It seems that if a country is developed, no one seems to know God. Why

1. 57

   christianajohanposted 12 years ago

   I think that they don't need God because they have all they need to live. Wake up you people, God gave all things.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Greetings Chistianajohan:
      
      I think Mammon Ra (the Egyptian god of wealth and prosperity) is diabolically opposed to the principles set forth by the Almighty and His Only begotten Son, Christ Yeshua. As the Bible states, "One cannot serve two masters...one cannot serve both God and money."
      
      I think the Lord wants humanity to be generous, selfless, and store up for themselves treasures in Heaven, but for those who are driven by wealth and prosperity, delayed gratification is more than they can bear when they would much rather enjoy immediate gratification by living for the here and now, with little thought of eternity.
      
      The accumulation and aquisition of wealth is not a Christian principle and although there are many things that are said in the Bible about the "wealthy" - none of it is positive. I also think those that are wealthy or those who are striving to be, aren't looking forward to the promises of Heaven, because they already have achieved  "Heaven on earth".
      
      I think the bottom line is that the love of money is the root of all evil. At its very core is greed and greed is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit.
      
      Can a person attain wealth and still be a Christian? Sure, but the Bible is very clear that this is the exception and not the rule.
      
      I also think people tend to turn to God when things are tough and possibly blame Him for the problems in their lives. However, when times are good, people tend to forget God and praise themselves for their prosperity. I guess it comes down to where one wants to put their faith: In the value of God's promises or in the value of the dollar.
      
      Why should the wealthy pray to God for deliverance from illness, when they can pay for the best medical care? Why should the wealthy ask God for protection, when they can pay for police protection and body guards? Why should the wealthy thank God for the food on their table, when they think it was due to wise investments or clever business dealings that brought about their prosperity?
      
      Financial prosperity and Godly principles seem to blend like oil and water.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Any we created God.

         replyreport
      2. 62

         Lisa HWposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I don't happen to think money is the only root of evil.  In fact, I tend to think that ignorance, jealousy, and envy come in ahead of money.   The Bible was written long before there were developed nations and long before there was such as thing as preventing and curing disease or the capability of designing water-purification systems not only in developed countries, but in countries where the knowledge and resources from developed nations can mean people in one village or another somewhere will at least have clean drinking water.
         
         It's interesting to me that you apparently call "wealthy" people who need to hire bodyguards, while someone else from a country other than the US will see YOU as "wealthy" because of what  a lot of people in your country have, as compared to what people in their country have.  And it surprises me that you're even willing to accept the premise that developed-nation people "don't know God", since you apparently "know God" and live in a developed country.    So, I'm kind of confused...   Do you count yourself among the "good and non-wealthy" or the "God-less, evil, and wealthy in a developed nation"?
         
         So, back in the days when people were ignorant and nations weren't "developed", and when people saw gold as "the big thing", how do we know exactly what degree of "wealth" it was against which "wealthy" versus "non-wealthy" was being measured...   If the idea was supposed to be that only dirt-poor, under-developed,  societies were the only people who could be good people - sorry, I don't buy that, no matter who wrote it where.  Dirt-poor societies/neighborhoods turn out a whole lot higher percentages of criminals, thieves, and "questionables" than do well developed, well educated, societies/neighborhoods.  That's not saying poor places don't have good people and wealthier societies/neighborhoods don't turn out bad people too; but desperate people are more likely to do desperate things; and sometimes are less likely to see non-desperate people as human beings just like them" at all.
         
         Besides, do you think wealthy people don't love their children and parents and pray when they're afraid something may happen to them?  Do you think wealthy people don't see some of what other people go through (whether it's illness or anything else) and pray that someone else's heartbreaking story will have a happy ending?  Do you think people can't/don't earn their money with honest, hard, work; or that a whole lot of people don't use their own wealth or else don't use their own education/abilities to "do God's work" (since those who have less don't have the ability/resources to make the same kind of contribution)?
         
