Before god

Jos said:

So what is God like then?

Click to expand...

What Dan Mellis asks is "If god is omnipresent and eternal, how could it be that there was a time that people didn't subscribe to the god of abraham?" The short answer is that God is discovered, rather than revealed. People might claim to reveal God, but that would be impossible I think, philosophically. Some people may respond strongly and identify when they hear about God, but that is not the same as revealing God to them.

I say in my post above to Dan Mellis there is the God that people expect and attempt to describe and then the real one. Often you will encounter revealed religions which purport to describe God to you, but this is not how God is discovered by the Jews. Later on two Christian major theological approaches have been developed called the apophatic and the cataphatic. Apophatic is a positive assertion about God, and it should be limited I think to what you believe. "I choose to believe in God" is cataphatic. Someone else might assume something about God that I don't, so they might make more cataphatic statements. Those would include some who say rubbish like "I know that I know that I know X about God." Then there are negative deductions about what God probably is not. These are called apophatic. A common apophatic statement is "Describing God accurately is impossible."

An agnostic makes no cataphatic statements, but they can still make apophatic ones like "If God is real then God cannot be such & such." There is an analogy in diplomacy. If you believe in peace then very often you can more easily say what does not lead to peace than what does.

Dan Mellis said:

My question is, in those ancient times as homosapiens were taking their first steps as a species the notion of a god hadn't necessarily been concieved. If thats the case, how would you reconcile this with your faith?

Millenia passed without reference to judaism or a singular god. Its most likely we worshipped the sun and moon. We can see similar (not the same) things in native american/amazonian tribalism which is a reasonable analogy to human prehistoric society.

Click to expand...

It certainly seems likely that organised religion was predated by various forms of animism and nature worship. That's also what my own beliefs entail so no conflict there

Even so, I don't necessarily see this as conflicting with more modern god concepts. It's certainly true that humans have learned more about the world we live in over the millennia. Our concept of disease has (to give a seriously abridged version of events) developed from belief in evil spirits, to miasma theory, to germ theory. If we're capable of acquiring greater understanding of something so integral to human experience, why should gods be exempt from the same process?

Erebus said:

It certainly seems likely that organised religion was predated by various forms of animism and nature worship. That's also what my own beliefs entail so no conflict there

Even so, I don't necessarily see this as conflicting with more modern god concepts. It's certainly true that humans have learned more about the world we live in over the millennia. Our concept of disease has (to give a seriously abridged version of events) developed from belief in evil spirits, to miasma theory, to germ theory. If we're capable of acquiring greater understanding of something so integral to human experience, why should gods be exempt from the same process?

Click to expand...

I hadn't considered that perspective, so thanks

However, the difference is that god (in the abrahamic sense, the pagan gods make much more sense as flawed and untrustworthy beings, I love the viking ideas about gods) is claimed to be all-wise and some sort of absolute truth. The bible even says that if you don't believe, you go to hell. If god chose not to reveal itself to the unbelievers before its bible was written, what happens then?

The difference is that germs dont have any cognisance, so there is no way we could have understood before microscopes etc. Oagan gods mightnt have revealed themselves because it was funny or interesting to them, and thats cool. But the abrahamic god is kind of a douche to people who dont believe, and expects endless devotion etc.

That was more of a question to the wider community, I know these aren't your beliefs.

Dan Mellis said:

I hadn't considered that perspective, so thanks

However, the difference is that god (in the abrahamic sense, the pagan gods make much more sense as flawed and untrustworthy beings, I love the viking ideas about gods) is claimed to be all-wise and some sort of absolute truth. The bible even says that if you don't believe, you go to hell. If god chose not to reveal itself to the unbelievers before its bible was written, what happens then?

The difference is that germs dont have any cognisance, so there is no way we could have understood before microscopes etc. Oagan gods mightnt have revealed themselves because it was funny or interesting to them, and thats cool. But the abrahamic god is kind of a douche to people who dont believe, and expects endless devotion etc.

That was more of a question to the wider community, I know these aren't your beliefs.

Click to expand...

