I originally posted this as a question... but started thinking It would probably make a better discussion.
Would proof in the existence of God be enough for you to worship Him?
This is not a trick question, and I'm not looking for a debate e.g.: science vs religion, etc.
Consider it this way, if all of the sudden all of the evidence of His existence was convincing enough for you to change your mind and you began to believe that He is real, would just the knowledge of His existence be enough for you to worship Him?
If you respond, include a reason why or why not? If not, what do you think would cause you to worship Him? What would make Him worthy?
Any evidence would do for me. Anything at all. Moving mountains, sending down an angel (when I am sober and awake) whatever.
Plus it would have to indicate a desire that I worship it. Which then begs the question - would I want to worship a god that needed me to worship it?
Probably not. If I worship a god it is going to have to be an omnipotent god that does not need or want me to worship it. Or can force me to do so - that would work as well.
Thanks for your response. I've been a closet follower of you for a while now. I like your writing style and wit.
One of the things that I love about God is that fact that He doesn't need us to worship Him at all, but rather wants us to... and does not force is.
I am curious (not in a sarcastic way but genuinely) why do you not like the fact that He wants to be worshiped? I have a couple kids and I look at it in the same way as me wanting to be loved by my children.
Are love and worship the same thing? No - they are not. Still - I look at it in the same way. Most parents, I find, had children for selfish reasons; want them to be doting, loving offspring who do XYZ and behave in this way or that - and this Invisible Super Parent of yours is as frail and pathetic as any human. Therefore it does not exist.
This is one of the reasons I decided your God does not exist. "Proof," actually.
If I was to worship a God - it would need to be omnipotent and have earned my worship in some way. Yours? Whiny, needy and the passive/aggressive threat of damnation from "love," for not obeying lurking in the background? What a joke. Sad really - that you choose to worship this monster that creates so many conflicts.
Plus the fan club - every time I speak with one I am convinced this cannot be possible - and if - on the minuscule chance it is - I prefer obliteration than eternity with the thing you describe. I will give you an example of the approach many of them take to defend their beliefs. You for example state:
I wonder of you can see how condescending this is. I sound like you did 10 years ago before you "came to Christ"? When you were speaking to God when you were 7 or 8 years old?
You think you are qualified to represent this Invisible Super Being? Already convinced me it does not exist by telling me it wants to be worshipped. Seeing as you are qualified to represent it.
And write hubs telling us what we "should" do?
The focus of the discussion should be on the fact that this god-thing of yours does not exist. Therefore the misrepresentations the others do when defending their irrational belief is exactly the same as you are doing.
You say yours wants to be worshipped? What a pathetic God. It does not exist. Can not exist in fact. Thanks for validating that for me.
Glad you enjoy my meanderings.
Mark, my sincere apologies for coming off as condescending. I tried to clarify the statement, but I'm not a very good communicator.
No, I do not feel qualified.
Sorry again. My intention was not to command anybody.
Thank you again for your feedback and patience with my poor writing.
Please do not apologize. Your writing is perfectly fine and I am in no way offended, I was simply telling you what I feel. I generally feel that some one is being condescending when they tell me they feel exactly the same way I do.
I have to ask though - as you "see a lot of Christians getting into angry arguments over God's existence that tend, not to lead to conversion, but to misrepresentation of the One they're trying to prove exists."
And you have written a hub to clear up some misconceptions about god, surely that means you are qualified to represent this god - does it not?
So - why say you are not?
Thank you, Mark, and good question...
I really want to represent Him and do it well, and I try to... but I don't consider myself as doing it effectively. That's why I say I'm not qualified. But you're right; I do take it upon myself to be representing Him on one hand and yet say that I'm not qualified. Darn me and my self-contradiction!!
My concern is that what I'm seeing from the responses on this topic is that, in our quest to represent God to people, we Christians actually defame Him by our attitude toward the people we claim that He loves. (That's why I apologized for coming off as condescending.)
The problem you have, and will continue to have, is one of language.
If we assume for a moment that there is a God, and that it is actually the God described in the Bible and not some other variant, how can you possibly hope to talk someone into believing?
The Bible was written a long time ago, by guys smart enough, popular enough, connected enough to write something (pre-printing press mind you) that became hugely popular. Now I won't even bring up all the political and historical issues with it that render it implausible. Let's assume everything in it is totally accurate.
Those smart, connected writers, who actually EXPERIENCED god, or at least hung out with his son or with the guy he talked to, or at least actually knew a friend of a friend of the guy who heard that God told so-and-so to kill this kid or those people or raise that city etc.,... those writers were not able to communicate the existence of God in a way to make it universally clear, evident, certain and desirable to believe in God.