         I'd assert that in this particular "developed country" (the US) (and other similarly developed nations) there are a whole lot more "Godly principles" adhere to than there are in a whole lot of less developed nations.
         
         (Please don't interpret the length of my post as a sign that I'm being argumentative or zeroing in on you, personally.  I just think there are a lot of holes in a lot of the premises being passed around on this thread, so I'm offering another angle to things.)

         replyreport
      3. 72

         lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Good points, CJ. But I think the real evil isn't money, but the ego which clamors for it. Could it be that ego is the "master of this world?" It seems to fit what the Nazarene described as the "self" which must perish before we can gain everlasting life. Ego is the poisonous stance of the Pharisees when they showed no compassion, but only an arrogant adherence to the "letter of the law."

         replyreport
         1. 57

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The same ego that would have one believe snarled traffic on a LA boulevard magically opens up just for YOU.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Again, you are not adding anything useful to the discussion, but further my theory that you are nothing more than a religious scoffer - a rebel without a cause.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, and we cherish and embrace your analysis of reality, too.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     manlypoetrymanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Who's the "we"?

                     replyreport
         2. 0

            CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, Lone77star. I think the love of money being the root of evil was not meant to convey that money, in and of itself, is evil, but that the effect it has on the human heart tends toward pride, arrogance, selfishness, over-indulgence and greed, and these elements are the foundation for all forms of evil.

            replyreport
   2. 75

      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Chistianajohan:
      
      No religious group or non religious can claim all spirituality, 99% of it has yet to be learned, no one or group can claim it ALL, each person and each great make up great bias in this way over ego world.
      
      Good news, is Science and Spiritual is blending better and better, I'm a boomer who thinks more optimistic like generation X and Y about our future.

      replyreport
   3. 81

      skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I see linux kernel developed by an atheist. Windows developed by an atheist. Apple owned by two atheists. God gave you linux, windows and apple? yeah right. True. You must listen to gods instead of OS docs and manual. In case of virus, pray, don't run antivirus.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
      2. 60

         pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Don't forget St. IGNUcius of the Church of Emacs, Richard Stallman, i thank this man every day!
         
         

         replyreport
   4. 57

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't know that being awake meant to ignore reality.
      
      Is there a "Believers Dictionary" I'm not aware of?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You speak as though you have cornered the market on truth and you talk as though you possess knowledge beyond your pay-grade. You cannot disprove the existence of God, yet you argue as if you can. This, then, makes you a "scoffer", not a philosopher. Who has time for scoffers?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well, you can't disprove that there are fairies in the woods, or pink unicorns or mermaids, is it reasonable to believe this kind of creatures do exist?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No, I cannot disprove their existence any more than you can prove God's non existence. So, what's the point?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Do you think it is reasonable to believe those kind of creatures do exist?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, is there a basis in legend or in lore? Are there credible witnesses that have seen these creatures in the present or in the past? Did an ancient authority write about such creatures? Is there any kind of evidence that would lead one to believe that they exist or existed at one time?
                     
                     If none of the aforementioned criteria have been met,  I would dare say that there is not a reasonable basis for the belief in their existence, but then again, I am not prepared to say that their existence is impossible.
                     
                     In fact, I believe there are plenty of strange creatures and mysterious happenings that escape our notice. What do you think?

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        The answer to all those questions is no.
                        
                        If you think it is reasonable to believe in pink unicorns and mermaids i have no will to argue with you.
                        
                        Have a good night sir!

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Not true.  There is much basis in legends and lore.  There are without doubt witnesses that claim to have seen them (except that unicorns are always white).  There are, I'm certain, ancient "authorities" (if you can accept that a people completely ignorant by our standards produced authorities we would believe or accept) that made the claim.
                           
                           These things are the evidence, just as they are the evidence for God.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Exactly!
                              
                              Mermaids:
                              
                              
                              
                              Unicorns:
                              
                              
                              
                              At least these legends have some real base...

