How can a God exist?

[Willamena]

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.

Okay; so don't trust anything that people tell ye.

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

So... you are Matthew reincarnated?

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

But what does that mean, to you?

Satan has blinded the unbeliever

But what does that mean, to you?

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.

But the real question is: If these are "things that the natural mind can never grasp" and we are of the natural mind, then how can we claim understanding of them?

 

[doppelganger]

but by His Spirit we can know the things that He has given us

That's a very rich and interesting symbol. Roli, can you describe your personal experience of what it's like to "know things by His Spirit" please?

 

[michel]

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?

I am not even sure that that is the point, Kathryn. I believe that everything that happens, whether good, or bad, has a purpose. We are put on Earth with free will; it is our choice.

Those who suffer because of others' misdeeds often become kinder and more understanding people.

 

[Simon Gnosis]

First post here, from an agnostic.

How can a God exist when...innocent "God fearing" children, or anyone for that matter, are killed, raped, or inhumanely treated daily? All over the world? And apparently God created the earth in 7 days when it's been proven that species have evolved over millions of years to produce what we have today. I went to a Lutheran school where theology class taught that God created life and then went to science class where I was taught the "big bang theory" in essence. Isnt this a pretty big contridiction? Or did God cause the "big bang" And if incest is against God's will, why did he create only 2 humans to begin humanty? In order to populate the earth, incest had to take place. And if life began with only 2 people, then arent all the people on earth therefore related?

Religion makes absolutely zero sense to me, someone please explain.

And man I hate the term "God fearing" Why should you fear God?

I will attempt to answer each question from my Gnostic/Hindu perspective.

Q How can a God exist when...innocent "God fearing" children, or anyone for that matter, are killed........
Reason 1

Life forms simply could not exist within the parameters of this universe without death in all its forms.
Life forms are merely energy systems bound by the same laws of energy conservation and physics that govern star systems and molecules.
Therefore no creature (man or beast or flora) can be or will be 'unkillable' the fundamental physical laws that shape the elemental systems that define our planetary ecology would not permit such an aberration for long even if it did occur.

Reason 2
Physical existance is an aspect of the multidimensional reality we inhabit that we only partly percieve.
Given the evidence we have of the spirit world and other phenomena i would argue that discorporation is not necessarily the end for any conciousness.
Therefore death may be a necessary part of some unknown cycle, even for the individual.

This is a semi religous view and should be treated as such.

Q And apparently God created the earth in 7 days when it's been proven that species have evolved over millions of years to produce what we have today. I went to a Lutheran school where theology class taught that God created life and then went to science class where I was taught the "big bang theory" in essence. Isnt this a pretty big contridiction?

Answer
Over billions of years actually, but yes the bible should not be interpreted literally throughout, no one studied astrophysics or had access to telescopes at the time..
I believe that the disputed length of time of creation is largely irrelevant...the fact is the entire universe apparently exploded out of nothing, condensed into thick clouds of gas which underwent further gravitational collapse to form stars and later with the onset of stellar nucleo synthesis in 2nd generation stars, eventually forming planets, one watery one in particular is inhabited by a hominid by the name of Simon whom is right now earnestly tapping away on an ash stained keyboard debating the existance of God on a world wide network of computers...I find all this quite amazing anyway, 7 days or 15 billion years, so what?
At least 15 billion years makes the universe seem a little credible and not completely weird.

Q And if incest is against God's will, why did he create only 2 humans to begin humanty? In order to populate the earth, incest had to take place. And if life began with only 2 people, then arent all the people on earth therefore related?

Well actually all humans do share a common ancestor, this is part of the biological definition of a species.
So in a very real but distant way 'Adam' and 'Eve' did exist....that's coming from a devout scientist.
I may be english but the german waiter in dusseldorf i have never met or even heard of is a distant cousin, because at one time thousands of years ago his great great great great etc grandad's brother went off to the briton island to help kill romans and eventually settled down with a lovely briton girl and had lots of 'english' babies my great great great great great etc.. grandad being one of them.
These links are real and countless, go far back enough and it will dawn on you that in fact the cat is a distant relative!
Oh yes......evolution folks.
But remember what you share is DNA, and that is the key to understanding the whole point of evolution, you will realise that species are merely stages of evolution through which our DNA passes.
We are but expressions of the immortal genetic code that has been around since bacteria first formed, segments of which are shared by all animals and even plants.
Yes you are related to your houseplant...I kid ye not.
Incest is simply wrong for all sorts of reasons and I don't need a priest or God to explain to me why.

