• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Loving God?

unsung truth

New member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
46
It is not argumentum ad populum, I'm saying you shouldn't disregard these beliefs so quickly considering that others believe in them for some reason.

I'm not denying the existence of those Gods (of course you blatantly are), I don't claim to know who/what God is or if there are many Gods; people chose those gods to represent different aspects of their lives and it aided them in promoting society and achieving a stable life full of purpose, and love. Now who actually lived a good life depends on the individual, as is the case now.

The end of consciousness meaning that when we die we simply cease to exist, there is no afterlife, no continuation in different forms, no God, we just die. And I'm saying that this argument can be made just as absurd as you are making religion and an afterlife, because we don't know what happens when we die.

Now stop trying to argue on tangents and corner cases and tell me if the idea of a loving god makes sense, if doesn't then you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think my efforts should be wasted if you are not going to take this under serious consideration.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Disobedience from God is so easy. If we hear him tell us to do something, but we don't do it, there's an eternal rippling effect from it. Just consider it, its interesting. Lets say I was supposed to study today, and I know I was supposed to because the bible preaches diligence, but I play World of Warcraft. The next day, the teacher gives us a surprise test and I fail it. That is why just one simple action, like taking a fruit from a tree can result in so much chaos. Yet again, we were given a choice whether to or not. Hence, I have come to believe and trust God and TRY to obey him at all times.

I think the problem here is that, while the RL scenario you have set up is plausible, you have no proof that higher spiritual reality actually works that way. There's no true connection that can be articulated.

Put another way: No one argues that actions have consequences, that's obvious. But you're not showing why certain actions have the particular spiritual consequences YOU insist they do. You've chosen to believe it because you want to, and because it seems the most real option to you. But you haven't given any sort of connection that could convince people that your view is one they should also hold.

"...Why does God need a starship?..." - James T. Kirk

Because when you're 500 million light years away from civilization in every direction, sometimes you still need to use the bathroom?

As for the "those in religion have to pretend to be nice", well YES! I have to make a conscious effort, all the time to be nice. My natural instinct is to want to swear, kill and punch. I was born to be nasty.

This is another "assumption" on the part of Christianity -- that man is inherently evil. Either that, or a matter of defining "evil" in a way that supports the a priori (i.e., assumed) stance.

All we know is that babies are born with an instinct for survival and gratification. This survival instinct is necessarily centered on the self -- if we don't protect and preserve the self as our initial motivation, if we try to give our non-existent resources to others -- we'd die. Conventional Christian theology seems to label this as selfishness = self-centeredness = evil, then builds a theology on it.

But then, since the self-preservation instinct is NECESSARY for survival, and God gave us the instinct, then he created evil. Makes no sense.

As they get older, people are taught (or NOT taught) how to reign in their impulses and think in long-term gratification, as well preserving the rights and interests of others. What happens is that one's sense of "self" expands to include others within its protective embrace, hopefully. This is the community sense Christianity encourages. And if someone actively disrupts community by focusing on the self first and foremost, this is "sin" (i.e., separation from God and others, clinging to oneself).

Still, this active sin is a far cry from original sin, man is evil, man is a beast, etc. Those concepts do not seem to gel cleanly with experience.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Ah yes... remember, these sorts of things become outmoded from time to time, and the cosmos changes to accomodate our latest theory...

Good, at least SOMETHING is consistent!
 

Varelse

Wait, what?
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,698
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think the problem here is that, while the RL scenario you have set up is plausible, you have no proof that higher spiritual reality actually works that way. There's no true connection that can be articulated.

Put another way: No one argues that actions have consequences, that's obvious. But you're not showing why certain actions have the particular spiritual consequences YOU insist they do. You've chosen to believe it because you want to, and because it seems the most real option to you. But you haven't given any sort of connection that could convince people that your view is one they should also hold.
*nod* What I find especially annoying is this "God is so obvious in this, this and this" attitude, and then I'm automatically considered to be denying seeing such, when I don't see it in the first place.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
*nod* What I find especially annoying is this "God is so obvious in this, this and this" attitude, and then I'm automatically considered to be denying seeing such, when I don't see it in the first place.

Yes, it's sort of like begging the question.