                              replyreport
         2. 57

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The pot calling the kettle black. Isn't it you believers who have "cornered the market on truth"? I have never claimed to have a truth.
            
            
            
            Here's how it works, you cannot show at all that God exists, hence I don't accept your claims that he does exist. See?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Then we have an understanding.
               
               The initial claim in ancient times was that God exists. The refuting argument is that He does not. The challenger did not meet his burden in the days of old and his adherents still cannot meet this burden today. Consequently, the initial statement that God exists is still valid until proven otherwise.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Is that how it works?  The first statement is true without needing proof until proven beyond any doubt to be false?
                  
                  Did you know that the FSM is far superior to God, having created him and instructed him in how to make a universe?
                  
                  Now, using your style of logic, that statement will remain inviolate and absolutely true until proven false beyond any doubt.  Would you care to take a stab at it?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     No, wilderness, that is incorrect.
                     
                     The first statement is valid but not necessarily true. Any challenger who cannot prove his position or disprove the original position, had better cozy up to the fact that the original position will continue to be a valid viewpoint unless proven to be false.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        It will continue to be a valid viewpoint only if it is provable one way or the other.  Note that I did not say it was actually proven, just that it was provable at all.
                        
                        It is not possible to prove the non-existence of an undetectable God that has no interaction with our world.  It is not possible to disprove it when no characteristics of God are given - we do not know what to disprove.  At the same time, proof of existence suffers from the exact same problems and is not possible either.
                        
                        This makes it an invalid viewpoint in that there is no reason to believe it, either.  It may be true, it may not, but it is impossible to know, so why believe?  In the case of God, the tale includes actions and events that are impossible in our universe - they violate natural physical laws.  Coupled with the inability to know the only reasonable answer left is that it is only myth.

                        replyreport
   5. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      christiana - seems like a fairly broad statement considering there are millions of god loving people in the US alone.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Of course you are right, Couturepopcafe. But, I think Christiana was alluding to the basic trend of faith, followed by prosperity, then followed by apostacy in these developed countries.
         
         And, even though there are millions of believers in the United States, many of them are weak in the faith and live lives not much different from the unbeliever in thought, word, and deed.
         
         I read a recent poll that stated that if the current trends continue, Christianity will be dead in the United States within 40 years. I blame much of this on "prosperity preaching" within the churches, not to mention the "Word-Faith" movement, which is really gaining traction. Again, these concepts are not Biblical, but then again, many Christians do not even read their Bible anymore, so they are easily led astray. Christianity is not a religion - it's a way of life and it can only be achieved by those who practice it daily.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I see your point. I live in Tennessee and people do read their bibles. The Christian God says we should prosper. The Amish are the only Christians who live as though they are just passing through.
            
            Personally, well, never mind.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I am happy to hear that there is a remnant that still reads the Word of God. Truth be known, practicing Christianity and the proper application thereof, is becoming a dying art.
               
               Best wishes and be well.

               replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   Hierarchy of needs. People look to God to fill their bellies when they live in poverty. People cry out to God for shelter in inclement weather.  Take away those needs and you look for other needs to be fulfilled. Put a person in a position to have no needs and you have a God whose job becomes to fulfill your wants and desires. Your model of God obviously falls short in an affluent nation. If he answers your prayers, he's a genie in a bottle. Not much to respect there. If he doesn't answer your prayers, you question his existence. Perhaps, the skewed model religion offers is the problem.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      WretchedRaptureposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think you just hit the nail on the head there Emile. I couldn't agree more.

      replyreport
3. 74

   glendoncabaposted 12 years ago

   They replace worship of God with movie stars and large toys.
   
   So they still need the preacher.
   
   How can they hear without a preacher.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There a million cases of child molestation by Clergyman in the US each year.
      
      I would not want a preacher toying with my child

      replyreport
      1. 0

         CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Nor do I.
         
