Does the fact that we cannot empirically see God, diminish the possibility of having a relationship with God.
In fact, God is the dearest and nearest to human soul. You may treat him as Father, Mother, brother , lover, friend or baby. We can cultivate intimacy with God in any of the above relationships since we are accustomed to such relationships in the worldly life.
NO. One can see without having to use the eyes of the flesh. To see God, one must be able to perceive God. The word see has many different definitions. One is To perceive; to understand; to comprehend. I see the train of argument; I see his motives.
We can see God with our hearts.
1. To perceive with the eye.
2. To apprehend as if with the eye.
3. To have a mental image of; visualize
So how do you see with your heart, an organ that is used for pumping blood?
There are specialized cells, buried in the muscle tissue of the heart, that after 10's of 1,000's of heart dissections we have never found. They are connected to the emotional side of the brain, not the logical side, by invisible nerves.
These are the "God receptors" responsible for the perception of God.
I really hope you are not being serious with this comment. And if you are serious...well...
Just a little humor - apparently misplaced.
The center of such things has varied with culture, with the heart and stomach both being high on the list (maybe there are more receptors in the stomach and whenever it growls is when it is receiving input?).
You're probably closer to the truth than you know.
You need to stop.... SirDent is not talking about your physical heart.... He is talking about your innermost being.... your "knower"
we are to love GOD with all of our heart, mind, strength and soul. not the brain...the mind. the mind is connected to the soul. it is who "I" am...who "YOU" are. just as the mind and soul are not physical, but spiritual...so is the heart in which one perceives GOD. the same heart that we get our emotions from. this body is just a shell, temproray housing while we exist on this earth...who we are...that is something entirely different than what one sees with their eyes...just as GOD is so much more than people believe...and yes we can have a relationship with GOD...but then...i saw HIM (CHRIST)...so for me it doesnt count. that is what faith is all about...
King James Version (KJV)
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
oooh! Earnest! I can see your aura all the way from here!! You're glowing my friend!
That is because I had a birthday yesterday and am now old enough to vote.... a few times.
I have enough 15 year old scotch whiskey to last ME a lifetime!
Sir Dent says 'We can see God with our hearts'. I believe we can be God with our hearts.
Thinking of those relationships in my own life that resemble this forums topic, I believe relationship transcends any need to physically see the one's we have a relationship with. Pen-pals, never met but close relatives who send me cards, gifts, and the odd phone call, acts of love from distant faceless Christians, etc.
In past times, where large distances prevented face-to-face encounters, great relationships were born, nurtured and matured through little more than the written word. Along those lines I've heard told how family members thought they knew their loved ones, until they read their memoires; revealing the power of the written word to convey truth beyond even a decades long storge bond.
Helen Keller, in the absence of sight and sound developed strong and meaningful human relationships, as well as a glorious one with her God.
Maybe there is argument for our senses serving to hinder relationships, or, at least, pollute them.
It takes more than just our 5 senses. Our "gut" feeling is something beyond that.
So a "sixth sense"...Isn't that on the side of mediums or seers...I don't know...but seems to me that the bible speaks against that...
Actually, what people call the sixth sense is actually the seventh sense. Intuition can be great or small depending on the individual. As a species, you could say we are in the hunter/gatherer stage of cellular telepathy. The sixth sense would be our accretion of energy. That which you are surrounded by you unconciously or consciously reject or you make part of your being.
Gut feeling is not a sixth sense. No psychics required. We all have feelings.
Call it what you want. It doesn't matter to me. I don't try to justify belief in something I can't see to others.
That is your problem I guess. I say too bad for you.
How do I have the problem? Because I don't attempt to justify my belief to others? They are my beliefs...I have no need for others to agree with me. I don't need others to follow my beliefs for them to work for me. I have no need to be the same as everyone else to feel accepted by others. I understand that my beliefs are just that...Mine...I don't require others to have those same beliefs so that I can feel "normal". I am an individual. I am not a follower of the "crowd". The american Indians used the follower instinct to their advantage when hunting buffalo...They would drive the leaders of the herd over a cliff and the rest would blindly follow to their own demise as well.
I feel sorry those who can only follow and not make decisions for themselves concerning their own lives.
I say the problem isn't your belief, but that you say, "I don't try to justify belief in something I can't see to others." And I say too bad because you should not care what you can justify to others, only what your heart says is true for you.
No, it completely eliminates the possibility.
Had any replies from your god pen pal lately?
They indeed get the replies. Unfortunately, the psychiatrists call it delusion and hallucination!
You may think so, I think it is simply the truth.
People often ridicule what they do not understand.
This is true...I see christians do it all the time.
Earnest is always good for a little laugh no matter which side of a debate he chooses to take. Actually I've seen some very intelligent commentary from him and can't figure why he wastes time with sarcasm.
Along with many others here who understand what reality is, I find no comment is ever made to contradict the evidence we post here, and if the argument amounts to "goddunnit" sarcasm seems a reasonable response to me.
One thing I do admire about you, Earnest, you truly believe there is nothing mystical, supernatural or divine and have made it your mission, your apostolate, to "enlighten" people. There's no hypocrisy in you.
The only difference between you and the Christians you criticize who go around sharing their experiences, thoughts and faith is that they are humble enough to admit there's a superior Being. With you, nothing is above you. The problem with that is since people all have the capacity to lie in order to protect themselves you will always have doubts that your "experts" aren't experts.
We all need an anchor in our beliefs. Scientists truly believed the earth was flat... until it was proven differently. Those who were not scientists, at the time, and put their faith on the error-driven doctors of science must have been disappointed.
You don't allow any other possibility that God exists, least of all that in order to reestablish a relationship with Him He sent His only Son to repair the damage to that relationship. Any good scientist will always allow for the improbable to be proven later on.
You don't see it. You don't believe it. Bad science.
It is not bad science to disbelieve in an invisible omnipotent sky fairy who helps religionists find their car keys, while ignoring millions of starving children.
That is called common sense, although I will admit it is not very common, and almost non existent in these forums about a psychotic but loving god, who's idea of love is that it is conditional on believing a controlling 2000 year old myth.
Science will always be wrong in part, after all it's aim is to see if it can discredit itself with cross references to other sciences and peer review.
Myth has nothing to do with scientific method, and is simply the amygdala reacting to fear.
In all seriousness. Any person can invent a relationship with anything they want whenever they want. I can talk to the tooth fairy, bigfoot, loch ness monster, Brad Pitt, Meagan Fox or God. I can invent anything I want in my mind and tell myself that it's real. I can invent any relationship I want in order to make me feel better about my place on earth.
I can help an elderly woman cross the street and tell myself that I'm doing it for Brad Pitt.
No one can see god or talk to god any more than they can see or talk to unicorns.
Except we are not talking about an invented diety, we are talking about an evident one; evident within the creation. Nobody associates Tooth fairies & mythical animals with creation, why even raise them; and, BTW, Brad Pitt and Meagan Fox are actually real, and they too had nothing to do with creation.
Speaking personally, the relationship I have with God is very real. Regarding it “making me feel better about my place on the earth”, well, yes and no. There have been times I could wish there was no God. After all, along with faith comes accountability. If anything, I would say atheism is more grounded in comfort than faith in God is. I wonder how many atheists refuse to believe because of the accountability they would have to acknowledge otherwise; so much easier to simply deny all possibility of his existence – "can't see him, so he can't be there". Sadly, you miss out on far more than you realise.
What is accountability? Isn't it the concept of being liable to account for one's actions?
If one believes they can only be accountable to God on one hand and question how it's possible for an atheist to be accountable for their actions on the other, it should be concluded that one is not accountable to anyone else but their god, not their family, friends, neighbors, the law, etc.
Sadly, they are missing out on far more than they realize.
Tragically, they miss out on developing a valid and credible system of accountability if the atheist is right.
Accountability presumes there is a standard to hold to. Believers look to their creator for that standard, atheists look to... something else. Ultimately, I believe the only one we will stand accountable to is God, and he will hold us accountable for how we have treated others. In that sense accountability follows us beyond the grave. For the atheist, accountability ends at death; at least, in their thinking it does.
There have been several efforts in history to build societies based upon an accountability absent of faith in God. As far as I am aware, they all failed. Do you really believe that atheism can develop a more valid and credible system of accountability than one of faith? On what standard, or authority would it be founded.
That would be the ideal utopia, but it would never happen. We will never have everyone believing in the same ideals. Faith based societies aren't exactly winning any prizes based on credibility and accountability and yes, I'm talking about America.
While I don't believe in God or the bible, I do believe that there are some very good principals in the bible. Don't get excited, there are also some very inane stories and beliefs in the bible as well.
I think I should just become President and I will take it from there.
I can appreciate your sentiment regarding the failure of faith based society's. However, the problem stems from appreciating the difference between believing IN God, and believing God. The Bible is clear that God is insulted when people have the first, but not the later. Yet in America, and many other places, that has become the norm. A society full of claimants to belief in God, yet in their actions and lifestyle they reveal unbelief. Sadly, onlookers, such as yourself, don't make this distinction between living and dead faith, and therefore faith gets a bad name.
Imagine what the world would be like if all those claiming faith in Christ, really believed, "it's better to give than to receive."
You might want to ditch the shades before running for POTUS; and trim the goatee
cooldad...if every human on earth obeyed GOD...that would be the true utopia...how can one cause harm to those he loves as himself...treat others as you would want to be treated. that would be paradise.
Exactly, which is why one will ultimately miss out on being held accountable to others as it allows them carte blanche to do whatever they want, which is exactly what we observe, actions without accountability.
Is that a fact? Can you list the societies that have successfully been built of faith in God?
Could you also please explain why criminal statistics show higher crime rates in religious societies and lower crime rates in more secular societies?
You've just shown that atheism already has developed a more valid and credible system of accountability than one of faith.
You, of course. There is no higher authority than yourself because it is with ones self one has to live with when facing the consequences of ones actions, regardless of whether or not one has to answer to God in an afterlife.
Where exactly is that evident? Inquiring minds would like to know.
As this forum declares in its opening, God is unseen; but his handiwork is everywhere.
Thanks, but you basically repeated yourself using other words.
I was asking where exactly your deity was evident, since you seem to know? Many inquiring minds all over the world would like to know.
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:20
But people who aren't spiritual* can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. 1 Corinthians 2:14
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. Psalm 14:1
What a pile of judgemental nonsense by proxy. "I didn't say I am better than you, my god did"
That is not what this is saying at all.... It simply means that the existence of God is evident by the creation which we all can see...
If only the pain from some of the erroneous statements and actions we as Christians have made could be alleviated. We have a lot of bad press because some of us were fools even when we claimed the knowledge of God.
We have been cruel and uncaring just at many unbelievers have been. As Nero [ancient Rome] was so have many of us been.... I apologize for those misdeeds.
But, nothing changes the love and care that God has for mankind... He hasn't disappointed any of us, we have disappointed one another....
God is real....
According to your good book he got pi**ed off and wiped out all but 8 of you!
That's love is it?
"But people who aren't spiritual* can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. 1 Corinthians 2:14
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. Psalm 14:1
And I suppose these are not judgemental statements either?
You insult with impunity because you do it by proxy. That is a form of megalomania, as you are saying you are better than others and using your myth to try substantiating it.
I am not corrupt, I am not a fool and I don't appreciate being called one by proxy!!!!!
Settle down Earnesthub,
You have called me and all other Christians a bunch of names and thought you were justified. You have mocked and laughed at our God and beliefs for years and you wanted us to take is as a good Christian should.
You mean to tell me that you cannot take a few descriptions of your behavior from an "imaginary god's" book without feeling insulted? I have always thought more highly of you than that.
As usual, you miss the point.... I am not trying to insult you... the scriptures are as relevant to me as to anyone else... I was a fool, too. Not because I didn't believe there was a God, just because I was a fool...
The term in the bible means "foolish", "unlearned" not clown. It is still negative, but it applies to all mankind. And, that is the point. We all were fools, we all were enemies of God, we were all lost and messed up.
All Christians are saying is that we have found a way out of our foolishness. It is a way open to all. Sure, we get self-righteous with others and act like we are the only ones. We become judgmental and arrogant. We have to learn to love as Jesus wants us to love. Unfortunately, we have hurt some folks along the way....
You are generally one of the calmer more coherent opponents in these forums. Please don't lose it now...
Speak for yourself!
Enemies of what?? What is this thing called "god", for me to be an enemy of it? I have never seen or heard from anybody called god, why should I be an enemy of him/her/it? Is it some schizophrenic or somebody with delusion to think, all are enemy of him/her/it?
Slow your roll... an enemy is anyone who is in opposition to another....
I am speaking for myself and for you too...
All of mankind has been an enemy of God...we want to go our own way and not the way of God,... that makes us His enemy
Until you know God, you are an enemy of God...
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.[/i] Romans 8:7
This is what god-haters don't understand....when we Christians talk about others we are talking about ourselves... been there and done that.
we recognize that we were a mess, that we needed, and do now need help... .
We are not deluded into thinking that we are self-sufficient. We are dependent upon the God we serve and we are perfectly sound-minded...
It is not until you see that you have a need that Christ becomes an option.... until then you will continue to go your own way.... I for one will not try and stop you... I am simply a voice along the way.
To oppose this fellow, I should first know him and what he stands for!
Oh! My goodness, Angelina Jolie is my enemy, she don't even know I exist!
God haters??? Why do YOU hate my neighbor John? According to you, you should hate him as you do not know him. What has he done for you to hate him??
That I understood, when you called everybody fools, that you are talking about yourself
No contention there too. Who can speak for yourself better, other than you yourself?
I have seen people with such strong needs during my undergraduate years as a medical student, in the psychiatric ward. They called it delusion(to hold a belief in spite of evidence against contrary) and hallucination(seeing or hearing things when there is none) and taught me it as a sign of schizophrenia. What do you think?
Grappling with the unresolvable questions, "Is There a God?" and "How can I relate to Him?" (if you conclude He DOES exist)--these should be initiation exercises for admission to a high-level debating society. Applicants would be assessed on the "purity and quality" of their arguments on those topics, and on nothing else. Debaters would have to define "purity and quality" of argument somehow (good luck on that one. . .), but assuming they got untangled from THAT barbed-wire snare trap, and actually came up with guidelines, the first rule of further discussion would be: Thou Shalt Not MERELY Announce Thy Belief As Received Truth.
Am I the only Hubber getting just a little p***ed at the believers who assert, "God is good. God is Real"--and then simply stop. Comment over. Argument done. Checkmate. Or in the other corner, the non-believers who assert, "The world is violence and torture and cruelty. There is no God." Comment over. Argument done. Checkmate.
