Do you believe in God?

[XoravaX]

If your saying that only fundamentalists take the bible as being the exact word of God and free from error or interpritation then you might wnat to have a word with the Catholic church. They hold the Bible as being:

Source: http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=22

Heh, I'm a Protestant. It's God's word to me too, but that as a metaphor.

The burden of proof lies only with those making the claim, no evidence (to a scientific standard) exists for a God or Gods, as such a belief in God (or Gods) relies entirely on blind faith.

Indeed. No scientific evidence, that's why it's religion. Blind faith, if you want to call it that.
That's also the reason why science and religion shouldn't be mixed, as science has its own standards; everything has to be proven unlike religion.

But no-one can make a claim of God's(/a god's/gods') unexistence based on anything other than their own belief, being a reason why debate over such things will lead to nothing.
However can be proven that the Bible's explanation of how everything came to be (if literally taken) isn't true. But that's like cutting just an edge off the religion itself, while the core, the "word" (ethics) stays.

If you go to ask the common Jew, you are more likely to get an answer closer to mine than "I believe that every word in the Bible (OT) is true and the word of God". It's just the Catholic church that went the way of literal interpretation since the early Middle Ages. For example, the Orthodoxes don't take it that literally either.

 

[Scaff]

Heh, I'm a Protestant. It's God's word to me too, but that as a metaphor.

So all the miracles, hell, etc are just metaphor?

If that's the case how exactly do you pick what is literal and what is metaphor?

Indeed. No scientific evidence, that's why it's religion. Blind faith, if you want to call it that.
That's also the reason why science and religion shouldn't be mixed, as science has its own standards; everything has to be proven unlike religion.

No they shouldn't, but religious followers have a continued habit of disagreeing with that and wanting to present religion as science (and then claiming science as religion).

But no-one can make a claim of God's(/a god's/gods') unexistence based on anything other than their own belief, being a reason why debate over such things will lead to nothing.
However can be proven that the Bible's explanation of how everything came to be (if literally taken) isn't true. But that's like cutting just an edge off the religion itself, while the core, the "word" (ethics) stays.

Then please ask your fellow Christian to stop claiming that faith is proof of God's existence.

I would also once again ask how you know what to take as literal and what to take as metaphor.

If you go to ask the common Jew, you are more likely to get an answer closer to mine than "I believe that every word in the Bible (OT) is true and the word of God". It's just the Catholic church that went the way of literal interpretation since the early Middle Ages. For example, the Orthodoxes don't take it that literally either.

Citation please.

I ask because I don't for a second believe that this is as clear cut as you like to make out. I was brought up a Church of England Protestant and interpretations of the Bible as metaphor was most certainly not taught, nor do I believe that its universally accepted in the Anglican community (particularly in parts of the US and Africa). I would strongly suspect that this is a source of much in-fighting, debate and strong disagreement within the Anglican, Orthodox and Jewish faiths.

 

[XoravaX]

So all the miracles, hell, etc are just metaphor?

If that's the case how exactly do you pick what is literal and what is metaphor?

Well, kind of. But what I pick literal? The teachings of ethics, and then several other parts, mainly those which are historically proven and stories that already make sense. But not the miracles, they are there to teach something rather than only to impress.

No they shouldn't, but religious followers have a continued habit of disagreeing with that and wanting to present religion as science (and then claiming science as religion).

That is the worst problem with religion, because if people take it literally they see science a threat to their belief. But there will always be people who disagree with the scientific view of the world and universe, be there religion or not.

Then please ask your fellow Christian to stop claiming that faith is proof of God's existence.

I would also once again ask how you know what to take as literal and what to take as metaphor.

Belief kind of makes it true to them. They will never know if they are wrong, and live in faith till they die.

It's up to each person to make their own decisions whether to take the Bible literally or not. But as it's faith only that matters (as faith in God alone is what grants eternal life (as long as it isn't a bloody metaphor too)), I don't see it a big issue.

Citation please.

I ask because I don't for a second believe that this is as clear cut as you like to make out. I was brought up a Church of England Protestant and interpretations of the Bible as metaphor was most certainly not taught, nor do I believe that its universally accepted in the Anglican community (particularly in parts of the US and Africa). I would strongly suspect that this is a source of much in-fighting, debate and strong disagreement within the Anglican, Orthodox and Jewish faiths.