And here comes you and folks like you. Thousands of years distant from the event. Trying to make words that WILL work.
Of course that's going to fail.
I read your hub that you linked. While I'm sure it's very inspiring to your fellow Christians, in terms of point-making, it's called "begging the question." You are in essence saying, "The God of the Bible is great because the Bible says God is great."
That's not a compelling argument.
You want people to see as you do? To find God? Go out and be a good person. Words mean nothing. In fact, in this world, in THIS forum on THIS website, where words are used to take money from people, the written word, language itself, has less than no meaning. It is corrupt and empty.
How can you help people find God through corruption?
Go out and do good deeds. Walk around and help people like Jesus did. DO stuff. Stop talking. Stop writing. Go outside and do God's work.
All these Christians lament the death of Christianity. Some Cardinal announced the other day that he fears "Christianity is being casually brushed aside."
Well it is. It is because Christians are all talking and writing and sitting on their comfortable butts waiting for their turn to meet Jesus or whatever. Islam is going to win just by the fact they have an Action Plan. Ya'll sit around and keep talking, while the radical clerics are out there in the places people are suffering offering solutions (sometimes to problems they create). You sit there and tell people that we should "think how pretty God's throne is," as we sit in our well apportioned homes drinking beers and eating cheeseburgers, while radical imams bring bread and dates to hungry families and tell angry, hormonally ridden teenage boys in the house that they can make fat, evil American's pay by blowing up a coffee house.
Why don't you take your peaceful loving God where he is needed? Live by example. Show them how your God is a better choice. Because all the rest of it is just words. Non-believers aren't stupid. We watch. And the more we see of Christianity, the more Christians write and talk, the emptier the religion gets.
How do you mean all of a sudden? Evidence has existed since the conception of "all that exists" and still more proof is needed?
For those who do not acknowledge the many forms of evidence here and now, perhaps they are expecting a physical super human being with extraordinary powers that create a whole universe in front of their eyes as proof. I don't know?
So...I am wondering how those who need further proof (because what is existing isn't sufficient enough proof)...how they think everything we know in the manifest today was created or if not created came into existence? Did it just appear?
Oh and in answer to your question...although it might depend on your definition of worship....if its not happening now...I don't think so.
Odd. You seem to be saying that what exists did indeed just appear. But - it must have been a god that made it happen. Just because you cannot grasp the fact that existence did "just appear" (or has always been here - my personal preference) - why assume a god? And then incorrectly use the term "evidence," when what you really mean is "assumption from ignorance," ("ignorance" is NOT an insult if you Christians want to go complaining about wot the atheist sed) or "the god of the gaps," argument.
"I don't know how it happened, therefor there must have been a god diddit."
If thats how it appears, that is not how it was intended. Perhaps this might help or not?
Evidence that God exists is here in now yes but I don't think existence as we know it just suddenly appeared. For me it is and will continue to be a process given the different conditions that arise that is forever changing. This process that 'was' before you and me existed on this earth for sure. Still does.
If I choose to call this process God that is my personal preference. We each have our own way. Your own personal preference differs from mine illustrates this well.
You lost me on.........
And then incorrectly use the term "evidence," when what you really mean is "assumption from ignorance," ("ignorance" is NOT an insult if you Christians want to go complaining about wot the atheist sed) or "the god of the gaps," argument.
How do you mean.... I really mean "assumption from ignorance"? You got all that from my (according to your personal preferences) incorrectly used term of evidence?
"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
You have no "evidence."
What you have is an assumption of something based on an observation that bears no relation to the assumption.
"Existence exists. I don't know how that came to be, therefore there is a God."
But then you have redefined "God" to mean,"Not the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions," and your "God" actually means "nothing." Capitalizing it in order to confuse me into thinking you meant a proper noun was genius.
So - we jelly fiscal computer, can we?
I have, of course, made up a new meaning of the terms "jelly," "fiscal," and "computer," in order to make it appear as though I know something you do not - as is my personal preference - and it is really your problem if you do not grasp what I said.
Oh think I'm getting it....so my evidence (as I see it) is not proof because you believe it is not evidence and for you it is more an assumption rather than evidence.
And are you saying, that because my definition of God is not in alignment with the Dictionary's or English understanding/mainstream understanding of God (don't actually know what you are pointing at... just guessing) it is nothing to you (because you get confused or believe I was trying to confuse you) when it doesn't fall within the criteria you or the Dictionary/English/mainstream understanding have determined/constructed/described (can't decide which word to use).