C'mon folks! If we're going to continue these Forums and Hubs on these massive issues, let's wade into the dangerous murk, be braver, work a little harder, take some chances that our opponents may blast our convictions with arguments so stunning that we have to challenge our own belief structures. St. Augustine wrote 22 Books, over 1000 pages, in THE CITY OF GOD, to argue the existence and goodness of God and the efficacy of the Church--and Augustine did not himself think he did a very good job; Milton wrote 12,000 lines in PARADISE LOST to "justify the ways of God to men"--and failed; and Sartre, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard, to cite only the Big Three of modern existentialists, dedicated thousands of pages of magnificent failure, probing the dangerous proposition, "Gott starb!" (God is dead).
So if these great thinkers considered the topics of these Forums and Hubs worthy of that kind of depth, can't we at least advance the level of our dialogue a bit beyond "it's true because I believe it. So there!"
Physician, heal thyself.....
Show me concrete evidence that God does not exist. Not your theory, but your fact....
Concrete evidence that a myth doesn't exist may be a hard call. I have no concrete evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, do you?
I don't understand your reference to "Jomine". Please explain; then I'll respond to your challenge.
To show you this stuff does not exist, you first tell me what this thing is.
If I ask you to prove me john does not exist, I've to tell what or who john is, right?
So tell me what does "god" means. Is it an object or concept?
If its an object show me a photo or picture of it. Tell the attributes/properties of this thing that I can differentiate this thing.
Then I'll tell you the whether this thing exist or not. SO far I haven't come across any object called "god".
Showing you something doesn't affect your irrational beliefs at all. Putting it right in front of you is pointless, you'll outright deny it exists.
I can only pity you that you do not understand what is rational or irrational. According to you nothing exist for a blind man as he cannot see, and its perfectly rational for him. Well, well, well if anybody could think, they would never be religious or relativist, no surprise there.
If we were to go on your examples of what is rational, we would be facing a complete denial of reality. Go ahead an pity, it makes great comedy.
As long as you cannot make out reality its not a problem. Divine comedy. Time, energy and motion exist for you. In similar token love, justice and god should also exist.
They exist for everyone. But don't fret about it, just check your clock, turn off the stove and walk around in circles.
So time = clock, energy = stove.
Poor fellow, no wonder you cannot differentiate anything.
Do you know what exist means? Can you tell the meaning that can be consistently and unambiguously used. A post above says god is energy, and you say everything came from energy, so god exist? And for you love too exist, so please tell me how to stretch this love, that i've some use for that. Also please tell how you " balance" "justice"
At least look up in the dictionary and find out the difference between object and concept, at the least find out the difference between time and clock.
Jomine, what is with this incessant focus on the word exist? It's a matter of perception. You can't make a word mysterious because you want it to be. A concept evolves into an object as the concept takes on concrete proportions in our mind's eye. It's existence becomes universally agreed upon as our collective minds' eyes perceive the same thing. If we stop perceiving in our mind's eyes then that concept ceases to exist.
Because its the most crucial word. It is the word that differentiate an object from a concept. There is no mystery, I'm just trying to use it consistently and meaningfully. You can say "heat exist" and "cold exist", but cold is absence of heat, so how are yo going to differentiate?
You are right, a concept cease, if we stop perceiving, but an object does not. A hydrogen atom, will be there whether we appreciate it or not, only the name stops when the human species end, not the atom.
The entire English speaking population uses the word and defines it in the same manner. You made it perfectly clear by your post that you understand this meaning.
Things within the pysical reality gain the attention of one of our senses; but we process the information gathered within our minds. They become concrete when we perceive them to be. They exist when our minds tell us they do.
Concepts are no different. They become concrete because we perceive them to be. They exist because our minds tell us they do.
You can't differentiate between concrete objects, concepts or feelings and argue the definition of exist is different for all. Because they all exist in the same manner and through the same process. It's all in your mind.
Question is which meaning.
The following are the meanings of exist.
1.to have actual being; be:
2.to have life or animation; live.
3.to continue to be or live:
4.to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:
5.to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter:
Which one you are using when you say your car exists?
A word with so many meanings is as good as a word with no meaning when you want to convey meaning accurately. In poetry it is good. The beauty of poetry is the different meanings we derive from that. But if we want the audience to understand what exactly the speaker says then we should define the word. Otherwise the meaning is at the mercy of the listener. Charlatans will never define the word, for they want to say, that is not what they meant, when confronted with questions. But in science and anywhere we want to be objective, where we want the audience to understand what exactly we say-define.
For "things" that "exist", it doesn't matter whether we got a sense of it or not. Things exist, whether we perceive it or not. That is what is called "objective", independent of the observer. Hallucination is perception of things when there are none. For the one who hallucinate it is real. Do you mean that it is reality because his mind perceive it?
Concepts are what our mind tell as. They have no physical reality.
Is the sun in your mind? Does your nonexistence make the sun non-existent?
Before Adam and Eve ever walked on earth, was there no sun? Time, love, morality etc all came with the first intelligent being, they are concepts. Matter in this world "exist" from eternity. It exist even if there is nobody to appreciate that. They are called objects. Former is called subjective and latter objective.
I have put a link here to Winston's post as I think he has explained it better and beautiful than me.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/81086?p … ost1750354
I'm not interested in a link to another ridiculous argument of what exist means.
As to your comment about the multiple definitions; I can only say Are you freaking serious? Do you have this much difficulty with every word in the english language that has more than one meaning? I bet synonyms and homonyms give you night mares.
There are so many things of interest to discuss. This two step shuffle you are trying to do with the word exist doesn't fall into that category for me.
You can keep your eyes closed to reality as much as you please. You can use words as you choose. You can say your car lives(exist), what ever that means. Its all good in common parlance, but for an educated or scientific discussion, its pathetically inadequate. And as long as you use words interchangeably, you can continue to argue there is no difference between objects and concepts(You may as well use the same word for both, as you don't find any difference. ). That will make you either a charlatan or a jackass, but never make you an educated one. And as long as you haven't specified which meaning you are using, only a relativist or religious will claim, they understand you, and you can endlessly discuss whether to believe in god or not, or whether space bend or not, without any quality in discussion, or arriving at any conclusion, and for the rest, you have said nothing.
(PS. Please note that every scientific presentations start with the definitions of crucial words, while every religious ones start with no such and they use words for the listener to derive the meaning themselves. You can choose whatever you want. You can chose to be understood clearly or you can chose to be vague, to mislead.)
Until you present an educated argument, it would be best to leave the references to science, and attempts at insult, out of the discussion.
As I told you previously. The existence of anything only begins when your mind accepts it. You could put a puppy in my arms. If the nerve endings didn't send signals to my brain, I wouldn't feel it. If I was blind, I wouldn't see it. If my olfactory glands were not working I couldn't smell it. If I did not somehow sense the animal, my brain would not tell me it existed. It wouldn't matter how many people agreed on the existence of that puppy; until my mind registered that it was there, it wouldn't be.
Existence is a simple, simple concept. It doesn't matter how you sense something. Your brain makes it real. Existence exists only because your mind tells you it does. That is the beginning. You can then group things into categories, but there would be nothing to group if your mind didn't first make them real, on some level.
I do agree with your point; if we consider each and every individual on the planet as a universe in and of ourselves. And in my own universe, only those realities which I aprove of are allowed to remain.
I may be touching something that you do not accept, cause you don't have one in your universe.
Kinda like .... a universe within a universe and paralell universe thingie.
How can we know that which isn't yet
Kinda like ...But not! Is a small stream in Indiana aware that it will become part of of the Gulf of Mexico?
Yes, After you is deluge.
Try to understand the meaning of "objective", at least!
In short , if you are brain dead! (specifically mid brain).
Just because you cannot appreciate the puppy doesn't make it less living than it is. The puppy lives, whether you appreciate it or not.
How do you know that? If you don't, the point is moot. Existence exists in your mind. Collectively, in our minds. Only because our senses are sending similar signals and our brains are processing these signals in a similar manner. Everything still starts in the brain.
Your next question? What if everyone's mid brain was dead, would things still exist? Let's hope we never have the opportunity to not have the ability to agree that this can never be known.
Illusion:- mistaking one stimuli for another. Eg:- Seeing a coir and mistaking it as snake.
Hallucination:- Appreciating a stimuli when there is none. Eg:- Seeing a snake when there is none.
Delusion:- A firmly held belief, in spite of evidence against contrary. Eg:- Thinking your neighbors are conspiring against you, though the overwhelming evidence is against it.
For a person who experience it, it is real. But is it real?
I should know, for I studied and practice medicine and see patients with all sorts of delusion and hallucination.
It is real for them, but it will not make any imaginary snake real. That is not reality. Reality exists, irrespective of any intelligent being is there to appreciate it. The one you say is good for philosophy and that is zen Buddhism, do good as a time pass.
GPS is hard evidence for relativity, but there is a firmly held belief contrary to that evidence that relativity is wrong. Would that be a delusion?
If you can tell what this nonsense relativity is all about!!!
Also if you can show how "time" dilate, not how clock slows.
I'm not elaborating, as you do not know the difference between a thing and an event.
No problem, it's all about finding a location on earth using a GPS.
LOL! No problem there either, a thing would be a GPS and an event would be the GPS finding a location on earth using relativistic solutions.
Relativitic solution? There was no exact 39 sec as you claim, from where did the solution came?
So far nobody has found anything that works on relativity.
GPS is calibrated to location not relativity, and the lag is dependent on latitude, longitude, altitude, refraction index of air, orientation of clock and vibration drag of velocity and gravity with the inherent disability in atomic clocks.
Relativity tries to explain the lag, but gives an absurd explanation- time dilation, as if, time can dilate.
Whenever you claim GPS works on relativity you have to tell what time is and how time dilates otherwise you said nothing, in your language gobbledok.
LOL! Pure, unadulterated denial.
No one has to explain away your denial of that which works extremely well. It truly is stunning, your denial, that is. Unbelievable.
What is more stunning is I'm still debating with a fool like you and trying to put some sense in you.
Well, like any other religionist you "believe" your god einstein is infallible and whatever vomited from a relativist is absolute truth.
If you have any sense go and find out what time is!!
So, by denying GPS and how it works, you are putting some sense into me?
I just checked the time on my GPS, it seems to working fine. LOL!
Usually people check time in a clock!!
Don't worry, as you can dilate time and expand space, you can as well look at the mirror to find time.
As you said, you understand that's philosophy. Are you not in a philosophy forum? Why are you experiencing such difficulty following?
Great. There was no microbes till they invented microscope and a great majority of stars, planets and galaxies started existing after the invention of telescope.
And 400yrs before earth was flat.
Man is great, he could make stars by inventing a telescope.
That's kind of the point jomine. However far we can extend our perception of existence, it stretches out past our horizons. Is the universe expanding for any reasons other than the fact that our ability to view it is expanding? With each more powerful microscope will we detect things even smaller beyond that horizon to study?
Are we, in essence, in some way an interactive part of the evolution of the universe?
Do you understand that you are saying, you are, in effect, the only person in this universe?
I think you aren't following. Collectively and connected; man as a species. Not me, as an individual.
You said everything is the perception of mind. So the universe and every human being you encounter, is the perception of your mind only. So it doesn't matter whether anything else exist or not, your reality is what your mind tells you. So for you there is nobody else but what your mind shows you, that is your world. Its real for you, but is imaginary for everybody else, for i showed you with examples that perceptions can be deceiving. So, for you, you are the only person in this world.
I'm talking about perception on the global level. The collective perception of humanity. But, never mind. You appear to have tunnel vision on this issue.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You first said everything is your mind's perception. Now you say only universe is your mind's perception, not humanity. What made you think that humans exist independent of your mind?
How do you differentiate between reality and dreams?
I'm not contradicting myself, as much as you are trying to be contrary. What's up with that on this forum?
Your question about differentiating dreams from reality? That's an interesting question. I suppose it could be argued that you can't really prove you aren't dreaming in some form now.
The puppy lives, but does the chair in which the puppy poops on exist?
LOL! That went right over head, eh?
I dare say, a dictionary seems to be one of the last things you're aware of that exists. Or, maybe they don't "exist"?
Sorry, but I don't accept that for a second. If you actually believe you have some extra sensory perception that you call "spirituality" and that is the difference in "seeing" God, I call Shenanigans. You don't and no one else does either.
I can understand that you do not accept it. I do not believe I have some special perception that lets me see or feel God but I know he is there. In everyday life I can see his work. Just look at nature. I can feel him when I pray, He gives me a peace. I am not really sure why the world looks at believers with such distain whe there are so many other things out there that make so much less sense, I do not understand why in a time when there is so much diversity we cannot just agree to disagree. I believe in God and the trinity and I feel Him everyday. I understand you do not, and while it makes me sad that you cannot feel the love from God I do I will not downplay your beliefs.
I pray that there will be more acceptance in regard to Christ but I am prepared for ridicule, it is just how the world turns
Awww - Poor you. Making ridiculous claims will get you ridiculed all right. But - that is what you want isn't it? Poor persecuted you - just like the bible tells you.
If it makes you feel any better - I pity you.
I dont want your pity or your negativity. It is sad that you have to make fun of what you dont understand and not just let it be that you dont understand. I do not clain to know everything that would be absurd. I just know what I feel and that is all.
I am sorry you feel you have to make fun of those who have faith.
When I look at nature, I see only evolution and not God. Where do you see God in nature?
I don't believe that for a second.
If God decides to love me, then I will feel that, too, and then not have to make up lies about God in nature.
No, it doesn't turn that way at all. If Christians make up lies about God in nature, make up lies about feeling love from God, then they are the ones making it turn that way.
And that is where we differ. You believe that Evolution created nature, I believe that God created nature. So you can go worship the slime we came from, and I will worship and apreciate the God who created it.
parrster...very true...also many christians leave their faith behind because walking with GOD is no bed of roses. it takes a great deal of strength and faith in GOD to walk the path HE lays out for us.
None of you walk it.
Non believers take full responsibility for self instead of handing it over to a vicious invisible mythical entity to decide for them.
that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. and i have seen very little of non believers who take accountability for themselves...a troubled man is wrong...on an individual basis, the crime rate is far higher on the side of non believers than ever it was on the side od believers.
You do further damage to your credibility by saying such things that are contrary to statistics and facts. Completely out of touch with reality.
tlmcgaa70- First of all, I do respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with you when you state that crime is higher on the side of non believers. That is simply untrue. Charles Manson was a believer as was Hitler. John Lennon was a non believer and he was a pacifist.
@tlmcgaa70 - the path is not as difficult as many make it out to be. I always believe that we should lead everything from a view of Love and the rest will fall into place.
