Do you believe in God?

[InSight]

I do not believe that it is possible for an invisible, all knowing, all creating, all destroying being to be everywhere, all the time, always helping everyone in some way. I would be happy to be proven wrong by anyone capable of showing that this sort of being does in fact exist, because if the above description is to be given to any one thing right now, that is air. Air is invisible (to a point), it has been "there" for nearly everything that has ever happened on earth and certainly in history books, air fosters new life, it is combustible, and it is found everywhere on this planet, thus being "there" to help you at all times. So I put this to you, having, admittedly, just come up with this on the spot, this theory of any kind of a god.

Air is the "God" you are looking for.

This is exactly my point of view - pantheism. Universe, nature and life being the divine, self-organizing wonder, that keeps us alive. You don't need to search for God in holy books, just look up and around.

Once people turned away from this true God to made-up deities, it all went downhill.

 

[zzz_pt]

This is exactly my point of view - pantheism. Universe, nature and life being the divine, self-organizing wonder, that keeps us alive. You don't need to search for God in holy books, just look up and around.

Once people turned away from this true God to made-up deities, it all went downhill.

That doesn't make sense either. It has a name already: universe. Why call it god? God has such a twisted meaning.

 

[InSight]

That doesn't make sense either. It has a name already: universe. Why call it god? God has such a twisted meaning.

Most people imagine the universe being something far out there, thousands of light years away, not relevant to our daily lives. Something not worth the bother.

 

[dylansan]

Most people imagine the universe being something far out there, thousands of light years away, not relevant to our daily lives. Something not worth the bother.

Some people may think that way, but that's not what it is.

 

[DCP]

@DCP Sincere question: Have you ever read, watched or listened to material from Bart Ehrman or Robert Price?

What difference would it make? We are to test the spirits, and are to discern. There are many speakers and scholars and false teachers out there.

Interesting video I just stumbled upon, as a link, with a light language warning:

Disproving Gods with History and Science (Richard Carrier)

youtube.com/watch?v=NFGTu-OxFpU

EDIT:

Oh, good, then you might shut up next year, since your belief will be debunked.

Nope, I will continue spreading the love of Christ to the lost people. That's all we are asked to do.

Well, it is the point of a plain understanding of what He is saying.

But seriously, don't have to read the Bible first to become a Christian. You can just pray to God and ask Him to bring Jesus into your heart and accept him as the Savior, but if you don't want to I can understand that and I will not force you into it.


No. I read the Bible for myself, and I was starting to understand what He was saying. I asked God to bring Jesus into my heart and accept him as the Savior. Ever since I've been a changed person.

That's usually when the enemy brings confusion in the lost camp. They have never experienced the Power of the Holy Spirit, so they cannot accept anything further.

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." 25The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us." 26Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He."

They worship only one god. Same one as yours as said above. Not one more.

Even if they did, it's still not what 'pagan' is.

Every religion has their own different god.
The God of the bible is not the same as the Islam God, for many reasons.

 

[Jet Badger]

Every religion has their own different god.
The God of the bible is not the same as the Islam God, for many reasons.

You just made a claim, you said you can reason it, but you didn't proceed to do so. Please do.

 

[DCP]

You just made a claim, you said you can reason it, but you didn't proceed to do so. Please do.

Well, the God of the bible proclaims Jesus as the Son of God, and the Son of Man.
Islam says Jesus is a prophet, and if one says He is the Son of God, they will go to hell...hmmm
So Allah does not beget, and Allah is not a Father.

In the bible, Jesus is the Savior, and only through Him, can "any" man have eternal salvation.
In Islam, Allah will judge muslims according to their deeds, and Allah has the final say who will be saved or not (in other words, no guarantee). As for the rest of us, well, Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say "Yes", Sura 5:72 (just 3 verses later) and 3:85 say "No".

God of the bible is One God, yet 3 distinct persons, in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, (like the Sun for example)
Allah is just one God, which then one would ask, where did love come from, if Allah didn't have anything to love before creation.

