectually satisfying (that is to say, the most sensical) explanation currently available for how our world came to exist. Spiritually, my intuition leads me to the God of Christianity. Logically, Jesus is a God that I feel not only obligated, but inspired to give my life and choices over to, because of Who He is (His character) and not simply because he's "a god". And morally, the pacifistic teachings of Jesus are most in tune with what seems right to me. I freely admit that I could, and might, be wrong in that belief. But until I find evidence that tells me I am, I believe strongly enough that Christianity is true that I would wish to answer any questions I can that may stand in the way of another's believing.

I think also, it's important to note that Jesus never calls anyone to blind faith. In the gospels, He repeatedly charges would-be converts to walk away and count the cost, reason through it, before giving up everything to follow Him. This is an attitude that has unfortunately historically been lost on the Christian church at large, but I do not mean to convince anyone here to follow Christ. Just to help clear as many obstacles as I can to those who wish they could believe. The Internet, sadly, does not translate disposition well for any of us.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> Not exactly. There are also EVIL presences. They remind us of what is good.


Sometimes they do, other times they just make people suffer.



> Job is a perfect example - he was righteous, yet lost all of his family members, friends, house, got bad acne, etc. God let Satan have his way as long as he didn't destroy Job - he still made it through. God does things to show who He is.


This is a good example of calling God "good" despite his pettiness, indifference, sociopathy, and narcissism as portrayed in the Bible. If God wanted to show who he was in the story of Job, he did exactly that - any doubts before as to God's indifference and lack of empathy can be removed.

You are trying to set up an entirely unique definition of "good" so that God somehow fits into it. Anyone, any being, who behaved the way you think God does could only be described as profoundly wicked.



> You seem to think if life is not a utopia, then God is a fool. That's not right at all.


Life doesn't have to be a utopia. Suffering could exist in a good world. The question is whether an omnipotent God can allow evil to happen and still be called "good."

God allows people to be rapists; he allows them to be raped. God allows people to be murders; he allows them to be murdered. God allows people to be torturers; he allows them to be tortured. If he is omniscient, he sees and knows about all of these things before, during, and after they happen. And he does nothing.

In heaven, presumably, there is no suffering or evil. So obviously he is capable of doing that while sustaining the good of free will. Heaven is a utopia - perhaps God's apology for screwing up so much in this life?



Nikkoteeny said:


> In all honesty and humility, what action would you have him take, as a Creator of free will beings?


Without going too far into it, we are free but we are also conditioned. We take on habits of action and thought, sometimes without consciously "willing" anything. Sometimes it takes us a long time to even realize that we have certain habits. A person born into an abusive household is conditioned to make certain decisions differently than someone born into a nurturing household. Some of these are beneficial, some harmful. But the will we have is not free in the sense that it is not completely aware. The will is enacted in a series of conditioned behaviors, contexts, and determinants.



> How would you affect that change, if you were God?


This question has another question behind it: could God do better?

Assuming he's omnipotent, the answer is yes. If you set the rules of worldly existence, you can change the rules of worldly existence, meaning that God could reconcile free will and exclude evil if he wanted to. Without even violating free will, however, God could improve some things in the world and leave our freedom as it is. He could end drought and famine. He could end flooding. He could end disease. That would be a start.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Nikkoteeny said:


> Luke never explicitly says that Jesus never went to Egypt. In fact, I read over Luke's gospel after reading your post, so that I could be sure. It omits anything about Egypt, but rather than denying the event occurred, it simply never mentions it.
> 
> Let's pretend for a second that it does say that, though. Does that make the entire history recorded in the New Testament unreliable? Hmm. That's a question to mull over. If Voltaire is wrong about the contradiction existing between the two gospels, is his entire work on the NT unreliable? Ahhh, so many questions!


I trust Voltaire's historical claims because for his time, he was very widely read and respected. People who have earned my respect and I've read, they cite him. Not that this is a matter of authority. They could all be wrong, I could have read some very cynical people out for blood but... What I haven't done, I haven't simply taken the word of a single document to support my claim, especially one that passed through so many hands, underwent thousands of translations before it rests with us today. In making any claim beyond myself I have to trust another's opinion. We are both speaking beyond ourselves and our direct experiences. Voltaire wrote in the 17th century, and, as I said before with the authority of this widely read historian, the bible changed hands with politically motivated priests and theologians in back rooms who realised it diddn't make sense. That coupled with a myriad of translations loses both content and allegory when any original text changes hands. Don't get me wrong , one man's testimony doesn't make every document unreliable from then on in, no more so than one Jesus of Nazareth. I've heard numerous people who have earned my trust cite Voltaire as a historian. I diddn't just take one man's word for it. The truth is, if I went back and read over the older two centuries ago, I'm sure I'd find discrepencies. I can't prove it, but I'm not going to take the bible's word for it today I'm wrong.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

