21 Mar 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI did not see any answers, only more questions.
how are the big questions answered with god?
so how do we answer the following questions: Why is there something rather than nothing?
why would there be nothing instead of something?
Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life?
why did conscious life wait bil ...[text shortened]... where this is going so i shall not bother with the rest unless there an open line of dialogue.
21 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsReligion and Spirituality are not synonyms. I am a spiritual person but I am not religious. Whatever you decide prevents "living" from being meaningless for you is, by definition a subjective thing.
You realize they all religions can not be true. So is that what brings you to the
Spirituality Forum to search for the truth of life? Is living and dying meaningless?
21 Mar 12
Originally posted by dj2beckerYour questions are rhetorical. You need to find your own answers.
1. If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered, so how do we answer the following questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? This question was asked by Aristotle and Leibniz alike – albeit with differing answers. But it is an historic concern. Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning ...[text shortened]... rld?
http://www.rzim.org/community/engagingconversations/tabid/105/entryid/14/default.aspx
-m.
21 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's the main fallacy of religion that you have to constantly refer to some non-existent god to find meaning. Actually all you find is people making up verses to what they THINK is the mind of god. It's a projection of their own fears that leads to those pithy verses.
You realize they all religions can not be true. So is that what brings you to the
Spirituality Forum to search for the truth of life? Is living and dying meaningless?
A real god would have as much need for adulation as an ant would need a tv.
21 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse
It's the main fallacy of religion that you have to constantly refer to some non-existent god to find meaning. Actually all you find is people making up verses to what they THINK is the mind of god. It's a projection of their own fears that leads to those pithy verses.
A real god would have as much need for adulation as an ant would need a tv.
It's the main fallacy of religion that you have to constantly refer to some non-existent god to find meaning. Actually all you find is people making up verses to what they THINK is the mind of god. It's a projection of their own fears that leads to those pithy verses.
Your criticism is not expansive enough to cover all issues that the Bible supplies.
It does not account for the fulfillment of prophecy. People "just making up verses" is not adaquate a rational to explain some of the fulfillment of prophecy.
A real god would have as much need for adulation as an ant would need a tv.
This criticism is a caricature. I have three problems with it at least:
1.) If a devious LIAR is working hard to delude and mislead people, the turning hard to the Author of truth, may appear to be "adulation" to you.
The strength of resolve to turn AWAY from the liar and to turn TO the truth may require such FOCUS and resolute determination of will, that it appears to you as "adulation".
Ie. An evil swimmer entices a child to go out with him into the deep water only with the purpose to see him drown. When life guard comes to rescue the child from the pernicious plot, the child may give such thanks and gratitude which appear to you to be "adulation".
On the contrary, the child realizing the seriousness of the deception he was entangled in may be just overwhelmed with relief and gratitude at the resuer.
2.) You assume that worship brings the worshipper low. But actually worship has the opposite effect on many - bring them higher.
This might be compared to kneeling on an elevator which is speeding upward. Apparently the worshipper is humbling himself. But by and large the worshipper is being uplifted, exalted, ascended.
3.) You assume this "adulation" testifies of the lack of worth of the adulator. The opposite may be true. The adulation encreases his sense of value and worth.
I may come to ChessAtWork ignorantly and say "Bobby Fisher. Whose he? That's probably some fish who couldn't play chess worth anything."
While such ignorance may give me a false sense of egoism it only appears as rank ignorance to those who know the subject.
But if I wrote "You know this Fisher fellow was really a chess playing grand master of extraordinary talent. I really could learn something from this master" this would simply the realism of due admiration. The object of praise is worth the comment.
Some of us are persuaded that God is worth the praise. And it appears rather ignorant for some to be cavalier about that.
4.) Your criticism that God is egotistical to receive praise sounds curiously like jealousy.
We can praise God and love you also very much. In fact our praise of God informs also the high value of your human worth as one of God's creations. The bible says you're made in the image of God.
So when we look at you, in spite of your atheism, we still are reminded of God. Our praise of God for Who God is encreases our appreciation of the worth of yourself.
5.) Many people in the Bible who showed "adulation" towards God also showed encredible courage.
David, Daniel, Joshua, Moses, Hezekiah, Joseph, Samuel, Deborah, Ruth, Esther all were worshippers of God. And through faith they showed also great courage.
The Psalms of David, for example, have many praises to God. But as a boy he also slew a lion and a bear, let alone a professional killing machine named Galiath who probably made Andrea the Giant look like weakling.
And of course Jesus Christ praised God Whom He claimed was His Father. I think Jesus Christ displays the highest level of human morality, truth, and courage as has ever occured in human history.