In the bible, all the prophets and prophecies pointed to Jesus.
There is no prophecies about the messenger of Islam, accept for his self claimed prophecy, based on the below hadith

Bukhari 9.111 - He used to go to a secluded cave.
The angel came to him in it and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read." (The Prophet added), "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, "I do not know how to read," whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, "I do not know how to read (or, what shall I read?)." Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, "Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generous...up to..... ..that which he knew not." (96.15)
Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Apostle in truth"

So finally, this angel first appeared to people in the bible, yet none of them were terrified, since the angel told them not to be afraid, because he came with glad tidings from the Lord. "Mary is the first one that comes to mind". No one was pressed forcefully, so it's different angels obviously.

Also consider that the messenger appeared some 600 years after Christ.

One last thing, Allah affirms the old and new testament, and says no one can corrupt his words.
If that was the case, why then did he need a third book?

 

[photonrider]

You just made a claim, you said you can reason it, but you didn't proceed to do so. Please do.

Most probably when he said:

The God of the bible is not the same as the Islam God, for many reasons.

. . . he used the word 'reasons' as 'characteristics'? Or 'differences'?

Once more the aretalogy . . . using concepts tailored to suit the limits of our imaginations.

Don't worry, you are forgiven! 👍

You are truly Christ-like, my friend.

Pardon my previous tongue-in-cheek sardonicism; I had the impression you were much older.
Welcome to GTPlanet and have the courage of your convictions but always test your perceptions till you know thyself. 👍

 

[Jet Badger]

Well, the God of the bible proclaims Jesus as the Son of God, and the Son of Man.
Islam says Jesus is a prophet, and if one says He is the Son of God, they will go to hell...hmmm
So Allah does not beget, and Allah is not a Father.

In the bible, Jesus is the Savior, and only through Him, can "any" man have eternal salvation.
In Islam, Allah will judge muslims according to their deeds, and Allah has the final say who will be saved or not (in other words, no guarantee). As for the rest of us, well, Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say "Yes", Sura 5:72 (just 3 verses later) and 3:85 say "No".

God of the bible is One God, yet 3 distinct persons, in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, (like the Sun for example)
Allah is just one God, which then one would ask, where did love come from, if Allah didn't have anything to love before creation.

In the bible, all the prophets and prophecies pointed to Jesus.
There is no prophecies about the messenger of Islam, accept for his self claimed prophecy, based on the below hadith

Bukhari 9.111 - He used to go to a secluded cave.
The angel came to him in it and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read." (The Prophet added), "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, "I do not know how to read," whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, "I do not know how to read (or, what shall I read?)." Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, "Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generous...up to..... ..that which he knew not." (96.15)
Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Apostle in truth"

So finally, this angel first appeared to people in the bible, yet none of them were terrified, since the angel told them not to be afraid, because he came with glad tidings from the Lord. "Mary is the first one that comes to mind". No one was pressed forcefully, so it's different angels obviously.

Also consider that the messenger appeared some 600 years after Christ.

Same as saying catholics and protestants believe in a different god.

Both Islam and Christianity origin from the same point, hence why both are called 'Abrahamic' religions. They believe in the same god, the differences being a different worshiping of cult celebrities and characters. And that is not what was discussed here.

One last thing, Allah affirms the old and new testament, and says no one can corrupt his words.
If that was the case, why then did he need a third book?

Yes, because a perfect, never mistaking being can only wipe off and re-do it's mistakes, then release a sequel about it once to be considered truly omnipotent.

 

[DCP]

Same as saying catholics and protestants believe in a different god.

Both Islam and Christianity origin from the same point, hence why both are called 'Abrahamic' religions. They believe in the same god, the differences being a different worshiping of cult celebrities and characters. And that is not what was discussed here.


Yes, because a perfect, never mistaking being can only wipe off and re-do it's mistakes, then release a sequel about it once to be considered truly omnipotent.

You didn't understand my post. Catholics that run to the pope for forgiveness, are not worshiping the God of the bible.

Islam is based on what Mohammed taught. Mohammed taught based on the materials he had in his possession.
Like I said, it's no different to Mormon, which also bases it's origin from the bible. Same as J Witness. Someone can then start a religion based on the origins of the bible today as well.

