Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Results are in...There is a God! - What now?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 159 (303785)
04-13-2006 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by EZscience
04-13-2006 7:13 AM


Re: Chiroptera demolishes a straw god
EZScience writes:
So HE sets rules we are unable to follow without HIS help. Isn't that like stacking the deck? Setting us up for failure in order to elicit dependency? Hardly seems fair.
I would agree with you unless this God is more than what we have been led to believe. There are three kinds of dependence and only one is healthy.
1) Independence is unhealthy. IMHO. We were designed to relate to others. Assuming that God is one of those others, perhaps we could trust Him as we got to know Him.
2) Co-dependence is unhealthy. IMHO. Co-dependence shackles us to a relationship that we can't break free from.
3) Interdependence...when it means communion, community, and cooperation, is healthy IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by EZscience, posted 04-13-2006 7:13 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by EZscience, posted 04-13-2006 7:25 AM Phat has replied
 Message 102 by nator, posted 12-26-2006 9:46 AM Phat has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 32 of 159 (303786)
04-13-2006 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
04-13-2006 7:20 AM


Re: Chiroptera demolishes a straw god
Phat writes:
Co-dependence shackles us to a relationship that we can't break free from.
Maybe I'm just an outsider looking in, but this seems the best description of religious conviction to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 7:20 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 7:45 AM EZscience has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 33 of 159 (303787)
04-13-2006 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
04-13-2006 7:06 AM


Re: No groveling required
Admittedly, if God gave some insight into the whys and hows, i might be more inclined to enter into a relationship; however, unlikely to the point of worship. If God is that great, God should transcend worship.
So within the context of your hypothesis, you and God have a lot to discuss. It seems to me that a fair and just God would offer us humans some sort of plea bargain, don't you agree? After all, if mere human D.A.'s can do it, why can't God do it?
A plea bargain for what, Phat? If i live my life to the best of my ability, oftentimes (subjectively) better than others, who may be of a religious bent, but just don't see the need to worship a God; what have i done wrong? It would be petty for a God to damn me for eternity, simply because i would not call God's name.

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 7:06 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 7:40 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 159 (303790)
04-13-2006 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by U can call me Cookie
04-13-2006 7:30 AM


Re: No groveling required
UCCMC writes:
If i live my life to the best of my ability, oftentimes (subjectively) better than others, who may be of a religious bent, but just don't see the need to worship a God; what have i done wrong? It would be petty for a God to damn me for eternity, simply because i would not call God's name.
Good point. Consider, however, what worship actually is. Worship involves a full expression of ones lifeforce towards the celebration of a communion....a united effort and purpose of a group of people in alliance with a worthy leader!
I can understand your reluctance, however! We have not seen any leaders so worthy that we give them our full support, expression, and unabashed adoration!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by U can call me Cookie, posted 04-13-2006 7:30 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 35 of 159 (303791)
04-13-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
04-13-2006 7:10 AM


Re: Knowing God
I think that the only way that we can know God is if He first knows us. And I think that this scripture covers that reality.
God knows us and loves us whilst we hate him. If we come to know him it is because he is the one who instigated us coming to know him. Needless to say however that we cannot love him without knowing him so the emphasis should be less on
"how can I love a God I do not know?"
and more on
"How do I get to know God"
I think the "began a good work" passage is inappropriate in the context of the current discussion because if God begins a good work he will also complete it. Thats a promise. And not all will get to know God thus it follows that for many, that good work is never started

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 7:10 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 7:54 AM iano has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 159 (303792)
04-13-2006 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by EZscience
04-13-2006 7:25 AM


Dependence is not co-dependence
Lets get Mr. Dictionary in on this action!
Websters writes:
in”ter”de”pen”dentadj : dependent upon one another ” in”ter”de”pen”dence \-dns\ n
1de”pen”dentadj 1 : hanging down 2 : determined or conditioned by another; also : affected with drug dependence 3 : relying on another for support 4 : subject to another's jurisdiction 5 : subordinate 4
I should clarify in that I see humans being interdependent on each other while being dependent on God.
Of course, in relation to this topic, we have yet to arrive at a consensus as to the character of this God that we would be dependent on.
Its like being at a job and having a new boss. You are used to doing things your own way and you had the other boss "trained" to allow you room to thrive. Suddenly we have a new boss and new rules.
Our strategy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by EZscience, posted 04-13-2006 7:25 AM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by U can call me Cookie, posted 04-13-2006 8:00 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 37 of 159 (303793)
04-13-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by iano
04-13-2006 7:41 AM