         Fact is, most of the perpetrators of these child molestation cases are either Catholic or Mormon. Biblically speaking, neither of these groups follow the letter of the law set down by the Almighty nor do they follow Christ's example, so they should be considered fringe groups that use the good name of Christ to add credence to their movement.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            christianajohanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Clergy or not, everyone is prone to temptation.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, gay sex is wrong, having sex with the young is OK
               
               Animals do not have sex with their young, so i have more respect for my cat than your spiritual leaders

               replyreport
4. 63

   pisean282311posted 12 years ago

   developed countries have better things to do in life then remember unproven entity but u made extremely good and important point...as marx said religion is opium of poor...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Since when do we quote Karl Marx as an authority? If memory serves, this man allowed a couple of his children to die because he was such an inept father.
      
      You quipped that developed countries have better things to do in life then to remember an unproven entity. Well, perhaps, but then again developed countries almost always came about through the practice of religious faith. Then, after years of prosperity, comfort, and complacency had taken its toll, they fell away into apostacy, before destroying themselves from the inside like a cancer.
      
      Again, the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God or His workings in this world. They are living on blind faith and hope that they are correct in their assumptions. Since they have put all their eggs into this one basket, they tend to suffer from tunnel vision and spiritual myopia and are leaving themselves open for ruin.
      
      If the atheist is correct...great, we will die and degrade into worm food. But, if they are wrong...then Hellfire and the Father of Lies awaits them with open arms. Atheism is just a bad bet all the way around and is completely devoid of virtue. Never met a happy atheist, but they sure do like those laughing emoticons.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "Again, the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God or His workings in this world. They are living on blind faith..."
         
         I have seen this reasoning many, many times on HP forums, always with at least an indication that as God cannot be disproved then we should believe.
         
         What is it about the theist mind that produces such muddy thinking?  Do they not realize what this "logic" will produce when applied to anything but their own God?  We would have to believe that fairies, unicorns and the FSM all exist because they cannot be disproved.
         
         Do the theists not understand that the onus is on them to produce proof (or at least solid evidence) of their claims?  Existence of something is generally easy to prove, non-existence of something that does not exist, but is claimed to be undetectable by any means and has no observable effect in our universe is, by definition, impossible to prove.  That impossibility does not make the existence (of God in this case) true, however - to indicate that it does, or even that it is evidential  of that existence, is a logical fallacy.

         replyreport
      2. 63

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @CJ Sledgehammersi marx was like christian god who let his son die...it is sad that marx was real so could not invent story of making son live again....

         replyreport
         1. 0

            CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh....I see....I didn't know, but thank you for such an illuminating response.
            
            Umm, where do I send a check, because I believe that kind of information shouldn't come free. Please advise.

            replyreport
            1. 63

               pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @cj i am not believer of some 2k yr old book that i would go on advisory spree...i just pointed out some similarity between marx whose children died and chrisitian god whose son was crucified...very similar fate...but marx was mortal and died too...god is concept so jesus story of coming back could be invented...

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No, my friend, God is a reality, not a concept.
                  
                  I also deny that the poor (in general) are weak-minded or superstitious people that need God as their crutch. Fact is, the poor cannot afford to conjure fantasies, their plight is real and they need something real to ease their pain.
                  
                  It is the wealthy and corrupt who can afford to conjure the fantasy that God doesn't exist and they do this to ease their guilty consciences of sin. It seems to me that it is the wealthy or tyranical that want to abolish the thought of God (which is as natural to the human spirit as water is to the human body), so they do not need to feel guilty for their extravagent and often corrupt lifestyles. I also maintain that there is absolutely no credible reason for people to conjure Jesus' existence, death and resurrection.
                  
                  Do you actually think people would choose to be torn-apart by lions, slaughtered by gladiators, burned alive, used as human candles, and have to watch their families being tortured and killed, for a fictitious man and dream? Get real, my friend, you are living in a fantasy of your own.

                  replyreport
5. 95

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   Why does God tend to "die out" in developed countries?
   
