Question about the Christian God

[Crystal Shards]

If you look back I say it's what they CONSIDER to be proof. It is used as supporting evidence no matter how false it truly was. Is there such thing as a genuinely psychic or religious experience is a question that should be asked. Anyone who believes they have something resembling the bare bones of these incredibly vague description may believe in something that is just a coincidence. I never stated anywhere that it is legitimate proof. All I said was it has been deemed proof by some. Not 100% conclusive proof, far from it. They just want to believe in some powerful non human force.

I only saw you vaguely explain that further, which is why I asked. You shouldn't say something is deemed proof if you don't mean that.

[BK-201]

Technically, I did say that those who believed they had those "moments" referred to those as proof later in my posts. You can find in multiple places people saying something along these lines, "Well, when I was younger I did stupid things, but one day I had a moment, and my life turned for the better". I was pointing out that multiple people including Luminothe used this as evidence. He explicitly stated he had personal experience which cannot be proven.

[Crystal Shards]

Technically, I did say that those who believed they had those "moments" referred to those as proof later in my posts. You can find in multiple places people saying something along these lines, "Well, when I was younger I did stupid things, but one day I had a moment, and my life turned for the better". I was pointing out that multiple people including Luminothe used this as evidence. He explicitly stated he had personal experience which cannot be proven.

Dude, all I asked for was a clarification. It's not a big deal.

[BK-201]

I was just clarifying my other post. It didn't feel clear enough. =P

[Hero]

And, one should also note that there are parapsychologists but no goddologists.

Of course. Why would anybody want to give himself a silly label like goddologist when the word theologian has been available for centuries?

I have had personal expierience with these ghosts by the way.

Odd how you'd have experience with something that you earlier said was a load of shit.

the topic IS about the Christian God...

The Christian god isn't really Christian at all if you look past Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as most in the topic are doing.

This discussion is about the nature of God, so Christian doctrines such as Heaven and Hell aren't relevant. The Holy Trinity is, but nobody's brought it up.

If you look back I say it's what they CONSIDER to be proof. It is used as supporting evidence no matter how false it truly was. Is there such thing as a genuinely psychic or religious experience is a question that should be asked. Anyone who believes they have something resembling the bare bones of these incredibly vague description may believe in something that is just a coincidence. I never stated anywhere that it is legitimate proof. All I said was it has been deemed proof by some. Not 100% conclusive proof, far from it. They just want to believe in some powerful non human force.

If you're going to go anywhere with theology, you're going to have to at least temporarily drop the obsession with proof that you picked up in science class. The thing closest to "proof" that there is in these discussions is divine revelation, which offers only a very basic insight into the nature of God, and isn't even accepted by a lot of people. Theology is almost the same as philosophy, it's practically all logic and educated guesses.

[Crystal Shards]

Theology is almost the same as philosophy, it's practically all logic and educated guesses.

Uh, sorry, but theology is not even close to logic and educated guesses. Religion is anything but logical, and you can't really make an educated guess on something that's neither consistent nor logical.

[Hero]

Uh, sorry, but theology is not even close to logic and educated guesses. Religion is anything but logical, and you can't really make an educated guess on something that's neither consistent nor logical.

Since ancient times, people have attempted to understand God and their religion through reasoning. By applying logic to what is known about God from revelations, it is possible to know, for example, that God is not limited by a physical form in the way that humans are. Large-scale religious doctrines often stray from pure reasoning by including elements of mysticism and unproven assumptions, which has been a cause for complaint for more than a millennium as theologians have asked why so few further divine revelations have been made, but the core of almost all theology has been in logic.

Of course, this logic is based on ancient texts which we cannot prove today to be based on divine revelation, even if people have attested to that for hundreds of generations. Theology, religions, even the most inoffensive form of spirituality is all worthless to the faithless.

[BK-201]

Old documents from a time long gone isn't worth much in today's scientific group. These text documents are made by man. God did not fax us the bible, instead people got together and wrote down their beliefs. Religion is faith not reason.

Edited December 1, 2009 by BlackKnight666

[Hero]

Old documents from a time long gone isn't worth much in today's scientific group.