Phew...:cigar:

 

[Æsahættr]

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?

Now you're getting into the questions of where instinctival morality comes from. I, not believing in an external code of morality, think that it is nothing more than a set of morals that has evolved, possibly part genetically as well as culturally.

I think that even believers would probably say that not all feelings about morality are simply from God. For example, people tend to be much more disgusted by the idea of killing someone with their bare hands than pushing a button to kill them. That suggests that at least some of that reaction has evolved, and that disgust of murder has not yet had enough time to fully reach the new ways of killing people that we've developed recently.

So if you're looking for a similarity between how I would see myself as making moral decisions and how a believer would describe themselves as making them, I think there isn't too much similarity. A believer has to discertain exactly which of those feelings are from their deity, with the principle in place that any feelings of morality from their deity are the final word on a subject. Whereas for me, no feeling can ever be a final word, because all are potentially vulnerable to me realising that they are incompatible with others.

Do you trust yourself to always make the "right" decision between these feelings?

Whenever I make a moral decision that is a case of picking between two incompatible feelings, I will go with the one that felt stronger at the time. At another time it might be that another feels stronger. The only way to measure whether a feeling is stronger than another feeling is to see which wins out in a situation like that. Since I don't believe in free will, I don't think it's possible to go with the feeling that is not as strong.

Have you ever made a choice that felt "wrong" at the time you made it?

Yes, when I force myself to choose between two contradictory feelings. Even though as I said above I don't think it's possible to go with the weaker feeling, the act of defying that weaker feeling still feels wrong. Of course though, in any situation where it feels wrong to make that choice, it would have felt wrong whatever I did, unless I do not make the connection that that action implies something that I feel is wrong.

Have you ever made a choice that felt "right" when you made it, but you later felt disgusted about what you did?

Yes, I don't think that instinctival morality is unchanging.

 

[doppelganger]

So if you're looking for a similarity between how I would see myself as making moral decisions and how a believer would describe themselves as making them, I think there isn't too much similarity.

I wasn't really. I was looking at a possible similarity in the feeling rather than the symbols attached to the feeling, which I'd like to discuss in more detail.

Yes, when I force myself to choose between two contradictory feelings. Even though as I said above I don't think it's possible to go with the weaker feeling, the act of defying that weaker feeling still feels wrong. Of course though, in any situation where it feels wrong to make that choice, it would have felt wrong whatever I did, unless I do not make the connection that that action implies something that I feel is wrong.

That's sort of a tautology. I get your meaning though, I think.
I take it from your statements about free will that you're familiar with B.F. Skinner's work.

Yes, I don't think that instinctival morality is unchanging.

I tend to agree with that because of research on brain damage or alterations in brain chemistry as a possible factor in the development of sociopathy. Even more important to our current discussion though, I want to explore the following:

Imagine now that you have those feelings you describe, but throughout your childhood you've been socially immersed in a culture (parents, siblings, friends, neighbors, religious gatherings, entertainment, reading materials) where those natural feelings were redirected through a process of socialization and training so that they were connected not just with the basic feelings of "right" and "wrong" conduct but with certain visual and linguistic symbols.

Are you with me?

 

[ayani]

here's my take on suffering-

God has created us to love, to strive to rise above our basic desires and impulses, and to choose compassion over apathy. we can not know why we suffer ultimately- though often our suffering is caused by the cruelty, carelessness, indifference of other people.

i find that part of the spiritual life includes, to a huge extent, looking beyond myself to see the suffering, needfulness, worth, and gifts of others. perhaps through prayer we can be delivered from suffering- but when i pray, i pray for God's spirit to give me strength to endure suffering and to reach out sans aversion or preference to those who do suffer.

mother teresa wrote a book which adresses the problem of suffering beautifully- it's called "no greater love". you needn't agree with everything she proposes to enjoy it, and be moved by it.

 

[roli]

[

quote=Willamena]Okay; so don't trust anything that people tell ye.

Quoteosted by roli 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.

Well,if a persons desire all there life is to pursue and seek for knowledge of the world,trust who you will in your pursuit,but when it comes to God, seek those who walk,talk and live in the realm of the Spirit where God dwells,they may lead you to him,that's where JESUS dwelled.Jesus said follow me,and I will make disciples to go and teach. But our job is to receieve by faith that Jesus is who he says,recognise our sin and repent. Then will our spiritualk eyes open.
When you receive His Spirit you will walk in the truth of who He is and what He says about you,why we are here,where we are going,why is the world what it is.