Nikkoteeny said:


> To be honest, I don't quite understand your suggestion towards the freedom to choose our actions, without effecting consequences through those actions. What meaning does choice have if choosing doesn't... do anything? I mean no disrespect or criticism in saying so, but it just doesn't really make sense to me.
> 
> I think it's less the universal truth that there can be no pleasure without pain, but rather, what we most memorably learn through Joseph in the Old Testament. That while God does not create or inspire suffering, he can and will make a plan to use that suffering that we cause ourselves or others to endure, for their ultimate benefit. Or as Joseph says in the Book of Genesis, "You intended to harm me, but God meant it for good, to save many people alive."
> 
> ...


Listen, I agree with you there, insurmountable charisma and the ability to dominate a crowd by use of fists is exceptionally important in any debate... Just kidding, I know what you meant I'm sure you are justified in your thoughts. Knowing that you are confident in your views is great! If you were willing to convert me of the truth of them I'd be more than willing to oblige you, though through personal experience alone via an appeal to it's authority in my view shouldn't convince people of a universal truth. That's Soren Kierkegaards thought. Not everyone would agree with his creative thought so following into authority was his saving grace... My point. Untill you conviced people the world lives by the dogma or that there is a finite end to man's ongoing investigations, that the poetic allegory or illusions conjured up by the dogma were undeniable and so distinctly powerful to all who whispered them, in my theoretical view, you'd not be justified to impose God as a universal truth. The problem is, when hell is a place after death, God requires a unity thus damning those still trapped further into the depths of a hell in this world.

Why does consequence necessarily imply freedom to you? Do you envisage people's deaths as freedom enacted? Does freedom dwell within the freedoms of desire or in the freedom to desire? If the action proceeded the vision then I'd agree that freedom without it's effects would feel pointless and perhaps justify a God's philosophy. Perhaps you'd argue the image is a result of past action. To which I'd reply, a man can feel intensely guilty before having commited a crime. Perhaps the two are indistinguishable though. Do you not dream of setting yourself free? I know people who'd give their lives happily in the midst of their freedom once directed before any blood loss, for it's enaction, not for the death inevitable in a finite universe subject to such laws, for which we can only thank the creative genius of an unlimited God beyond human reason profusely. .. I like Camus when he says absurd reason is the path to freedom and to truth because it grants us our right to our own truth. it stands so long as we draw breath, no longer. A path you never look back on, enacted within the passions that draw from that will to see one step further and upon reaching the pinnacle, to fall then to rise once more untill there are no more pinnacles left to climb. and so the human has prevailed or the universe subjects itself to now.

Dostoievsky famously said If: Science solved every problem, wouldn't people simply contradict it for the sake of freedom? He went to see a prostitute in that novel and once he'd finished with her and the price was decided £30 or the equivelant in Rubles, he decided NOT to pay her in money, but every way she wouldn't accept before finally agreeing on the most absurd currency he could think of, leaving her utterly bewildered lol. untill she accepted his dominion, for nothing... Maybe some men are like that, so universal peace is unnecessary and promoting pessimism by God does no better to affirm a rational belief in him.

Even Hitler killed himself in a solitary bunker. They say "because the war was over." It infuriates me when people condemn a man who spoke with such passion, it really does. If it appeared he cared little for other people, that is an interesting subject to explore. My point: I'm not sure a God is necessary to punish the really inspired criminals... Perhaps there is a way of separating the most inspired criminals from those without conscience and that would lessen the burden on a world where God did not exist. I'd like to explore that thought anyway...

I'd like to know what you thought about God. How visceral is hell to you? Do you venture beyond personal experiences? If you do, do you take a conscience with you for the ones who disbelieve? How do you justify yourself above others? How would you know you believed in the same God as the next Christian if you never spoke of him save through power phrases? If death served us all fairly as a God, what of those in a visceral hell?


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

millenniumman75 said:


> We are to fear God, but not entirely the way you have it portrayed. God is also a comforter, a friend, a mentor, a rescuer, a guide, a father, and a redeemer.
> 
> We are only responsible for the choices we make and the things we do - if God doesn't like it, we usually know. He will still do what He wants, whether we like it or not. God is just and is fair - he is not going to do anything without a reason. Sometimes, it is our sin - sometimes, it is the sins of a people.


I have no problem with a God, what's important is his form, what he represents, wether he leaves us free or constricted.