If my definition of God doesn't fit within the mainstream or whomevers definition of God I can live with that. No one else has to.
Your new made up words sound good enough to eat!
No - your evidence is not evidence because it is not evidence, not because I refuse to accept it as such. For us to be able to communicate clearly - we need to agree on what words mean. "Evidence" means proof. We must agree on what proof is for it to be proof.
You have assumed a God based on the fact that you perceive existence.
No - I am making the point that because you have invented a new meaning for the word - we cannot communicate clearly any longer. See above.
But - what did they mean? If you do not know - then we are not communicating properly.
I am a big fan of clear communication. You are not communicating clearly with me. This inevitably causes problems, misunderstandings and conflict.
Because now when you say you have "evidence," that something is true - I cannot believe you because you have redefined the term evidence to mean something it is not.
What is clear to me is not clear to you and vice versa.... that seems obvious. So is there any point in discussing further any of the points I or you made or not? I am quite happy to let it be or continue to clarify if I can any points made? Up to you?
Changing the definition of words to suit yourself and assuming I should know what they mean causes confusion, miscommunication and conflict.
You have not made any points. Other than you want to use new meanings rather than the accepted ones for words in common usage - which is going to flaccid jelly fiscal computer.
If you want to continue to accuse me of simply not accepting the obvious evidence you see - go right ahead. Is that the point you are trying to make? That there is actually real evidence and I just refuse to see it?
Ok seems we will continue....
Right....Is your definition of evidence "proof" full stop? Does "grounds for belief" as is noted in your meaning for evidence not your definition of evidence? Where does "that which tends to prove or disprove" fall in the definition of "evidence"
All things manifest prove does it not, that these things have come into being from a process? Science describe some of the processes don't they? This is grounds for my belief.
The English definition of God as you have provided is a singular being in theistic and deistic religions. Theism as I understand it means God present in all things and has governance and is a being right? Theism then without the "being" and "governance" (singlular is ok for me too) is more my definition.
There is a need to change the definitions of God you gave, because what I try to describe does not fall in to either of those categories and points to something totally different if I were to use those definitions.
By me saying....
so my evidence (as I see it) is not proof because you believe it is not evidence and for you it is more an assumption rather than evidence.
you think I am accusing you of not seeing the obvious? If so...that couldn't be further from the truth. I understand completely that the way I see it is not obvious and is not evidence for most people. Like I said previously I can live with that. And no the point you think I was trying to make was not the point at all.
No. My definition of evidence is as I stated. The existence of something does not prove or disprove anything other than its existence. You have no "grounds for belief,"
Yes. So what? You do not agree with this definition.have created a new term "God" which means "nothing." Might as well - in fact does not - exist. Why bother?
At last we agree - you are not using the term "evidence" in the accepted way. Why not use the correct words instead?
You have evidence there is existence. You assume that this means it was created by a process called "God" which is not a being and does not interact with existence in any way.
I know you can live with that. I myself prefer to communicate clearly by using accepted meanings of words wherever possible.
Lets try explaining it another way.
You have "evidence," there is existence. I concur.
You do not have "evidence," that this non-being called "God," that does not interact with existence caused existence. You have assumed this based on your ignorance of how existence came to be, or even that it did indeed come to be as in - it was not there at some point.
Now, it might be you have a "feeling," that this non-being exists. OK - I can go with that.
You may not be able to grasp how existence could have always been there, so you assume it started, and you also assume it took a process to happen and you call this "god". OK - I can go with that also.
It may be something unexplained happened in your life and you took it as a sign that this non-being exists. OK - I can go with that also, because it is not something I should be expected to accept.
But - you do not have evidence of this.
If you did - you could show it to me and I would agree.
Lets see if it makes sense to me the way you are making sense of it.
I said God for me is a process...the evidence from this process is that which exists in the manifest.
You said the existence of something does not prove or disprove anything other than its existence. I said all things manifest prove that they have come into being through a process to which you said no. So when a child is conceived that is not a process to you? When a new tree grows that is not a process?
So you really didn't want my definition of God to enable further discussion? You would prefer that my discussion fit in with your definition of God? Since it doesn't that gives you an opportunity to state your opinion and I am okay with that.
I didn't say the process of God does not interact with existence in anyway. Not sure how you came to that conclusion? I said it wasn't a being. Meaning like a human being. I also said it doesn't govern like our governments govern.