I'm with you. It certainly causes issues for a concept of god that wanted to reveal itself from day one, particularly when non-belief is considered a damning offense.

Now I don't know how valid this is considered among Christians but have you heard of the Harrowing of Hell? The idea is that after his crucifixion, Jesus went down into Hell and redeemed the souls of every virtuous person who died before his coming. It appears to be an attempt to answer the questions you posed. It obviously has problems, particularly if your interpretation of Hell is one of fiery torment rather than a generic term for the abode of the dead (Sheol/Hades). Possibly something you'd find interesting to read up on though?

Dan Mellis said:

I assume you aren't someone who believes that non-believers go to hell? If so, great news if not, does that mean god deliberately didnt reveal himself to a bunch of people and sent them to hell for it?

Click to expand...

You are correct. I do not believe that people go to hell because they don't believe in God.

Erebus said:

I'm with you. It certainly causes issues for a concept of god that wanted to reveal itself from day one, particularly when non-belief is considered a damning offense.

Now I don't know how valid this is considered among Christians but have you heard of the Harrowing of Hell? The idea is that after his crucifixion, Jesus went down into Hell and redeemed the souls of every virtuous person who died before his coming. It appears to be an attempt to answer the questions you posed. It obviously has problems, particularly if your interpretation of Hell is one of fiery torment rather than a generic term for the abode of the dead (Sheol/Hades). Possibly something you'd find interesting to read up on though?

Click to expand...

Definitely! I mean, its another claim that would have to be supported by evidence but it can't hurt to know the story thanks!

dybmh said:

You are correct. I do not believe that people go to hell because they don't believe in God.

Click to expand...

I'd see the opposite position as more 'biblically accurate,' but I'm glad you don't hold it

Dan Mellis said:

Definitely! I mean, its another claim that would have to be supported by evidence but it can't hurt to know the story thanks!

Click to expand...

My pleasure

Dan Mellis said:

This is more directed towards theists who accept that humans evolved from apes etc - the answer from creationists seems obvious.

There was a time where religion hadn't really been formed as we recognise it today - especially monotheism.

My question is, in those ancient times as homosapiens were taking their first steps as a species the notion of a god hadn't necessarily been concieved. If thats the case, how would you reconcile this with your faith?

Millenia passed without reference to judaism or a singular god. Its most likely we worshipped the sun and moon. We can see similar (not the same) things in native american/amazonian tribalism which is a reasonable analogy to human prehistoric society.

If god is omnipresent and eternal, how could it be that there was a time that people didn't subscribe to the god of abraham?

Click to expand...

"If god is omnipresent and eternal, how could it be that there was a time that people didn't subscribe to the god of abraham?"

You seem confused. Let me rephrase your question properly in context to before as you are asking.

"If nature is omnipresent and eternal, how could it be that there was a time that people didn't subscribe to the god of abraham?"


Since you have no idea what was going in for pre literate humans I won't be able to answer your question since it's confused.

Dan Mellis said:

Maybe I could have been clearer. My point was that if God is omnipresent and eternal, how could there ha e been a time when people didn't believe? I rambled a bit but thats my point haha

Click to expand...

What does the fact that people are ignorant of a thing have anything to do with its reality? If black holes are considered ancient, how come no one believed in them until the last hundred years? That reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. The Big Bang is 14.5 Billion years old, yet you didn't hear about it until a recently. Therefore the Big Bang isn't real?

David T said:

"If god is omnipresent and eternal, how could it be that there was a time that people didn't subscribe to the god of abraham?"

You seem confused. Let me rephrase your question properly in context to before as you are asking.

"If nature is omnipresent and eternal, how could it be that there was a time that people didn't subscribe to the god of abraham?"


Since you have no idea what was going in for pre literate humans I won't be able to answer your question since it's confused.

Click to expand...

I don't think you rephrasing his question is helping or even correct. Because we are talking about God, who created nature, so the question he is asking is, whatever people might have believe before the God of the bible were known to us, why didn't he make himself visible to them, so they didn't worship nature or other Gods rather than him. The bible did start as stories and later written down and combined into the bible, so those people at the start were also illiterate.