There is so much information both factual and speculative in the area of philosophy and science about our world and for me knowledge is very intriguing to say the least, but it can go on endlessly without finding the truths that most, if not all of us are really looking for,where did we come from ,why am I here ,and where will I go.
We are no further ahead in our reasoning minds and answers to life's greates questions, then back in the ancient greek philosophers day's,
Phiolosphy is still trying to reason God and all aspects attributed to Him
When it comes to the lord our natural approachs must change in order to know Him,yet in our world it stays the same, using our natural faculties to try to understand and know God,
Why?,he is Spirit, and secondly, he cannot be ascertained by our physical abilities like we use to understand the world, we cannot find him,understand him, hear him or believe (means to trust rely and adhere).but by His Spirit

So... you are Matthew reincarnated?

No, just spiritually born from above, an experience and relationship with God far beyond the rational mind to understand, you will never know what I or any born again Christian means unless you turn to Jesus.Repent and confess, then you will know
Very simple, yet apparently so very complicated to some, that is why the most religious of Jesus day were blinded by the the simple truths and parables,because they just do not compute in our reasoning minds,but the simplicity of the gospel is this
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein

But what does that mean, to you?

Posted by roli 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
The natural man lives in the area of reason,logic,scientific study,knowledge,facts,senses,they are all good ,but to find ,experience and to know God these will not work ,look back in history,the skeptics of God and his existence ,purpose,and nature are still a point of debate,not so with the Christian.
We do not relate to God, or know Him through our intellectual,or reasoning mind ,but by the Spirit

But the real question is: If these are "things that the natural mind can never grasp" and we are of the natural mind, then how can we claim understanding of them?

[/quote]
Don't assess and figure out the facts of Jesus, confess your sins,as there are many in all of us,repent and place your trust Jesus that He died to redeem us.
The moment a person does that from a pure heart and not just for a kick,the Spirit of God will eneter and you will see the light of truth .
Send a personal message if you want to discuss this further.
I could explain forever,but it will do no good unless you step out in faith.

 

[Æsahættr]

Imagine now that you have those feelings you describe, but throughout your childhood you've been socially immersed in a culture (parents, siblings, friends, neighbors, religious gatherings, entertainment, reading materials) where those natural feelings were redirected through a process of socialization and training so that they were connected not just with the basic feelings of "right" and "wrong" conduct but with certain visual and linguistic symbols.

Are you with me?

In what way do you mean that the natural feelings are connected to symbols? Do you mean that certain feelings are associated with certain symbols, or that people are trained so that certain symbols evoke certain feelings? Maybe if you have an example I'd follow you a bit better.

I take it from your statements about free will that you're familiar with B.F. Skinner's work.

Not as much as I should be I'm afraid, although what I do know of it I find fascinating, and I tend to agree with his conclusions.

 

[Daniyal]

I find in humerous that humans, who have hardly touched the surface of comprehending 'each other' can try to even immediately comprehend God, the most merciful, the infinite.

 

[doppelganger]

In what way do you mean that the natural feelings are connected to symbols? Do you mean that certain feelings are associated with certain symbols, or that people are trained so that certain symbols evoke certain feelings? Maybe if you have an example I'd follow you a bit better.

Here's a concrete example. A Muslim can condition himself (or be conditioned) to associate that strong feeling of "right" and the feeling of "disgust" at "wrong"-ness that you describe with the necessity of performing the daily prayers. Thus, there is a very real experience of "right"-ness associated with the ritual itself.

It may be hard for you to imagine, but try to imagine what it would be like to not quite have a sense of who you really are, but chose (or had chosen for you) a pre-formed set of symbols by which to express your experience of being as part of a community. Think of what it would be like if you were conditioned to be harshly critical of yourself when you violated a set of rules that had been provided for you as part of this identity, and set up with the expectation that you were essentially "bad" or "sinful" such that you could not trust yourself to make your own decisions about "right" and "wrong."

 

[Simon Gnosis]

I find in humerous that humans, who have hardly touched the surface of comprehending 'each other' can try to even immediately comprehend God, the most merciful, the infinite.

Not all humans are the same.
Some see with their eyes some perceive with their minds and some 'know' with their souls.
You can not know all mankind, there are many I have met whom are spiritually strong, deeply resonant with nature and highly empathic towards their fellow beings.
These people don't just know God, they are Godlike.

 

[bender118]

People always think that God is running around, throwing switches, monitoring levels, and pushing buttons to keep the universe running.