If you go back to my previous post you will see I advocated that the process has been and is forever changing. When I was referring to manifestation coming into being being a process doesn't mean I don't think it didn't already exist. Where one might think the process starts or ends is something altogether different which hasn't even been discussed.
I agree you don't have to accept anything I say. I can be anything you want me to be..ignorant, inventive, lacking in the command of English and yet I will still be me and you will still be you.
Circular reasoning which means nothing. Why bother saying it?
I don't have a definition of god. There is an accepted definition of god that you have decided not to use.
Process? OK there are processes and therefore your non-being, non-governing god exists. Why bother?
So the term is meaningless. Why bother?
Meaningless. Why bother?
Salad version curry wurst.
Genuinely interested as to why you are bothering?
I have conclusive proof that God does not exist and I can show it to you.
I thought I wasn't bothering to discuss anymore?? How do you mean then why am I bothering?
I am sure you do have proof!
What I mean is - why bother?
If - as I got from your posts, you meant to say was, "There is a process called germination (along with a number of other processes) by which a seed grows into a tree," and I have evidence of this,"
and what you actually said was, "So...I am wondering how those who need further proof (because what is existing isn't sufficient enough proof)...how they think everything we know in the manifest today was created or if not created came into existence? Did it just appear?" regarding the "existence of God," - why bother?
I agree that there is a process called "germination," that starts to turn a seed into a tree. Why not use the actual term we have for that instead of using another term that has a different meaning?
So it seems you understood what I was pointing to even though I used different terms?
However in your opinion I should have used the more commonly accepted terms. This way it would have been much clearer for you and cannot be attributed to any God in the normally accepted definition of God?
That brings us to where now?
Why bother even asking the question what more proof does anyone need? Why bother attributing the process of germination to God?
No - I had to delve deeper by asking numerous questions.
Yes and no. In the first instance it would have meant clearer communication between us, instead of suggesting that the god referred to by the original poster (the Christian God) existed and you had "evidence," of this.
If you has said - "Well, I do not think there is any evidence of the Biblical God, but - I have my own definition of that word that means "natural processes, such as germination," then we would not have this miscommunication.
I am not trying to tell you what you should do, merely observing that using words in their accepted way allows for more clear communication. You should do whatever you feel like. I personally have found that using words in the way you use them causing miscommunication and in some case conflicts, and - if you persist in making up new meanings for accepted words, most peopel will give up tryring to communicate with you.
As you are here typing words - I am jumping to the conclusion that you actually want to communicate, but maybe you are here for some other purpouse.
As an aside - why would you not want to explain that you are using the word in a completely different way to the original poster?
A clearer understanding of what the other is saying.
I wasn't aware that the original poster was meaning the Christian God? Nor was the original post clear on that. If the original post did mean the Christian God, it wouldn't matter anyway.
For me, the biblical God and God as I understand it are one and the same, just differently interpreted and understood. So saying it in the way you suggest would convey a totally different meaning to the way I understand it.
The miscommunication has arisen it seems because in your opinion God can only be described in a few sentences predefined in an English Dictionary.
Yes that is true for some people that conflicts can arise due to miscommunication. Then there are those have a genuine interest to understand another's view despite the usage of uncommonly used words or words they don't know the meaning of etc. Like a mama trying to understand her child when the child does not yet have a good command of the English language, she persists.
Kind of like... here in NZ we call a Jandal a Jandal. Australia call it a Thong. Americans call a G String a Thong..... So is a Thong a Thong, a Jandal or a G String? Miscommunication then can be useful, sometimes not.
Yes communication is what I have been trying to achieve. What other purpose could there possibly be?
The last two questions were not to you I was wanting to know where we are at in this discussion and if you wanted me to answer those questions?
No - I understand perfectly now. You think I am being narrow minded in my definition of god and you think that trees are evidence that god exists. I get it now.
Here we are - back where we started. You are using the word "evidence," incorrectly. That is not what that word means. So - you are making an assumption from ignorance. You assume a god because you do not understand that trees grow without this non-being that does not have governance and does not interact with existence. The word you are looking for is "nothing."
Wilderness parable underling sucked?
If its perfect for you then great!
Twice now you have stated that I am making an assumption from ignorance. That’s your opinion based on your observations and understanding or lack thereof of what I was communicating. I can live with that. Can you?
Let’s recap however and see where it appears you have made assumptions throughout our dialogue.
You assumed I am Christian and I am not. (However just because I am not that does not mean to say I do not see much wisdom in the Christian philosophy because I do.)