Windwalker said:

What does the fact that people are ignorant of a thing have anything to do with its reality? If black holes are considered ancient, how come no one believed in them until the last hundred years? That reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. The Big Bang is 14.5 Billion years old, yet you didn't hear about it until a recently. Therefore the Big Bang isn't real?

Click to expand...

That comparison makes little sense, for several reasons. Black holes and the Big bang theory is based on the scientific method, which were not know by the ancient humans nor did they have the equipment to test their hypothesis should they have had any and therefore no means of making, observe or test whatever predictions they might make regarding such topics. Since these things weren't testable or even observable at the time, it would have made little sense for them to draw such conclusions and therefore irrelevant for them to believe in such things. Jumping on a God or Gods to explain the world would be a lot more natural way of approaching these questions, since it were at least based on former understandings of how the world works, so Gods evolved over time, just as science did, when the religious explanations failed to deliver satisfying answers to how things works. So the method of "guessing" got replaced by the scientific method, and what you have left now of that method is faith. Which is also why science don't care about God or Gods as they transcend natural laws and for the most part can do what they want, therefore you cant test for them and are irrelevant whenever it comes to doing science, and therefore you have to work with the assumption that God(s) do not exist. It doesn't mean that the don't.

Nimos said:

I don't think you rephrasing his question is helping or even correct. Because we are talking about God, who created nature, so the question he is asking is, whatever people might have believe before the God of the bible were known to us, why didn't he make himself visible to them, so they didn't worship nature or other Gods rather than him. The bible did start as stories and later written down and combined into the bible, so those people at the start were also illiterate.

Click to expand...

Sorry but what you said isn't biblical christian or reality . Its modern bigfootism of the Bible and is self deluding.

Nimos said:

I don't think you rephrasing his question is helping or even correct. Because we are talking about God, who created nature, so the question he is asking is, whatever people might have believe before the God of the bible were known to us, why didn't he make himself visible to them, so they didn't worship nature or other Gods rather than him. The bible did start as stories and later written down and combined into the bible, so those people at the start were also illiterate.

Click to expand...

Sorry but what you said isn't biblical christian or reality . Its modern bigfootism of the Bible and is self deluding.

David T said:

Sorry but what you said isn't biblical christian or reality . Its modern bigfootism of the Bible and is self deluding.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean, can you explain it?

Nimos said:

That comparison makes little sense, for several reasons.

Click to expand...

I made that comparison in response to you stating this. "My point was that if God is omnipresent and eternal, how could there have been a time when people didn't believe?" That's saying the same thing as "If black holes are real, how could there have been a time people didn't believe it?" That's the direct comparison. The nature of the thing in itself, does not necessitate the knowledge of the thing. Why did you state that?

Nimos said:

Since these things weren't testable or even observable at the time, it would have made little sense for them to draw such conclusions and therefore irrelevant for them to believe in such things. Jumping on a God or Gods to explain the world would be a lot more natural way of approaching these questions, since it were at least based on former understandings of how the world works, so Gods evolved over time, just as science did, when the religious explanations failed to deliver satisfying answers to how things works.

Click to expand...

In my previous post where I linked you to the work of Jean Gebser, I clearly stated that belief in God has evolved. I still don't see how this is supposed to be an issue?

Nimos said:

So the method of "guessing" got replaced by the scientific method, and what you have left now of that method is faith.

Click to expand...

I think the failure on your part to understanding things regarding faith in God, is that faith in God is not about finding explanations for how nature works. Science is a far better tool to use than any pre-scientific inquiry into the natural world, whether that came from the church or other thinkers of the day before the rise of modern science. But faith has to do with questions of purpose and meaning and value. These are areas that are not what the scientific method deals with. These are the humanities. Science does not deal with existential questions. Religion does however.

Nimos said:

Which is also why science don't care about God or Gods as they transcend natural laws and for the most part can do what they want, therefore you cant test for them and are irrelevant whenever it comes to doing science, and therefore you have to work with the assumption that God(s) do not exist. It doesn't mean that the don't.

Click to expand...