I think the nearest competitor is far off. Christ occupies His own class of one man. Adulation of the Father was a major component of His life, even in the midst of torture and death.
6.) It seems to escape you that a Being could conceivably be worthy of adulation and not be egotistical.
Maybe you look within yourself and are cynical that NO ONE deserves praise like that shown to God. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe you should just speak for yourself.
We love you but we PRAISE God. Why should I be seek to steal from another what is rightfully and deserved possession.
If I had to bear the responsibilities that Jesus bore I would be crushed. Since He can hold up such a heavy burden why shouldn't I grant Him the respect for that.
Even in a place of employment, someone else may be able to bear up under a load of responsibility which you could not bear up under. For you to complain jealously and pout that she doesn't deserve any more regard will appear petty and envious to others.
Don't dispise Jesus for the burden He is able to bear. You and I could not bear up under the weight of it. So my reaction of praise or adulation is quite realistic, I think.
7.) Proper praise of God is very strengthening in deep and hard trials - "The JOY of the Lord is my strength".
I have come through many difficult and sore circumstances which were turned to be of BENEFIT to me because through them I praised God.
Praise of God is TRUST. It is the faith that HE has it all under control. It honors that real ultimate situation with God. And such trust expressed in thanksgiving and praise brings peace and causes man to rise above very difficult problems. God honors the trust that is displayed in praising Him in all situations.
8.) Praise and adulation towards God is like getting in on a good thing early before everyone else.
I mean, I have no doubt that a world without tears, sorrow, sin, death is coming. I certainly will praise God in that paradise. So to praise God early is like getting a foretaste of the inevitable.
9.) Albert Einstien said that a man who could not look up at the universe of stars with a sense of wonder was as good as dead.
I look up at the infinity of space with wonder and praise my Maker. It makes me feel quite alive. There is to me no other person or being to direct my sense of wonderment and praise to.
I like Edwin Hubble. I appreciate Carl Sagan. I'm impressed with Stephen Hawking. I sit up and pay attention to Albert Einstien. But GOD is reserved for my worship. God is the Holy Creator and King.
21 Mar 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Bible says that the way to eternal life is narrow and the way to destruction is broad, and few find it. The Christian can argue that God does not intend to save everyone, but only those who believe in Jesus. Maybe God isn't that benevolent - how would you know? Maybe your 'signature of a god' is just wrong.
If one is correct and all the others are man made then the god who inspired that one is a limited god, not able to get its message out to everyone. If there was a real god, it could just as easily send little voices to every man woman and child on the planet at the same time as opposed to just coincidentally setting up a system where one person is told the ...[text shortened]... god concept, it remained, remains and will remain based on faith. Trust me, I talk to god.....
There are many other god-concepts floating around out there. Some are radically different than the Christian god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus
You misunderstood my scientific analogy. I was saying that, by your logic, all scientific theories are false since they are 100% man-made.
I think you can show the weaknesses of certain god-concepts, if not outright falsify them. For example, the Problem of Evil is a strong argument against the existence of any god that is omni-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
21 Mar 12
Originally posted by dj2beckerThey remain unanswered God or no God.
1. If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered,
Why is there something rather than nothing?
I have no idea, neither do you. Suffice it to say that the question "why is there nothing?" could not be asked.
2. If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning,
I disagree. I do not believe that God provides meaning. Yes, he appears to hide many of the problems people face by making it look like questions are answered. People seem to be much happier with 'Goddunit' than 'it just is' or 'I don't know' despite the fact that neither is much of an answer.
3. When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific, as in the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the problem and worked to eradicate it?
And when people embraced theism, the results have been just as bad. But what was the question that I as an atheist am supposed to be answering? Are you asking whether I support mass delusion for the sake of peace?
4. If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved, so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for those who suffer?
There isn't one, God or no God. Theists for some very odd reason think that the past can be reversed and suffering can be cancelled out with the appropriate punishment / reward. I do not believe that to be so. I believe that any suffering I have experienced was experienced and the past cannot be undone.
Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?
I don't see how that question gets tagged on to what came before. It doesn't follow. If anything you have a somewhat circular list. You start with the assumption that suffering should be alleviated, then point out that it isn't always, then ask why we should alleviate it (with the question loaded by the initial assumption). You only ask the question because you assume that alleviation of suffering must be a goal, but you lack a reason.
5. If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people,
No we don't. We even have an independent standard one which we even critique God with. I know that theists try to make God the standard, but even they try to apply that standard to God and say things like 'God is good' or 'God is just'. If God was the standard, those would be tautologies.
Where do those standards come from?
This has been addressed many times.
Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly dependable arbiters of Truth.
And religions fare no better. Religions usually reflect the morality of the people that are its members.