No one can see god or talk to god any more than they can see or talk to unicorns.
that is where you are wrong cooldad...just because you cant wrap your mind around how we can possibly interact with our GOD does not mean we cant interact with HIM. i saw CHRIST when i was 3 and died. i feel GOD all the time and see the works of HIS hands. HE teaches me and guides me. i understand and recognize HIS voice.....the problem with most atheists is that they dont wish to know GOD...so they reject out of hand anything anyone says that shows how GOD might interact with us...like the monkeys who see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil...atheists are the monkeys that see no GOD, speak no GOD and hear no GOD. you are blinded and do not wish to see
LOL! When you say you saw Christ at 3 years old and feel and hear God, you lose all credibility and your argument against atheists only shows hallucinations and delusion on your part.
i am sorry...but i am simply sharing an experience...i could care less if i gain or lose credibility with non-believers. no man can come to CHRIST unless GOD calls them...GOD gives evry human a chance to know and accept CHRIST...if you reject HIM...that is your choice, once you have rejected GOD, HE blind you to HIS presence. i share what GOD is to me and has done for me for anyone who may be seeking GOD in sincerity. the only opinion of myself that matters...is what GOD thinks of me. not man.
LOL! Sharing an experience you had when you were 3 years old and you could care less what anyone thought of that? You actually expect anyone to swallow the fact that a 3 three year old can even comprehend that?
i am afraid i dont follow you...i am not a three year old, i m 41, sharing an experience that happened to me as a three year old. and yes, a three year old can easily comprehend being in the presence of GOD. i died for 4 minutes. it is very difficult to bring someone back if they have been dead 4 minutes or longer...and the chances they will have brain damage if they r brought back is very high. i do not have brain damage. and even someone who has a bad memory as i do cannot forget such a life altering experience.
and thank you Leslie...
When we are 3 years old, we see lots of invisible friends, or at least, pretend we do.
LOL! 3 year olds are learning to understand colors and size and you claim they can understand the concept of a god. You'll need to provide some citations for that one.
So, you have a bad memory, you believe 3 year olds can understand the concept of gods, you say you saw Jesus and you don't have any brain damage from being dead for 4 minutes?
Sometimes the words we use to describe things get in the way. For example, one might use the term God when what they really mean is the Greater Energy Force Which Binds and Ties Us All As One, Now Being Beyond Recognition as Seemingly Separate Entities Embroiled in a Battle of Wits and Ideas.
Call it what you wish. I believe the 'God' hypothesis is an archaic term for all that exists. Some of us call it nature, some of us call it god. To me, the only thing that is completely unexplainable is Love. So that must be what god is. Even Christains can agree with that.
PS: 3 yr olds have a greater capacity for awareness than adults. They grapple with learning to use their bodies and brains, but the awareness and senses of perception are far more keen than adults who have been polluted by years of bs.
Love is easily explained. It is a subjective human emotion. What don't you understand about it?
I know your experience was real....
Nope, people can have relationships with all kinds of invisible friends. Children do it all the time. And, then they grow up.
When you are a child you have no preconceived ideas and are therefore open to all things. It is only when you grow up and close your mind to the possibilities of things that you lose the ability to use the senses you were born with. Through the years many men have done things which they had been told was impossible. They were told they were delusional or crazy. Their belief and ability to see things others could not made them great. While some may not have the ability to communicate with God, there are others of us that can.
He who depends only on the sights of the eye, would never perceive the invisible reality, for invisibility is way beyond anyhing visible.
Not for me it doesn't. God's visibility has to do with the physical. God is spirit and we commune with Him spiritually. Our spirits commune with His Spirit.
No. I agree with the one poster who brought up the fact that people have relationships everyday online with people they don't see. But believing in God, I think is vital to having a relationship with him. As for myself I am head over heels in love with God and Jesus. For me it does not matter if I can see them or not. My love comes from deep inside myself. I won't deny the fact that this love can be an imaginary love fest. But for me it is as real as the sun. For me my relationship with them reminds me to strive for joy, be compassionate to my fellow mankind, and to walk in the grace of god through dedication and love.
Years ago, I used to have a love for Jesus and God. For me the two were separate, because I never did believe in the Trinity, because such a concept is not Biblical, but developed after the time of Jesus by the Church. However, before I developed into being an atheist, it was the fact that Christians told me that God is not one of love, but rather one who enjoys punishing his children in the eternal fires of hell, which made me rather go off Him. I mean, I reasoned, that if I were ever to be a father, how I would be horrified to see my children having their flesh burned by ever-lasting fires. To therefore try and come-to-terms with the suggestion that this is what God enjoys doing, made me realise that the Biblical God was the not one of love, as I had assumed.
Yeah I just don't by into the whole damnation thing. I don't believe God to be vengeful or jealous. I don't believe God is as you have been told. I do think of the two as separate. I do believe in the trinity, firmly too. I don't believe in the general concept that there is a hell and that god sends people there to burn in the fires for all time. I am a fideist. I believe God to be the purest form of
light. That man has turned the general perception of god into whatever best suits them in order to create fear as a means of control. I have been studying the history of god and Jesus for more than 25 years now. And from what I have learned and from what I feel inside me... God just doesn't fit the mold that evangelists would have us fear and believe. If I had the same life experiences during my walk with the two I might feel as you. But my faith's journey has been a profound experience. You know the beautiful thing about all this is the fact that you and I are allowed to be different. In my heart, I firmly believe that it is not so much about who or what you believe in. But rather the way you celebrate and live life in a morally sound existence, with compassion and joy for all mankind kind. Furthermore, I don't believe that you Will be denied eternal life for being an atheist, nor more than I could be for being a sinner. We all have a place at the right hand of God. Just because you choose not to believe doesn't mean your life has been discounted in God's eye. I believe he loves you as much as he loves me. I believe he looks after you, just as he does me. My hubby is agnostic and my son a staunch, and very outspoken atheist. But Zach volunteers as a big brother to kids less fortunate than him. He volunteers as a basketball coach to a youth league of six year olds. He is one of the most respectable people I know and doesn't have a mean bone in his body. In my heart I know without a doubt that God will welcome him in heaven. He's a super nice kid with a big heart. Why would God not want him? That doesn't make sense to me. I think humans have manipulated the reality of god and heaven as a cruel way to control people through fear. How sad.
I used to argue in these forums in an attempt to "help" others "see" the reality of God, Jesus and faith in the Word of God. I was once one of the great debaters.... no longer.
I apologize to those who have been hurt and disillusioned at the hand of well meaning Christians. It hurts me to see the damage that has been done to the hearts and minds of those who once loved the Lord or who were earnestly seeking God.
It further pains me to hear from people who were dis-swayed from faith or draw their own conclusions base on their sense knowledge and logic.
I pray that those who are hurt are healed and that those who are confused gain clarity.
God is real, Jesus is real, the Holy Spirit is real, the Word of God is true...and the love that God has for mankind is also pure and true. There is a lot of theology that we can debate, but why? A relationship with the Father is not based on theology but on faith.
That if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shall be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10
Regardless of what men say and teach, Jesus loves you.
Whoever told you this was wrong. God is love and always will be love. he does not want to punish His children in fire.
As I wrote above, God does not burn His children in fire. God does not enjoy punishing anyone. Those who end up in hell do so of their own choosing. None of them will be God's child.
God is a just God, holy and righteous. If a court case found someone guilty of murder, should not the murderer be punished? Same question for a thief and a speeder.
Murder, and not swallowing some old book are two different kettles of fish.
It has nothing to do with swallowing a book. it has everything to do with meeting God.
If you teach your children a way of life that will destroy them, are you not a murderer yourself?
If you teach them to steal, are you not then a theif and deserve the punishment of a theif?
teaching someone to steal, or teaching people how to destroy themselves are clearly the teachings of an asshole.
I agree. What will you do when your children stand before God after being taught that He is not real?
I would not be too concerned SirDent. They get plenty of religious input all day long.
None of my kids are religious, they were never indoctrinated, so arrived at their own conclusions despite being leant on by churches and schools.
I am very proud of them all and by any standard they are good people.
Are you saying you nor anyone else has ever told them there is no such thing as God?
Not as far as I know, apart from what they may have heard from others. Not from me or my family, it is not in my nature to teach by negatives.
We are still dealing with the tooth fairy here in this household.
The twins came home from preschool singing a little religious song the other day, and nothing was said about it other than they sounded sweet singing together. Probably learned it in class or from some of the religious kids.
What kind of school do they attend? Most of the schools in the US would not allow anything religious in them.
What would you do if they embraced Jesus and Christianity?
My children have the freedom of choice.
Forcing religion on children is child abuse in my eyes.
is forcing them to get immunized, eat healthy food, get adequate rest, go to school child abuse?
It is the one way to get a child to kill themselves as the many religious fundamentalists have clearly shown in using 12 year old children as walking bombs.
I wouldn't say that I had religion "forced" on me as a child, but I definitely grew up with my parents telling me it was the only true religion and that it was what I should believe. However, growing up to believe this caused me to be terrified for much of my teens years, afraid to the point where I would wake up almost every night for at least 2 years to make sure I had not been "left behind" and "rededicated" my life to God countless times because I was afraid I wasn't going to get to heaven. I ended up severely depressed, even though I surrounded myself with other Christians, went to church regularly, was involved in the youth music ministry, and tried my best to talk to God on a regular basis. In the end, I eventually realized that everything I was taught to believe as true was indeed false, but it was extremely difficult to give up beliefs that were so ingrained into me from the time I was born, or at least the time I was baptized.
I also wanted to add that I do not have children yet, but when I do they will be free to explore the world when it comes to religion, because I truly believe the only way you can discover the "truth" is if you feel that it is true in your own mind. This is why every holds different beliefs. It is simply not natural for everyone to agree with every belief of a certain religion. I believe firmly that this will make my children into well-rounded, healthy people.
I found your comments to be very wise for one so young.
The Lebanese American author Khalil Gibran said that our children are not our children, they are love's longing for itself, and that they should in as many words, be treated as such.
I just returned from taking 4 very individual little people to school, so I am still smiling at the communication I enjoyed and the fun we had as I tried answering a hundred questions.
Kids? Love em deeply and purely as they love you and then leave em to get on with it!
What you have to accept when making this argument is that God is the Creator of all things, which would include Hell. He made it, He created the concept of eternal suffering with no end, so even if I made choices that put me there, the "there" was His cruel and horrifying invention. There is no way around that. The "we choose Hell" argument doesn't take God off the hook. He invented a torture that trumps anything they concocted in the Dark Ages.
It's a hell of a story, TheBruceBeat, ain't it? Pun intended. A story full of gigantic images, concepts that stagger the imagination, and hideous eternal consequences beyond comprehension. Maybe you're right--that this God of Love created Hell and must take responsibility for this eternity of horror and pain. But implicit in that proposition is the unthinkable--that God made a mistake. God by definition is incapable of Error. He is Perfect.
The story, as I'm sure all Hubbers know, plays out a little differently. God and the Archangels were enjoying Heaven, just doing their thing up there for eternity. Of all the Archangels, Satan was the most glorious, the most illustrious, and the most beautiful. As time wore on, Satan became restive and discontent and he began to think that he was as worthy to sit on the throne of heaven as was God.
And then he thought of rebellion.
Now here's the kicker: at the nanosecond that Satan conceived the IDEA of rebelling against God, the so-called physical Hell literally projected straight from his mind and came into being. Here's a couple of great lines from Milton's PARADISE LOST (spoken by Satan after the fall): "The mind is its own Place, and in itself / Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n"), which is the best example of whistling in the dark I've ever heard of.
Anyway, the grand idea here (and of course one of the cornerstones of Christian thought) is that Satan himself creates Hell through the exercise of his own Free Will, as do both Adam and Eve, later, when they break God's single rule for tenancy in Eden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (sidenote: Genesis says nothing about an Apple. That's Milton's invention).
The Archangels and Adam and Eve all MUST have Free Will, or their obedience to God would be meaningless, the actions of mindless automatons rather than independent spirits. They create the possibility of Hell, but Christian tradition has it that mankind has an opportunity for redemption through the sacrifice of Christ.
Finally, Christians believe that Good is Perfect, hence incapable of error of any kind, under any circumstances. So, ipso facto, he could not possibly have created Hell Himself, for to do so would be to admit He made a mistake. And He is incapable of making mistakes--which is just a tad glib, but that's another issue..
So God didn't create everything, Satan, Adam and Eve had a hand in the creation as well.
At least, that is what I get from everything you said.
I respectfully disagree that the idea that Satan created Hell is a cornerstone of Christian thought. It isn't. The bible doesn't support the concept and most Christians won't concur with that either, I don't think. Would love to hear people's reaction to this.
The mingling of commentary and invention on the Bible and the Bible itself is a trick. Milton did not create doctrine. He created a fable as explanation.
To follow the idea you present, one has to give Satan the power of Creation, and you will be hard pressed to find this supported in Scripture. Then you must accept that God has taken this truant creation and used it for His own purpose, i.e. to punish the non-believers for eternity. Even if you attribute the creation of Hell to Satan, the rules of its use as a place of eternal torment would still be God's.
Wow! Note to thebrucebeat and DoubleScorpion--please sit in your combat rooms and sharpen your swords for a while, because I actually have to do some things in the Living a Life end of things, so I don't have time to respond to your responses right now! I will try to get back to Hubbing after dinner today (Tuesday).
I hope that you, and all the other good folks that are leaping for their keyboards, smoke of indignation puffing from their ears, will read my post AGAIN before leaping to the attack. Better yet, wait 'til I clarify.
I did not assert what you are accusing me of asserting in the post. Not at all.
Not sure where you see smoke in my post. I think that is a projection on your part.
With that said, I will look forward to your response.
(Maybe that is part of where your discontent comes from in the responses you get. You are seeing what you are looking for, not what is there.)
Looks like you have a new best friend, bruce.
Look back trough my posts. I have never expressed "discontent" at any response I've received.
And don't patronize me. You don't have the right, and I've written nothing to warrant it.
Where have I patronized you?
I really think you are projecting an emotion that is not being ellicited by the posts you are responding to. Your reactions are frankly a bit bizarre to me.
How about you point out the "smoke" you referred to, and we'll start from there.
Bruce, the "projection" you projected is correct, but the project was to inject a little HUMOUR, a little levity, into the exchange at this point.. I obviously blew that one! Oh! and you missed that the projected smoke was to project from THEIR ears, not yours. Your ears remain smoke-free.
I phrased my comment about Satan creating Hell too hastily, and you and DoubleScorpion were quite correct to snap me up short. Of course God is responsible for everything, including Hell. Scripture is pretty clear on that. The issue of free will, however, is much less clear and to this day theologians debate "how it works". I was trying to express the view that Hell was a LATENCY that would never have manifested itself in the "world of space and time", had not first Satan, and then Adam and Eve, disobeyed God. Maybe we can think of Hell BEFORE Satan's sin in terms of the Null Set, a concept or proposition that--though entirely possible--has never yet occurred. An example would be Female Presidents of the United States. So if that analogy holds, Hell would exist only in the mind of God before Satan "summoned" it.