I can't cite anything, but my grandmother is an Orthodox (or Greek Catholic) and the Orthodox priests have always said here that it's up to the individuals how they see the Bible as long as they agree with the main points (God and Jesus). Luther also gave advice in Catechism how to understand the teachings, so I don't think he took the Bible literally either. Jews don't see a conflict with science and religion as (the Jews I know) think their religion as a guide and laws of how to live a good life (Jews don't believe in eternal life, it's just a Christian thing). The Anglicans, well, the British view is the most liberal of them, which doesn't necessitate taking Bible as the ultimate truth. Similar way, my Protestant church (pretty much our version of the Anglican church, called (Finnish) Lutheran church) has different kinds of priests with different views, however the archbishop said that it's up to individuals to interpret the message of the Bible, while he sees it as "highly symbolic".

This is the main dividing line in Christianity, and has been since the beginning. It separated the minor eastern churches already in the 4th century, and partially caused the two later schisms too.

Of course everyone is free to think what they want, but I think my (and my church's) view suits the 21st century situation a lot better than the Catholic.

But the different views don't make any sect or church somehow less correct, as it is based on a common thing: faith in God.

However my personal opinion of the fundamentalists is pretty different (I can't stand them), but I don't go saying they have got it wrong.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Ehm, you don't realise the Bible is written using metaphors?

I didn't realise.

You are also saying that people aren't doing it right when they don't take it the fundamentalist way? How would that even be possible as if literally taken, the Bible contradicts itself too many times to count.

The Bible is just a book, written by men.

Feel free to call the fundamentalists deluded, but keep it for yourself with others.

If anyone is offended, they are simply complaining.

But as said countless times, the Bible doesn't prove it either way.
The existence of God, a god or gods is an unanswered question.
No science, no man can ever prove it either way.

But why stop with just God? There are so many wonderful things to be believed without proof.
To me there is nothing about any God that sets them apart from any other.

I'm sure if modern believers had been raised in ancient rome they
would perhaps show as much grattitude to the roman gods of the time.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Cherry picking from the Bible is simply cherry picking.

http://bible.cc/john/20-29.htm

Faith, by definition, must be blind, for faith is belief in the absence of proof.

You pick out a verse that show Thomas saw and he had faith. Judas saw and knew who Jesus was yet he had no faith in him. That verse just pointed out a special blessing to those who not have no seen first hand. Of course anything you haven't witness first hand requires more faith than witnessing something personally. Even then we know our eyes can be tricked.
Are you trying to imply Jesus disciples didn't have faith when most believe they will be in the highest positions in heaven?

 

[Denur]

I believe the Quran has literal truth in it

For sure it does, but it is stories like the ones involving the Buraq I find a bit hard to swallow.

 

[jasr73]

To me there is nothing about any God that sets them apart from any other.

Aside from the fact that it's big business and if you can't get the flock to believe, you can't get em' to contribute$ - for a higher purpose, of course.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Quite true on both counts, they are areas of common discussion and are cross-connected, however its the staff's decision that the core of the content discussed should remain separate.

I do find it interested that you have however chosen to address the correct place to post rather than actually posting the proof of creation that would validate your claim that faith is not blind.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say in these two statements.

Validation is not "thread" dependant.

The evidence for Yahweh, Allah, Brahmin, Zoroaster or...?

Since the reference is from the Bible, I would have to go with Yahweh.

If we provide two contradicting statements from one book, which one is correct?

Why do you think they are contradictory?

 

[Scaff]

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say in these two statements.

Validation is not "thread" dependant.
/QUOTE]

What I'm saying is that to prove the point you are trying to make you will have to post some proof to support Creationism. However that proof should be posted in the Creation vs Evolution thread and then referenced here.

Quite straightforward and logical.

 

[XoravaX]

The Bible is just a book, written by men.

Yeah, even the Catholics agree that.

If anyone is offended, they are simply complaining.

So could I be racist and just shrug it off by saying that.


Russians are retarded thieves and liars.

Hey, what, are they offended?

Nah, they are just complaining. *ignores them*


Why are you Irish offended by the Brits' attitude towards your people in the past?
That's needless complaining, because they were right, like you in this religion debate.

Ok, sarcasm ends here. I believe you got it why your attitude causes problems. Of course I am free to think whatever I want of Russians but I surely wouldn't go saying that out loud. Or then if that thought were of black people.

But why stop with just God? There are so many wonderful things to be believed without proof.
To me there is nothing about any God that sets them apart from any other.