He, in all those roles you propose helps only so far as he disintegrates the soul to me. As a leech digesting the blood as it infects you with disease... Try to pry it from your skin, it clamps down as tightly as the individual imagines burning alive forever, as they imagine their inability to conceive of Gods vengence to sinners and thus feel worse for adopting and fall short as the bible "sharper than a double-edged sword." That was the illusion in Satre's breathtaking play "The Flies" and what scares me most considering religion, the way of death introduced into life, the apathy, torn when pity for mankind eventually sets a concrete face of hypocrisy, false empathy which relates to powerlessness before compassion. One that leaves people as scuttling shadows, with hidden claws well concealed to their kind but vicious skin-tearing, rakes to to the backs of outsiders as a vacuous smile...

The compassion a God might show to people is first one of powerlessness, then of restlessness, then from that restlessness steals a smile felt in the cheeks, not the heart. An obligatory smile that arises like the mist of a swamp. The deeper one's soul sinks into the swamp the more prevalently the smile etches itself, rising into the face, the mist always at it's thinnest progressively untill the end of the degeneracy. A great book which talks about this is effect is "My Pye"-Mervyn Peake(me maas favourite author). The difference between a human smile and the smile of the body alone. The man in the book for the first half continuously swallows boiled sweets, his cheeks shine like varnish, and he sings.. There is something venemously malignant hidden in "All things bright and beautiful" when it comes from the body... Something hollow, restless, strained, sickly and distant; all at once. Then.... This man runs into a naked woman, free as a bird. He calls out to her as she passes his threshold. She stops and waits, hesitantly. She doesn't reply. He has said nothing, she has heard nothing more but to draw her attention, his very bearing, the wind betrays the inconsistency within him, the dishonesty... Worth a read. This book shows what the fullest human heart looks like when it embraces all it's fears of the soul as well as those of the body. It shows us that I never denied the soul, however, institutionalized religion does to many.

If I died tomorrow, I'd go to hell and whoever acknowledged the Christian dogma would unappily support that at the bak of their minds. And THAT is how religious dogma plays on guilt. It makes you feel guilty for submitting and condemning good people to hell because you're not virtuous enough to find the goodness in your heart to support it. How loving and supportive is a God who requires that of someone, especially one who traps people into believing in him by making them feel too lowly to reject it. You're conscripted into condemning me to hell. That was my point, your own conscience traps you into the guilt wether the great tapestry of this monster supports you or not, your own conscience ALWAYS precedes it. Your soul, if you like, is in your keeping alone. Guilt is what makes men lowly, wether that comes from God to begin with, guilt is only accentuated by a God who asks anyone to comdemn others exercising their free will to ETERNAL torture.

...And what of it when it doesn't anymore? Obviously there are different interpretations of hell but without them, this is surely suicide, and more than you or any human deserves, especially good people, sensitive people as you'd find here on this website. .. It's sad. I bet people are here for this very reason! I bet many of you only come here because you're sensitive enough to feel this to a greater severity!

So NO. In that sense, God is not great, not by a long stretch. God is an evil, cynical ******* from the moment we let him into our lives to the moment we leave them. I would rather murder before condemn myself to a murder I'd never commited and feel guilty justly before coercion. Noone here deserves this!


----------



## Dark Alchemist (Jul 10, 2011)

What a waste of time the idea of a god is.


----------



## Metus (Dec 6, 2010)

Saving Face said:


> I wonder how many people got it?


Billy Currington.
First thing I thought after "Allahu Akbar!"


----------



## Metus (Dec 6, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> We are to fear God, but not entirely the way you have it portrayed. God is also a comforter, a friend, a mentor, a rescuer, a guide, a father, and a redeemer.
> 
> We are only responsible for the choices we make and the things we do - if God doesn't like it, we usually know. He will still do what He wants, whether we like it or not. God is just and is fair - he is not going to do anything without a reason. Sometimes, it is our sin - sometimes, it is the sins of a people.


I think that "fear" doesn't accurately describe the ideal relationship one is supposed to have with God. It's supposed to be reverence, really.


----------



## NeonSloaney (Jun 1, 2011)

Wait are we allowed to debate on this forum? Or just in aldarium threads? Confused nao.


----------



## jesus is my savior (Aug 4, 2011)

Do not blame God. God let Satan take all Job had from him as a way to test his heart, and Job passed. God blessed him with twice as much as he had before.
Suffering exists only for the overcoming of it.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

jesus is my savior said:


> Do not blame God. God let Satan take all Job had from him as a way to test his heart, and Job passed.


"Testing his heart" is quite the euphemism for killing Job's family and associates and taking everything he had. As far as giving Job another family, that would be like if I went to a person's house, killed his whole family, then offered to pay for a mail-order bride that he can start a new family with because he "passed my test."