You assumed I capitalized God to confuse you and I didn’t. God in written form is normally capitalized I thought.
You assumed that I was accusing you of not accepting the obvious evidence. Yet where in any of my posts did I accuse you of anything?
You assumed that my understanding of God does not interact with existence and no where in my posts did I say that.
You assumed that the original poster was referring to the Christian understanding of God and perhaps this is so but there is no way of knowing this from the original post
You assume that I am here for another purpose other than my willingness to discuss our differences in understanding.
You assume I think you are being narrow minded (and I don’t think that) because your personal preference is to follow the predefined definition of God.
You persist in assuming that my understanding of God does not interact with existence
How you came to the assumptions or conclusions that you have, only you will know. I have no way of knowing why you came to the assumptions or conclusions that you have nor do I claim to know.
I agree we have come full circle. Both our understanding of God and Evidence remains unchanged. Yet I have learned a great deal about the uniqueness of human nature and the way in which we perceive things.
If the word nothing was for you describing God you are right!
No. I'd have a lot of questions I'd want answered. I believe in mutual respect. Some superbeing demanding I worship it is not different to a tyrant boss demanding respect without showing it.
Thank you Baileybear,
On one hand I tend to agree with your logic. I've had some bosses like that--not a pleasant work environment. I've also had some bosses that did show that mutual respect and I responded with loyalty.
I am curious, in what way do you feel that God does not respect you?
I know this question wasn't to me but I do want to answer. That god, the one commonly understood as the "all seeing and knowing", does not respect your privacy.
Of course, there is no such thing but in the eyes of billions, they do think what you do in your life is their business and that is an attribute of "their" god and what their god wants.
It's not about what you want, you think, you feel, you believe etc. it all about what they want and behind them, there is NO GOD.
Hi Sandra, and thank you for your input.
Is it God who is "spying" that bothers you or mosey Christians who claim to be doing God's will?
You are right in that Christians have no business meddling with your business. I hope to portray an attitude of concern and love for my non-Christian friends, not judgment and condemnation.
by letting good people suffer and bad people getting away with murder; by requiring worship; killing people for no reason; turning a deaf ear to a (former) believer's prayers...
I think that any being who demands me to fall on bended knee to worship and praise it is on par with Kim Il Sung (or the better known, Kim Jong Il).
Now, this is simply my opinion, but I don't want it to be true. I think it would be awful if it were. An all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing presence monitoring everything I do and say, judging even my thoughts... it sounds positively dreadful to me.
That being said, if absolutely irrefutable evidence were to be presented I would have no choice but to accept it, but would I worship this God figure? That depends on weather or not it is also proven that not doing so would result in my eternal pain and misery, in which case, it would be in my best interest to get on my knees and begin my life of indentured servitude.
Jake, thank you for your response.
I think Kim Jong Il would make a terrible God too!
Sometimes I feel very frustrated by the misrepresentation of God's character by people who preach (or scold) in His name but not true to His nature.
Then again, I am not a great communicator either. Luckily He isn't relying on me to make Himself known.
Thanks again for your response.
I don't disbelieve in a god/deity but even if I was given concrete proof, I would like to think that a being of that magnitude would not need worship but would rather have a relationship of mutual respect.
Only certain ego-bound humans want to be worshipped.
Thank you everybody for your insight.
The reason why I asked is because I see a lot of Christians getting into angry arguments over God's existence that tend, not to lead to conversion, but to misrepresentation of the One they're trying to prove exists.
I was an atheist before coming to Christ. And I felt the exact same way as all of you. Reading your responses is exactly like reading my own thoughts from 10 years ago.
Please understand that I'm not saying this to say that I'm smarter or better than anyone or have arrive at some more enlightened state. I really consider myself quite dense and slow. All I'm saying is that the focus of the discussion ought not to be God's existence, but His character.
If anybody's interested, I wrote a hub about a year ago called, "What you Should See When You Look at God's Throne." It's brief, and not written to be a defense or an essay, it's just a glimpse at some misconception about God that has been caused by His enemies and followers alike.
http://hubpages.com/hub/What-You-Should … ods-Throne
Thanks again for your input and respectful dialog.
No, proof alone would definately not be sufficient. It has long been my opinion that should the god of abraham exist as described by any of the Big 3, then we ought to be waging war against him.
Character assessment and what are his/her intentions and all that aside, define worship. Like, think him or her a superior being? If appropriate. But genuflect and all that, not so much. That's like a power exchange, like a granting of special favor or control. Only my husband gets that.