That's what I was trying to get across in my original post on the subject. The "cornerstone of Christian thought" I referred to was the freedom to choose between Good and Evil.
And Bruce, you're very tough on Milton. Characterizing what most would regard as the greatest epic in the English language and many would regard as the most magnificent Christian poem, as a "fable", is neither accurate or fair.
I believe the truth is somewhere in between your own and moonfroth's comment.
2 Peter 3:9 tells us that God doesn't wish anyone to perish eternally -- he does not
desire for us to suffer.
As hard as the topic of hell is, it remains a clear biblical teaching. However, for this writer, and Christian, the sufferings represented by such a domain finds definition not in deliberately placed tortures, but in that it is a place devoid of God; where God has withdrawn his influence and power and presence.
Such a place, absent of the source of good, has become devoid of any good. All that man cherishes as a blessing are absent in hell; light, warmth, hope, sight, sound, touch... it is what remains when God is removed? Hell.
In that sense, it is, as moonfroth says, a natural consequence of a misused freewill. God made it clear to Satan and man that he could accompany them on only one path, to chose the other is to arrive at a place separate for all eternity from God and all that he can provide that is good.
You could say that God created hell through his absence, but that is a very different statement than 'he imposes deliberate tortures'.
That result would still be His will, however, wouldn't it?
I don't think the fundies on here would accept your softened vision of Hell, though it doesn't bother me in the least and I have read it many times. The literalists still cling to the images of fire and brimstone that litter the NT, and that would have to be reconciled with the idea that God is the author of all creation.
Yes and no.
I'm thinking of the analogy of a Father who has a drug addict son (not the perfect analogy, but it will do). The father desires the best for his son, however he will not compromise his own standards. He informs the son that he may enjoy all the comforts and privileges afforded within the home, under one condition: He stays off the drugs (I think this is called this 'tough love' in counselling circles). Failing that, he will have to live on the street. The son ignores the father and ends on the street; alone, hungry and hopeless.
Of course, this analogy fails to take into account several key elements of the gospel message (for example, the patience, mercy and forgiveness of God), but it does show that a father can have a desire that is at odds with his will. In the same way, God desires humanities best, but he has set standards he will not compromise on. Live a life without him, expect to live an eternity the same. He does not desire that, but those are the rules he wills us to live by --- and he has the authority to demand it, and make it so. But the choice is ours.
I wouldn't care what substance my child was on, I would never consign him to the street, and neither would any intelligent loving parent.
Sick philosophy that one.
Be slow to mock what you don't understand.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/tough-l … 1101967842
I agree. It's also a good idea to know a bit about who said what and why.
How many kids have you raised to adulthood? How much do you know about child psychology or drugs?
I would guess about as much as Neff or her co author. Nothing.
parrstar is correct. and i will tell you this...there are parents who will turn out a child for not trying to help themselves when they have an addiction...good parents who love their children and are tormented by what that child is going through...but you can only try to help such a person so much...if they dont want the help, no one can help them...and allowing that child to remain in the home, simply encourages their addiction. it is tough love. even if a parent pays the first months rent on an apt for the child...that child will be on the streets by the end of the month. humans dont know when they have a good thing...if they did, they would recognize the wisdom in the ten commandments.
What do you think was the problem that started the addiction in the first place?
Usually it is parents who don't have the guts to talk to their kids, who would not trust their parents as far as they could throw them, because they believe in crud like that expressed here.
Religionists have no idea what love is, it is always conditional love in religion, which is not love in any way shape or form.
Throwing the parent out may have some merit. Removing the child to a place that clearly indicates a total lack of love or empathy is the religious answer to most problems, as real love is a foreign concept to the religiously impaired.
brucethebeat...if you told your child not to touch the hot oven or he would get burned, and that child chose to do it anyway...are you at fault for having an oven in your home or is the child at fault for being rebellious and disobedient...you cant blame GOD if you get what HE warns you that you will get in rejecting HIM...you have a choice and no in advance what the consequences of that choice will be before you ever make it...if you choose to reject GOD knowing full well what will happen if you do...the only fault lies with you...that is taking accountability...if you are going to reject GOD, fine...do so, but take your medicine and quit blaming GOD for what you will receive.
I don't think you quite grasp the concept of eternal damnation. You can't compare that to a child getting burnt on a stove. Can you?
If you had a stove and told your child not to touch it; then when they disobeyed you picked them up, threw them inside; set it to broil. We'd have you arrested and charge you with the worst punishment imaginable. Everyone who read the story would hate you.
But, what if your actions didn't kill the child when you put them in the stove? What if no one stopped you? What if they simply suffered the pain of third degree burns and you were able to keep them in that stove, with the broiler on, for an eternity.
That is the behavior you would have to display in order to compare a child and a stove to hell.
True, put like that it makes God seem a monster. However, that is the problem with analogies, if we go beyond the scope they were intended we can arrive at ridiculous conclusions.
I'm repeating myself from a previous post, but... As hard as the topic of hell is, it remains a clear biblical teaching. However, the sufferings represented by such a domain finds definition not in deliberately placed tortures, but in that it is a place devoid of God; where God has withdrawn his influence and power and presence.
Such a place, absent of the source of good, has become devoid of any good. All that man cherishes as a blessing are absent in hell; light, warmth, hope, sight, sound, touch... it is what remains when God is removed? Hell.
God make it clear to man that he can accompany them on only one path, to chose the other is to arrive at a place separate for all eternity from God and all that he can provide that is good.
You could say that God created hell through his absence, but that is a very different statement than 'he imposes deliberate tortures'.
There will be no children in Hell, only freewill adults, who decided that in this life they neither cared, wanted to find, or gave up on seeking God.
In conclusion, if you don't want God in this life, you won't have him in the next. The bible says only one place exists where God has within himself entirely - Hell.
That last sentence should have read, 'withdrawn himself entirely- Hell.'
You ignore the teachings of every other monotheistic faith. Who says you are following the right way?
Sorry. I am becoming more and more disillusioned with the notion that Christians know anything at all about anything outside of this life.
I used to subscribe to the belief that everyone would have the same fate after death because we all do the best that we can. I don't believe that anymore. Christians, for the most part, don't do the best that they can.
The thoughts as shared by most Christians on this site have made it clear to me that, if there is a God and an afterlife, you guys will spend half of eternity in remedial education classes. The hatred espoused by many of you is appalling
Emile R. To disagree with other faiths, is neither to ignore them or hate them. And where did you get the impression that I ignore other faiths. I consider myself quite well read up on them actually.
I can only speak for myself, but with the understanding I have at present, I rest my faith in the biblical God and its teachings. To me, it makes the most sense, answers the most questions, and, well, works... when walked.
Therefore, I will espouse what I believe is true. Maybe I am wrong, but not deliberately so. If others disagree, so be it, but I do not understand why you have to mistake my faith as a personal attack on yourself or anybody. If you do not believe in the God of the bible, then ignore what I say, but why berate me for believing it. If you're so sure it's not true, maybe pity me instead.
I realise that some claiming faith in Christ have short tempers, crude manners and tactless sensibilities; and I wish I could apologise for them, and I wonder at them myself. However the same can be said of any group. Scroll through this forum and count how many times the non-Christians have been unnecessarily rude and insulting. It achieves nothing of worth.
Throwing everybody in the hateful basket because of the actions of some is an unfair and hurtful thing to do, wouldn't you agree.
First, I didn't say I take anything personally. But, things don't have to be directed at me for me to see the hatred. And, I think I said some christians. I have seen two posters on this forum whom I believe are on the correct spiritual track.
The point is neither you, I or anyone has an answer and to comment on others not being loved by god, or having the opportunity to participate in an afterlife is childish, petty and trite.
Do you do that? I don't know. I don't know you, nor have I read enough of your posts to know. But I have read the christians posts and it is not a stretch to say that this is the typical christian stand. It must be yours also, since you started this conversation by replying to my post concerning your concepts of hell.
I'm not anti God. I'm anti the mainstream christian concept.
What is your take on Christ's words concerning hell the and afterlife
I think he was talking to a specific culture, that had specific beliefs and his message had to align with those beliefs in order to have a chance to be heard.
I know that sounds odd to you, but the God of the Old Testament was a god of retribution. One willing to annihilate entire nations just to clear a plot of land. It was a God that fit into the environment.
The God of the New Testament is a god of forgiveness and love. That is a complete turn around. It was a doorway to a new way of thinking; but it is a doorway that ancient man was standing on the other side of and looking through. The concepts of the Old Testament that were woven into the New were for their benefit. Not yours.
The God of retribution went dark in 400 BC. Why you guys keep trying to resurrect him is a mystery.
Hi Emile. The main difficulty I have with your previous comment is the implication that Jesus lied so as to get a hearing.
I can understand your perception of the old & New testament God, however I do not piece the facts together as you have.
I understand the OT & NT God to be one in the same. His holiness has not changed, his desire for man's best has not changed. Ultimately His purpose throughout our history, has been to redeem mankind back to himself; a task not as simple as some may want it to be.
To that end I have heard it said that the OT is the NT concealed and the NT is the OT revealed. I see a beautiful unity between the OT and the NT, a unity that presents a balanced picture of God.
Men may wish God to be like Santa Claus; his only desire that all men are happy and enjoying themselves. But the bible presents a far more complex scenario, one that encompasses a battle for mens souls, fought here, and in the spiritual realm (Ephesians 6:10-12)
And although the Jews of Christs day were benficiaries of his words, it was not only for them Christ came and preached, neither was it only for the Jews under the OT that their history was experienced. Passges like Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 reveal that the history of the Jews was to teach all men something of God.
This comments getting to long, so I'll stop here.
I love your last statement. I had the same problem replying. I kept deleting and trying to determine how to be more concise. I abhor excessively long posts.
I do get your point, however you have to accept the fact that some things supposedly attributed to Yeshua were untrue. So, I have to resolve that. To me, the message contained in the gospels as envisioned by him is of paramount importance. If there is anything good to be taken from the text the contradictions cannot be ignored.
I see ample evidence from scholarly study, new archeological findings and gut instinct that the gospels were tweaked. That his words were added to in places to achieve the goals of others. Couple that with Paul's clear deviations from the words and I've got a major dilemma.
Whether God exists or not, we know one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. We are here. Communicating our opinions on what he might be. Pile on top of that billions of other ideas as to who he might be and what he might have meant by any of the countless words and actions people have attributed to him. If he was this hateful being christianity attempts to slough off on the world; I have no doubt he'd be here right now, smiting me as I type.
You guys are wrong. Imho. I've moved on. I have faith that if we ever find clear evidence of the existence of a higher being it will be one that expected us to grow spiritually enough to do that. One that expected us to focus on the loving message that is the thread that connects all of the spiritual writings. Not one that expected us to find ways to separate ourselves and look down on each other.
so you in fact had a relationship with an interpretation of a book, rather than God or Jesus, which lead you to the absurd and babyish conclusions you have now come to. I love the idea that you've 'developed into an atheist'. The word you are looking for is deconstructed rather than developed.
Yes, I'm in an angry mood. Bloody rioters!!
Ok... lizzieBoo, off topic
I am from the US and I have always wanted to know what the term "bloody" refers to and why it is considered a "bad" word. Also the full phrase, "Bloody rioters!!" Call me ignorant, but I don't get it.... Can you help me understand
Way back in Christian time, mostly if not exclusively in Europe (I think), the oath "His Blood!" referred to the blood that seeped from Christ's side where a Roman spear pierced him om the cross. In early medieval times, this oath was considered blasphemous at worse, grossly disrespectful at best, and resulted in severe punishment, even death, if uttered in anger in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong company. Two or three hundred years later, this oath had diluted to "'S Blood!" a common bit of coarse language peppered throughout Elizabethan plays. In present day British/Canadian/Australian parlance, the oath has diluted even more to "bloody", a mild expletive essentially devoid of specific meaning. It simply indicates a bit of concern by the speaker. All reference to Christ on the cross was lost hundreds of years ago.
leslieAdrienne, yes that must have seemed a bit random. It's just the silly old rioting that's been happening over here. I t was making me feel a bit cross. Not really relevant to this subject however. Sorry.
Yes, moonfroth is right. There are many such abbreviations such as 'strewth! which is shortened from "God's truth!" And " gor' blimey" which is "God blind me!" Then there's "lummy" which is "God love me" and "zounds!" which is "God's wounds". Most of them were used up until the last 30 years .Goodness, perhaps I should write a Hub on it.
Sorry but what ur saying is ridiculous for the reason that if someone is having a relationship on the internet they can communicate with each other.
As for a relationship with good it seems a little one way, or bit deluded.
As the saying goes it "Takes Two To Tango"
We know God through our hearts and through experience.
The rational mind looks for physical proof, facts. The western world is very rational mind based -- and ego mind based. The two are sometimes linked very tightly. A predominantly rational, ego based mind is too agitated to experience God, as is the mind that thinks the bible is proof of God and then is defensive when others question those beliefs.
To complicate matters, the word "God" engenders many different things. It is a tainted concept filled with contradictions. Wars and killing in God's name. God's judgment and damnation. The absolute love of God. So, when people speak of God, there can be no clear communication. It appears that God is some crazy dude with a double personality. That's because too many people for thousands and thousands of years have had lots of time to muck it all up.
As I said above, the Spirit (or God) is to be experienced through the heart. And, because of that, our western rational mind is uneasy.
God is everywhere, In the air that we breath and in the lungs that take that air into.
How can we NOT see ... Gotta be covering ourselves with a ton of refusal to not see.
Or, a ton of delusion pretending you do see.
GOD may be unseen, but is not unknown, God is spirit and so is man. God has left us with his spirit, through whom we can relate with GOD. I know something about this but can simply put it all in writing.
I would suggest that a physically constrained being (like you or me) having a "relationship" with an Unseen God is a proposition that stretches credulity to the snapping point. I would further suggest--just to focus on Christianity in this post--that most of Christian myth and story, however much it dodges about and tries to evade the reality, actively DISCOURAGES a "relationship" between believer and God.
If one could somehow have a "relationship" with God, surely it would have to be understood that you and He were apart (hence the need to get together), but the Grand Plan in most iterations of Christianity is that God is not apart FROM you; rather, he is a part OF you, enters and becomes one with your spirit, fuses with you, etc. No "relationship" here. This is a divine takeover.
The imagery of this kind of absolute oneness is intense, often very sexual, the latter classically illustrated by St. Teresa's famous visitation from the heavenly cherub with the golden spear.
If you are a believer (just in passing, I am not) you have to accept God into yourself, permit the holy spirit to fuse with your spirit, etc. etc. And, to complicate the issue even further, you are the flawed mortal you are, but God BY DEFINITION is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent. You can accept this Force, embrace it, worship it, revere it. . .but how, within the confines of the word, could you have a "relationship" with it?