Many religions portray this Jesus in them, yet they all have something different in revealing Him, compared to the bible.
It's fitting that the bible covers us from this, confirming the rise of false teachings and false prophets.
Only the Bible depicts Jesus as a Deity, confirming Him as the Eternal Son of God.

Every other religion denies this about him. Isn't it obvious?

So to make it clear, even within Christianity, if people don't agree that Jesus is the Divine Son of God, who is the Savior of the world, is worshiping a different God, even if they think it's the God of the bible. This defies commandment 1 and 2.

 

[zzz_pt]

What difference would it make?

Why don't you try to find an answer for yourself for the first time in your life and go investigate? You like people to give you answers, that's pretty clear. But why would you trust my word?

Go, search, listen, read, watch and think for yourself. Then you'll find if it makes any difference.

 

[Famine]

You didn't understand my post. Catholics that run to the pope for forgiveness, are not worshiping the God of the bible.

And yet it was the Catholics that created the idea of the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea and by the creation of the Vulgate Bible.

Prior to that, the Trinity was not the accepted form of God - and indeed it wasn't really truly a tenet at all for another 30 years...

Of course you're reading a reworked English translation of, at best, the Latin Vulgate that the Catholics had St. Jerome construct based on the anthology that the Catholics had assembled under Augustine, so your "God of the bible" is just a reinterpreted translation of theirs. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?

 

[zzz_pt]

@Famine

About the Council of Nicea related to the biblical canon and the trinity concept.

Wiki, Barth Ehrman Blog (if you're not a member, you can't read the entire thing but the 3rd paragraph says something).

Nothing very important, but still, worth correcting.

Other than that, I agree 100% with you on this.

 

[Dotini]

Millions of mummified birds have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs. Now they have discovered millions of individually mummified dogs.

These people clearly had strange beliefs. But equally and perhaps more importantly, they had a vast surplus of wealth and time to spend upon these activities.

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/04/41807...fied-dogs-found-in-ancient-egyptian-catacombs

 

[Famine]

About the Council of Nicea related to the biblical canon and the trinity concept.

Wiki, Barth Ehrman Blog (if you're not a member, you can't read the entire thing but the 3rd paragraph says something).

Nothing very important, but still, worth correcting.

Other than that, I agree 100% with you on this.

and indeed it wasn't really truly a tenet at all for another 30 years...

The Council of Constantinople took place 30 years after the Council of Nicaea and formerly adopted the Holy Spirit into the Trinity. Nicaea only really resolved the concept that Jesus and God were aspects of the same being - a concept they called homoouisianism (homos = same; ouisa = being) - which forms the central tenet known as the Nicene Creed.

 

[Imari]

If that was the case, why then did he need a third book?

Why did God need the New Testament if he already had the Old Testament?

 

[Dotini]

Why did God need the New Testament if he already had the Old Testament?

God and religion evolve with the times.

After the NT came the prophet Muhammad, then the latter day prophet, Joseph Smith.

 

[TheCracker]

Why did God need the New Testament if he already had the Old Testament?

The Old Testament was a bit rapey.

 

[Imari]

God and religion evolve with the times.

After the NT came the prophet Muhammad, then the latter day prophet, Joseph Smith.

You're making my point for me.

The Old Testament was a bit rapey.

One of it's best features, I thought. Nothing like a bit of hot action to spice things up.

 

[Danoff]

God and religion evolve with the times.

Hopefully out of existence soon.

 

[Dotini]

Hopefully out of existence soon.

In 1917, God and religion evolved into psychic and UFO phenomena. Perhaps by 2017, aliens could appear claiming us as their chattel.

 

[Danoff]

In 1917, God and religion evolved into psychic and UFO phenomena. Perhaps by 2017, aliens could appear claiming us as their chattel.

Certainly psychic and UFO phenomena existed before 1917, and God and religion continue to exist after.

 

[Dotini]

Certainly psychic and UFO phenomena existed before 1917, and God and religion continue to exist after.