Science doesn't care about questions of value and meaning either. They shouldn't. That's like saying when I want to express a vision of hope through music, I should pull out a telescope and look at the formation of craters on the moon in order to understand how they came into being, instead of looking to what my heart is telling me. Faith is an internal matter, not an external thing. Faith is about the heart, not a moon of Saturn and what it's made out of.

To reduce faith in God to being solely about explaining how the world came to be formed, is naive, as well as unscientific.

Dan Mellis said:

I'd see the opposite position as more 'biblically accurate,' but I'm glad you don't hold it

Click to expand...

I think that's coming from the New Testament? In order for a person to believe a person goes to hell for non-belief ( not for doing harm ) I think they would be ignoring "Love your neighbor" and "Blessed are the meek".

Because of this, I don't think it's a matter of accuracy. I think it's a matter of priority and intention.

Windwalker said:

I made that comparison in response to you stating this. "My point was that if God is omnipresent and eternal, how could there have been a time when people didn't believe?" That's saying the same thing as "If black holes are real, how could there have been a time people didn't believe it?" That's the direct comparison. The nature of the thing in itself, does not necessitate the knowledge of the thing. Why did you state that?

Click to expand...

Because people couldn't observe or "feel" a black hole. However ancient people would be able to feel and observe what is going on around them and therefore try to explain it. The important topics here is "observe" and "feel", which the ancient human could do as well. Today we don't believe in white holes either because we have no reason or "feeling" that such thing exists. But God created everything, so could have revealed himself to us at anytime, so maybe the question is why didn't he?

Windwalker said:

In my previous post where I linked you to the work of Jean Gebser, I clearly stated that belief in God has evolved. I still don't see how this is supposed to be an issue?

Click to expand...

I don't know if its an issue as such, but I think the OP are fair in wondering, how come those before didn't believe in God of the bible, if he is omnipresent.

Windwalker said:

I think the failure on your part to understanding things regarding faith in God, is that faith in God is not about finding explanations for how nature works. That science is a far better tool to use than any pre-scientific inquiry into the natural world. But faith has to do with questions of purpose and meaning and value. These are areas that are not what the scientific method deals with. There are the humanities. Science does not deal with existential questions. Religion does however.

Click to expand...

Yes and no, I would agree that religion make guesses about these things, which doesn't make it true and to me, actually offers very little in that regard as it constrain people in actually thinking for themselves as they tries to conform into others ideas or beliefs. Science doesn't as its not the purpose to answer such questions

Windwalker said:

Science doesn't care about questions of value and meaning either. They shouldn't. That's like saying when I want to express a vision of hope through music, I should pull out a telescope and look at the formation of craters on the moon in order to understand how they came into being, instead of looking to what my heart is telling me.

To reduce faith in God to being solely about explaining how the world came to be formed, is naive, as well as unscientific.

Click to expand...

I agree, faith in God is much more than simply trying to explain how the world were formed and again, I think its a way for people to "find" a common meaning, established by someone else. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I do think that it reduces people creativity and abilities to explorer these topics for themselves.
.

Ellen Brown said:

You have just posed a self answering question, and the solution is within you. I am sad that those who do not believe in a Creator want those who disagree to join them.

Click to expand...

Really?

Honestly, I see no reason why you would.

Dan Mellis said:

This is more directed towards theists who accept that humans evolved from apes etc - the answer from creationists seems obvious.

There was a time where religion hadn't really been formed as we recognise it today - especially monotheism.

My question is, in those ancient times as homosapiens were taking their first steps as a species the notion of a god hadn't necessarily been concieved. If thats the case, how would you reconcile this with your faith?

Millenia passed without reference to judaism or a singular god. Its most likely we worshipped the sun and moon. We can see similar (not the same) things in native american/amazonian tribalism which is a reasonable analogy to human prehistoric society.

If god is omnipresent and eternal, how could it be that there was a time that people didn't subscribe to the god of abraham?

Click to expand...

You answered your own question, "If god is omnipresent and eternal, how could it be that there was a time that people didn't subscribe to the god of abraham?"

The God of Abraham was Adam's God, so there "never was a time of nonsubscription".