And it's fine if one wants to approach it that way... but both sides need to understand that they're approaching things very differently (one explaining what they've decided to believe, the other trying to SUPPORT a particular belief), and constructive dialog isn't very likely if they are approaching it from opposite ends.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Yes, it's sort of like begging the question.

And it's fine if one wants to approach it that way... but both sides need to understand that they're approaching things very differently (one explaining what they've decided to believe, the other trying to SUPPORT a particular belief), and constructive dialog isn't very likely if they are approaching it from opposite ends.

This is my principal complaint with evangelicals.

For my dime, reconciling one's spirituality is a wholly intimate experience and is not subject to the bylaws of a single religious theatre.

Some of the most brilliant theistic minds I've ever encountered were so because they remained open to possibility - they didn't stymie their consciousness behind a singular motif and/or institutional genre, but instead chose to braid ideological kernels from various disciplines into a personalized fusion. This "complementary" scheme seems the most complete outlook to me.

I'd wager this approach is not for everyone; it doesn't have to be. In the end, I've little real issue with exclusive religious schools - so long as they remain thoughtful towards diversity.

Ultimately, I find the sincerest comittment one should endeavor is the earnest desire to remain humble in judgment towards others.
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
The question in the OP is sorta built on assumptions that depend on a traditional interpretation of Biblical Christianity.

Since I don't believe that God would 'damn me in an instant' or at all, that doesn't factor into the equation for me.

Also, the 'resting place' of my soul is something that really doesn't factor into my relationship with God, from my POV. IOW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in the whole 'heaven and hell' thing as it's traditionally interpreted. Wanting a pleasant afterlife is just nowhere in the equation either, of how or why I love God. I literally never even think about it. I don't need to - there are plenty of reasons to love God that have to do with right here and now, this life. I don't need to stretch into the unknowable or mythical, to find reasons to love God.

For me, it's simply been a case of spontaneous love, that I've felt and known and been unable to deny since I was very young (and not raised in a religious family). And it's something that's grown stronger as years have passed, regardless of what's happened in my life. To me it seems a natural consequence of knowing God... to know him is to love him. At least, the God that I know and believe in. He's someone that you can't not love, once you get to know him. The natural response for me, the more I come to understand and the deeper my relationship becomes, is stronger and greater love - it's not something I 'do', I don't decide to love him and just do it because I think I ought to, like jumping through a hoop. It's real, genuine, passionate, heart-burning, gut-wrenching, unconditional love and it comes naturally.

St Francis of Assisi is often described as 'a man in love with God'. I relate to that because it's how I've always felt. Just like when you're in love with a person, all that matters is being with them and being the best you can be together so you can please them and make each other happy, and just thinking of them is bliss; being with them is ecstacy. You don't need a reason - your lover doesn't promise you an afterlife or to solve your problems or whatever, they don't have to. Just being who they are, they cause a response in you that's all-encompassing and can motivate you to do extraordinary things; they bring out the best in you and you love them not just for themselves, but because of who they enable you to be. It's just the same with me and God. Through him, in him, because of him, in response to him, I am and can be extraordinary.

As for what your brain is 'plagued with', I don't see the connection between that and what God 'wishes'.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Ah yes... remember, these sorts of things become outmoded from time to time, and the cosmos changes to accomodate our latest theory...

Yeah..in century one we see lightning..we think its Zeus throwing a spear, in century 20 we see the same thing...yet its just some occurence of nature now.

Cosmos stay the same, yet the better we understand the world, the less likely we are to see it for what it is instead of anthropomorphizing it.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
Yeah..in century one we see lightning..we think its Zeus throwing a spear, in century 20 we see the same thing...yet its just some occurence of nature now.

And yet... and yet understanding the physical phenomenon has no logical bearing on the metaphysical premise.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
And yet... and yet understanding the physical phenomenon has no logical bearing on the metaphysical premise.


The difference is now we rely more on our objective observations than on our biases. As for example, now we have the knowledge of the world and the technology to examine what lightning is. This is no excuse to allow ourselves to mythologize.

Certainly does have logical bearing as now our metaphysical speculations have some grounding in what has been observed as factual information or reasoning.

That is the difference between warranted metaphysical premises and unwarranted. The former are founded on empirical observations and sound reasoning, the latter are not.