Interesting comment Moonfroth. I understand the oneness teaching within the bible as not ‘fusing’, but joining. Some analogies: the joining of a man and woman in marriage. They are said to be one, yet only in the sense that they become a unit working together for the same purpose. Allies in war fight side by side as one, yet only in the sense they are joined together for a mutual goal; they remain sovereign countries. So too, becoming one with God, is joining him. Of course, there is an inequality; he is the authority. Here the analogy might be the father/son relationship. Children thrive and mature best when they acknowledge their fathers loving intentions and authority over them. This will, in the course of time and experience lead to the relationship blossoming into mutual respect and intimate friendship.
it all depends on ur level of relationship with whom u call ur God
I believe in an invisible power ( say God for example )
When I concentrate in birth and death. Birth makes pleasure in the family but death brings sorrow. Birth of a baby, we know how comes but after death, where he,she,it goes ? Religions came in to the world to give unsatisfactory answer of this question.
In the womb of women as well as animals. How fantastic way the system is worked.
Who provides the material of eyes,bone hair,nail,teeth,blood,hart, skin a lot of important parts to complete a baby.
The colours of flowers and its small. The beautiful test of fruits. The sea and ocean. Sharks, delfins, fishes and lot of thinks under the water. birds are flying and singing.
Answer ,may be the nature do it automatically. But I believe some power working behind which is invisible and out of our imagination. Our limited brain can not able to think and to see.
Beyond our brain or to sketch any constructive photograph of the creator is impossible. He does not want any thing from us. It is enough to watch the mechanism, wonder and to say beautiful. The master might be happy on this word of appreciation. He is a great Architect.
Religion brings a lot of disturbance in the life of human being.
Let us take a child born blind. Growing up in the family. The people those
see him . Ask himself or ask to other. "How poor child, he does not see the beauty of this world, he can not see himself and his family members. Lot of disgracing words.
Actually he has no problem. He never see the world before. By birth he is blind. He is very much happy but the people having eyes are in problem to think about him.
The same with God. God does not want or expecting any thing from us. He is invisible. But religions are creating stories about him. Religions have been misguiding us and create hate,war etc among on believe to another one.
To be an Agnostic for the safe side is not bad.
We are mind, body(physical and can be seen), and spirit...I personally believe that God is a spirit, and we must be spirit minded to have a relationship with Him. If one really wants to know if this relationship is possible, "O taste and see" for yourself. Try believing in your heart and see if you can experience what others talk about if you really want to know.
Also, remember, the best things in life are intangible and can not be seen or touched at all.
Some people refer to God as 'the great rays;' which can actually be literally seen. I'm one of only many people who claim to literally see God with their human eyes, and I'll also say this; since I've made my Spiritual path the number one dedication of my life, I feel God intensely and literally every single day. And the energy which some people refer to as God that I can now actually see is intensified within my own body when I'm having exceptionally heavy experiences of this marvelously mysterious energy.
This means that I not only perceive a different level of reality all together - one that is totally new to me - but the perception in my human vision (what I see with my eyes) is intensified in line with how greatly I'm sensing this presence. If it's largely encompassing and perceptible, then I'll always feel it more substantially as well.
This includes my feeling that I'm a piece of God at a certain depth, as this increases my sense of connection sets and my sensations and extra sense set in to definite. My essence becomes cemented while my strength intensifies, and colours and lights shine more brightly. Taste pleasure is multiplied and the mundane become highlights. This is what an electrifying Spiritual walk is all about.
Zen - you've nailed it. Awareness is everything. The more energy we direct in an area, any area, the greater the intensity with which it will manifest to/for us. As we lose our 'taste' for the physical and concentrate on the mental/spiritual energy, we become in tune with higher/other levels of awareness.
Excellent point, @couturepopcafe. And self-awareness can be an important part of this -- knowing what we think and feel. Usually we pay too little attention to such things and it becomes so much "background noise."
And I agree. Zen nailed it, all right.
This is an interesting question, but may be flawed on a fundamental level. I could ask the same question of another object and the answer would be quite different.
In what sense can a person have a relationship with an unseen stick? Just because the person is not visually aware of the object, doesn't mean that they are unaware of it through other sensory perception.
I honestly believe that it is possible to have a relationship with all things, both real and imagined, in the sense that these things may influense our lives and the way we choose to interact with other things -- again, both real and imagined.
Does this answer the question of whether god exists? No. If a god or gods do exist, does our opinion of whether He, She, It, or They change the fact that He, She, It, or They do, indeed, exist?
Human eyes cannot see everthing; so we cannot see the Creator God.
Yes, human being can have personal relationship with Him; like all the prophets messengers had personal relationship with the Creator God.
We don't see a lot of people we e-mail or talk to in forums but we accept they are who they say they are until we find out differntly.
Also, we get physical proof that they exist in the form of their written words. Even when I was a Christian, I never "heard" or even "felt" God speak to me. I think many times I tried very hard to focus on a feeling and convince myself that God was making me feel that way. But again, it was ME convincing MYSELF that God was making me feel that way...
If there is a God, then my sympathies go out to you, Earnest. If there is not, then I guess you can extend your sympathies to me. Personally, I don't understand why you mock people of faith. How does believing in God diminish a person's character? As the saying goes, "It is better to believe in God and not need Him than to not believe in God and need Him and not have Him."
i have always said that if an atheist was right and i was wrong...he gains nothing and i lose nothing. if, however, i am right and the atheist is wrong...i will gain everything and he will lose everything. so far as i can tell, living a life of obedience to GOD is well worth the risk of me being wrong...i guess i could call it a win/win for me and a lose/lose for the atheist.
Those poor dumbassed atheists!
The would rather not believe in the fairy who is gonna leave them out and let you in, and it's all because they won't believe that a god made itself, became it's own son then killed itself because he blamed the mess he made of making mankind on mankind itself, and regularly wiped them out like so much fodder because they didn't obey it!
Those atheists must be crazy to knock back an offer like that!
At the end of the day, Earnest, your 5 emoticons in hysterical laughter is a very accurate image of this thread. Only a few posters are writing and reading thoughtfully and openly, motivated by a genuine desire to share ideas and improve their own understanding of this unsolvable question.
Everyone else is more interested in trumpeting the efficacy of their own position than in anything else. And since the issue itself can never be solved, EXCEPT to assert that your faith is the final solution to everything, where can this thread possibly go? Some very interesting points have been made along the way--perhaps that's all we can reasonably expect.
I have thought about that but it is good! I think everyone needs something to believe in. That is why there are so many different beliefs. The bible tells us we are all born with God in our hearts but not will answer the call. Being of sinful nature we hear the call but choose to remain in our ways. If you heed the call and are receptive to the hunger to know him you will be set free and able to really live.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone can perceive god as an "evident" one, "evident within the creation"
There are many people who associate God with mythical beings
Accountability has nothing to do with my atheism. I live a good, responsible life, better than most religious people for that matter. I live a good life because I believe in being a good person and treating others with respect.
I really haven't missed out on anything, in fact, I feel as if I experience more from life because I can view it within the realm of reason.
I suppose this brings us to the 'what is good, what is evil?' question. You have written, "I live a good, responsible life, better than most religious people". Yet, by what standard do you measure goodness? And why should anyone else interpret it the same way? By what standard to you say we should come o a unified agreement on what is right and wrong.
Ultimately I question how can atheism contribute to a better society when, at its core, it says, no God, therefore no absolutes, therefore no good and evil... therefore, what? Each to his own, live and let live... anarchy.
I think many atheists make the mistake of looking at their own little world and thinking, atheism works for me. Yet they fail to acknowledge that they live within a society that, by and large, offers them benefits chiefly derived from a faith-based-and-built foundation.
i thank you in advance, you have inspired me to write a hub about good and evil. you bring up some interesting questions, some things I've never really thought about. I will let you know when it's completed and look forward to your comments. i will reference this forum and some of our discussion. thanks
"I think many atheists make the mistake of looking at their own little world and thinking, atheism works for me. Yet they fail to acknowledge that they live within a society that, by and large, offers them benefits chiefly derived from a faith-based-and-built foundation."
What benefits has our society provided that are faith-based?
This country was not founded on Christianity, it was founded on religious freedom. Most of the United States' founders were not even Christians...
I will leave aside your first question for now, and may address it later. You have written 'This country was not founded on Christianity', however the question being addressed is more fundamental than that. This forum is addressing the question of having a relationship with God. That said, you then wrote, 'it was founded on religious freedom', which really reaffirms what I am saying. American society is built on a bedrock of people who, to a great extent, believed in God, and many of which pursued a relationship with him.
Regarding the United States' founders not being Christian, again, not the thrust of this forum, but I would direct you to this article, http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm
Very interesting article. Thank you for sharing. I only brought it up because I read what writeronline quoted you saying, though I realize it is a bit off the original topic. It just irritates me how nearly everyone I know bases their political behavior off of religious beliefs (i.e. disliking Obama because he is "anti-Christian") and saying that we need to "become a Christian nation again."
Thanks for clarifying.
I suppose people are tempted to round things down to what's easiest to understand and/or what they value most. Politics is a complicated subject and therefore we seek ways of simplifying the "selection" process. It's a bit like employing staff. If you have hundreds of applicants, you're going to use some form of culling process to manage the decision. For many, their faith is paramount to their own decision making, therefore only natural they would use it as a guide to determine political candidate suitability. I'm sure some atheists have rejected a politician simply because he had a vocal faith in God; part of their culling process.
OK, back to your first question, rather than write something, it would be far better for you to listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYQB7wERS-I&NR=1
It's long, I know (27 parts), but presents my current understanding on this subject more fully than I could write here.
You may be interested in reading this
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte … ticle=3657
You have an interesting pattern there leading to a spurious conclusion as it doesn't follow any logical reasoning. How did you come to rationalize that?
That isn't true by any stretch. Citations please.
The problem isn't that we can't see God (a blind man can have a fine relationship with other people) it is that we can't detect Him at all.
At best we interpret our own emotional state and feelings as a perception of God. It isn't of course, but if we claim it is then we can have a wonderful relationship with ourselves while claiming it is with God.
You are reasoning from the premise that God does not exist, and therefore your conclusions are funnelled unavoidably to reject spiritual reasoning; I.e. reasoning that stems from the premise that God does exist.
Consider this, if God does exist, and he is a spiritual, not material being, then it makes perfect sense that he could/would commune with his creation on a spiritual level.
That you find this concept totally foreign reflects only your [seeming] rejection of all possibility of anything existing beyond the material universe.
"commune with his creation on a spiritual level." But what IS that spiritual level? The only answer I've ever heard is just what I said - a "feeling" that can just as well be interpreted as your emotional state and that everyone has all the time without intervention from God. The believers simply declare that that feeling is communication from God while non-believers claim it is not.
Without firm indication that God is the one communicating it is difficult to have a real relationship with Him.
For someone to say that because they cannot understand something (or have not experienced something) then it cannot be true, is condescending to say the least; assuming ones own understanding and experience is the sum of what can be known or experienced.
It also places reasoning in reverse; because I cannot fathom the spiritual, therefore the spiritual does not exist, therefore God does not exist. Is it not more reasonable to say, God may exist, therefore the spiritual world may exist, though at this stage I don't understand what that is; others might though.
To declare that God (and the spirit world) do not exist because ones sense are immune to them, is the same line of of thinking that prevented surgeons in times past from washing their hands before operations, because they could not believe in unseen bacteria being the cause of infection.
Often faith has to precede understanding before progress can be made.
Why do you insist that I claim God does not exist? I make no such claim at all.
I DO point out that the experiences of the believer that claim those experiences are indicative of God are misguided as all people have the same experiences, but that's all. It does not prove God does not exist and any logical train that gives that impression from a failure to find God is fallacious.
That the spirit world is immune to our senses (and all mechanical detectors as well) does not prove it does not exist, but it certainly does not prove the existence, either. At best it is an indication that such a world probably does not exist, but does not prove anything.
Faith very seldom helps progress of understanding; far more often it prevents any progress. When one has faith regardless of any evidence then any evidence to the contrary must be ignored or in some way made unpalatable and this is very much the enemy of true understanding.
My apologies, you are right, I did make an unjustified assumption.
And you have a raised a valid point, religiosity and "spiritual" experience are common to man; proving that we are inherently religious. The question, then, is how do we sort through all the religious mumbo jumbo so as to arrive at spiritual truth.
I know, many reject that concept, their world-view is based on materialism, and many reject God due to religious confusion and abuses. But if God is real, which I so firmly believe he is, and if God were to communicate his will to man, what might the evidences of such divine revelation be? Following on from that, do we have anything claiming to be spiritual truth today which fulfils those evidences?
Many today, rejecting God, live their lives ignoring, or refuting, these questions. And when they die, that, according to them, is that. Dead, gone, nothing -- forever, never to return.
I reject this. Call that irrational if you will, but I see the creators evidence in everything I see, I feel him calling to a part of me deeper and ultimately more real then anything the material world has to offer, and a spiritual logic (for want of a better term) compels me to seek him and his will.
Evidence for God is everywhere, I don't know why some don't see it, I don't comprehend why so many want to reduce our, and the universes, existence down to a purposeless string of random chances, desperately, it seems, looking to science to justify that ultimate purposelessness.
OK I will call it irrational. in fact I will call it myth. I see a wonderful world that is explained pretty well by science, and is not the sum of a lot of guesswork about who wrote what 2000 years ago about thing they in reality knew little about.
You see a wonderful world!!!
Aren't you one of those that keeps telling us that there can't be a God because the world is so nasty.
Make your mind up.
No I am not one of those who says that, in fact I have never said that. Get your facts straight!
I stand corrected.
Tell me though, and it's a sincere question: In your wonderful world, if your children were one of the millions of starving people in the world, or dwelling in one of the many ravaged war torn countries, or destitute, addicted or dying from some incurable illness, or so battered by the circumstances of life's many and shocking atrocities; what message of hope would you offer? If there was no seeming chance of relief and nothing in your power to alleviate their suffering, what would you say or do?
Notice that your reasoning for believing there is evidence for God is that you personally don't like or accept the fact our existence has no purpose and that our universe came about all on its own.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what we can't see and everything to do with what you want to believe.
Is deciding what is right and what is wrong really arguable? We don't need any religion to tell us that. That's a joke.
Being an atheist doesn't mean I believe in or support anarchy, that's a huge stretch.
Are all of our laws created by religion?
There is good and evil in society regardless of any religion or any atheism. I live in a society that has been continually repressed by religion and continually hurt by religion. I am tolerant of people who don't believe in my beliefs.
I measure my standard of goodness by common sense and treating people how I would like to be treated. Oh yes, the Golden Rule. Is that biblical?