No. Why would I? Because he/she has power or control over what? My eternal life? If so, I guess I'd have to, if the alternative was proven to be eternity in a lake of fire, but it wouldn't be real. So still my answer would be no. It wouldn't be genuine worship.
I'm having trouble with the concept of a being I'd find 'worthy' of worship ever wanting to be worshipped. It would sort of negate his worthiness in my mind.
There are plenty of people I respect, some I admire and they're not always people I respect. Worship? I can't even imagine it anymore.
Worship? Wow. Just seems like such a silly concept in the first place.
A god would need to ask me to worship it. Nothing else would be required.
Considering there is no evidence whatsoever for any gods existence, the question makes no sense.
There is no cause to worship gods other than the god wanting to be worshiped. The real question to ask is why would a god want to be worshiped? I have never heard a reasonable response to such a question.
There is no cause to worship gods other than the god wanting to be worshiped. The real question to ask is why would a god want to be worshiped? I have never heard a reasonable response to such a question.
- - - - - - -
I like your tone of voice..
But we would need to reexamine the word worship?
I could see hum/it wanting to be acknowledged and appreciated.
I'm pretty sure that blatant disrespect wouldn't be appreciated.
And I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want to be standing right in front of our face 24-7 blocking our view of this wonderful world that is right in front of our eyes to see and enjoy.
I think he'd want to stay in our peripheral view,
But what do I know.
Why? Has Websters changed the definition recently?
Why? An omnipotent and omniscient god should be well above that sort of petty self indulgence and selfishness.
Why would I respect anything or anyone that required worship? There is no logic in that. An omnipotent and omniscient god would not need to be worshiped.
But we would need to reexamine the word worship?
Why? Has Websters changed the definition recently?
Webster didn't but I think you have forgotten some other definitions than the one that you seem to have been stuck on.
And here I was trying to be nice and all.
You just can't help it can ya?
Just like onion breath, can't, just cant stop being offensive.
Maybe you should open your Websters and read the word reexamine. And while you are there... Look up faith;
Ya might find that there are several definitions of what the word faith could be talking about..
It is always good to reexamine our thoughts on just about every subject matter from time to time.
Kids believe in Santa. They get their little hearts broken in the process. Growing up is tough stuff.
I still believe in Santa, saw him once in my living room on christmas eve, after bed time. I know the guys in the malls are his helpers sure, but the guy I saw at 6 was Santa! Funny thing is I have more proof of the existence of Santa then I have for the existence of God
Are you going to say I am a kid then
Well nanana booboo stick your head in doo doo then
...this "god thing" would have to appear before me with proper ID.
A criminal background check would be necessary 'cause rumors are that this "god thing" had ordered the murder of many innocents, in fact, was responsible for destroying all life on earth but a few folks and animals.
A blood sample would have to be taken to assure me that "it" hadn't been been partaking of the "hemp." etc., etc..
If "it" was "clean," I'd invite "it" to participate in a "bully-beat-down" contest with an MMA champ of my picking.
If "it" lost, I'd remand it to "hell" to suffer the pain and agony of burning forever as "it" had relegated others to do. If "it" wins (no chance) I'd get a 2nd opinion on "its" background check. If it came back "clean" again, I'd run "it" thru the same "bully-beat-down" program until I felt "it" could offer an apology, with great humility, for creating US in it's vainglorious, arrogant, ignorant, IMPERFECTION!!
If it did that and I was satisfied "it" wasn't pullin' our leg, I'd give it a closed fist bump and invite it over for a beer and introduce "it" to my sister...oh by the way, she's a virgin! tee hee!
Think "it" could make it happen again?
God died for me, so I worship him. It was God, because he came to life again after being dead for 3 days. He gives me eternal life.
It depends on what incarnation of God we're talking about.
I don't really like the idea of the Christian God, as he comes off as a jerk a lot of the time. If the basis for worshiping him was that if I didn't, I'd go to hell, then I doubt I would.
If he was all-caring and loving toward everyone regardless, then I don't see why not.
agree. The God of the bible seems insane - frying people on the spot for petty things. Having such an inflated ego that needed stoking by human worship. Threats of bad things if don't comply. How's that love?
If God actually helped people when sick etc and was fair and kind to everyone - I could love someone like that. Worship them? Probably not
Thank you for your response, Dalyinx.
Do you think it is God that comes off as a jerk, or people who falsely represent Him?
