Just another thread about religion.

Post Reply New Topic

Avoiding the question. If we suppose God exists, what traits would ANYONE expect God to have? Merely answering that God doesn't exist only reflects your own bias and refusal to understand how some people come to reason that God does exist. A biased answer just doesn't cut it.


People dislike being mistreated. If anybody up there cares at all, whoever that is would ultimately have to serve as an advocate for those who feel they have been treated unfairly. Buddhism, for example, offers that perfect peace exists for those who "get it." So even in Buddhism, which doesn't really seem to recognize that there even IS a God or any deity, at the very least answers for injustice and offers relief for those seeking justice. There is, ultimately, eternal reward for "goodness" and punishment for evil. All faiths possess some sense of goodness and seeking what is best for all mankind. This doesn't make much sense if goodness is NOT a divine attribute on some level.


The short answer is that if Supreme Being isn't, then there aren't really any divine ideals for human beings to aspire to. Even in pluralistic religions, all gods demand something of their human subjects. Any god or goddess will be good and perfect and just in his or her own point of view. Since if any god exists there can only be One, then there is only one standard to adhere to. That doesn't necessarily mean that all human beings agree on what "good" is, but a god would know what a god wants and expects and would not depend on the approval of human beings to even know that. I just don't happen to believe that a divine standard is really such a mystery.


Not really. Anybody can come to the same conclusions regardless of religious or irreligious background. Pluralistic religions merely attribute good traits to some gods and evil traits to others, sometimes at various times. Shiva, for instance, is the destroyer, but is also an agent of transformation. So, which is it? Is Shiva to be celebrated or avoided? It makes more sense if one is devoted to Shiva, does good out of reverence of Shiva, and leaves destruction as the fate of Shiva's enemies (or the enemies of Shiva's people).

If that resembles Christianity, then perhaps it could be that Christianity makes more sense. So rather than it being a Christian presupposition, I'd say perhaps Christianity is simply the superior conclusion. No, I don't care to argue in that direction right now. All I'll say for the time being is that if one is to believe in any kind of deity at all, monotheism makes much more sense than anything else. Further, if such a deity exists, it follows that such a deity would be pleased by some things and displeased by others. That which is pleasing would be "good" and that which is not would be "evil." That is something that exists in every religion. So you could easily come to the conclusion that there really is only ONE God and that any god worth serving would necessarily be good.

I was just stating the fact that not a single trait would every thesis expect god to have. You may think the traits of the Hindu of Greek gods are absurd. The believers don't think so. I did not say god does not exist anywhere.

[/quote]

People dislike being mistreated. If anybody up there cares at all, whoever that is would ultimately have to serve as an advocate for those who feel they have been treated unfairly. [/quote]
Wrong. If god exists and is bad then it is a fact. The believers have no choice.


Again you are presupposing such a thing as divine ideal. Many deists don't believe that.


Makes more sense to YOU. Both make equally (non)sense to me.

It's not that the traits of any Hindu, Greek, or Scandinavian god are absurd. It's just more likely that if any god exists, the traits we ascribe to a pantheon of gods, and I mean ANY pantheon, are really just common traits of One God. Obviously, no, their believers disagree. I can understand why, also. Getting back to the whole "problem of evil," I can see why one would think if there are opposing forces (good/evil) in the world, especially if the bad guy wins and the good guy loses, that there must be multiple gods responsible for the chaos in the world. I just think that it makes more sense that, for lack of a better term, the forces of good are superior and in control over the forces of evil. Let's say that there really are multiple gods. If all gods are in agreement and genuinely interested in the welfare of human beings, then they are One in purpose and nature. It is just as well that they really are one. Coincidentally, Yahweh is often referred to Elohim, which is a plural word.

OK, no you didn't say god does not exist, but you did say "'God' is just a vacuous utterance with no meaning whatever." For the point of this discussion, we have to accept that there is some meaning here, even if we don't universally agree what that meaning is.