21 Mar 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe theist answer to that last is their god WANTS it that way, in full knowledge of the chaos that ensues.
The Bible says that the way to eternal life is narrow and the way to destruction is broad, and few find it. The Christian can argue that God does not intend to save everyone, but only those who believe in Jesus. Maybe God isn't that benevolent - how would you know? Maybe your 'signature of a god' is just wrong.
There are many other god-concepts floati ...[text shortened]... rgument against the existence of any god that is omni-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do we have to tolerate a lack of basic education and general reading in any debate? This is dealt with in Physics and discussed in many popular science books trying to explain this to non scientists. To some extent, you could say the Higgs Bosun is the answer which makes current major scientific work at CERN profoundly interesting. However, your failure to dip into the many excellent books now available is a reflection on your lack of initiative and not a reflection on any failure of science to either ask or answer this question.
2. If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning,
Certainly that was the case so long as people relied on their religions to answer such questions but the crisis to which you refer is experienced by people losing their faith, just as anyone abandoning a whole set of interlocked beliefs will go through a period of confusion before they devise a new value system. "Meaning" is a psychological construct - there is no such thing as "meaning" in the absence of a mind to whom it is relevant. It would make little sense to disucss "meaning" with an asteroid. The importance of "meaning" psychologically is well explored in "Man's Search For Meaning" by Victor Frankl. "
why don’t we see more atheists like Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich Nietzsche, or Michel Foucault? These three philosophers, who also embraced atheism, recognized that in the absence of God, there was no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. The crisis of atheistic meaninglessness is depicted in Sartre’s book Nausea. Without God, there is a crisis of meaning, and these three thinkers, among others, show us a world of just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing.
You give an importance to these three which they hardly deserve. Certainly they are highly readable and provocative writers by the way, but that does not alter their relatively marginal status in the world of philosophy. But there are countless other names one could list in this respect. Presumably you would not include, for example, Einstein as a philosopher, though he and many other scientists addressed the sort of questions you raise here and did not reduce everything to "self-interests, pleasures, or tastes". I am not convinced that even the three you list would make that error. One has to question what you mean by "a philosopher" in order to derive your very restricted list? Why not Bertrand Russell for example?
3. When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific, as in the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the problem and worked to eradicate it?
Modern totalitarian regimes achieved levels of inhumanity not available to - say - Genghis Khan on his bad days, or Attilla the Hun. If the same techniques were available to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, the Reconquista would have surpassed the horrors actually imposed by the Inquisition. The attempts to eliminate error within the Christian religion have been astonishingly brutal over the centuries. Check out the Albigensian Crusade as an example. It is not helpful to your case to attribute these types of behaviour selectively to atheists.
4. If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved, so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for those who suffer?
Well I am afraid that the Catholic Church, for example, has frequently endorsed large scale poverty, suffering and injustice on the pretext that it will be recompensed in the afterlife. Religion is often on the side of ignorance and opposed to progress. The list of examples is tedious but can be set about if you want to argue the point.
The suffering which abounds in nature certainly gives one pause regarding the kindness of the Creator.
Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?
Because we are motivated by a morality grounded in our social nature.
5. If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people,
That seems circular! Religious schools in Britain have been getting very good inspection reports, which proves they are great schools. Except that they are not inspected by the people who inspect secular schools but by the heads of other religious schools. I suggest we might critique religions by the way they shape the behaviour and values of their followers. Sometimes laudable, sometimes infuriating, sometimes deeply unpleasant.
Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly dependable arbiters of Truth.
Amen. But who claims that they are? This is a straw man argument.
21 Mar 12
6 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit
The Bible says that the way to eternal life is narrow and the way to destruction is broad, and few find it. The Christian can argue that God does not intend to save everyone, but only those who believe in Jesus. Maybe God isn't that benevolent - how would you know? Maybe your 'signature of a god' is just wrong.
There are many other god-concepts floati ...[text shortened]... rgument against the existence of any god that is omni-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
The Bible says that the way to eternal life is narrow and the way to destruction is broad, and few find it. The Christian can argue that God does not intend to save everyone, but only those who believe in Jesus. Maybe God isn't that benevolent - how would you know? Maybe your 'signature of a god' is just wrong.
Let's look at the passage I think you must be refering to.
"Enter in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter through it. Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it." (Matt. 7:13,14)
Is the phrase "leads to life" exactly equivalent to "leads to eternal life" ?
It is arguable. Let's take an example from the same New Testament. In the church in Corinth there was a Christian who was living in a gross situation of fornication. Paul speaks of this believer in his letter;
"It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication that does not even occur among the Gentiles, that someone has his stepmother. (1 Cor. 5:1)
First I assume that because this was a member of the local church in Corinth he was someone who had believed into Christ and had received the GIFT of eternal life.