That is your decision. But it's more plausible if others believe too, as if you yourself create a new religion there are no others to share it with. Also, as the current religions are old and have such a wide following, they are more plausible than something in which only a few people believe (I know this is partially flawed logic, but at least it isn't something you made up yourself). There's a 50% chance that God exists, however.

If you want to believe in something you yourself made up, feel free to do so.

And you are sure right there are many wonderful things to believe, but only a few of them can't ever be proven wrong.

I'm sure if modern believers had been raised in ancient rome they
would perhaps show as much grattitude to the roman gods of the time.

Sure they would.

 

[Quackjack29]

www.godisimaginary.com

Enough said

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Yeah, even the Catholics agree that.

Agreed

So could I be racist and just shrug it off by saying that.

I feel telling someone they are deluded for a belief & hating someone because of their Age/Race/Nationality are differant.

Why are you Irish offended by the Brits' attitude towards your people in the past?

I don't think people alive today are accountable for their ancestor's actions.
I would also say anyone obsessing over Ireland and Britain's past is also misguided.

I believe you got it why your attitude causes problems.

I don't think so. If everyone gave up their religion, I believe we would be much better off.

And you are sure right there are many wonderful things to believe, but only a few of them can't ever be proven wrong.

Well, anything that is invisible and cannot be contacted or give any sign of it's existance can't be proven to not exist.

Sure they would.

I think that shows how people are coached into religion.
That your faith depends largely on the family you are born into.

Why would god make your entrance to heaven a gamble like this?

Blaspheming the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin.
Isn't that ridiculous? When I was ten years old I told my friends it was all a big story. (Actually when I was a child I was intensely scared for a while thinking of burning in hell for that)

That means I am doomed and can never be forgiven.
Instead, I'm going to respect others and live life now, instead of waiting for eternal happiness. (In my case, eternal fire.)

 

[XoravaX]

I feel telling someone they are deluded for a belief & hating someone because of their Age/Race/Nationality are differant.

You are right, but still, Christians and Jews, for example are cultural groups in similar fashion to nations.

I don't think people alive today are accountable for their ancestor's actions.
I would also say anyone obsessing over Ireland and Britain's past is also misguided.

I'm impressed. Most people just keep hold of their fathers' views and carry things like rivalry and bitterness to their generation, but you seem to be an exception.

I don't think so. If everyone gave up their religion, I believe we would be much better off.

Indeed, if. But I'm not sure people want to, eg. I'm not sure if I would, but then again, I never talk about it unless others bring up their views.
I think the world would be a better place if everyone kept their beliefs to themselves or amongst their religious group and wouldn't go purposefully preaching it to others.

However I do defend my and others' religions if they are attacked as there is freedom of religion in the Western World.

Well, anything that is invisible and cannot be contacted or give any sign of it's existance can't be proven to not exist.

Kind of, but God's existence wouldn't necessitate anything other than a parallel plane of existence (a multiverse), while some others rely on that and also some weird forces that can't be proven to exist. But of course that is just my view.

I think that shows how people are coached into religion.
That your faith depends largely on the family you are born into.

That shows how religion is an integral part of our culture (which, in turn is the reason why conservatives often support religion).

Why would god make your entrance to heaven a gamble like this?

Blaspheming the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin.
Isn't that ridiculous? When I was ten years old I told my friends it was all a big story. (Actually when I was a child I was intensely scared for a while thinking of burning in hell for that)

That means I am doomed and can never be forgiven.
Instead, I'm going to respect others and live life now, instead of waiting for eternal happiness. (In my case, eternal fire.)

I wondered this too, as God, as how His personality is described in the New Testament, wouldn't doom anyone to eternal torture.

But Christianity itself doesn't (as how I understand the teachings) limit life that much, and the Golden Rule and Great Commandment also guide people to respect others and live a good life. Also, being a Protestant, I don't have to follow the Catholics' stupid (sorry to anyone who feels offended) and strict rules.

Probably the reason why I have kept my belief is that my grandmother who looked after me while my parents were at work when I was little, taught things like God is merciful and kind to all people and wants us to be that to others instead of "people who don't believe in God will burn in Hell". So I never developed the attitude that I was forced to believe in anything.

Also, what is another possible translation to what is often translated as Hell, is "(eternal) unexistence" in the way that you just cease to be forever, compared to the people who don't (eternal life). Doesn't seem too harsh, as that is what the people who don't believe in anything mostly think as what will happen after death.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

What I'm saying is that to prove the point you are trying to make you will have to post some proof to support Creationism. However that proof should be posted in the Creation vs Evolution thread and then referenced here.