   Would you believe education?  The more we learn, the less likely such a supernatural, omniscent, omnipotent and undetectable creature becomes.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What have you learned, Wilderness, that would make the reality of God obsolete? I fail to see the connection.
      
      I think the truth is, the more people are indoctrinated and brainwashed into a secular mind-set and philosophy, "the less likely such a supernatural, omniscent, omnipotent and undetectable creature will become."
      
      I think it is altogether possible that the wealthy and socially affluent in each "First World" country, have taken it upon themselves to write the history books, and control almost all forms of media. Therefore, the mind-set and philosophies of the wealthy will be known far and wide and since most wealthy people do not portray Christ-like attributes, there is little wonder developing or well-developed lands conform to their standards given time.
      
      Fact is, ignorance allows the impossible to become possible and all the "education" in the world will not help one acquire true knowledge if it is misapplied and the audience is misinformed. This is to say that many people don't really know what they think they know.
      
      Yes, many people have the wrong idea of God or follow a false Christ. Then there are those who mistakenly think that God doesn't exist, because they have not seen Him, or felt His presence in their lives and they mistake the lack of personal experience with God as evidence against His existence.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         We have much disagreement.
         
         I have learned nothing to make the reality of God obsolete.  I have learned, much, however, to make the myth of God obsolete.  As there is no known reality to God, the myth becomes more and more unlikely the more we learn.
         
         I don't think you can really be brainwashed into a secular mindset; rather as we learn to question and reason, the myth is questioned more and more, with very negative results for it.
         
         Ignorance does not allow the impossible to become possible at all.  What it does do is allow imagination to become "truth" in our minds; it allows the myth to control rather than facts and knowledge.  You are correct that most people don't really know what they think they know; anyone "knowing" of God's existence is exhibiting this reality.  Of course, so is anyone "knowing" that God does not exist, and the majority of people fall into one of these groups.  Only a relatively few realize that they cannot know the truth of this matter.
         
         No one has seen God, no one has any proof of His presence in their lives, and no one has proof of personal experience with God.  True, many people will make these claims, but fail to acknowledge or understand that their own brain and emotions can produce the exact same results.  That these feelings cannot be taken as evidence at all is something most theists don't understand and thus the myth is perpetuated.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Indeed, we do.
            
            Ignorance, does indeed, make the impossible...possible. The atheist and evolutionist have no idea what it would take for their assumptions to prove correct. Therefore, everything becomes possible including the asinine assumption of macro-evolution and the notion of God's non-existence. Since ignorance is bliss, they follow along happily not knowing what lies before them.
            
            They have no idea what it would take to create the universe and they have no idea how silly evolution sounds, when contemplating the complexity of the nervous system, eyes, and brains, etc - none, zilch, nada, zero, cero, nil.
            
            Because they have no idea how complexed these systems and organs are, it becomes easy for them to make irresponsible and reprehensible statements that somehow implies that they do.
            
            They figure that if they don't know how these cells, systems and organs are formed nor can they understand the processes that drive these developments - the common peasant won't either, so they just let their imaginations soar, thus promoting a series of theories that sound authoritative, but in reality are nothing more than science fiction and WAGs (wild-a*s-guesses). The common man is none the wiser, and besides, the peasant class are suckers for people with Phd's and those wearing white lab coats.
            
            Atheists and evolutionists have no idea what they are talking about, but they convince themselves that they do. They say all life evolved from a primordial soup, but with all the advancements in science, they cannot recreate the "soup of life", nor do they even know what life is, exactly. It's something far beyond amino acids, genomes, dna, and cells. In fact, the mystery of life is so far away from their understanding that they don't even try to define it or think about it - so they just ignore it.
            
            They do not want to discuss what causes "life", what life is, nor do they want to discuss the cause of the universe. Now, they will argue that any theory or explanation that deals with a "Creator" is impossible, but they can offer nothing other than objections. Where these great minds stop...God begins. Where these great minds fail...God goes forth.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Seems to me it works both ways. 
               