You may be confusing metaphysics for eschatology. Metaphysics is merely an inquiry into the realm beyond the physical. It does not have to have anything to do with the other world. Yet that, is the very definition of eschatology. Study of the afterlife and the other world. These questions ought to be dismissed as non-sensical because they are not at all connected to our observations and theories of this world. We simply cannot establish the premises for such an inquiry.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
Hmm. By analogy, it would appear that a full understanding of the Model T should cause one to doubt the existence of Henry Ford.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Hmm. By analogy, it would appear that a full understanding of the Model T should cause one to doubt the existence of Henry Ford.


We cannot have any understanding of the other world because we have no experience with it, or anything even remotely connected to the other world.

We can have partiaul understanding of Henry Ford's ideas because we have some experience with his work.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
Hmm. By analogy, it would appear that a full understanding of the Model T should cause one to doubt the existence of Henry Ford.

So the Pinkertons would have been his locusts or lightening bolts? Sorry, just struck by the comparison of Ford firing machine guns on his own workers with the fire and brimstone god of the old testament.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
We cannot have any understanding of the other world because we have no experience with it, or anything even remotely connected to the other world.

Aha... I knew that if we kept at it, our disparate founding assumptions would crop up. This is one of them.

There's really no need to go any further, under the circumstances.

Good day to you, sir.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Aha... I knew that if we kept at it, our disparate founding assumptions would crop up. This is one of them.

There's really no need to go any further, under the circumstances.

Good day to you, sir.

The difference between you and I seems to be that you expect the Holy Text to establish the premises for our eschatological inquiry, yet I do not. I have an argument for why the Holy Text fails to do so, yet you seem to be accepting that it does indeed provide such premises by default. Therefore you commit the informal logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
The difference between you and I seems to be that you expect the Holy Text to establish the premises for our eschatological inquiry, yet I do not. I have an argument for why the Holy Text fails to do so, yet you seem to be accepting that it does indeed provide such premises by default. Therefore you commit the informal logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.

Please don't think my faith is that unexamined, please. I'm willing to agree to disagree, and to do so without impugning your intelligence. We start with different assumptions. I suggest we let it go at that.
 

hungrypossum

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
109
MBTI Type
ESFP
*rolls eyes* I was playing Resident Evil 4 last night and i didn't feel like replying. we can theorize all day till eternity, cos if God wanted you to come to him by FAITH there's no reason you should get concrete proof he's there. there are so many things he could have explained but who agrees with me we dont want the bible to get any thicker. So whoever's attracted to the message of love will come. So you can choose to believe whether or not someone DID teach the first men to hunt, kill, and protect them from the wild animals. He did give the first people some laws so they would grow up with some common sense on how to live life. Someone did teach one of the early Kings (King Solomon) science and how to run a dynasty.

it's like.. you can't see the wind but you can feel its breeze. so you can rather never know why you're alive, or you can go uh. so um. maybe i should try the bible or something huh. hmm. doesnt sound plausible. doesnt sound factual.

you know what, thats normal. Jesus had to perform miracles in the bible for people to believe he's God's son. It doesn't make sense that some churches are miracle-phobic.

and then maybe, like me, after a lonnnng time, you go like: omg! @$%$ i dont believe this is happening to me, its real.

it doesnt change the fact that people get healed by Jesus all the time (i know 2 people in real life), i see healings in church all the time, millions of people can speak in tongues, and there are people who DO see Jesus (rarely). Read "chasing the dragon" by Jackie Pullinger, she's a missionary who went to Hong Kong, lived there 40 years, and many many druggies in the walled city got converted, and came free from drugs after being baptized in the holy spirit. If you come to know God you will know he works very subtly, without much boom, bam or spotlights. Probably something like finding 12 pieces of bread after giving 7 to 5000 men.

and for people who do see such things happen? I can tell you that Jaime, who was born without a sense of smell - when he got healed last year, of course he went and told all his friends and there was alot of excitement. but all his friends were very, naturally afraid and hesistant to believe. they kept trying to find a scientific way to prove why it happened. all i can say to them is, my dearrrrs, you have so many millions of cells in your body - that is already a miracle!
 
Last edited:
Top