Ancient manuscripts are pretty important, without them the world before the fifteenth century would be practically as dark to us as the world of the bronze age is. It is never possible to know anything for sure from a single manuscript, but when there are multiple copies or, better yet, different works that corroborate each other it's possible to have a clear image of the subject matter. That's how we know that the tradition of monotheistic worship stretches back millennia, and for Jews most of the basic practices connected with it are the same today.

These text documents are made by man.

Of course everything that survives is written by man, but it's all been copied from earlier sources.

God did not fax us the bible, instead people got together and wrote down their beliefs.

How are you so sure? It's obvious that a lot's been corrupted over the millennia, critical biblical scholars are even able to identify certain portions with different writing styles and presumed author, but supposedly it all comes from the word of God. There are some factions that even think Moses received a scroll from God on Mount Sinai, along with the Ten Commandments and a significant body of oral law.

Religion is faith not reason.

Any complete religious doctrine is built upon both faith and reason.

[Shuuda]

How are you so sure?

Well, there's nothing in the Bible to suggest that it was given to us by God. It just seems rather tripe for an all powerful being, don't you agree?

[Defeatist Elitist]

Old documents from a time long gone isn't worth much in today's scientific group.

Ancient manuscripts are pretty important, without them the world before the fifteenth century would be practically as dark to us as the world of the bronze age is. It is never possible to know anything for sure from a single manuscript, but when there are multiple copies or, better yet, different works that corroborate each other it's possible to have a clear image of the subject matter. That's how we know that the tradition of monotheistic worship stretches back millennia, and for Jews most of the basic practices connected with it are the same today.

These text documents are made by man.

Of course everything that survives is written by man, but it's all been copied from earlier sources.

God did not fax us the bible, instead people got together and wrote down their beliefs.

How are you so sure? It's obvious that a lot's been corrupted over the millennia, critical biblical scholars are even able to identify certain portions with different writing styles and presumed author, but supposedly it all comes from the word of God. There are some factions that even think Moses received a scroll from God on Mount Sinai, along with the Ten Commandments and a significant body of oral law.

Religion is faith not reason.

Any complete religious doctrine is built upon both faith and reason.

The problem with the Bible is that many things it says are demonstrably false in so many hilarious ways, which tends to destroy its credibility. Therefore, anything said in the Bible must be taken with a handful of salt.

As for the end, religions are basically a corruption of reason. They make a leap of faith, essentially, they require a belief in something without reason, and then try to build constructs of reason on top of that. The problem is, that a belief based on faith, no matter how much you use reason to try to back it up, is still not particularly reasonable or logical, since its basis is in faith.

[Esau of Isaac]

Uh, sorry, but theology is not even close to logic and educated guesses. Religion is anything but logical, and you can't really make an educated guess on something that's neither consistent nor logical.

Since ancient times, people have attempted to understand God and their religion through reasoning. By applying logic to what is known about God from revelations, it is possible to know, for example, that God is not limited by a physical form in the way that humans are.

Funny how its premise is wholly illogical. One could make a compelling argument for the non-existence of organs if it's given that invisible and intangible creatures alter human perception. That doesn't mean that the study surrounding this idea is logical.

[Hero]

Well, there's nothing in the Bible to suggest that it was given to us by God. It just seems rather tripe for an all powerful being, don't you agree?

The Hebrew Bible consists of three parts: The five books of the Torah, which is said to have been handed down to Moses on the peak of Mount Sinai, the Prophets, which chronicles the lives of men and women who directly communicated with God, and the Writings, which is a collection of writings that are said to have been inspired by God.

There are multiple instances where the speaker in the text declares himself to be God, most famously at the start of the Ten Commandments.

I don't know so much about the New Testament, but I do know that the transcribed words of Jesus are from God, to Christians.

The problem with the Bible is that many things it says are demonstrably false in so many hilarious ways, which tends to destroy its credibility. Therefore, anything said in the Bible must be taken with a handful of salt.