God didn't create virus', the angels are the ones who perform the life experiments. DNA is their creation and it is a much, much, more capable vehicle than you can imagine. We won't always have only two strands of DNA. We are evolving. It doesn't happen slowly, it happens suddenly, in spurts. And a spurt is coming.

But yes, I believe even the angels are surprised at the amount of genetic disease and cancer's that we have. This is what happens when you try something new. Would you rather be a human, subject to a virus, or would you rather be the virus itself?

God needs us because we are His children. He sends a fragment of Himself to attach with us (it's called the soul) and through it He is able to experience the third dimensional universe, not from His lofty view but from yours.

You seem to not know how evolution happens. IT wont happen enmasse, but slowly the group with the mutated genes will live longer and so the populace gadulally changes. This means the western world will not evolve. Our mortality rate is much much to low. Second, Angels(assuming they exist of course) allowed macro-evolution to happen for to rapidly on a very small scale. Second, I doubt they created viruses, but they screwed up royally an enabled small amoutns of protien and dna whihc were the wastes of cells to form together. In essence, assuming life, the universe, and everything was created by a group of people, they f***ked up royal.

 

[Super Universe]

You seem to not know how evolution happens. IT wont happen enmasse, but slowly the group with the mutated genes will live longer and so the populace gadulally changes. This means the western world will not evolve. Our mortality rate is much much to low. Second, Angels(assuming they exist of course) allowed macro-evolution to happen for to rapidly on a very small scale. Second, I doubt they created viruses, but they screwed up royally an enabled small amoutns of protien and dna whihc were the wastes of cells to form together. In essence, assuming life, the universe, and everything was created by a group of people, they f***ked up royal.

I don't know how evolution happens but you do?

The western world will not evolve? Where does Darwin's theory say that populations with a low mortality rate will not be able to breed in more beneficial genes? Who says the beneficial genes won't come from the Western world?

Virus' are DNA and RNA. How do you create life without using DNA or RNA there supergenius?

 

[bender118]

I don't know how evolution happens but you do?

The western world will not evolve? Where does Darwin's theory say that populations with a low mortality rate will not be able to breed in more beneficial genes? Who says the beneficial genes won't come from the Western world?

Virus' are DNA and RNA. How do you create life without using DNA or RNA there supergenius?

I never said that DNA and RNA never existed. Darwin does state a high mortality rate is needed. Some calaminty needs to happen that lets those of us with a certain mutation live longer. If a mutation occurs that lets us live longer, it wont affect the western world for the large part unless something drastic happens to raise our mortality rate enough that the gene has a benfit that helps in survival. Second, evolution tends to happen in an area of fierce competition for basic resources, like food. The western world, for the most part, has an abundance of basic supplies, so we won't see any evolutionary jumps in the western world. Instead evolution will be more likely to occur in africa, or some other area where the mortality rate is ridiculously high. Those conditions give the gene a tangible use and will cause an evolution to occur. And my point is that angels or whoever created viruses obviously screwd up rather badly, as viruses evolve faste then we can create cures for them, nullifying the idea of a super-cure all. Should souch a miracle come about, we will see bacterium simply mutate in one or two generations to develope an immunity to the cure all. Its already happening with pennicillin.

 

[Super Universe]

I never said that DNA and RNA never existed. Darwin does state a high mortality rate is needed. Some calaminty needs to happen that lets those of us with a certain mutation live longer. If a mutation occurs that lets us live longer, it wont affect the western world for the large part unless something drastic happens to raise our mortality rate enough that the gene has a benfit that helps in survival. Second, evolution tends to happen in an area of fierce competition for basic resources, like food. The western world, for the most part, has an abundance of basic supplies, so we won't see any evolutionary jumps in the western world. Instead evolution will be more likely to occur in africa, or some other area where the mortality rate is ridiculously high. Those conditions give the gene a tangible use and will cause an evolution to occur. And my point is that angels or whoever created viruses obviously screwd up rather badly, as viruses evolve faste then we can create cures for them, nullifying the idea of a super-cure all. Should souch a miracle come about, we will see bacterium simply mutate in one or two generations to develope an immunity to the cure all. Its already happening with pennicillin.

You complained about virus' which are DNA and RNA. You think the angels could have done better? How?

No calamity is necessary. An individual or group with a certain beneficial mutation only need to live to breeding age to distribute it. A calamity is certainly not necessary for that. Where are you getting this information from?

