How can a God exist?

[Æsahættr]

Now I believe that God loves everyone, because I interpret what the Bible says about God's love differently than I used to.

And was that a change that came about purely because of how you interpretted the Bible, or were there other reasons for it?

 

[Æsahættr]

And I'm not arguing with your claim that most people who identify themselves as "Christian" feel obligated to read significant parts of it literally. Nor am I saying that parts of the stories did or did not literally happen. My point is that I can find "truth" in it for myself by deciding for myself what meanings different stories in it have for me. By that same token, you may read it and find none of it has a signficant meaning to you.

Ah right. So do you see the Bible as somehow special in its ability to give meaning in that way, or do you see it as just on a par with a very inspiring novel?

 

[sojourner]

And was that a change that came about purely because of how you interpretted the Bible, or were there other reasons for it?

My life experience informed my interpretation. It's not a chicken-and-egg thing. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

[doppelganger]

Ah right. So do you see the Bible as somehow special in its ability to give meaning in that way, or do you see it as just on a par with a very inspiring novel?

More like the latter. In fact, I could list a few novels that provided more inspiration and meaning to me than the stories of the Bible. One of these is extensively quoted in this very thread.

 

[Æsahættr]

My life experience informed my interpretation. It's not a chicken-and-egg thing. It's a symbiotic relationship.

That's very interesting. Am I wrong in thinking that that isn't that common for Christians? I know you were very keen to point out that most Christians do not take something as literally true simply because it is in the Bible, but is it the case that there are many Christians who don't take "truths" in the meanings sense of the word simply because they are in the Bible?
A lot of Christians that I know for example would say that something like polagamy is wrong, but wouldn't have a reason for that beyond that that's what their religion teaches. Do you think I'm being unfair in thinking that that's a common sort of position?

 

[sojourner]

That's very interesting. Am I wrong in thinking that that isn't that common for Christians? I know you were very keen to point out that most Christians do not take something as literally true simply because it is in the Bible, but is it the case that there are many Christians who don't take "truths" in the meanings sense of the word simply because they are in the Bible?
A lot of Christians that I know for example would say that something like polagamy is wrong, but wouldn't have a reason for that beyond that that's what their religion teaches. Do you think I'm being unfair in thinking that that's a common sort of position?

Unfortunately, too many people park their brains at the church door. That's why slavery was condoned for so long. The Bible can be read to support slavery. I believe it's the same for homosexuality. While the Bible informs our morality, our morality must also inform how we read the Bible. it's just not that cut-and-dried.

(This post is gonna garner some umbrage...):help:

 

[doppelganger]

A lot of Christians that I know for example would say that something like polagamy is wrong, but wouldn't have a reason for that beyond that that's what their religion teaches. Do you think I'm being unfair in thinking that that's a common sort of position?

How do you understand an objective measure of the difference between what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

 

[Æsahættr]

How do you understand an objective measure of the difference between what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

I don't believe that there is a genuinelly objective measure of that difference. I think that the best that you can do is to start from a position that hardly anyone would agree with. For example, I might make it an assumption as part of an argument about morality that it is wrong to cause pain to another human being for no reason other than your own pleasure. From that and other assumptions like that, it's often possible to make an argument along those lines. If someone refuses to accept that, then you have to try for another assumption that is even more universally accepted. The further back you go the harder it becomes.
So that's basically how I see arguments about morality. "If you believe that, then you must believe this."

Edit: If we want to carry on much more we probably ought to start another thread. I think the question of whether God exists went out the window a few pages back.

 

[michel]

I don't believe that there is a genuinelly objective measure of that difference. I think that the best that you can do is to start from a position that hardly anyone would agree with. For example, I might make it an assumption as part of an argument about morality that it is wrong to cause pain to another human being for no reason other than your own pleasure. From that and other assumptions like that, it's often possible to make an argument along those lines. If someone refuses to accept that, then you have to try for another assumption that is even more universally accepted. The further back you go the harder it becomes.
So that's basically how I see arguments about morality. "If you believe that, then you must believe this."

I agree, and what is more, the difference between "right" and "wrong" differs from culture to culture; there are no absolutes.

 

[doppelganger]

For example, I might make it an assumption as part of an argument about morality that it is wrong to cause pain to another human being for no reason other than your own pleasure.

Why is that? Is it the unversalization of your own desire not to be harmed (ala Kant's "categorical imperative") or is it a feeling, intuition or aesthetic from a sense of connection to others? A little of both? Or something else entirely?

And yes, we should probably have some break this into a new thread. Maybe something called "How Do We Know 'Right' and 'Wrong.'"

EDIT: On second thought, maybe it doesn't need to be a new thread. I have a suspicion that if it continues, this discussion will soon turn back to the OP.

 

[Æsahættr]

Why is that? Is it the unversalization of your own desire not to be harmed (ala Kant's "categorical imperative") or is it a feeling, intuition or aesthetic from a sense of connection to others? A little of both? Or something else entirely?