Quite straightforward and logical.

To some extent maybe so.
However, I don't have to post anything anywhere unless I choose too.
I posted for relevance concerning this thread.
It just so happens it involves Creation, which again crosses over.

"Creation" is practically unseverable from "Belief in God", at least within the Biblical references.

While my post maybe applicable in the C vs E thread, thus far there has been no mention of, or comparison to, Evolution here.
Therefore, I must submit, your inferences to the "correct thread", "seperate core content", and such, are overzealous and premature, as well as unjustified.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

www.godisimaginary.com

Enough said

Notice the very first point "try praying" they totally miss a huge point.
All scripture is for me but not all scripture is to me.
What did John the Baptist proclaim: The kingdom of God is at hand. If you read the rest of the stories the Jews totally rejected the "King of God" thus also rejecting the Kingdom of God. Some of the promises of Jesus to his disciples are connected to the Kingdom of God. This would including the so called "Lord's prayer". ( Go and read the Lord's prayer and see how it makes a lot more sense with the Kingdom in mind.) The Jews were even offered the Kingdom shortly after the Resurrection. After a time Paul proclaim he now totally going to the Gentiles. The church age is a grace period after the rejection of the King and Kingdom.

In another words you have to put the text in context. Now when Jesus is King over this earth in the future he will cure cancer according to scriptures.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Notice the very first point "try praying" they totally miss a huge point.
All scripture is for me but not all scripture is to me.
What did John the Baptist proclaim: The kingdom of God is at hand. If you read the rest of the stories the Jews totally rejected the "King of God" thus also rejecting the Kingdom of God. Some of the promises of Jesus to his disciples are connected to the Kingdom of God. This would including the so called "Lord's prayer". ( Go and read the Lord's prayer and see how it makes a lot more sense with the Kingdom in mind.) The Jews were even offered the Kingdom shortly after the Resurrection. After a time Paul proclaim he now totally going to the Gentiles. The church age is a grace period after the rejection of the King and Kingdom.

In another words you have to put the text in context. Now when Jesus is King over this earth in the future he will cure cancer according to scriptures.

Does anyone else do this: when reading this stuff?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Does anyone else do this: when reading this stuff?

Was there anything I wrote that offended you?

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Probably the reason why I have kept my belief is that my grandmother who looked after me while my parents were at work when I was little, taught things like God is merciful and kind to all people and wants us to be that to others instead of "people who don't believe in God will burn in Hell". So I never developed the attitude that I was forced to believe in anything.

The God I was told about as a child was merciful & kind. But I don't think this is the case.

Some points from a Sam Harris Debate that reflect my thinking.
1.2 billion people in India many are polytheists. All doomed. No matter how they live.
A criminal guilty of heinous crimes need only turn to God before he dies for salvation.
That is unjust

The amount of innocent children that must die in infancy.
God either can't do anything or doesn't care to.
In my view makes God inept or evil.

So even if God is real, I would not worship him.

I was never really forced to believe but I felt coached.
Christmas story every year, school masses being told many (wisely chosen) gospels with great morals messages. But I think that is a type of brainwashing. People just accept the truth they are given.

Was there anything I wrote that offended you?

I think the roll eyes , is because quoting John the Baptist to a non-believer will likely not mean anything to that person.

 

[Denur]

Now when Jesus is King over this earth in the future he will cure cancer according to scriptures.

So we have to wait until the Second Coming for our prayers regarding cancer to be heard? Where in scripture is that mentioned? Or do you regard cancer to be the devil's work, which will be undone when Christ removes all evil with his 2nd coming?

Anyway, it seems a bit harsh for those who suffer now and will die from cancer long before He returns, regardless of all their prayers.

 

[Scaff]

To some extent maybe so.
However, I don't have to post anything anywhere unless I choose too.
I posted for relevance concerning this thread.
It just so happens it involves Creation, which again crosses over.

"Creation" is practically unseverable from "Belief in God", at least within the Biblical references.

While my post maybe applicable in the C vs E thread, thus far there has been no mention of, or comparison to, Evolution here.
Therefore, I must submit, your inferences to the "correct thread", "seperate core content", and such, are overzealous and premature, as well as unjustified.

Back up a second and actually realise what you said before throwing an accusation of overzelous and premature in my direction.

The point posed and you reaction was as follows:

In fact, the Biblical God demands that you believe without evidence.

Not so…..
…..The wonders of the highly organised complexity and detailed function of Creation, reflects a unfathomable scale of intelligence and power involved to accomplish such a unimaginable concert of feats.