Yeah, that doesn't sound the least bit sociopathic.



> Suffering exists only for the overcoming of it.


Would you actually be so calloused as to say this to a suffering person's face? You would feel no sense of blasphemy of the "love" you think your God feels towards people - to say that they're allowed to suffer because God wants them to overcome their suffering?

Why is it important to God that humans overcome suffering? We know that there _is_ suffering, and if there is a God, that he allows it. We have to be wise in understanding suffering in life because we are faced with it everyday. This is the only life we understand. But assuming God is omnipotent, he could have created a life where understanding suffering would have no purpose, because suffering would not be a function of everyday life. So if you're creationist, you believe believe that God created suffering not because he had to (he's omnipotent, right?) but because he wanted people to suffer, that is to say, God wanted to harm people, to hurt them. Therefore the Christian God, if he actually existed, would be profoundly evil.


----------



## JamieHasAnxiety (Feb 15, 2011)

Alduriam said:


> "You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers. And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other. And many false prophets will arise and mislead many. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.* But the one who endures to the end will be saved.* And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
> 
> Mathew 24: 9-14


Praise be.


----------



## CourtneyB (Jul 31, 2010)

I love how everyone likes to say you are supposed to "fear God" yet he is also supposed to be a comforter and friend, as well as other things. You aren't supposed to fear someone who is supposed to be a supportive and comforting friend (or "presence", if you will). A true friend would never want you to fear him/her.

Its psychological. You believe in such things and presences because it helps you feel comforted in times of stress and turmoil. Heck, even I've done it. Yet there is no solid proof that such presences aka god exist. I'm agnostic, so I'm not saying definitively that there is a god or isn't, because truthfully no one can know, but the bible isn't solid proof of anything.


----------



## Krikorian (May 16, 2011)

Jesus is my savior said:


> U mad bro?


So much for always being "prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). I expected as much.


----------



## vash (Aug 16, 2010)

I do believe in GOD no matter what I find or what arguments are there against it. I just can't help how i feel. However, I don't go by what the Bible says and I don't think people should quote the Bible when making an argument, and this is why.


----------



## vash (Aug 16, 2010)




----------



## Alduriam (Jun 30, 2011)

zomgz said:


> I was under the impression this forum was _not_ for debate.


That's what I though too, but apparently my post about God's greatness got alot of attention. Which is good in the end


----------



## jesus is my savior (Aug 4, 2011)

CourtneyB said:


> I love how everyone likes to say you are supposed to "fear God" yet he is also supposed to be a comforter and friend, as well as other things. You aren't supposed to fear someone who is supposed to be a supportive and comforting friend (or "presence", if you will). A true friend would never want you to fear him/her.
> 
> Its psychological. You believe in such things and presences because it helps you feel comforted in times of stress and turmoil. Heck, even I've done it. Yet there is no solid proof that such presences aka god exist. I'm agnostic, so I'm not saying definitively that there is a god or isn't, because truthfully no one can know, but the bible isn't solid proof of anything.


To fear the LORD does not necessarily mean to tremble with great fright and die from faintness. It means to know there is a God who knows your actions, your inner motives, your heart and mind, and to therefore watch what you do. We all fall short and go astray, and to fear Him is to persevere and abstain from worldy desires.

We walk by faith, not by sight, 2 Cor. 5:7. Cast all your anxiety on Him, for He cares for You, 1 Peter 5:7
God bless you, friend!<3


----------



## Spindrift (Mar 3, 2011)

Quite the Orwellian diety, isn't he?


----------



## jesus is my savior (Aug 4, 2011)

Amen to you, JamieHasAnxiety!<3

Life here is not exactly Heaven. Brother betrays brother, parents disown their children, streets run amok, the world leaders are corrupt. Injustice and horrible things happen on a daily basis.

Friends, you may ask, "If God is in control of everything, and is omnipresent, than why do these things happen? Why does He let them happen?"

"Do not be afraid, for these things must happen first." Luke 21:9

Suffering and trials exist so that you may emerge from them stronger. You may have been praying to what seemed like a mere rumor of a deity for a long long time, and nothing happened. But if you persevere, and persist, and learn to wait for the Lord, he will bless you and for sure will lift you up. 

"Does God honestly think I can afford to wait? I am not sure I can bear this pain much longer!"

Stand firm! Those who do will never taste perish.
Love y'all. But -more importantly - the Lord loves You more<3


----------



## jesus is my savior (Aug 4, 2011)

Spindrift said:


> Quite the Orwellian diety, isn't he?


He is not of this world. He has not in mind the things of men, which are foolish and unruly, but He alone is the Judge. I myself am in no place to judge you, friend. God bless!<3 He loves you!


----------