Certainly true - but they began to be more culturally fused/blurred together. The greater point is that humanity's perception of God and religion evolve and change over time, intertwined with cultural evolution. The source of religious inspiration comes down to the visionary experience of each prophet, and to the corresponding experience of ecstasy experienced by each acolyte. The source of the visionary experience made be debated. I might say drugs and hallucinogenics in the environment. Others might say a higher consciousness. Muhammad darkly suggested his visions may have come from the Djinn - a lower, trickster source of consciousness?

 

[Danoff]

Certainly true - but they began to be more culturally fused/blurred together. The greater point is that humanity's perception of God and religion evolve and change over time, intertwined with cultural evolution. The source of religious inspiration comes down to the visionary experience of each prophet, and to the corresponding experience of ecstasy experienced by each acolyte. The source of the visionary experience made be debated. I might say drugs and hallucinogenics in the environment. Others might say a higher consciousness. Muhammad darkly suggested his visions may have come from the Djinn - a lower, trickster source of consciousness?

They evolve over time because for the most part people have religious experiences based on what they want. Some people allow themselves to be bound by it, but most take what they want and leave the rest.

 

[MatskiMonk]

People need to get past god being represented in a book. The arguments are stale, sometimes contradictory, and often confrontational for no purpose.

If there is a supreme generator of the system that the universe and our consciousnesses exist in, that we're thousands of years off understanding, then really spending all your time eother defending something, probably fictitious, that you don't understand - or - patting yourself on the back for being logical and clever enough to be able to show that it is probably fictitious... is a huge waste of time. Too often with these discussions nobody seems to be interested what the truth may be, merely trying to prove themselves to be the more enlightened, spiritual or logical. The thread may as well be renamed "Do you believe in religious texts, and are you fully up to date with the dictionary?", because I desperately want to finally answer this poll! But I know that it is simply not worth the hassle.

To me, being as logical as I can, god exists to be the answer to the unknown - what ever has been constructed around that idea is superfluous, it is 'of the mind of men', and therefore open to all kinds of millenea old problems - but the concept of what god is exists in a lack of knowledge and desire for answers, and has done throughout human history... this simple fact alone should prompt people into asking "why do we believe" far more than "what do we believe"... Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the human brain already understands and has the answers to every question raised of everything that is/was/will be... but I don't think we do... and so long as we don't, there exists the possibility that a branch of physics, a formula, a particle, or whatever, exists that is the last piece of the jigsaw.. that answers and unlocks everything, and at that point, when everything in the universe that was unknown, becomes known, well.. I guess then the sum of human knowledge becomes god. YOu can be a creator, without being a ruler, or in control of what you created...

To attempt to sit on the fence by saying "I'll believe in god when there is evidence" basically sounds like you're waiting for the question of "can your prove what's contained in religious scriptures" to be answerable either with a yes or a no, when really, since the biggest questions are yet to be answered, that simple question is so utterly pointless it's beyond belief.

But no doubt it will be pointed out that I'm simply trying to redefine god for my own purposes, and that man created it to receive oral sex from members of the choir.

/frustration with thread.... going to go and start frustration with single women on Facebook instead.

 

[Danoff]

To me, being as logical as I can, god exists to be the answer to the unknown - what ever has been constructed around that idea is superfluous, it is 'of the mind of men', and therefore open to all kinds of millenea old problems - but the concept of what god is exists in a lack of knowledge and desire for answers, and has done throughout human history...

Yes, it is the form we assign the fantasies we make up to replace knowledge gaps - because the human mind hates knowledge gaps.

 

[Imari]

To attempt to sit on the fence by saying "I'll believe in god when there is evidence" basically sounds like you're waiting for the question of "can your prove what's contained in religious scriptures" to be answerable either with a yes or a no, when really, since the biggest questions are yet to be answered, that simple question is so utterly pointless it's beyond belief.

You're getting all grumpy and over thinking this.

Take aliens as an example. It's totally plausible to think that aliens could exist, but we arguably have no real evidence to conclude that this is the case. As such, it's totally rational to say "I'll believe in aliens when there is evidence". "Aliens" in this case is an enormously broad category, and it pretty much boils down to "as soon as you can show me evidence for anything that could sensibly be called an alien, I'll be right on board".