Where is your evidence that evolution tends to happen in areas where there is competition for food? Any population pressure can lead to evolution. Female peacocks prefer males with bright tails so their genes are selectively passed on. This has nothing to do with the available food supply.

A high mortality rate also does not increase the chances for evolution. In fact, it's just the opposite.

The angels did not screw up. Would you rather be a monkey?

You think the universe was created so human beings could live fantastic lives or live happily forever on the earth? You think God is all about you or that He should be most concerned with your wishes? It's not about you but somehow I don't think you will understand that.

Now you are going on about bacteria?

I should remind you of an old story. There once was a chicken who yelled "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Sound familiar?

 

[bender118]

You complained about virus' which are DNA and RNA. You think the angels could have done better? How?

No calamity is necessary. An individual or group with a certain beneficial mutation only need to live to breeding age to distribute it. A calamity is certainly not necessary for that. Where are you getting this information from?

Where is your evidence that evolution tends to happen in areas where there is competition for food? Any population pressure can lead to evolution. Female peacocks prefer males with bright tails so their genes are selectively passed on. This has nothing to do with the available food supply.

A high mortality rate also does not increase the chances for evolution. In fact, it's just the opposite.

The angels did not screw up. Would you rather be a monkey?

You think the universe was created so human beings could live fantastic lives or live happily forever on the earth? You think God is all about you or that He should be most concerned with your wishes? It's not about you but somehow I don't think you will understand that.

Now you are going on about bacteria?

I should remind you of an old story. There once was a chicken who yelled "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Sound familiar?

TThey allowed macro-evolution ot occur in a parasite in a matter of generations. This means they either A. a screw up or B They want to make our lives as miserable as possible
In order for evolution to occur, a large percentage of people must not make it to the age where they could bred. The gene must allow a group of people to have a higher chance of reaching said age. If that condition is not met, you have a possibly useful gene just taking up a small percentage of the population mantaining a certain percentage. This is not evolution. A high mortality rate generally means people die young, so a change in the populations geome will take place. Most areas in the western world do not have people dying before 50, much less 18(less i suppose if you want), so the purpose of this gene would be useless the population planned to er breed at the age of 50 **shudders**.
In such an environment evolution wont occur, there is no need for evolution. This means evolution wont occur. Unless some radical mutation occurs giving people super strength and laser eyes and they plan to irradicate all people without those abilities, we are in our final form. We are no where near perfect, but we are stuck where we are. As a matter if fact I would not mind being a monkey, because if I was a monkey, I would not know what being a human would be like and therefore I would be happy. The life of an ameoba doesn't sound bad either

 

[Super Universe]

Your evolutionary ideas do not agree with current theory. They're your own inventions and have no support in reality. But you should continue your argument in another thread because we are off topic for this one.

 

[bender118]

Your evolutionary ideas do not agree with current theory. They're your own inventions and have no support in reality. But you should continue your argument in another thread because we are off topic for this one.

eh no support?
macro evolution is happening daily. Look right here
That is the very definition of macro-evolution. A dog cell turned into an invasive parasite in two generations

 

[Super Universe]

TThey allowed macro-evolution ot occur in a parasite in a matter of generations. This means they either A. a screw up or B They want to make our lives as miserable as possible

Once again supergenius, since you ignored this question last time, how do you create life based on DNA and RNA that does not have virus' that are DNA and RNA?

In order for evolution to occur, a large percentage of people must not make it to the age where they could bred. The gene must allow a group of people to have a higher chance of reaching said age. If that condition is not met, you have a possibly useful gene just taking up a small percentage of the population mantaining a certain percentage. This is not evolution. A high mortality rate generally means people die young, so a change in the populations geome will take place. Most areas in the western world do not have people dying before 50, much less 18(less i suppose if you want), so the purpose of this gene would be useless the population planned to er breed at the age of 50 **shudders**. In such an environment evolution wont occur, there is no need for evolution. This means evolution wont occur.

Your theory is not based on current science. To be distributed a gene only needs to go from one person to another through reproduction. Reproduction does not happen over the age of 50 so your theory is incorrect.

Unless some radical mutation occurs giving people super strength and laser eyes and they plan to irradicate all people without those abilities, we are in our final form. We are no where near perfect, but we are stuck where we are. As a matter if fact I would not mind being a monkey, because if I was a monkey, I would not know what being a human would be like and therefore I would be happy. The life of an ameoba doesn't sound bad either

Mutation does bring in new genes but since human's are so highly complex most mutations do harm.