               I have to disagree that people that have studied biology, chemistry, etc. their whole lives have no idea of how complex life is, but they still believe that evolution is possible, and perhaps even the first life from the primordial soup.
               
               But even if you are right, have you any real idea of what you are proposing with ID?  An entirely separate universe that existed before ours.  With one, and only one, inhabitant; an omnipotent, omniscient creature that has existed forever?  Not just an eye or a brain, but an entire universe!  How is that possible?  What possible natural laws could govern such a universe that would give rise to such a creature?  Where is that universe?  What could be the characteristics of the creature, that it is completely invisible to all known energies of this universe?
               
               None of this stops the theist, however.  No consideration whatsoever is given to such questions - they don't even think about it and instead just ignore such things.  Just like you claim the atheists do.  Instead they make up a story with absolutely no known basis in fact - pure imagination - and present it as absolute truth.  At least the atheists try to propose how such things could happen (primordial soup, with it's collection of chemicals that actually could combine to form DNA, however unlikely that might be), while the theist simply ignores it all.
               
               That seems to me to be the big difference - the big bang, etc., at least tries to explain the origins of the universe, life and such while the theist simply says "God did it" with no recognition at all of what else they are implicitly claiming and no effort to explain the "how" of it all.
               
               You may well disagree with what science says as to that "how", but is that any worse, really, than simply declaring "it happened" with nothing at all to back it except declarations of impossible events that occurred in our universe?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, my friend, it does cut both ways.
                  
                  One should be careful, however, how one tries to define the Almighty, because He is not something that can be contained in a shoe box or analyzed under a micro-scope. I get the impression that your understanding of God and your assumptions about Him are tailor-made and I also think you are discounting the factual, emotive, authoritative, and experiential evidence known to "believers".
                  
                  On one hand you seem to discount their evidence and experiences as being valid, but on the other hand you accept the theories of scientists without scrutiny. The truth is, you don't know which is right and which is wrong, so you made a choice based upon your own desires.
                  
                  Having said all that, I feel you are placing too much of a burden on Christians to define that which is undefinable and to comprehend the incomprehensible. We have only been given a snippet of relevant information, but to understand the complexities and enormity of God will take all eternity.......and then some.
                  
                  As a Christian, it is a great comfort for me to know that I do not have to have all the answers, whereas there are many unbelievers who will devote their entire lives asking questions that cannot be answered and searching aimlessly for something they will never find.
                  
                  One needs to be careful not to throw around the word "impossible" as if it is truth or a foregone conclusion. One may say, "I think it is impossible" or "My lack of understanding makes that impossible", but to say that it IS impossble implies having knowledge above one's level of comprehension.
                  
                  Please keep in mind that one's error in judgment is directly proportionate to the assumptive leap. And, I see many faulty assumptions being made on both sides of the aisle.

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You contradict yourself by stating God cannot be defined by telling us he can't be contained in a shoe box or analyzed under a microscope. You just defined God.
                     
                     
                     
                     There is no factual or experimental evidence for God, that is entirely false.
                     
                     
                     
                     What experiments?
                     
                     
                     
                     Again, you contradict yourself. First, you talk about experimental evidence and now you say it's undefinable and incomprehensible.
                     
                     
                     
                     Seems like a colossal waste of time.
                     
                     
                     
                     You mean, exactly like your knowledge?
                     
                     
                     
                     Really? Can you show the same massive level of contradiction from the nonbeliever side that you have shown here?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Kind Sir:
                        
                        I know you are trying to make a point, but I am not sure what it is and I am not sure where you are getting your information from. I think that you are either reading into what I wrote, or misunderstanding much of it.
                        
                        I do not argue for the sheer pleasure of it, although I suspect a fair number of the responders on this forum do. 
                        