The same reasoning can be applied to God.

If we skip over all the logical inconsistency bollocks it's totally plausible that there's a higher order of being out there. But we arguably have no real evidence to conclude that this is the case. As such, it's totally rational to say "I'll believe in God when there is evidence". "God" in this case is an enormously broad category, and it pretty much boils down to "as soon as you can show me evidence for anything that could sensibly be called a god, I'll be right on board".

The thread may as well be renamed "Do you believe in religious texts, and are you fully up to date with the dictionary?", because I desperately want to finally answer this poll! But I know that it is simply not worth the hassle.

Meh. You see a lot of people in this thread hoist by their own petard.

Anyone who tries to use the Bible to prove their point finds out rapidly that the Bible actually probably doesn't say what they think it does.

Likewise, people who try to use word games to prove their point find out rapidly that they know very little of linguistics and language.

If you have a point to make or an opinion to share, then do it, but do it in such a way that you're actually conveying interesting information. Know what you're talking about and there's interesting discussions to be had. But unfortunately, a lot of religious types seem to have not really put a lot of thought into their positions, and so are immediately shot down on what are basically trivialities.

The most interesting one of late was doctorrg, who appeared to at least have a well thought out concept that was different to the usual. Unfortunately, his command of English and his empathy for others inability to grok what he was saying was not great enough to explain it.

 

[DCP]

And yet it was the Catholics that created the idea of the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea and by the creation of the Vulgate Bible.

Prior to that, the Trinity was not the accepted form of God - and indeed it wasn't really truly a tenet at all for another 30 years...

Of course you're reading a reworked English translation of, at best, the Latin Vulgate that the Catholics had St. Jerome construct based on the anthology that the Catholics had assembled under Augustine, so your "God of the bible" is just a reinterpreted translation of theirs. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?

The word trinity is not mentioned in the bible, but throughout scripture it's completely evident that in One God, there exists 3 divine persons. Catholics didn't need to create this.
I read the KJV, and if you reconstruct the ancient texts from 200AD, it is identical to what I read.
If I'm not mistaken, the catholics bible added and removed books. It goes against what the bible says as well.

Why did God need the New Testament if he already had the Old Testament?

Because the Old testament revealed the New testament. It was all about the fulfillment of Jesus Christ.
Also, the sacrificial law of the OT was very harsh. The world would never survive it, and we would all be dead in our sins.
The world just doesn't understand what Jesus has done for them.
Jesus appeared in every book of the bible. It always ever was about Him. On the Cross, He said it was finished.
Religions that came after, has nothing to do with the bible. They just pervert what Christ did. It's an unfortunate fact.

 

[Famine]

The word trinity is not mentioned in the bible, but throughout scripture it's completely evident that in One God, there exists 3 divine persons. Catholics didn't need to create this.

Though before the Council of Constantinople in 390AD, the concept of the Trinity was not accepted by the church as a whole.

I read the KJV, and if you reconstruct the ancient texts from 200AD, it is identical to what I read.

The King James Version is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate created by St. Jerome under the instruction of Augustine in around 330AD.

And the "ancient texts" were written in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, not English - which didn't even exist in current form in 200AD.

So all round, that little passage there is bollocks.

If I'm not mistaken, the catholics bible added and removed books.

They did, to create the Vulgate that your KJV is translated from.

It goes against what the bible says as well.

Of course it does - they wouldn't want books not considered doctrine to be considered doctrine after they had rejected them.

 

[DCP]

Though before the Council of Constantinople in 390AD, the concept of the Trinity was not accepted by the church as a whole.The King James Version is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate created by St. Jerome under the instruction of Augustine in around 330AD.

And the "ancient texts" were written in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, not English - which didn't even exist in current form in 200AD.

So all round, that little passage there is bollocks.They did, to create the Vulgate that your KJV is translated from.Of course it does - they wouldn't want books not considered doctrine to be considered doctrine after they had rejected them.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

Guess it's all about what we have to reject, else the guilt kicks in.