You are kidding yourself if you think people need a bible or religion to understand what is right and wrong. That's a complete joke.
This is exactly right... the fact that we don't need religion or the Bible to teach us right from wrong further demonstrates that we are created beings. The laws of God are written on the heart of every man.
No matter what you say, you only prove God's existence.
that is def a hard question for someone who does not know.
My answer would be,
That as a believer in God....I feel signs, like prayers answered at exactly the right time, that seem not to be coincidences. And why the earth and universe are so beautiful and in perfect symetrical precision. Why...things are the way they are. I feel our hearts have a need for a God to fill. And that everyone feels this.
After believing in a higher power/God, one can feel Him through reading the bible, in prayer and meditation.
It's often hard for even believers though, at times we doubt. But...Jesus died which is historical fact and he is the best example of good living. So, the apostles then died as martyrs defending their belief in God because they saw him resurect, is what we hear. And ....that's about it.
A good video for agnostics is "The Case For Faith"
Hope this helps!
Flesh canot have a relationship with God.It takes someone who is a spirit man,that is someone who is born of the spirit to have a relationship with the father of all spirits-God.A flesh life can not perceive God not to talk of seeing him and having relationship with Him.It is someone you see that you have a deep relationship with.When i say see, i'm not talking of physical sight but something related to faith.Faith can also be said the ability to see God in the dark.Before you can see, you have to hear His words and walk by faith;this is where relationship starts and one day, He is going to pay you a visit when He sees that you are really up to the task of walking with Him that dwells in midst of the cherubims.
Thanks IE. Although I can't take credit. It stemmed from something cooldad said in another forum that got me thinking. Can't forums be fun when everybody stays nice.
Parrster, a fascinating question.
"Empirically see" is a bit redundant. To "see" is "empirical."
If one does not "see" God (and seeing can be accomplished without Homo sapiens eyeballs), then a relationship becomes impossible.
We are each inherently invisible, spiritual beings, but we too frequently have a relationship with that other invisible part called, "ego" (the heart of selfishness and self-importance).
We "see" (or "feel") ego all the time. When we turn away from ego with humility, it is possible to start to "see" (or "feel") God. Then a relationship can begin.
What a pile of trite rhubarb this is.
There are no gods, and if there were anything one could call a god, it would certainly not resemble the very human very psychotic gods of the bible or quoran.
For me, it appears much of the debate centers around if God has a personality or not. I tend to think not. Case in point, our own personalities fluctuate wildly depending on our emotional state. Think if your personality was 'all powerful.' What do you think would happen the next time someone texting while driving cut you off. You'ld probably smite them, without taking the breath of compassion to realize the message they just got on their phone was a vital one.
If God is judgemnetal, does that mean he also profiles. How many times through-out history has religious belief in a judgemental God, been used to support racism or some other caste system?
This does not mean, there is no God. I'm as comfortable with there being a God as I am with if there isn't one. Either way, my life is up to me.
What makes me uncomfortable, is when anybody tells me there is only one way to have a relationship with God. Oftentimes, those who tell me that, live in fear and only wish to spread that fear to bolster their sense of security.
New International Version (NIV)
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Why would Jesus say this?
and what some people believe should rightly be laughed at, ridiculed and reviled as Biblical hate speak.
]and what some people believe should rightly be laughed at, ridiculed and reviled !
This statement is very true such as I have just edited a few words (of of it the otigional.
I agree completely. now lets not look down a funnel at any particular group. This is a gereral trueism that pertains to humanity as a whole!
By the way, there are several bibles in the house, I use them mostly for psychological study references.
This is a house full of readers, we read all sorts of stuff.
What a kind and generous attitude, Earnest. Your family is blessed to have you.
What are you on about?
There is no need to force children to do anything! Don't you have kids?
They soak up information like sponges!
No need to force them to do anything if you have reasonable parenting skills.
If you don't love kids and feel they need forcing, don't have kids!
Earnesthub, you must be a superparent. What did you do to make a your child welcome the pediatrician's needle? "Forced" carries a violent connotation. Propably not the best term to use in this context. All I'm saying is that parents should not be loath to communicate God's truth to their kids in the same manner that they lead them to eat healthy food, go to school and hit the sack when it's still daylight.
And there you have it.
A comparison between dealing with logical daily life, and a ridiculous myth as if they are the same things.
I didn't have problems with getting my daughter to wear glasses from age 3, or getting shots or any of that stuff.
My children trusted me completely even if it involved pain or discomfort, because I love them and speak to them through that love.
It's actually very easy to deal with children, it's just that many people shouldn't have them in their care.
As for being a super parent, nah! I made heaps of mistakes and still mess up regularly with my grandchildren.
I do have a theory on bringing up kids though, that seems to work well going on the results I've seen.
Try to let em run amok till they are around 7 years old and their natural narcissism will blossom in to self worth.
Empathy and love for others flows naturally from a good self worth.
I stick by what I said.
I have never insulted anyone on these pages unless it was in answer to one of these insults by proxy that I can recall, and I believe even some of your associates will admit that.
I offer links, data and information to debate and discuss with those open to read something other than the bible and never insult those who are trying to grow their knowledge, not just stuff a religion down my throat or use these forums to flog their particular religion as the only truth.
One being created could have the relationship of a servant of a Creator God with Him; He is the exalted one.
This is a very good question. I know that some of us have relationships with relatives that we don’t always get to see. I think if one can open their heart in a childlike way. God will respond In his way. He gives us animals, like dogs.
This is for those who need companionship. We have food on the earth. There are some berries that are safe to eat, not to mention the apple trees.
We listen to the songs of the birds that wake us with their songs in the morning. A relationship is about listening and conversation.
Sometimes it is one sided. I think it’s a blessing and a miracle when a mother
can find the strength to lift up a car in the air, because her child is trapped underneath it.
A man sees a stranger who needs food and he is given a meal. This is having that relationship. When we treat each other with love and respect, we are following the example.
Nonsense, compassion for your fellow man has nothing to do with having relationships with invisible friends.
In this I would agree with you ATM, humans have the independent ability to love and show compassion; because they are made in Gods image.
However, true faith enhances/magnifies those qualities, enabling people to go beyond these natural "feelings" towards actions of profound self-sacrifice and love. Such that one can turn the other cheek, love and pray for his enemies and do good to those that persecute them.
I've got a thread going about God ordering people to kill each other.
Would killing be another ability we have made from Gods image?
It's like do you belive in invisable men or super heroes? No so what the difference in beling in God? lol atleast Super Heroes dont scare you into beling in them
But, superheros also don't promise you eternal life.... you gotta' go somewhere when you die.... and the choice is yours.
We just get confused about what He means. God knows that are bodies are hard to control. That is why He sent Jesus to die for us and take the penalty for our sin. It is already covered,we are already forgiven.
When we except His forgiveness, we become His righteousness, we become precious to Him... Our fight is not with God or trying to be perfect because the part of us that connects to Him through Jesus is perfect. That part is our spirit... our inner most being.
The rest of us, our soul and body have not changed. So, we still want to do a lot of the old stuff and we still want to feel a lot of the old stuff. The Bible gives us the knowledge of God, His love for us, who we are not that we have received Christ, what we have and how to live our best and most productive lives.
Our spirit already knows these things. It is getting our mind or our soul to understand and receive them. Jesus love you Becky.....there is no need to be afraid
A very moving and well written response. However, when we become
"re born" in spirit, yes, our souls do change into the purity and eventually the "perfection of Jesus". As much as my heart hurts and my spirit cries for those who can't seem to "grasp", that God is *Love*. Is it better for a man to feel and believe he/she is forgiven and enjoy their life and reach their destinies with a lighter heart? *OR* go through this world, angry & broken, ? When we make that choice to not accept the truth, this leads to so many other destructive things. I am an almost 40 year old walking and life example that there is a God!
Well if this is a piddling competition I am a lot older than that and a living example of a normal human being living a great life of love without delusional myths.
I would have to agree with earnest. If the only two choices are believing in god ore being angry and broken then you can't be looking outside your own situation. If believing in god and feeling you are forgiven is what makes you feel fulfilled, then that is great. In my situation, Christianity itself was what caused me to feel broken and angry, if at least indirectly. I urge you, Jo, to examine your "proof" and look outside your own religion to see the life examples of others who are "proof" that no god exists.
Also, I love the questions that people have been asking, but I am going to have to agree that this forum becomes much less interesting when everyone turns the question into "proof" that god exists. From what I can tell (from firsthand experience and from remarks of others), Christians don't trend to consider others' points of view and are only concerned with making the point that they are right and they have proof. I am not trying to put down anyone who believes in god,because I know not everyone is this way, but I encourage those Christians to look beyond and consider the beliefs and views of other religions. It makes for much better discussion.
Im sure when i die im going in the ground to rot an maggets will be feasting on me as the circle of life goes on.
But for one secound i thought no im going to the clouds to be with my maker!!
Opps then i woke up to smell the coffee
That is the whole point. It is not Becky who is afraid is it?
From her last line is sounded like it to me... do you think I miss read her?
Believing in, or rejecting, the concept of God passionately is not a license for incomprehensible, non sequitur scribble that is more typing than writing. Having a vague "idea" does not give one leave to blurt it on paper with blissful disregard for the sea of squiggly red lines under every second word. Sniping from the sidelines with catchy one-line put-downs of everyone you disagree with should not be mistaken for thought.
The executive and staff of Hubpages announce in strident terms that Hubpages is not a place for idle chatter or meandering non-thought or unreasoning chop logic. Hubpages is to be a platform for interesting, timely, substantive topics presented in clear, well-written language which in turn is spell-checked and grammatically correct.
These QUALITY standards, announce the executive and staff, will be expected in Hubs, in Forums, in everything we write, because we are writing to the World and such a massive audience must be reminded on every page, all the time, that Hubpages is not just another pretty chat blog.
Hubpages staff, we are told, will moderate our work, and when they find inappropriate or dull and boring content, or writing rife with spelling and/or grammatical errors, they'll delete it.
It's time for the Hubpages moderators to do some serious moderating. . .or do they confine their attention only to the Hubs that are the big money-makers? I notice that Sherlock123--a stimulating thinker and writer--no longer exists on Hubpages. I hope he didn't just give up and take his mind elsewhere. . . .
You might be pandering to yourself on this topic. The stated Hub Pages reasons for the forums are:
The Forums are an online meeting place for Hubbers to discuss things beyond their Hubs. Hubbers get to know one another, give each other advice, help each other out, and converse about things that interest them.
We encourage all Hubbers to use the Forums as an open space to:
Interact with each other in the spirit of cooperation and fun
Ask for and respond to calls for help and assistance with publishing on HubPages
Share advice and tips on how to create better Hubs and how to draw more visitors
Come up with ideas to make HubPages work better for everyone
Discuss your favorite topics
Just because you are not impressed with the dialogue, or the subject matter, does not equate to a deviation from Hub Pages policies. IMHO.
I don't think I'm pandering to myself on this issue, Emile. I've been on this planet too long to get any satisfaction from self-pandering.
And I think you might be missing my point(s). First off, I'm totally impressed with the "subject matter", or I wouldn't be spending my time writing posts on it. Secondly, there is too frequently no "dialogue" at all--just disconnected short statements of belief, often having little to do with the post under "discussion". And some of these statements are personal attacks, three or four times rather nasty, which is uncalled for. Finally, the Hub guidelines suggest the Forums should be characterized by camaraderie, helping, cooperation, improving the Hubs--that kind of stuff.
C'mon Emile! Look back through the last thirty SHORT posts, then look me straight in the eye (so to speak)and tell me the majority fall within the Hubs guidelines! Betcha look away first. . . .
Here’s the problem. Whether I read one, ten or one hundred posts and critiqued them; it would not change the fact that you attempted to pass off your opinion as Hub Pages policy.
That was my only point in responding to your post. I have no intention of passing judgment on other people’s statements, just to satisfy your curiosity. If I have something I feel the need to share, I’ll reply to their posts.
Your concerns are valid, and they may ultimately chase me from here as the level of discourse is often embarrassing.
However, the marching orders from HubPages do not suggest what you assume they do. Idiocy is not prohibited here.
When are you going to produce a hub that meets the standards you espouse?
You don't think this rant sounds like discontent with the content here?
I've read a couple of your Hubs. You write well. Carefully. You choose words that accurately carry the meaning you intend.. So I'm confident you know exactly what the word "rant" means, and for you to apply it so inaccurately to my complaint about short posts suggests you had some other purpose in mind. But I'll resist the urge to probe further.
And just in passing, you agreed with me that (your words) "the level of discourse [in the Forums] is often embarrassing ", then two breaths later you call my complaint a "rant". You may dislike my style, but let's be of one mind where we actually agree with each other.
So why do all religions try to scare people into beliving there is a god.
An if you dont belive then your gonna burn in hell, what a load of crock!!
one other thing i dont get is what is about reborn christians,
so if hitler became a reborn cristian does that mean his gonna get into heaven, if so a person thats a non beliver who has done no wrong in his life is gonna get sent to hell because of his/her belifes.
Seems all abit BS to mee
I am a proud "reborn Christian" as you like to call it and I will gladly answer your question. Every person on this earth is a creation of God. The God I serve is Love. He loves every person equally. So, yes, if Hitler had asked God for forgiveness of his sins and accepted Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, then he would have been accepted into Heaven. Why? Because Jesus already paid the price for those sins.
God is Love, but He is also Holy. There is no such thing as a person who has done no wrong. Everyone has committed some sort of sin, be it as small as lying or as big as murder. And because God is Holy, anyone tainted with any sort of sin, no matter how small, cannot be in His presence. So, that person who in your eyes has done nothing wrong, still has to accept Jesus sacrifice and gift of a ticket to Heaven (if that's how you want to see it)
It's a pretty simple concept and not as full of BS as you seem to think.
I can understand your attitudes towards reborn Christians, because we are not portrayed very well in the media or in general. The loud, crazy ones get all the publicity and make a bad name for the rest of us.
I can tell you what I wouldn't do.
I wouldn't pray to an entity that never existed except in the minds of those who can't tell the difference between myth and reality.
when do people pray the most?
Is it in there time of need?
when something bad happens?
Pray for something to happen?
Well most things our out of hands (health issues an so on) so why do ppl think if you pray to a god that something is gonna happen?
clearly as rational people we seek expert advice due to what circumstances we are in. If im ill im going to a doctor and your
If it helps people to get on with there lifes beliving in entity that does not exist, then let them be as long as its not being pushed onto children.
The crime rate is higher with non-believers? What data do you make this claim from? While I have no scientific studies on my end to dispute this, I do work in law enforcement and can assure you, at least where I'm from, this is not true.