Re: Knowing God
Iano writes:
I think the "began a good work" passage is inappropriate in the context of the current discussion because if God begins a good work he will also complete it. Thats a promise. And not all will get to know God thus it follows that for many, that good work is never started
OK, Iano...lets follow my scenario about being at a job and having a new Boss.
The Boss announces that he is making changes in the company and that the company will change and follow the new paradigm. The Boss announces that this change can be smooth or it can be difficult, depending upon the attitude of the employees.
With me so far?
Now...are you gonna go around telling the other employees that not all of them are gonna get along with the new Boss?
That seems a bit like spreading negativity and strife!
Iano You gotta do things the way that the Boss wants, because in His world, its MY way or the Highway!
I am not suggesting that you would necessarily be so blunt with your fellow workers!
What I am suggesting is in encouraging the workers to get to know and trust the Boss.
The new retirement plan is very good in this company, as well!
This message has been edited by Phat, 04-13-2006 05:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by iano, posted 04-13-2006 7:41 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by iano, posted 04-13-2006 8:04 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 42 by Larni, posted 04-13-2006 8:14 AM Phat has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 38 of 159 (303794)
04-13-2006 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by EZscience
04-13-2006 7:13 AM


Re: Chiroptera demolishes a straw god
That's hardly the kind of sentiment we are getting from the most out-spoken Christian on the thread.
I haven't followed it to be honest. Faith stirring it up again is she?
OK. I have heard this before. So HE sets rules we are unable to follow without HIS help. Isn't that like stacking the deck? Setting us up for failure in order to elicit dependency? Hardly seems fair.
He is not trying to illicit dependency. We are dependant on him for every single aspect of our being already. He is just trying to get us to recognise and accept (free willingly) that fact. If it weren't so sad one would have to smile at the idea of folk hanging on a thread over an abyss questioning the purpose of the thread from which they are suspended.
Got one right now. Good french roast espresso. But I can think a lot of practical (naturalistic) explanations for the existence of all these types of sensation.
Imagine a Jar-like STOP: STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE sign posted right now. You are drifting off topic. So far the discussion has been about God on the presumption (for the sake of arguement) that he exists. We are discusssing the rights and wrongs of the attributes and actions of said God. But if you want to exit the Matrix through that escape hatch then be my guest.
So we are to thank him for all things pleasurable and blame ourselves for all things that aren't? This seems like real confirmation of Chiroptera's tag line.
Not at all. A prime goal of God is that we come to repentance. He works day and night that none should perish. He will use bad things as well as good things in attempting to accomplish that objective. He doesn't have to instigate bad things himself per se, but knowing everything he is in a position to utilise bad things that we do or fallen nature does.
Well I think with my brain, not my heart, and my brain is a doubting organ by its nature. Because of my brain (that god gave me?) I feel compelled to remain in denial of his existence.
One would have to be sure that the seat of your consciousness (I am as opposed to I am happy/sad) resides in your brain and not your spirit (heart). But seeing as this is untestable you never will be. Your choice to believe it though.
Your compulsion to deny is understandable but take heart. God prime route of entry is not through the intellect. He enters elsewher and from the inside works on your intellect. Your intellect he can satisfy in a heartbeat. One doesn't intellectualise their way to God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by EZscience, posted 04-13-2006 7:13 AM EZscience has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 39 of 159 (303795)
04-13-2006 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
04-13-2006 7:45 AM


Re: Dependence is not co-dependence
Of course, in relation to this topic, we have yet to arrive at a consensus as to the character of this God that we would be dependent on.
Its like being at a job and having a new boss. You are used to doing things your own way and you had the other boss "trained" to allow you room to thrive. Suddenly we have a new boss and new rules.
I should mention that when I said that God was found to be true in the OP, that discovery does not necessarily change the staus quo. Things do not just become different now that we know that God exists. Thus it would seem to me that the nature of the God could likely be dependent on what we observe reality to be, or moreso that reality is as it is, due to the nature of God.