As for the end, religions are basically a corruption of reason. They make a leap of faith, essentially, they require a belief in something without reason, and then try to build constructs of reason on top of that. The problem is, that a belief based on faith, no matter how much you use reason to try to back it up, is still not particularly reasonable or logical, since its basis is in faith.

Faith can't be learned in a book, it's something you have to discover for yourself if you'll ever have it. But who says having basic faith precludes having any ability to reason? Reason is required to put the bare "facts" that comprise the core revelations of any ancient religion in context.

[BK-201]

The Hebrew Bible consists of three parts: The five books of the Torah, which is said to have been handed down to Moses on the peak of Mount Sinai, the Prophets, which chronicles the lives of men and women who directly communicated with God, and the Writings, which is a collection of writings that are said to have been inspired by God.

There are multiple instances where the speaker in the text declares himself to be God, most famously at the start of the Ten Commandments.

I don't know so much about the New Testament, but I do know that the transcribed words of Jesus are from God, to Christians.

First Bold

Anyone can lie and say that.

Second Bold

I am God, I say anyone can do that as well.

Third Bold

How did you even arrive at the conclusion that it was from God as opposed to a human?

It isn't concrete proof and more based on the assumption that everyone is honest.

Edited December 3, 2009 by BlackKnight666

[Hero]

I've explained it in half the posts I've made in this topic, and I'll explain it again for latecomers:

Shuuda was saying that there is nothing in the Bible "to suggest that it was given to us by God". I pointed out that the majority of the text in the Bible does indeed profess to be from God, though of course this is impossible to verify like anything that is faith-based. There is no point, outside of anthropological interest, to reading or debating anything that is based on faith if you've already decided it's false. You either need to believe it or keep an open mind about its veracity, or you'll fall into the same ancient and unresolvable argument with every step.

[Esau of Isaac]

I've explained it in half the posts I've made in this topic, and I'll explain it again for latecomers:

Shuuda was saying that there is nothing in the Bible "to suggest that it was given to us by God". I pointed out that the majority of the text in the Bible does indeed profess to be from God, though of course this is impossible to verify like anything that is faith-based. There is no point, outside of anthropological interest, to reading or debating anything that is based on faith if you've already decided it's false. You either need to believe it or keep an open mind about its veracity, or you'll fall into the same ancient and unresolvable argument with every step.

He's dismissed it because that's not evidence of God speaking. If I told you right now that God had personally told me the entirety of Judeo-Christian faith was false, along with any and all other conceptions you may have of the divine, would you believe me?

You are purposely ignoring Shuuda's point, why I don't know.

Faith can't be learned in a book, it's something you have to discover for yourself if you'll ever have it. But who says having basic faith precludes having any ability to reason? Reason is required to put the bare "facts" that comprise the core revelations of any ancient religion in context.

I had faith; it's nothing special. Believing something without evidence sounds so workable and poetic, but it's not. It's just what everyone says it is condensed into one simple word. Everyone picks on the guy that says "I believe without logical or reasonable evidence that I am correct," but backs off when someone says "I have faith that I am correct." It's the "my mom is dead you asshole" of theological discussions, and I personally find it ridiculous, as though a word can so simply protect intellectual dishonesty.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Crystal Shards]

I've explained it in half the posts I've made in this topic, and I'll explain it again for latecomers:

Shuuda was saying that there is nothing in the Bible "to suggest that it was given to us by God". I pointed out that the majority of the text in the Bible does indeed profess to be from God, though of course this is impossible to verify like anything that is faith-based. There is no point, outside of anthropological interest, to reading or debating anything that is based on faith if you've already decided it's false. You either need to believe it or keep an open mind about its veracity, or you'll fall into the same ancient and unresolvable argument with every step.

Shuuda's point is that there's no proof that it was written by someone who is God or is directly working for God. I can say God told me to write this post, but that doesn't mean what I say has any validity to it. Let's face it: people have been doing shit in the name of God for thousands of years, and a lot of it is contradictory. Again, you can claim something, but there is nothing that actually suggests that the words came from God.