                        My point is valid and it stands: No one has been able to discredit the "believer" or prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, we do not have much to discuss. God is not something that can be measured or analyzed. Now, you may disagree with me and wish upon your lucky stars that He doesn't exist, but you cannot truthfully claim to know for sure, nor can you prove that He doesn't.
                        
                        Moreover, there is not a ghost's chance in Hell that you or any of your constituents are going to cause even the slightest doubt in my mind, nor can you even scratch my armour. My faith has been tried, tempered, refined, and solidified for over 30 years, so a 30-second quip rolls off me like water off a duck's back.
                        
                        You could say, kind sir, that I am a lost cause as far as atheists and evolutionists are concerned.  I have studied both sides of this debate for 30 years and I know, for certain, that I rest on firm ground.

                        replyreport
                        1. 57

                           A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Just like no believer has ever shown their God to exist. Once again, you invoke logical fallacies to support your irrational beliefs.
                           
                           
                           
                           Sure, just like I can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't lay chocolate eggs.
                           
                           
                           
                           I would agree.
                           
                           
                           
                           In other words, reality is foreign to you and shall remain that way, Yeah, I get that.

                           replyreport
6. 57

   christianajohanposted 12 years ago

   The more country develops the more people forget God because they have all those worldly things and if one is attached to worldly pleasures, people minds change. This is the work of evil, making people forget God by worldly pleasures.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Christiana, you are right. I don't think prosperous people want God to interfere with their fun. Why should a prosperous society live for the promises of Heaven, when they can have "Heaven on earth"?
      
      Essentially, those who have become enamored with materialism and financial prosperity don't want the gravy-train to end. They have become tied to the material world and have bonded with it.
      
      Consequently, their spirits yearn for more, but the Almighty asks them to store up for themselves treasures in Heaven instead of on earth. So, this little conflict of interest creates emnity between the rich man and his Creator, so he plots, schemes and devises ways to erase the very memory of God from his mind and throughout the land.

      replyreport
7. 62

   secularist10posted 12 years ago

   I have written several hubs on this topic. There are a number of reasons for this phenomenon.
   
   Secularism can cause prosperity: When people stop emphasizing the next world, or the divine, and start focusing on the here and now, they will do better in the here and now. Instead of praying or worshipping or wasting time reading holy books or making sacrifices, they can research the world, analyze it, learn about how things work, focus on building material wealth, health, safety and security. They will also concern themselves with political rights and freedoms in this world, and ignore religious claims that dictatorship is God's will, and that the poor will be rewarded in the afterlife.
   
   Prosperity can cause secularism: As people become wealthier, they have less and less need for religion. Modern secular science has almost completely eliminated the need for religion on questions of how nature works. The superior knowledge and material wealth we have today makes religion an antiquated, obsolete tool.
   
   Religion can cause poverty: Religious traditions, beliefs and customs that are upheld for their own sake often limit human potential and create many problems. There are countless examples. Women are prevented from fully pursuing education or jobs; money is wasted on printing holy books or erecting houses of worship; resources are wasted on sacrifices; religious beliefs limit and constrain the pursuit of scientific knowledge (from the Catholic Church vs. Galileo all the way to creationism vs. evolution). Religious officials may put people down and keep them ignorant and poor to maintain control over their lives and behavior.
   
   Poverty can cause religion: When people have a difficult time, they pray or turn to a higher power to explain why things are bad. Lack of education and ignorance causes superstitious and supernatural explanations for unknown phenomena. The poor and ignorant are more susceptible to the pronouncements, rhetoric and charisma of religious authorities.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      christianajohanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      God is a great ruler on earth and in heaven. We don't know His plan but we can feel His greatness.
      
      Our mind cannot be equated with the heavenly minds. We live with logic, human logic, worldly logic but we must admit we cannot reach to understand the heavenly logic.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but ok. Lol.
         
