Proving God's Existence Undermines Faith

Yes, but reincarnation is only one aspect of what I was addressing. The main topic is the concept of Karma, a moral law by which all human beings are judged. Yes, well there are different Buddhist concepts and I don't know either, but in some discussions I read years ago it was clear that there are hells where individuals go and they do suffer before returning to another earthly life. OK, but MORAL cause and effect. All I'm trying to get at is the MORAL idea in connection with karma, and in connection with nirvana as the cessation of suffering which is the consequence of bad karma. Give up and go on sinning then, just don't fight it? I would think not, but you also have no grounds for these grounds, just your dislike of such teaching. Control for what purpose one might ask. Strange motivation.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-12-2006 12:39 AM

OK, I see your point. We were talking about Calvinist doctrine, and then I made a sudden switch to a philosophical question. I don't think so. If somebody really believes something, he can hardly be morally condemned for that. If he was only pretending to believe, that would be a moral matter, I think.Maybe I'll start a new topic.

I have a proposition on the board trying to get this discussion off this thread, and I'd rather it was your topic, because it's really your thinking we're trying to deal with here. If mine is OK as is, or would be with a few modifications, email me about how to change it. Or go ahead and start one and I'll withdraw mine.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-11-2006 11:47 PM

What? Where?

Sorry, should have included the link:http://EvC Forum: Is belief in God a moral or factual matter? -->EvC Forum: Is belief in God a moral or factual matter?Wasn't happy with it as is anyway, just wanted to get this side issue off this thread. So if it's too far from what you have in mind, please start your own.

Agreed, one of the most important emphasis in the teaching of karma was the moral instruction. Karma could result in suffering and pleasure. Nirvana is not pleasure, nor is the Bliss the the Hindu's speak about pleasure. Popular Buddhism certainly teaches about Heavens, Hells, and Pure Buddha lands. One can be a Buddhist without having to believe in them literally. There are a couple of Buddhist sects that require literal beliefs but they are far from mainstream or orthodox. I wrote that over 40 years ago and that is about all I remember about it. What I did was take the first circles of hell and the first circles of purgatory and contrast and compare them. The people in hell didn't try to improve or understand what they did wrong. The people in purgatory did. Like in hell they just suffered their lust without understanding whereas in purgatory they lusted but tried to improve.The Inferno is the most memorable of Dante's trilogy but it was no Lord of the Rings. I read Tolkien at about the same time and have much fonder memories of his books. This message has been edited by AdminPD, 05-12-2006 07:57 AM

That's fine.The sermon by Edwards I was referring to earlier is entitled "A Divine and Holy Light."

Is it the same as A Divine and SUPERNATURAL Light?

That's it, and here's one of his most important points. He was very careful to try to distinguish between imaginary religious experiences and the real thing--which is something I respect about him: A far cry from the TV preachers of today. This message has been edited by AdminPD, 05-12-2006 07:55 AM

No. But wretchedness is not a dishonest position to arrive at were one to take a good hard look at themselves. And wretchedness is what makes a man cry out for an answer when all the pseudo-answers; drugs, philosophy, career, sex, Religion, money, hobbies, wife, goods... have shown themselves to be what they are. Hollow, incomplete answers.If he cries out in the direction of God, not in self-focused pity but in honest acknowledgement of what he has become before an unknown Holy God, and asks for an answer then an answer he will receive. Its called mercy.And why wouldn't he do it? Afterall, all such a man has to lose at that point is his pride. Pride: the very last thing he clutches to - not realising that giving that up will result in his death. And his immediate re-birth.But if a man never arrives at the point of knowing that he is wretched then he has only himself to blame. He has refused to accept the facts about himself namely:IF Holy God THEN wretched.IF wretched THEN possibly Holy GodA possible answer. And only pride standing in the way of him finding out. His own pride. The very deadliest of sins. The root of all sin. The very first sin.This message has been edited by iano, 12-May-2006 10:15 AM This message has been edited by AdminPD, 05-12-2006 07:53 AM

What you call 'knowing' re: knowing god, is what's flawed. It's a flawed concept to assert that 'knowing' holds certainty.

Hey Iano,I'm not arguing with what you say, but I am at a loss to understand it.If there is a supreme being, why should he judge our ethics or our mental well-being at all? Why should we expect him to sit in judgment of us? Most of all, why would you want God to be such a petty, vindictive, self-righteous and humourless creature?One conclusion that I come to is that a judgmental God is a convenient social and political tool used by humans on humans...No God has spoken to me or declared His will to me, so I have no desire to consider him in my daily life. Furthermore, why should I submit to the will and judgment of any entity with regard to my ultimate value as a human being?I live for myself and for the people I love. I refuse to be threatened by and live my life in fear of some God-tyrant! Speaking bluntly, as far as I'm concerned a judgmental God can just go stick his self-righteous posturing and his threats of eternal hell!Guess that books my place in Hell! ;-) This message has been edited by AdminPD, 05-12-2006 07:52 AM

Please stop all off-topic discussion.

​

The topic is: Proving God's Existence Undermines Faith

​

Since the OP is short, I'm reposting it here.

​

OP-kuresu writes:

​

This thought occurred to me recently, and its a new subject matter for me, so please be patient.
On the attempt of creationists (and some IDers) to discredit evolution and prove the existence of God:

​

As far as I know, the existence of God is based on faith. Faith being that you believe in what you can't see or prove, e.g. blind trust.

​

It would seem to me that those trying to prove God's existence have a weakness in faith. The reasoning here is: if they have to have proof that God exists in order to believe in Him, or in order to stregthen their belief in Him, they are undermining the concept of faith.

​

As physical proof or evidence (the type science is concerned with and the creationists use to prove His existence) does not require faith, and if one must have this proof for one's faith, then does this not undermine their faith?

​

Kudos to Faith for trying, at least twice that I saw, to stop the off topic discussion.

​

If the off-topic discussion continues, the thread will be given an appropriate timeout closure.

​

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Thank you

Sorry boss!Just an observation, not meant as a change of subject.