There are answers to this question throughout the Bible. To find them we are urged to "diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 You must have an interest. One of the verses that most accurately answers this is 1 Corinthians 2:11 - What man knows the things of a man, but the spirit of man that is in him? And the things of God no man knows but the Spirit of God.
It is in letting go of the physical. All we think we know is not what is - in total. This is why prayer is so important. More needs to be taught about meditating upon the meaning of the Word in private time. This is how you nourish a relationship with an unseen God. Jesus left the crowds so He could have private time with the Father.
Just before His crucifixion He separated Himself from His loved disciples to privately commune with the Father. He is our example.
you speak out of ignorance. but this is to be expected, you are blinded and cannot see the truth. you are free to mock GOD just as you are free to reject HIM. GOD is the creator...man has no rights except GOD gives it to him...just as HE gave us life. GOD has a right to destroy anyone HE chooses or all of us. HE did not send HIS Son to die on the cross because we merited such an action...HE did it because it was the only way for man to obtain salvation. a gift to us...nothing we deserve or have earned. to say GOD has no right to...or that GOD must pay for...it is ridiculous...who is man to make GOD pay for anything, or to say what right GOD, their creator, has or doesnt have to do anything HE pleases. everyone can believe as they will...and will do so...but the truth will be known in the end...that is a fact.
No. This may be a fact though.
Ignorance by choice is also a choice. Your choice.
Read some Greek mythology, some Jung, a bit of Hillman, watch the video series by Lawrence Krauss, see the new documentaries on the history channel, see the series on the secret bible, have some fun make some changes, then you won't feel the need to spout nonsense and accuse others of ignorance.
You can make this life HEAVEN
You can make this life HELL
It's really up to you
A heavenly comment! Heaven is living like your life is your life, not someone else's!
Say that 6 times fast!
you mean... say that 6 times fast after drinking half a bottle of scotch?
I haven't even finished the neck of the bottle off yet!
A cheap drunk ya reckon?
You can't see love,but everyone's looking and praying for it.
You can't see love but you know it's there.
You can't see love but everyone wants more of it.
You can't see God,but I know he's there.
I have faith in God,I have faith in love.I have faith in me!
I stand in my truth,f you don't stand for something,you fall for anything.
I think one of the things that an individual has to do for themselves is decide for themselves. If they want to be God or Gods exist, so be it. If they choose to look to science so be it. However, it takes an element of tolerance for respect someone, even if you never agree with them on their stance over the whole debate. I think faith (or whatever you all want to call) has certain benefits and I think science is just as beneficial. I think science is equal in terms of my faith just because it fills a different part of my life than faith does.
There is a big difference between spirituality and religion. Religion is man made, it is a set of rules and regulations (created by men) on "how to relate to God". Spirituality on the other hand, is developing a personal and private relationship with God, by your own standards.
As far as not being able to "see the invisible" God. God is energy, so is love. You can measure love or give me a jar full of "love" so does that mean it doesn't exist?
Emotions are real (like spirituality) religion is like psychology, an attempt to create a way to relate to our emotions.
Those who don't believe in God, do you believe in emotions? Both are energy and can be seen through "the way we live our lives".
Energy can not be destroyed, only changed from one form to another. So those who think that when their body dies, that the energy of the personality just disappears and thus ceases to exist, are not following the laws of science.
Yes the body is the vehicle for the energy body (soul/spirit), but just like when you drive your car, you are not your car, thus your personality/soul is not the body, it is what drives the body with energy. When the Soul leaves, the body stops functioning (it dies) Just like an automobile needs a person to drive it.
These are my beliefs. Yes God exists, and the miracle and intelligence of life and nature is proof enough. Yet we each have a 'free will' to choose to believe it or not.
I honor everyone beliefs, but since everyone is sharing theirs, I thought I'd share mine. I am NOT a religious person AT ALL. But I am a very spiritual man.
Nope, that's still religion.
Nonsense, if God were energy, we would know it. Love exists as an emotion triggered through biological functions in our bodies.
Nonsense, why can't we see spirituality like we can see emotions?
Pure gobbledegook. Emotions have nothing to do with belief in gods.
Neither are you following the laws of science.
Gobbledegook, we are well aware of what "drives" our bodies. Souls/spirits have not been discovered as the driving force.
Yes, those are your beliefs, unfortunately they have little to do with reality, believe it or not.
You are totally and completely religious.
Michael., I agree with you completely. Well said!
Thank You. God is like water to a fish, s/he is everywhere, but as human beings we are so emmersed in spiritual energy that it's hard for us to distinguish and separate ourselves from it to fully understand it. God will always be a mystery and not be able to be captured on a scientist blackboard. Scientist don't really understand electricity (it's source), but that doesn't mean we can't use it. We've learned to create a positive relationship with it and harness its power to our benefit.
Of course not, there is no such thing.
Science has become your religion dude. (s) I wonder if anything ever existed before science was able to measure it? Probably not according to your intellect.
unseen or un-felt? the two are different. We may not see god in terms of a person...but he can be felt in our hearts and seen in the beautiful things we see in the world. A generic answer but my experience with god is that keeping it simple helps us see. That is not to say we should not dig deep and question it ourselves... it just means that my feelings of god our my own... as your feelings about god should belong to you.
Emil, is your comment directed at my post? If so, I'm puzzled. You say I'm trying to pass off my "opinion" as HUB policy. So you're accusing me at best of misrepresentation, at worse outright deception. Since I take my writing--on HUB pages and elsewhere--pretty seriously, your suggestions are offensive. I would hope you'll consider the following.
I certainly did complain that numerous of the SHORT posts were off topic and very negative, characterized by "petty bickering" and personal "attacks", some of which were quite "nasty". HUB policy, that's POLICY, states that, "personal attacks, [and] petty bickering. . .will be dealt with swiftly." The statement of HUB POLICY underscores that the purpose of the Forums is to "help each other achieve the most rewarding online experience possible." The tone of the Forums as outlined in the POLICIES is to be one of "shared wisdom" sought by all Hubbers in a "spirit of cooperation and fun."
Please point out to me how I missed the positive energy, warmth and sharing and cooperation, and (merely) constructive criticism in the short posts I cited. Obviously, I must have missed it all completely.
And two other points: (1)HUB managers are SUPPOSED to be dealing with pettiness etc. in the Forums "swiftly" (see POLICY above)). They aren't dealing with it at all. (2)You say you won't pass judgment on a fellow Hubber, just to "satisfy my curiosity". What an odd comment! I was simply asking if you would have a look at a block of writing to see if we could arrive at consensus. I consider that in the spirit of "discussion".
Finally, IMHO, you didn't seem to have too much trouble passing judgment on me.
You're probably right about the fact that I made a judgment call. I don't feel compelled to find the conversation to review it, so I'll accept your assessment. From what I remember I was replying to your post. So, that would be a clear indication that my post was addressing you. I doubt I'd be compelled to change the statement that I considered your comments to be overstepping the bounds and attempting to push your opinion as Hub Pages policy.
So even though I just provided evidence that I was ECHOING, not subverting or supplanting, Hub policy, you have no interest in reviewing the original posts between us. An interesting approach to "discussion". . . .
God did not send is people here to prove his existence for there will always be those who will not accept him no matter how much one reveals to them.
Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember?
Jesus was rejected even unto death.
Since you didn't reply to a specific post, I have no idea what comment you are referencing with your statement.
If there is a God, all people are his people. If you are laying personal claim and denying his connection to the rest of humanity, you've overstepped your bounds.
Not all people are His people. The disconnect comes from those who do not know Him. Those who know Him are connected to Him and are His children.
Yada yada yada. I've got a sister that doesn't look anything like the rest of the kids in the family. She suffered some trauma as a child. We told her she was adopted. Mean? Sure. We were kids. But, just because we were childish and cruel it never changed the fact that she was family.
She was crying about it one day and my dad told her she must be family. She was the spitting image of the dog. After that, she never let us get her down. She threw that back in our faces.
We are all human. Family is family. It doesn't matter how unkind, or how much people try to pretend otherwise; it won't change that fact . If there is a God, to lay claim that anyone is not his family is on the same level I was when I was a child.
I suppose I could send your yadas back to you but I won't.
It is a completely different scenario. Did you sister ever stop listening to your dad? Did she start ignoring him completely?
Those who listen to the devil belong to the devil. Those who listen to God belong to God.
Sounds to me as if your religion is all about being controlled by the id. You can try to grab spiritual things that belong to others to satisfy your own cravings; but that isn't spirituality. It's greed.
Actually it has to do with relationship. You either have a relationship with God or you don't.
Why would someone expect entry into the kingdom of God when they refuse to relate to God? (now that is what I would call greed)
So, you now choose to judge how the being you claim is beyond understanding works his will? You have been given the ability to be judge and jury of the hearts of others? You have the power to limit the power of the God you claim exists? Wouldn't that make you more powerful than this god?
Oh. I wasn't expecting a response of any kind. That usually stops the conversation in the real world dead in its tracks. But it does make me the bad guy. It is apparently bad form to point out the obvious.
I am not the judge. As I said before, it has to do with relationship. God has revealed Himself, and His revelation has nothing to do with me. What he reveals to me, is revealed to me.
And yet, every time you post scripture to back up your belief that others don't make the cut, you are attempting to throw the gavel down as if you are reading the law. Sounds like a judge to me.
Every time you post your opinion on what that 'law' means for the individual you are conducting yourself as if you believed yourself to be jury.
If you recognize that this is not your place, it begs the question.
Exactly. What you know is for you. And you, alone. That is spirituality. If you think everyone has to toe your spiritual line? That's religion. There is nothing spiritual about trying to push religion. It has to do with your opinion. Not some ultimate truth.
Emile, correct me if I have misunderstand, but are you saying that "spiritual truth" can be different between people, but, as long as that truth agrees with others truth you can discuss it, if it doesn't, don't speak about it. If that is what you are implying, then what is truth? And what, and who decides, and how do you arrive at "spiritual truth?"
I am saying that spiritual truth is in the eye of the beholder. Discussing beliefs is one thing. Throw the name of God on top of that and use that name to condemn others, or claim they are separated from God on any level, in an attempt to justify your stand; you are attempting to pass a judgment that is not yours to pass. That is grossly overstepping your bounds. No one has that right. Imho.
So what is the source of this "spiritual truth" you refer to as seen by the beholder?
Is it from an all powerful God? Or is it it something existentialistic?
It would be the source of that which everyone seeks. The source all are connected to. A powerful God is simply a reflection of the form you would expect to find, if you are main stream Christian.
Say someone goes in search of a spiritual connection and they chose Christianity to do that. After learning the teachings and desperately wanting to feel that connection they attain it. That person would therefore assume that the teachings of Christianity are ‘truth’ because they found a spiritual connection only after affiliating themselves with that religion. ‘God’ becomes defined in their mind by that particular sect. The same thing happens with every sect within Christianity and within every other religion.
All I’m saying is that, although that person may have found a connection, they attributed their success to the wrong reasons. No religion owns the bridge; it is the desire to find the connection that helps someone attain it.
Ok, I'm getting a better understanding of where you're coming from. You reject that God has communicated his universal will to mankind. Instead, you believe in an impersonal force that "everyone seeks" and finds in different, often seemingly contradictory, ways. (Correct me if I've mistated that).
Can you tell me by what authority you know this to be true? Where does your enlightenment come from that makes you so confident of this? Yourself?
I agree that "religiousity" can lead one to a false sense of security regarding their spirituality. However, I believe this equally true of those holding to forms of Cosmic Humanistic philosophy [religion]. Although truth will always encompass religion, religion does not always encompass truth.
In the rejection of absolute revelation (such as is foundational to Christianity), some decide to make up their own theories regarding the supernatural and divine will; and expect others to accept these theories as authoritative. Any concept of spirituality that entertains the notion we can all agree-to-disagree, for me, at least, takes away from the credability of such "spiritual truth" claims, for it makes a mockery of what the term 'truth' means, and opens it up to personal interpretation.
Yes, that's it in a concise little nutshell. Because, as others have argued quite well, none can explain the fact the story of your God took a hard left turn to become the God of the New Testament; then a hard right swerve to become the 'God' of the Quran. You've never been able to give a valid explanation why so many follow Hinduism. Jews, Hindus, Muslims; they have all searched too, feel they have found the spiritual connection. Are you saying the entirety of humanity is misquided and disconnected because they don't agree with the sect of Christianity you have attached yourself to? Which sounds closer to a truth. Your stand or mine?
What authority do you have? Think about it carefully. What do you know from revelation and what do you know from learning. Has 'God' spoken to you? Has a voice boomed out from above that the text you call his word is that? Without direct contact, how do you know anything to be truth? You simply accept it, without argument. You willingly accept a belief structure that limits the power of your concept of God to love, forgive and embrace his creation on whatever level he deems right. You 'interpret' the text you call the word of this God to work within the parameters of what works for you. From where I'm standing, you are the one working within your own authority.
You are exactly correct. One must always remember that your vision of spiritual'truth' is nothing more than your hopes and dreams. What does your vision say about you, as a person. Does it show you to be loving, accepting, considerate of the hopes and dreams of others?
No. I disagree. Religion is man's imagination run amok. No one has anymore revelation than that there is something beyond what we can sense on the physical plane. Religion represents our desire to have an answer. Not knowledge.
I have no problem with that because I see no evidence of absolute revelation. The problem comes about when you accept the word of others that they have the truth, that you should believe their truth, and that you should follow their truth. That is the bane of being religious; of not accepting the reality of the fact that other religions disagree with your truth, yet push the same belief that only they are right. I don't see how you can say that limiting the power of all things spiritual glorifies your 'God'.
And I think religion makes a mockery of the truth of spirituality. I think it makes a mockery of your concept of 'God'. You attempt to limit the power. You attempt to limit the connection of the physical to the spiritual. To believe in spirituality, you have to believe that it permeates the physical realm. It is an integral part of all life. When religions claim that only a portion of the world is contained within the spiritual universe it is almost laughable to me. How could that be possible?
Emile, I can completely understand where you are coming from, however the heart felt argument you make does not detract from the possibility of absolute spiritual truth and a far narrower path than you, me, or anyone would prefer.
Putting aside for a moment who of us, if any, knows the truth. To argue that the world is full of people seeking a "spiritual connection", as you call it, and because they arrive at different faiths therefore all faiths are equally true, is invalid reasoning. I would agree that all faiths share elements of truth, but all faiths cannot be true; for the main reason that many 'truth claims' are diametric opposites.
In regards authority, I have none. However, I beleive God able to reveal himself in a way that presents his will understandably and irrifutably. And I have come to understand that revelation is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, as revealed in the scriptures of the Bible. The authority I look to is something outside myself, something that claims devine authorship and has internal and external evidences to prove it. From your comments I realise you have rejected the Bible has being from God, however I encourage you to reevaluate that.