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 7:45 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 8:19 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 40 of 159 (303796)
04-13-2006 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by iano
04-13-2006 6:32 AM


Re: the afterlife
iano writes:
From which stone did you lick this notion
From my interpretation of this:
iano writes:
Which is a succinct way of saying that any love we might have for him subsequent to his being made manifest would have trouble in being freey given.
Which perhaps explains to those who demand evidence before they will believe why God doesn't provide such outright evidence as to his existance.
If we love it because we know it is real, thats not good enough it would seem.
iano writes:
Agreed. He is aware you don't love him. Fully aware. And it he doesn't demand that you love him without reason. That would be unreasonable. The only way you can love God is to know him. It follows that the initial step is to get to know God, not to jump to thinking that you have to love him without knowing him
This only works if you are aware of the xian god. If the initial step is to get to know it, what about the billions who have died without knowing it? Do they go to Hell?
iano writes:
If God exists then his standards are what counts. He can beat any arguement we have hands down because he is in possession of all the facts. We are in possession of only some.
Can't argue with your logic here.
However, having the very appearance of physical evidence rendering any love for your god of lesser value (and therefor good xians should not look for it, or question (see above)) means we can only guess as to its' standards.
Your god has just as much chance of being cruel (as the only evidence we are allowed to percieve would imply) as being nice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by iano, posted 04-13-2006 6:32 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 8:30 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 49 by iano, posted 04-13-2006 9:36 AM Larni has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 41 of 159 (303797)
04-13-2006 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
04-13-2006 7:54 AM


Jesus saves not iano
That seems a bit like spreading negativity and strife!
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation not ianos arguments. I will stick as closely as I can to expounding on the gospel. I cannot cause anybody to be lost for it is not in my power to save them
Strife follows accurate preaching of the gospel (assuming one is not deliberately sowing strife for strifes sake). Read the reaction to the gospel wherever it was preached in Acts again. Riots!
I speak of Gods love, his justice and his wrath in equal measure. I see no reason to change tack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 7:54 AM Phat has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 42 of 159 (303801)
04-13-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
04-13-2006 7:54 AM


Re: Knowing God
Grrr.... sometimes your aguements are very persuasive!

Don't believe; think!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 7:54 AM Phat has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 43 of 159 (303802)
04-13-2006 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by iano
04-13-2006 6:55 AM


Re: Iano the Righteous (but not self of course)
The word Christian is a label which applies to people who have believed God and what he says and have had God credit (or exchange) that belief as righteousness. It doesn't matter whether one applies the label Christian to the package, what matters is the contents of the package. Righteous or not.
So then being a Christian is supposedly a good enough substitute for righteousness, seeing that your God is willing to credit one for it on the righteousness score. Couple that with the idea that no one can ever truly be righteous, and it boils down to Christian = Righteous.
Leaving everyone else out in the cold...unless they become Christian.

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iano, posted 04-13-2006 6:55 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 04-13-2006 8:22 AM U can call me Cookie has replied
 Message 50 by iano, posted 04-13-2006 9:44 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 44 of 159 (303805)
04-13-2006 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by U can call me Cookie
04-13-2006 8:00 AM


The Results are in...but which hypothesis?
UCCMC writes:
I should mention that when I said that God was found to be true in the OP, that discovery does not necessarily change the staus quo. Things do not just become different now that we know that God exists. Thus it would seem to me that the nature of the God could likely be dependent on what we observe reality to be, or moreso that reality is as it is, due to the nature of God.
OK.....so we are now back to agreeing on the hypothetical definition of the God that exists, right?
I maintain that by definition, God imagined/created us long before we had the consciousness to imagine or define Him.
Of course, thats my definition.
Whats yours? That God is a product of the human imagination?
Just to clarify who it is we are dealing with, here!
Lets go back to your O.P. for a moment.
UCCMC writes:
What if, one day it turned out that the evidence all pointed to the existence of a supreme deity; responsible for the creation and maintenance of our reality? How would you feel? What would you do?
So are we going to hypothesize that the evidence exists and that God is an objective reality or are we going to hypothesize that God is still very much a subjective concept?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by U can call me Cookie, posted 04-13-2006 8:00 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by U can call me Cookie, posted 04-13-2006 8:34 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 45 of 159 (303806)
04-13-2006 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by U can call me Cookie
04-13-2006 8:16 AM


Re: Iano the Righteous (but not self of course)
UCCMC writes:
So then being a Christian is supposedly a good enough substitute for righteousness, seeing that your God is willing to credit one for it on the righteousness score. Couple that with the idea that no one can ever truly be righteous, and it boils down to Christian = Righteous.
Leaving everyone else out in the cold...unless they become Christian.
Lets assume for the hypothesis that God wishes to include everyone in an equal measure. For the moment, lets not limit this discussion to the God of fundamentalist/orthodox Christianity. We can always refer to those concepts, (as I of course will) yet lets not limit ourselves to the "Born Again" club....just yet.

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by U can call me Cookie, posted 04-13-2006 8:16 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by U can call me Cookie, posted 04-13-2006 8:36 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 51 by iano, posted 04-13-2006 9:49 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024