It is a feeling, but also, very importantly, it is a feeling that, when I follow the logic of it along with following the logic of my other feelings, does not lead to any consistancies. Sometimes I do get inconsistancies, and in that case I decide which feeling is stronger, and abandon the other one.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, parts of it do. And the assumptions of literalism may run very deep indeed into Christian tradition.

And I'm not arguing with your claim that most people who identify themselves as "Christian" feel obligated to read significant parts of it literally. Nor am I saying that parts of the stories did or did not literally happen. My point is that I can find "truth" in it for myself by deciding for myself what meanings different stories in it have for me. By that same token, you may read it and find none of it has a signficant meaning to you.

That is, I think, the very depiction of "spiritual truth," that is, when the events of the Bible, whether real or not (it doesn't matter), are related back to your own life, to have significance there.

Astrology works much the same way.

 

[doppelganger]

It is a feeling, but also, very importantly, it is a feeling that, when I follow the logic of it along with following the logic of my other feelings, does not lead to any consistancies. Sometimes I do get inconsistancies, and in that case I decide which feeling is stronger, and abandon the other one.

Can you describe the feeling? And how you know one to be "stronger"?

 

[Æsahættr]

Can you describe the feeling? And how you know one to be "stronger"?

Sorry for late reply. By feeling I mean that I have a sense of disgust at the thought of something that goes against my instinctival morality. That's a documented psychological things. As for which one is stronger, it's like comparing which one of 2 physical things I find disgusting I find more disgusting.

 

[Ezzedean]

Natural disasters aside, if God knows the thoughts of everyone, he should know that a person will ill treat someone in advance, so why not strike him/her down before he/she commits to the act? And why should God waste time judging someone that commited mallicious (sp) rape or murder anyway?

He would be a candidate for Hell in my book.

The good people who go through bad things will more than likely be willing to go through those bad things a million times over once they see their reward... and the ones who did the bad to those good people will probobly beg God for just one more chance to make it right.

As for the whole inecest point you bring up. It's a very good point. It is a question I asked to, and had a very difficult time with. Islamically it explains the situation a little bit. It states that when Eve would become pregnant she would give birth to twins, one male, one female... then when she would become pregnant again she would give birth to one male and one female yet again... The males for the females. Now this is still incest but God made it so until it was no longer needed, and then he made it forbidden. Now that is in hadith. It is mentioned in the Quran that Adam and Eve were with the nation of Adam and the nation on Eve (men and women)... now either that was from the very get go or it was something that had happened eventually, I don't know. All I know is God made it lawful until it was no longer needed, and then He made it forbidden.

 

[Katzpur]

Murder, rape, or intent to cause death or serious physical injury malliciously or with premeditation. For that, you should die, no forgiveness, no repenting, dont pass go, do not collect 200$. But if God can do anything, he should be able to stop people doing these things before they do them.

God sees a pedophile walking out of his house, this creep is on his way to an autistic center with the intent of raping a child. BAM, strike him down, he's done game over. Because our justice system will either give him 7 years in prison where he will get out and possibly do this again or he will never be caught and have the freedom to rape another child the next day. God knows all, strike him down, problem solved.

You obviously missed my entire point. There are people in the world who believe that God should "strike down" homosexuals, Mormons or athiests. It's pure nonsense for any of us to say who God should "strike down." Sure, rape and murder are horrible crimes against humanity, but you take just any ten posters on RF and ask them to draw the line determining who God should zap, and you may very well get ten different opinions. What's so special about your opinion that God should weight it more heavily than anyone else's?

 

[doppelganger]

Sorry for late reply. By feeling I mean that I have a sense of disgust at the thought of something that goes against my instinctival morality. That's a documented psychological things. As for which one is stronger, it's like comparing which one of 2 physical things I find disgusting I find more disgusting.

Imagine having a metaphorical story or symbol that embodies that feeling for you. Perhaps "believers" have similar feelings about what feels right to them, but they aren't as analytical in their expression of it as you or I?

Do you trust yourself to always make the "right" decision between these feelings? Have you ever made a choice that felt "wrong" at the time you made it? Have you ever made a choice that felt "right" when you made it, but you later felt disgusted about what you did?

 

[roli]

Beyond our ability to comprehend in the natural state of human intellect ,but by His Spirit we can know the things that He has given us,who He is ,why He is here.
Only by accepting Jesus as Savior will we know things that the natural mind will never grasp

 

[Willamena]

Beyond our ability to comprehend in the natural state of human intellect ,but by His Spirit we can know the things that He has given us,who He is ,why He is here.
Only by accepting Jesus as Savior will we know things that the natural mind will never grasp

...and that is?

 

[roli]

...and that is?

There is so much, were should I begin,
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
Not to insult your intelligence,You may understand some simple truths of the word of God but you will never comprehend the truth and full message from God because He is Spirit and unless we are spiritually born again from above can we pick up the signal of God.
Not my boastful proclaimation but Gods word says so as I was once blinded to the spirit of God
Mat 11:25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Mat 13:11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you

1Cr 1:23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; Jews represent the religious and the greek the philosophical

Satan has blinded the unbeliever
2Cr 4:4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
1Cr 2:10But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.