Well i dont reject god to start with. I dont consider god to be as religion claims it to be either. I consider god as system which operates on auto mode.The system creates ,maintains and destroys..Is there any need to worship system?..I dont think so...
coming to more specific..what is god is more like religion preaches it to be?. Well i dont find it exciting to worship something for sake of salvation or heaven. It is more like trusting on god's weakness of getting worshiped than my own actions...if heaven is real i should be judged on what i did in my day to day life than how many times i prayed....if god wants to be worshiped , he needs to earn it...threats wont make be worship him...
I don't see why anyone should worship anything or anyone. It isn't natural. I don't know of any animals that do this and we are animals too!
The proof of the pudding is not in the pudding itself, but in the one eating.
So therefore one will make the pudding whatsoever he desire.
That is God.
This is an interesting question because it will happen. As we go deeper into the end times, God will allow more information to be unveiled. Most likely this will be an archaeological find like the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant, or perhaps Noah's Ark will be uncovered. But cynics will still find reasons to blaspheme God. Only a few will ultimately have eternal life.
We couldn't find Noah's Ark... wood doesn't last that long. It would've long since decayed and rotted leaving behind no evidence after more than 4000 years(according to the bible) of atrophy.
Also, what evidence do you have that any of your views/claims are correct? You simply say that the "end times" are coming without having any empirical evidence to support your claim.
Simply stating your belief or feeling that you are right is not proof of your claims.
First of all, you're pitting science against a supernatural force called religion. There is no "empirical evidence" that God exists. But the Bible has been proven as a quasi-reliable historical document because of recent archaeological findings. And, I believe, there will be more to come. Yes, these are my feelings and beliefs. And I don't consider myself a Christrian or even remotely religious. I do have an open mind, however. As for the elusive Noah's Ark: It is scientific fact that ancient wood encased in ice can be kept whole for millenia. But that's beside the point. Either you believe or you don't.
I was simply stating that one should want to have empirical evidence to support their claims.
The Bible may be somewhat historically accurate, but its "accuracy" pales in comparison to all the historical and scientific inaccuracies that are prevalent throughout most of it.
Go to this website to see what I mean:
I know the name of the site is a bit, "off putting," but if you take a quick peek at it you'll see that they DO quote the Bible accurately, and they don't take things out of context (to often at least).
As far as Noah's ark is concerned? I don't think we'll ever find it because I don't think it exists.
Anyway, thanks for being a good sport about all this!
How do they (the people on that site link) know in what context whoever wrote Chronicles/Judges/King etc intended it? It is near impossible to know the context in which it was written.
One thing that stands out with most of the bibles accounts of "God said this, that or the other" is that there was never any physical being present. It appears that there was only that which was inside the persons head. Which means it is highly possible that these people who did what they did because God told them to, could very well have been listening to their ego who is the supreme ruler of normal consciousness.
foreignpress, It is indeed a interesting question. Yes God will allow new revelation to be poured out and some eyes will be opened to the truth, and some will not.
I'm sort of with Mark on this one. If a being came down and could prove that it A) had the power to do amazing crap like move mountains etc., and B) that it required me to worship it or I would suffer (and maybe even proved that part too, by opening a window on hell or something in such a way that I was certain it was real), then I would worship it (out of fear and self interest).
That does not mean it's really a God though. It might just be an alien with better technology than us, or with psychic powers capable of causing hallucinations that are so vivid they feel real.
I would worship an alien with the ability to prove or delude me the same way I worship God were he to do likewise. And, as far as that goes, how does that God even know whether he is a God or just an alien created by the real God? (And so on)
happy are those who have not seen and yet believe
unless we become like children we shall not see god
people who saw jesus bailed out/ie peter 3 times/ thomas/judas
theres a great parable of the rich man in hell asking to go back to warn his brothers to be good and his request is denied on the basis that they will not believe him if he does go back
we won't believe others
we won't believe tv ie moon landing
we embelish what we think we saw
if god was waving a flag on my front porch i would probably manage to find a way to miss the field goal
sad but true
Nice hub. I like this "radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature" ...very nice.
If he bought me a Starbucks and answered a few questions
Forgive me for sounding "Christiany" but it almost sounds like you would be willing to have a "personal relationship" with Him!
I remember being very young (7, 8 years old) and asking God a lot of questions. I wonder if I've lost some of my young, innocence and am not willing to ask Him things anymore...or maybe I've gotten old and don't think He's willing to respond. Either way, I do think God is willing to be questioned (in the best sense of the term) and is certainly able to answer.
Thanks for your response.
Hi Jason, Forgive me, I did not realize I posted on the Atheism and Agnoticism thread. I will observe that next time before I post. Sorry.