[Candlejack]

I've explained it in half the posts I've made in this topic, and I'll explain it again for latecomers:

Shuuda was saying that there is nothing in the Bible "to suggest that it was given to us by God". I pointed out that the majority of the text in the Bible does indeed profess to be from God, though of course this is impossible to verify like anything that is faith-based. There is no point, outside of anthropological interest, to reading or debating anything that is based on faith if you've already decided it's false. You either need to believe it or keep an open mind about its veracity, or you'll fall into the same ancient and unresolvable argument with every step.

Shuuda's point is that there's no proof that it was written by someone who is God or is directly working for God. I can say God told me to write this post, but that doesn't mean what I say has any validity to it. Let's face it: people have been doing shit in the name of God for thousands of years, and a lot of it is contradictory. Again, you can claim something, but there is nothing that actually suggests that the words came from God.

Not to mention its led to one of the greatest mistakes in human history:

ORGANIZED RELIGION

Not saying UNorginized religion is good, just saying that this whole "My god is better than your god" complex is beyond retarded. It's almost as bad as creationism and scientology combined. Almost.

Let me put it this way: if nobody held organized religion, then we'd be able to avoid all those nonsensical wars and incidents. Such incidents include:

9/11, Crusades (All of them), Middle-East Situation, Caste/Class Wars, etc.

We'd have SENSIBLE wars, like for land and power. Don't get me wrong, humanity still enjoys fucking itself, just it'd be doing so MUCH less often.

[Hero]

If it isn't organized religion, it's something else. Throughout history, organized religions and even schisms within religious organizations have almost always been about family before they were about beliefs. In places and times where there was no organized religion, like China, ethical philosophies would take its place. I think that for most people religious beliefs are like political beliefs. You keep them partially because you think they're what's right, but more because of the people and programs associated with them. The reason that secularism is so popular on the right and left wings of politics everywhere is because a strong political ideology will take the place normally associated with religion.

So I don't think that anything would have been better in history or would be better today if religion was forgotten. It's always easy to find trouble when you're looking for it, regardless of the situation. Eliminating diversity is impossible. Instead of trying to force atheism on everybody like Stalin, we should encourage religious inter-religious tolerance, critical interpretation of religious beliefs and pride in religion. By no means does everybody have to be religious, but those who choose to fill that part of their lives with spirituality of a particular kind should be able to without getting hassled by anybody for it.

[Der Kommissar]

We'd have SENSIBLE wars, like for land and power. Don't get me wrong, humanity still enjoys fucking itself, just it'd be doing so MUCH less often.

As much as I loathe organized religion as a frequent tool of control, this is not an intelligent comment to make. Religious war, including the examples you named, are/were socially and politically complex, not a mere matter of religious mania. Religion tends to be a way to easily manipulate plebes into dying for some faraway asshole's profit, yes, but it alone isn't responsible.

I would, however, imagine that the modern world would be a more pleasant place without the onerous influence of the political religious. Social and scientific progress frequently meet challenges and setbacks from people who still believe in the imaginings of a bunch of bronze age primitives. That a being with no more legitimacy than the tooth fairy could still influence politics in the first world is certainly not pleasant.

[Candlejack]

We'd have SENSIBLE wars, like for land and power. Don't get me wrong, humanity still enjoys fucking itself, just it'd be doing so MUCH less often.

As much as I loathe organized religion as a frequent tool of control, this is not an intelligent comment to make. Religious war, including the examples you named, are/were socially and politically complex, not a mere matter of religious mania. Religion tends to be a way to easily manipulate plebes into dying for some faraway asshole's profit, yes, but it alone isn't responsible.

I would, however, imagine that the modern world would be a more pleasant place without the onerous influence of the political religious. Social and scientific progress frequently meet challenges and setbacks from people who still believe in the imaginings of a bunch of bronze age primitives. That a being with no more legitimacy than the tooth fairy could still influence politics in the first world is certainly not pleasant.

Religious wars are, more or less, the case of two extremes (It doesn't need to be more than that, just ONE religious zealot group will cause shit.) colliding in differing views of, basically, the same religion just with different garb. The ones I mentioned are only a matter of mania because:

1. 9/11 was taken credit by Osama, who believes America is blasphemous, filthy American pigs, etc. This is more or less out of the belief we do not believe in the Quran, or the Torah, or the Bible- oh wait. Sure, this might be more out of the manipulative imam's influences. But still.