         If you cannot understand God, then how do you know he exists?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            christianajohanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            From your heart

            replyreport
            1. 62

               secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Your heart does not give you knowledge.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  christianajohanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  We have different views. I know my life belongs to God and He will prepare a special place to those who know Him.
                  
                  You should be a part of those people. I hope so. Blessings to you!

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I would say, take a second look at God. Can you really explain his behavior? Or do you have to rationalize and suspend your critical thinking? Is God logical? Ignore your feelings for a moment, and ask yourself if it makes sense to your mind.
                     
                     There may be some incredible insights and experiences you are missing out on by buying into the religious traditions that originated with others long ago, in a different age.

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        christianajohanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        The love of God is not time bound. He is the Alpha and the Omega. I could explain you in a practical way but I am not in the authority to explain further. I believe I am respecting my faith to God and yours to yourself. Thank you.

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I said nothing about being "time bound." You ignored what I said in my comment.

                           replyreport
                  2. 57

                     A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You don't have a "view" - that's just a ridiculous childish fantasy.

                     replyreport
      2. 57

         A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         What feeling exactly? Describe that feeling and distinguish from other feelings we have?
         
         
         
         I see no logic in your posts whatsoever.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            christianajohanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Since the beginning of human history, man always look for higher beings to worship. Now Jesus came and proclaim the good news.
            
            Read the Bible and know His teachings. There is nothing wrong knowing good teachings about life.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               And, there have been thousands of gods throughout history, which you and I both know are myths. Do you believe in Zeus, or Isis, or Horus, or Mithra?
               
               
               
               No, Jesus is the god you currently believe exists because you were indoctrinated to believe in Him. Had you been born in the ME, you'd have been brought up to believe in Allah.
               
               
               
               That's fine, but there is no reason to elevate a man to the status of God and worship Him as one. That's just pure foolishness.

               replyreport
            2. 75

               Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Why not worship Hindu, it's much older Religion?

               replyreport
8. 62

   Lisa HWposted 12 years ago

   I suspect "no one" isn't accurate. 
   
   I don't know how accurate this is, and it only deals with one developed nation (the US),but it's not the only place/time I've ever seen 80% mentioned.... (and I didn't even read far enough into it to learn whether they mean people who associate themselves with a religion, or people who believe in God even if they don't have a religion.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_i … ted_States

   replyreport
9. 72

   lone77starposted 12 years ago

   @christianajohanposted you raise some powerful and important issues, but I think you're a little inaccurate in your generalizations.
   
   Do you live in an undeveloped country? I don't think the country is the problem so much as the individual. Even Lot lived in one of the most wicked towns of the past.
   
   Certainly, materialism is a major distraction. But spirituality can flourish despite living in such an environment. I have witnessed a miracle every bit as powerful as that of Moses parting the sea, but this occurred right in the middle of Los Angeles rush hour traffic.
   
   @Lisa HW makes a good point that the forum title's "no one" may perhaps be inaccurate. I consider myself quite spiritual and found myself on many occasions knowing God in a developed country (USA). And when I'm not walking in a state of grace, I'm actively seeking it (as much as my busy schedule and awareness will allow).

   replyreport
   1. 57

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Moses, indeed.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         See the birds...how they are arrayed. Would not God array us the same. What we have done is glorify man.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I have no idea what you're babbling about.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I kinda figured that out several forums ago. Clueless.

               replyreport
10. 0

    brotheryochananposted 12 years ago

    Every person looks at wealth(ier) in terms of what they have not got.
    
    We can look to the bible and see that people rich in God were not wealthy. Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah (although he did own property lol) Moses lived in the wilderness with his church. Solomon was blessed above all and look what happened there - he actually became bored with life.
    
    Jesus said, our needs will be met not our wants. Our needs is what is important to God and we need not be concerned with keeping up to the Joneses.
    
    To some wealth would be having a car, to others a well that produces clean water. I do not think we are to assess what wealth IS but rather keep check on our lives that what we HAVE does not separate us from God.

    replyreport