You have clearly stated here that you have evidence that supports creationism.

As such its more that relevant to the C vs E thread and were you to post that here it would drag this thread massively off topic, so from a moderation point of view my (polite) request was most certainly not overzelous or premature.

I do however once again note that rather that providing this evidence (in any thread) you have taken to distraction and personal digs. Well if that's that direction you wish to head in I would counter that what is overzelous and premature here are your claims of evidence to support creation (and the Bible and God are not evidence).

 

[kk20]

I have a question. Do catholics believe that jesus is god? Do they believe that god came down to earth and was born as a human? I dont know any catholic people that could answer this. They're just catholic for the sake of it. Much appreciated.

 

[DustDriver]

Jesus was God's son. He was here to spread His message.

 

[kk20]

Jesus was God's son. He was here to spread His message.

Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me...I cant really search on google because theres quite a few different opinions...

One more question

If jesus is gods son, what does the holy trinity represent? Much appreciated.

 

[Denur]

Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me...I cant really search on google because theres quite a few different opinions...

One more question

If jesus is gods son, what does the holy trinity represent? Much appreciated.

I typed the following into Google: "what does the holy trinity represent" and it came up with a multitude of answers, how strange!

 

[DustDriver]

It's debateable, just like most of the Bible/Koran. Which is what religion is all about in my opinion. Every person should make out for himself how he interpretes the stories and the morals behind them. Not blindly follow the views of religious leaders.

 

[Exorcet]

That is your decision. But it's more plausible if others believe too, as if you yourself create a new religion there are no others to share it with. Also, as the current religions are old and have such a wide following, they are more plausible than something in which only a few people believe (I know this is partially flawed logic, but at least it isn't something you made up yourself). There's a 50% chance that God exists, however.

Numbers don't add to credibility. Christianity is as plausible as the Religion of the Space Lawn Gnome that I just made up. They have the same level of evidence.

Where do you get the idea that God has a 50% chance of existing?

I have a question. Do catholics believe that jesus is god? Do they believe that god came down to earth and was born as a human? I dont know any catholic people that could answer this. They're just catholic for the sake of it. Much appreciated.

As I was taught Jesus is God but at the same time a distinct being, this is the mystery of the trinity. Jesus is God, who came to Earth, but he is God the son, not God the father. Probably a remnant of polytheism that carried over to Christianity. Like Christmas.

 

[XoravaX]

Some points from a Sam Harris Debate that reflect my thinking.
1.2 billion people in India many are polytheists. All doomed. No matter how they live.
A criminal guilty of heinous crimes need only turn to God before he dies for salvation.
That is unjust

The amount of innocent children that must die in infancy.
God either can't do anything or doesn't care to.
In my view makes God inept or evil.

So even if God is real, I would not worship him.

I was never really forced to believe but I felt coached.
Christmas story every year, school masses being told many (wisely chosen) gospels with great morals messages. But I think that is a type of brainwashing. People just accept the truth they are given.

Oh, I see your point. But if the criminal really regrets what he has done, that is just. The Orthodoxes have a nice view of that, in which everyone has to be in some sort of a storm which will wash the earthly actions. The more wrong you've made, the longer you'll stay there (although to a reasonable extent I believe).

God doesn't do anything about the wars, poverty or other unjust things there are in the world either. It's us who've been given responsibility over ourselves. Or that's what I think.

I understand why you feel it brainwashing too. I think too that it is brainwashing at least partially, but if the brainwashing doesn't cause much harm (as those who believe usually see God as a higher authority, in whose fear they might refrain from criminal activities and such), it's not that bad a thing.

As much religion is brainwashing and madness, it helps to keep the order in the world, or at least the current status quo.

 

[TheCracker]

God doesn't do anything about the wars, poverty or other unjust things there are in the world either. It's us who've been given responsibility over ourselves. Or that's what I think.

So what you are saying is that since god has no interest in intervening, and that we are all responsible for our actions, then there's no longer any need for a god?

 

[Exorcet]

As much religion is brainwashing and madness, it helps to keep the order in the world

An example? Nothing really comes to mind there for me.

When I think of religion's impact on the world, I usually think of the Middle East.

 

[kk20]

As I was taught Jesus is God but at the same time a distinct being, this is the mystery of the trinity. Jesus is God, who came to Earth, but he is God the son, not God the father. Probably a remnant of polytheism that carried over to Christianity. Like Christmas.

oh ok cheers mate...