2. Religion is one of the most powerful tools on Earth. One can use it for guidance, power... or to further their own positions in life. Sadly, we get a LOT of the third.

3. THANK YOU. This is what I'm saying, is that we can live without religion. The fact that people take comfort in knowing they can turn to an absentee father figure who is benevolent and omnipotent but you can't prove/disprove his physical existence is... strange.

[Esau of Isaac]

We'd have SENSIBLE wars, like for land and power. Don't get me wrong, humanity still enjoys fucking itself, just it'd be doing so MUCH less often.

As much as I loathe organized religion as a frequent tool of control, this is not an intelligent comment to make. Religious war, including the examples you named, are/were socially and politically complex, not a mere matter of religious mania. Religion tends to be a way to easily manipulate plebes into dying for some faraway asshole's profit, yes, but it alone isn't responsible.

I would, however, imagine that the modern world would be a more pleasant place without the onerous influence of the political religious. Social and scientific progress frequently meet challenges and setbacks from people who still believe in the imaginings of a bunch of bronze age primitives. That a being with no more legitimacy than the tooth fairy could still influence politics in the first world is certainly not pleasant.

Religious wars are, more or less, the case of two extremes (It doesn't need to be more than that, just ONE religious zealot group will cause shit.) colliding in differing views of, basically, the same religion just with different garb. The ones I mentioned are only a matter of mania because:

1. 9/11 was taken credit by Osama, who believes America is blasphemous, filthy American pigs, etc. This is more or less out of the belief we do not believe in the Quran, or the Torah, or the Bible- oh wait. Sure, this might be more out of the manipulative imam's influences. But still.

2. Religion is one of the most powerful tools on Earth. One can use it for guidance, power... or to further their own positions in life. Sadly, we get a LOT of the third.

3. THANK YOU. This is what I'm saying, is that we can live without religion. The fact that people take comfort in knowing they can turn to an absentee father figure who is benevolent and omnipotent but you can't prove/disprove his physical existence is... strange.

Right, but what you do not understand is that even without religion, humanity is still fond of a "them vs. us" mentality. There would still be pissing games between each other, and wars wouldn't have dried up into nothingness without its presence.

Religion is a sometimes motivator of conflict, but it's not the seed of it.

[Candlejack]

We'd have SENSIBLE wars, like for land and power. Don't get me wrong, humanity still enjoys fucking itself, just it'd be doing so MUCH less often.

As much as I loathe organized religion as a frequent tool of control, this is not an intelligent comment to make. Religious war, including the examples you named, are/were socially and politically complex, not a mere matter of religious mania. Religion tends to be a way to easily manipulate plebes into dying for some faraway asshole's profit, yes, but it alone isn't responsible.

I would, however, imagine that the modern world would be a more pleasant place without the onerous influence of the political religious. Social and scientific progress frequently meet challenges and setbacks from people who still believe in the imaginings of a bunch of bronze age primitives. That a being with no more legitimacy than the tooth fairy could still influence politics in the first world is certainly not pleasant.

Religious wars are, more or less, the case of two extremes (It doesn't need to be more than that, just ONE religious zealot group will cause shit.) colliding in differing views of, basically, the same religion just with different garb. The ones I mentioned are only a matter of mania because:

1. 9/11 was taken credit by Osama, who believes America is blasphemous, filthy American pigs, etc. This is more or less out of the belief we do not believe in the Quran, or the Torah, or the Bible- oh wait. Sure, this might be more out of the manipulative imam's influences. But still.

2. Religion is one of the most powerful tools on Earth. One can use it for guidance, power... or to further their own positions in life. Sadly, we get a LOT of the third.

3. THANK YOU. This is what I'm saying, is that we can live without religion. The fact that people take comfort in knowing they can turn to an absentee father figure who is benevolent and omnipotent but you can't prove/disprove his physical existence is... strange.