Was he living that life? Was he on the narrow way in terms of his daily moral living ? Or was he on a broad way which leads to destruction ?
Paul teaches:
1.) The backslidden Christian should be removed from the congregation in order to protect the congregation.
" And you are puffed up? And have you not rather mourned, that the one who has done this deed might be removed from your midst ?
For I, on my part, though being absent in body but present in the spirit, have already judged, as if being present, him who has done this, ... deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (See 5:3-5)
2.) Paul expects that his flesh will suffer destruction but his spirit will be saved in the second coming of Christ.
The "flesh" here as in other places in Paul's letters, encompases more than just the physical body. He means something about the entire old Adamic man. That lifestyle which he refuses to be sanctified from will suffer destruction. Yet he will not lose the gift of eternal life for his spirit will be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
3.) The worldly and fleshy believer here has not entered the narrow gate to practically WALK the righteous walk of divine life. He has, in his backslidden state, determined to remain fleshy, soulish, sinful, living in fornication as a disgrace to the local church. He has the gift of eternal life but is living on the BROAD way. He has not entered into divine life in a practical way of his daily life.
4.) Paul has already indicated that some believers in Christ will "suffer loss" but be saved. Paul has already indicated that some believers who mar the temple of God, the church, will be destroyed in some way. But they themselves will be saved:
"If anyone's work which he has built upon [the fundation of Christ] remains, he will receive a reward;
If anyone's work is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he hmself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Cor. 3:14,15)
This refers not only to the "loss" of a reward at the second coming. He is saved yet so as through fire. He has to go through some "destruction" of his old man, his soul life, his habitual lifestyle with its inclinations will suffer a destruction.
Being "saved yet as through fire" does not sound pleasant to me. It sounds something like what I saw of a man stuck in canyon cravice with his hand caught under a bolder. Eventually he had to cut his hand off to escape the trap. This is an analogy.
" ... he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire."
5.) This suffering of loss is the same as being "destroyed" by God for defiling the church which is the temple God by refusing to cooperate with the process of sanctification:
" ... he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Do you not know that you [the church in Corinth] are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, and such are you." (vs. 16,17)
Please follow me. Don't get bored. In verse 17 for God to destroy he who destroys the temple of God refers to the suffering of loss of the previous verses. This means "if anyone's work is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire" refers to the act of God destroying the saved believer who destroys the holy temple of God, the local church, through his failure to be sanctified.
In short the one who has received the GIFT of eternal life has not walked on the narrow way to LIVE that life in the church age. Rather as an unbeliever he has remained stubburnly on the BROAD way of fleshy sinful living which will lead to destruction (in one way or another).
6.) The building with precious materials is to live in sanctification and holiness. To build with worthless materials is to remain on the broad way that leads to destruction.
7.) It it not always ETERNAL destruction which is meant by DESTRUCTION. As we can see, the fleshy Christian member of the church in Corinth is being warned that he will suffer loss yet be saved as through fire. The fleshy believers are warned that they are defiliing and marring the church which is the temple of God, with their worldly livng. The danger exists that they will BE destroyed by God for destroying His holy church.
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you ? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him."
The context is the loss of reward.
The context is being saved yet so as through fire.
The context is the sinful believer who refuses to WALK the narrow way.
The context is the Christian GIFTED with eternal life yet who remains on the BROAD way leading to destruction because how they live thier daily church life.
Therefore, Matthew 7:13,14) does not have to insist that God desires only a few to have eternal life. As far as salvation is concerned "[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth." ( 1 Timothy 2:4)
What it DOES suggest strongly, along with First Corinthians is that God desires those who are saved to "build" on the foundation of Christ as certain WALK of righteousness. And for this walk they will be rewarded in addition to having the GIFT of eternal life. Ie. Forgiveness is not an end in itself. Forgiveness is for a new living. And the new living is for building up the temple of God, His church.
I'll stop here. More is really needed though.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Mar 12
Originally posted by jaywillThe Bible says that the way to eternal life is narrow and the way to destruction is broad, and few find it. The Christian can argue that God does not intend to save everyone, but only those who believe in Jesus. Maybe God isn't that benevolent - how would you know? Maybe your 'signature of a god' is just wrong.
Let's look at the passa ...[text shortened]...
I'll stop here. More is really needed though.
Therefore, Matthew 7:13,14) does not have to insist that God desires only a few to have eternal life. As far as salvation is concerned "[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth." ( 1 Timothy 2:4)
Does the Biblical God have any desires that are not satisfied in every way and to the degree specified by Him?