Sorry to break into such uninteresting stuff - but why would any god of any description require anyone or anything to worship it ? If it is the BIG daddy of all daddies with all the power and glory bells and whistles - why would it want a few funny little pink blobs to 'worship' it ????
There are rock stars that play the meanest guitar I have ever heard, I think they are fantastic and can do what seem impossible for me to do. Though many people will "exalt" them, if you will, because they can do it better than anyone else and exhibit some sort of super-natural ability to master something such as the guitar and many people might want to learn from that person because they are the best at what they do. It's completely understandable.
Now, say one person who is all about the worship of this master guitar player finally gets his chance to meet his "hero", the person that inspired him/her to want to be that good, and the person ask, "will you teach me"?
The person, full of hope believes that because he is the guitarist biggest fan and watches everything he has ever done, read everything he has ever written, went in depth about the lyrics to all his songs and knows all the details about his life, says to him/her...
"Wow, I appreciate your loyalty but it really wasn't necessary, with or without it, I would still play the guitar the way I can play the guitar and I have my own guitar god I look up to and he told me the same thing I just told you."
-worship is not necessary even if there was a real god who could move a mountain.
Yep ! that is what I'm A thinking too. Kind sorta; maybe?
There are different kinds of "Worship" and everyone understands the intensity that is expected under each one differently.
Worship, adore, love , like very much.
I kinda think that that word (itself) (worship) is one of those stretchy things. If ya know what I mean?
i think that I would have to be seperate from something in order to worship it. i feel that i am not seperate from, but a small part of 'God' and that by my very existance i have all the proof i need.
I've heard all the evidence there is. The jury has starved to death trying to get to a verdict. The papers keep running the same stories and the news reels are the same. Nothing new, IMO.
All that said, I highly doubt there is going to be any further evidence, or new evidence now or in the future. God has not appeared. The Rapture has Ruptured.
Honestly say it ain't so! I was so looking forward to God taking away the fanatics. I really think this old world of ours would be so much more peaceful if God did come and rapture away the fanatical 'true believers' and it would be win/win, they got what they want and we are rid of 'em
I read this article from CNN about dueling Christmas billboards.
An Atheist Organization put up a billboard on the freeway that has a picture of the Nativity and it says, "You know it isn't true. Celebrate reality."
Then a Christian Organization got upset and put a billboard on the other side of the freeway with the same picture and it reads, "You know it is true. Celebrate Jesus."
So the guy who put up the billboard got a smiting by the Christian community saying that he was attacking their god. The guy replies "there aren't any reindeer or Santa clause in the Bible. Christmas is an atheist holiday.
>"I am curious (not in a sarcastic way but genuinely) why do you not like the fact that He wants to be worshiped? I have a couple kids and I look at it in the same way as me wanting to be loved by my children.
Although this question wasn't posed to me, I figured I'd jump in anyway. I think that what you're doing is projecting your own anthropomorphic idea onto a God that would certainly be far beyond that. You may want to be loved by your children, and that's a normal human line of reasoning. But you seem to assume that God is simply some super extension of our own human desires. What possible desires could a God have? That would imply that something is missing in his reality that he needs to have in order to feel fulfilled. Why would a God have any desires at all? What could possibly be missing that he hasn't already dealt with? Do you actually want your children to worship you? To turn you into a deity to pay homage to and pray to? It seems to me that you hope that your children love you which is something that we as humans all would want. But as a parent, I don't want my kids to worship me and place me on some pedestal as a divine object of their affection. I'm a fallible human being with warts, scars, and too many faults to enumerate here. I think that it has to do with our concept of God or what we think a God would be. I have no concept of that. I mean how does one wrap ones mind around something like that? No matter what you come up with, couldn't somebody simply say, "I thought he was more than that?" What you're doing in that way is placing the limitations of your own mind or experience onto something that theoretically has no limits.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar6 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by preacherdon5 years ago
There are many who are atheist and agnostic because they either don't know or don't believe God exists. Creation tells us that God exists but atheist explain Him away with evolution and Big Bangs. So, my question is,...
by marinealways247 years ago
A person that has an open belief that joins a religious belief, is this a rational action or an impulsive action? It seems a rational action would be to keep an open belief not limiting oneself to a group belief where...
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 hours ago
The above question I see a lot being asked by materialists when the discussion turns to topics about the spiritual and supernatural. They off-handedly deny the existence of the spiritual and...
by Claire Evans4 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
by SaiKit6 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.