You wrote, "You willingly accept a belief structure that limits the power of your concept of God to love, forgive and embrace his creation on whatever level he deems right". Now you're talking. This is exactly the point. God is the one to decide, not man. We can not limit God. But that is a very different statement from 'God has his own limits'. It seems you have rejected all possibility that God message is limited, and that it contains elements unpleasant to believe or uncomfortable to accept.
There is a far more simple explanation.
These claims are nonsensical garbage.
Will Jeebus burn me for not beleebing garbage?
True. However, if there were a God who had decided on a 'right' way and one path to his presence; I think he would have certainly done a better job of mapping it out. I don't think that the lion's share of his creation would be left out in the cold simply becausing he didn't feel the need to be a little clearer, or they happened to be born in the wrong part of the world to clearly get the message.
I didn't say that. I said religion is bogus. It is not the faith in religion that finds the connection. It is the individual's desire to find the connection. In Christian terms? Seek and you will find.
Assuming this discussion only incorporates the monotheistic faiths; you begin with an assumption that at least one of them must have ultimate truth. I begin with the assumption that if one had found the ultimate truth, all who sincerely searched would recognize it; therefore none have ultimate truth.
I believe he was special. I believe he had a heck of a connection that allowed him to share information that was vital for spiritual growth. However, I still fall back on the fact that once the gospels were said and done, Paul had a heyday with changing the rules. The Christ's message was simple. Christianity? Has nothing to do with that message.
I don't argue that there is not some corroboration of the historical references in the Bible. Does that prove that your definition of God exists? We have corroboration of the historical references in every story we know of every other god. Does that make them real? No. If the God of the Old Testament existed today, we would know it. He would make his presence known.
You'd have to point out what elements you are talking about. I do reject the Christian concept of God. Not because of unpleasant or uncomfortable things. Your text doesn't bother me, but I don't see it the way the church wants it to be seen.
Christianity, as it is practiced, cannot be resolved with the words in the gospels and it cannot be resolved with reality. And that is the funny part. If there is a God, you claim he made reality. Every time a Christian denies it, they deny him.
Emile R my comment was not on any specific aspect of your statements but the comment from others about God not being real and belief in science as being more valid.
An example - A teacher tells a student there is no such thing as god because if you can't see god how could you believe in god. Student gets up from his chair and asks the teacher, 'Sir, do you have a brain and can you see it?' The teacher replied - 'Of course i have a brain but i cannot see it'. Student replied - 'Sir, if you believe you have a brain and can't see it, then that means you have no brain'.
Are both, the teacher and student, christians or both relavitists? Such morons!
'Of course, we all have brains, we can see them on a MRI or open up a cadaver. In fact, through further MRI research, we can see symptoms of Schizophrenia, much like from those who see things that aren't there.'
Interesting, I just wrote a hub on this about the Five Senses AND the Sixth.
It helps understand how a physical person can worship a spiritual being called God.
Is it that time again already?
It seems like only yesterday We bought out the top ten!
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Does the fact that we cannot empirically see God, diminish the possibility of having a relationship with God......
No, not if you are willing to make the effort. He is always there, but we choose whether we let him in or not. When we reach to him, he reaches to us.
Tuning sense can help a person to get a relationship with an unseen God.
Yes a foil hat with antenna is a good way to tune in.
Body with Mind is also a good way to tune in.
Just thought I'd check in after a protracted absence to see if the faithful and the unbeliever were still engaged in their friendly running battle in pursuit of the unravellable (new word!). Glad to see that the pursuit continues. This "debate" is an excellent example of the process being more important than the goal; however, if earnesthub loses interest, the game is over!
It is a bit difficult to retain interest when it all goes over their heads!
earnest, you claim your view of things to be right...what makes you so very different from believers who also claim to be right? you are just as stubborn as they are to accepting someone elses theory if it goes against what you believe. you have no respect for others right to believe what they will. you mock and insult, even when that attitude is not returned to you. to me that is childish and puts you in the wrong. if you could discuss things like an adult, then maybe you would be worth talking to.
I make no claims at all other than the fact that myths are myths and verifiable facts are just that...verifiable.
We may not know all about our history or how the world came in to existence, but we do have millions of tested, peer reviewed theories that stand up to scrutiny from the full range of sciences.
On the other side we have myths about invisible entities who wiped out mankind almost completely, hates it's own creation and is gonna lock non-believers in this nonsense in to a life of hell.
The "someone else's theory" is theory. Real theory. Do you know what a theory is?
the only reason it is just a theory is because GOD has no desire to allow those who reject HIm and mock HIM into HIS kingdom. therefore HE blinds them so they cant be saved. that is why you cant accept what believers tell you...but it doesnt give you the right to insult and mock when no one else is treating you in such a manner. but i guess if you are going to insult and mock our GOD it only stands to reason you will also insult and mock HIS followers. you see GOD as a monster...i do not...i see HIM as a loving and caring GOD...it is man who is the monster.
Time for more of gods love.
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)
So much love and compassion.
Not psychotic at all!!
Like most sane people I am well over being abused on these threads. Many of the threads are in themselves abusive. I can't count the number of times your god has been used as a proxy to abuse me.
Religionists instigated all the abuse I see in these forums, all you see is someone who doesn't believe in ridiculous nonsense and will not roll over and play dead like I'm supposed to.
Bring your hate filled crud here and I will tell you it is hate filled crud and demonstrate it. I am not here for a popularity contest, I just don't like lies and nonsense being bandied about as "truth" and will say so.
Then you have a problem. I don't do hate.
I don't believe in ridiculous 4,000 year old myths either, and that gets up your nose, because none of you believe this stuff either, or live by it. You are simply indoctrinated and scared.
earnest, i really could care less if you do not believe in my GOD...that is your problem, not mine. and if you do not do hate then why is nearly everything you type nothing but insults and mockery?
also, you do not know me...you have no clue whether or not i live by my beliefs...it so happens that i do. i believe in complete obedience to my GOD...and so I obey HIM and do my best to live in accordance with HIS will. i am not indoctrinated unless it is by GOD HIMSELF...and what is it you think i fear? i do not fear pain, nor death nor people nor events. if i fear anything it is to be separated from my GOD.
I stand by what I said.
You and all the other "believers" do not live by your beliefs. Trying to convince others that you do seems ridiculous to me.
You are for example breaking your gods laws by speaking on a forum and in wearing the clothes you wear, eating what you eat.
Remember what your jesus is supposed to have said. (note that he never wrote a single word that is recorded, it is all heresay.)
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.
All accomplished???????? Earth still seems to be here.
Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
earnest...you have no understanding of GOD or of HIS laws...you use them only to deceive. I know my GOD and HIS laws. say what you will, you DO NOT know me nor my relationship with my GOD. i am done speaking to you about this...it is a waste of time. i will not speak to you again concerning anything to do with GOD. i am sure this will please you as much as it does me.
As usual, you did not address the issue at all. I am not quoting from Alice in Wonderland, these are your beliefs not mine and you ignore them.
I don't need to know more about you than what you proclaim as truth to arrive at the conclusion that you do not follow your own belief. You can't and nor can anyone else.
Theory, though there are some fact surrounding it, is still theory and is not proven to the point that it may be called fact. Hence the evolutionary theory is an educated guess because no human was there to document the event. Christianity is faith based. The more faith you are given the more facts are revealed. This is why there is controversy between non-believers and believers. The Bible says the "god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe the truth."
if by "the god of this world" you mean satan...no, GOD HIMSELF blinds those who reject HIM lest they should see, hear and understand and HE must save them.
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
What human was there to document the event of biblical creation? Notice how that isn't an argument?
Adam. The point was the Bible is FAITH based. Science is FACT based. If a Christian says they believe something that others say cannot be proved - this belief is based in FAITH. If someone who does not believe says the Big Bang THEORY or Evolutionary THEORY this is supposed to be based in FACT. Theory is not fact. In effect putting so much into something that cannot be proven is FAITH based. It is then no longer science.
Possibly the funniest answer from a religious zealot ever.
So - God did Adam BEFORE He Kreated Everyfing n Adam was there 2 see it?
How did Adam breathe when he woz there b4 god maded the heavens n th erf? Did god make him a oxygen bottle or sumfink?
Have you even read Genesis?
It is out of our imagination to think or to sketch any obstruct to this invisible God. If we used to watch
each and every phenomenal creation in this existing world. Then we come into this conclusion that some one behind it. Only we can say, how great and wonderful architect will be.
Our relationship as a products of this fantastic and unique manufacturer. So called God.
Good grief, Man! What do these words MEAN? There are no points of reference; the language is not rooted in any traceable thought. And please don't declare that what you wrote is clear to YOU, so there ends your responsibility. Or, equally frustrating--you're entitled to your opinion, and who am I to chastise your words just because I don't share your opinion?
Perhaps cloudy language and cavalier attitudes towards the principles of argument are the primary reasons why these forums on religion and philosophical issues rarely GO anywhere. Too many writers roll their eyes to the backs of their heads, nibble on some indignation, let the words blurt on the screen, then hit the "send" key. Logic is forgotten, cause/effect isn't even remembered, major/minor premises are (perhaps) large and small apartments (??), and reasoned conclusions. . .well that's just getting too silly a demand, isn't it?
Holding a deep belief in God does not come with a license to throw the rules of argument, of proof and disproof, of general discourse, out the window. An atheist is not your vicious enemy, he/she is someone to sway and convince with the power of your arguments and the depth of your thought.
Bring intelligence back to the table of disagreement and you'll have Earnest eating out of your hands. Ah. . .perhaps that's a tad optimistic, but he'll certainly sit down with you! Betcha. . . .
Evolution is a theory, Darwin said it himself. I am sad that you cannot see past what the established scientists and text books push. I have read them, I have studied it do not take me for an uneducated wim. Thank you
Evolution is fact, science has already shown that. If you took the time to understand evolution, you would know that, too.
No, you are sad that I don't share your beliefs. If you understood evolution, then you would really be sad that you've been wasting your time worshiping a God that did not create nature.
You've done no such thing.
And that is ok! that is why this is a discussion not a final statement
@ Sam Dolloff. What is the referent of your first "that", please? Is it something ATM said in the post immediately above yours? And the lead "that" of your second sentence seems to be a conclusion--yes? A conclusion of what march of details? Thanks in advance for clarifying.
Oops I am sorry for the confusion. The first That was to Evelution Man saying he was not convinced. and the second That was in general to teh forums and threads. Hope that clears it up!
I can't see any of you but I can have a relationship with you on here. Same kinda thing.
Good grief! Where has this forum gone? Is Cagsil's mocking 4-week old emoticon face-duo the end of the Great Seen Debate on the Unseen.? Am I really Seeing this Not-Seen? The lack of posts is challenging my faith in our willingness to beat the irrelevant to. . .near-death. Don't go KILLING the topic now!
The same place they usually go, but not always.
How did you find my emoticons as mocking? A person said something funny, so I showed people I was laughing. No mocking involved. Laughing at something someone says is normal. To not do so would mean you're brainwashed. Laughing is instinctive, reactionary to something else occurring.
Who knows what you're seeing?
Well, it looked like this topic was dead for at least 4 weeks before you posted, so it was working it's way into history, but then you woke it up.
Blessings dear sir.
If I may, can I answer your question with a question? In the event you say go ahead . Here I go :
The essence of our lives are essentially to be lived for every moment , that's all we truly have,
but because of faith, which we all possess and exercise each-and everyday , without seeing .
We plan for our children , our job , our mortgage , our lives and we plan with no other, than the Most High God for a great . Who else can hold everything in place , especially "Tomorrow"
"TOMORROW" Without seeing Tomorrow. We go to sleep with great expectations .
Not exhausting all our finances, or giving away our belongings, because we can't see tomorrow . We know that sun will shine tomorrow, and we exercise faith that we will be a part of the celebration of a new day.
Give Thanks and Praises to the Most High God.
How can you have a relationhip with nothing? You can't talk to it, it won´t talk to you and if you tell people you are having a relationship with nothing, they will put you on Prozac.
Do you really think that God is a man on man's level? If God had to reveal Himself now, all woluld be consumed. To the wicked, God's glory is a consuming fire.
No, the biblical god is on the level of a human psychopath. Read your bible!
Could you just imagine the entire world being able to speak only one language! Or the entire world reduced to the size of North America and had all the different languages . could you?
We took with no argument that we are being human
we took the fire
we took the sex
we took the planes
the boats all from someone before us, what from us , a Doubt?
Kids can't grow on that. Long before we (some of us humans) were able to become non believers, of anything, the Bible said in the book of Psalms 14:1 that the fool said in his heart there is no God. I did not.
It is a man's right to believe what he wishes , and though some could say what's not , I would love to hear what they think is.
Using the bible to call people fools is lightweight by comparison to the bile from the bible showing pure hate for it's apparent creation.
It is simply a bronze aged myth that seeks to control the terminally ignorant and gullible.
What is amazing is the capacity for religionists to ignore science, reality and hundreds of thousands of proofs that it is all sawdust and still be doing so in 2011
One of the truly fascinating, and amazingly consistent, realities about posts by Believers is that they simply state what they believe. And proselytize about what they believe. And assert what they believe. A sort of HYDE park of cyberspace, if you will. Dumbos like me write down some ideas, a few thoughts, perhaps (on REALLY good days) an insight or two, and we're naive enough to expect you to read what we say, think about it, and WORK with it as you respond. What I'm getting at is this: I do NOT believe as you do. Now, given that, what do either of us gain by having one party mouth their party line, over and over and over? What changes? How does learning take place? Who's on first?.
by Ronnie_Dey 9 years ago
This is something I always wondered to know about. How does a woman (from your personal point of view) perceive a 'man to man' relationship?There are two contrasting statements which I heard and liked to:The first one is:"Anything that comes with love should be accepted"And the second one...
by Rad Man 6 years ago
I read something a while back about how intuition evolved to get us out of dangerous situation and that if you are using it for anything else you are more likely wrong. I then noticed people in these forums say that they just KNOW God is real and that no amount of reason will prove anything...
by Cat 8 years ago
What do you do when you realize you married a jerk?What do you do when you marry the "perfect" person and after the "new" wears off, you realize he/she is a jerk? Is it for better or worse or run for the door?
by MissStoryTeller 5 years ago
So I met up with a couple of friends last weekend and we started talking about the subject line. These are girls from my childhood whom I haven't seen in a while. One of these friends had an arranged marriage recently ... and when I say "arranged marriage" I mean it in the literal sense...
by dailytop10 6 years ago
How can a plain guy like me get over a break up?Yes, my wife for 2 years broke up with me. I was inactive for almost a month to try and fix everything but I guess it's too late. She found another man who gives her way more attention than I do and she's calling our relationship quits. I'm completely...
by kirstenblog 10 years ago
Any idea?Seems one of the great mysteries of life
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|