Right, but what you do not understand is that even without religion, humanity is still fond of a "them vs. us" mentality. There would still be pissing games between each other, and wars wouldn't have dried up into nothingness without its presence.

Religion is a sometimes motivator of conflict, but it's not the seed of it.

Not saying it IS the seed. It's just a very very very very VERY common weapon we like to use when we feel like it.

There WOULD still be wars, just less of them, since they no longer do things in "The name of God" nor so loosely.

[Phoenix Wright]

I've explained it in half the posts I've made in this topic, and I'll explain it again for latecomers:

Shuuda was saying that there is nothing in the Bible "to suggest that it was given to us by God". I pointed out that the majority of the text in the Bible does indeed profess to be from God, though of course this is impossible to verify like anything that is faith-based. There is no point, outside of anthropological interest, to reading or debating anything that is based on faith if you've already decided it's false. You either need to believe it or keep an open mind about its veracity, or you'll fall into the same ancient and unresolvable argument with every step.

Shuuda's point is that there's no proof that it was written by someone who is God or is directly working for God. I can say God told me to write this post, but that doesn't mean what I say has any validity to it. Let's face it: people have been doing shit in the name of God for thousands of years, and a lot of it is contradictory. Again, you can claim something, but there is nothing that actually suggests that the words came from God.

Not to mention its led to one of the greatest mistakes in human history:

ORGANIZED RELIGION

Not saying UNorginized religion is good, just saying that this whole "My god is better than your god" complex is beyond retarded. It's almost as bad as creationism and scientology combined. Almost.

Let me put it this way: if nobody held organized religion, then we'd be able to avoid all those nonsensical wars and incidents. Such incidents include:

9/11, Crusades (All of them), Middle-East Situation, Caste/Class Wars, etc.

We'd have SENSIBLE wars, like for land and power. Don't get me wrong, humanity still enjoys fucking itself, just it'd be doing so MUCH less often.

Lol.

Besides the Crusades (which, besides the first one were all failures anyway), nearly every war in history to the present wasn't started by religion alone. The Religious Wars in Europe weren't even based on religion alone. You and Der Kommissar seem to be completely ignoring the positive events religion mixed with politics created.

Sensible wars? Land and power? Those already happened, and were failures because powerful nations believe in something called "balance of power." During Napoleon's reign, you think after dominating nearly the entire continent people would become his ally? Never, every country was against him (not all fought though, obviously), every country was afraid of him. It was luck that Napoleon was such an arrogant kind of guy that he moved into Russia to take over. It took the destruction of their own city to finally stop Napoleon though.

No fucking war is "sensible."

EDIT: To prove my point further, technically, the Crusades were wars for land. :D

Edited December 17, 2009 by Santa Snake

[Hero]

1. 9/11 was taken credit by Osama, who believes America is blasphemous, filthy American pigs, etc. This is more or less out of the belief we do not believe in the Quran, or the Torah, or the Bible- oh wait. Sure, this might be more out of the manipulative imam's influences. But still.

Check out al-Qaida's program. Establishing a united state covering most of Asia governed by a Caliph and following Muslim religious law is a big part of it, but just as significant and perhaps more significant in influencing their short term goals are their opposition to "neo-colonialism" and the desire to drive Westerners and their collaborators out of Asia. Check out this al-Qaida press release about Australia, for instance.

There would still be terrorism without religion, maybe even al-Qaida would still exist in a world without religion. If anything, terrorists would only be more vicious in a world without religion because they wouldn't have to worry about killing their co-religionists (I've read this is the official reason behind the current lack of activity behind a couple of terrorist groups.)

There WOULD still be wars, just less of them, since they no longer do things in "The name of God" nor so loosely.

You're coming off as very naive. The vast majority of the most vicious wars in history have not been religious in character.

Even looking at religious wars, like those famous crusades, you'll see that religion was less significant a factor than you might think. The First Crusade was called in response to an Eastern Roman call for help in one of their wars of self-defense against the Seljuk Turks, though of course it became something different after the Franks decided they wanted to go conquering in their own names, and then set their sights on the immense prestige and wealth of the Levant and Jerusalem.