Well, the believers make the choice to believe, ergo they really do have a choice. But a "bad" god? Meh...that seems illogical to me. The reason why is conscious beings do not wish to view themselves as "bad" or "evil" or whatever. They have some kind of moral standard, even if they think that moral standard is entirely their own, and by that standard they judge themselves and what they do as good. The difference, though, is people can make mistakes and second-guess themselves. If a sovereign God exists, His decisions cannot be questioned (in which sense, no, the believers do NOT have a choice, but neither do the unbelievers). So...what exactly IS good vs. bad, or good vs. evil? If the standard for good/evil exists only in the mind, then whether God is good or evil is relative. Moral relativity doesn't actually exist, though, since moral truths are always absolute to the mind that recognizes them. The believer has to make the decision whether his own moral truths are preferable as a standard for what is good or if there is a believable source to determine whether that of any given deity is preferable as a standard. Saying that a universal Supreme Being is "bad" because you don't like what that Being has to say is really just stating an opinion shaped by personal preferences and/or biases. That Being Himself would not consider Himself to be evil and would consider His own standard as absolute, especially if He's the guy who created everything for His own purpose. Granted, that IS a modern Christian idea, but the same would apply to any deity considered to be a superior god of any religion.

What you would have to decide as a believer is whether you think any given god is good or evil in order to decide to follow/accept that god as a personal god. You could decide that the actions of any given god resembles that more of evil demons and lesser unworthy deities and thus that god is unworthy of worship.


That's your problem, not mine. Even if there is no God at all, it is an unfortunate waste of human imagination to be unable to conceive of any at all, for the sake of discussion if nothing else.

i think its a shame to invent such simplistic stories when looked in relation to the true physical world, so much stranger than any fiction by a factor of grahams number.

Just your wishful thinking? You like a movie where the good guy wins.


The problem is there is no universal agreement on the meaning of god, and there is no unbiased way to prefer one to the other. Therefore no discussion is possible to begin with.

Anyway, Christianity isn't convincing me.
You can claim it to make the most sense but I don't see all this sense.
Why would a god anyway be a being that would make sense to you, if god really was that supreme he could be as illogical as he want.
And further more, if he then created us, wich I am not convinced off, and knows our every tougths and exactly how we are, then he shouldn't be mad when we doubt his existince, I don't claim to know for certain wether there is a god, but I don't see how doubting it is wrong. Sounds like a rather strange and childish game the way the christian god spreads his faith and send doubters to hell when he knows damn well how humans are while he is supposed to be all powerfull, so he would be able to convince us all in the blink of a eye if he wanted but no his method is rather ... not what I would expect from all knowing, powerfull, fair and good being.
Even if for some who knows what reason he did it this way, well like I said, he supposed to have created us and know our toughts and everything, so yeah, he can't blame us if his method just isn't that convincing to some and if some of us just aren't jumping to follow religions that don't make sense to them. If he wanted it to be clear to all, he just should have been that.
He can't blame me for being a human and having my doubts, would be rather his own fault, not?

He COULD be as illogical as He wanted to be, but the problem is that any time you're dealing with a conscious mind, whether human or not, there is always some logic or structure to thinking. I mean, take even a schizophrenic. His behavior may seem illogical to mentally healthy people, but his erratic behavior is a response to his delusions. If you can get inside his head and experience what he experiences, then suddenly the behaviors would make sense, even if those behaviors are in error. Now, do I have a direct line into God's mind? No. But as long as conscious entities do things for reasons, I have no reason to doubt God has His own reasons. Whether I see the logic or not is ultimately irrelevant. But, then again, the human mind is also capable of coming up with reasons why, even if only speculative. It is conceivable that IF there is a reason, it COULD be...whatever.


According to the Bible, God doesn't hold us eternally guilty for doubting Him. It's only if something spiritual is made plain to us, is inexplicable as anything but, and we continually dismiss it. Suppose God showed right up and introduced Himself to you--would you believe it's God or would you simply dismiss it as a hallucination? The Bible records instances of the presence of His Spirit was directly visible to His chosen people, and even some of those rejected God. There's no reason to believe it really would be any different now than it was then.


Doubting is not wrong. God gave us discerning minds for a reason. But I don't think experiencing God is really all that hidden from people. It's just that people make up their minds too quickly and reject God wholesale.


Actually, the opposite is true. Sure, God COULD convince us all in the blink of an eye, and the Bible says that day will eventually come. But in the meantime, it would be unjust to somehow just instantly program us to believe what we don't want to believe.

In a sense, God can't win here. Think about it. If you don't want a God, He would be against His own good nature to condemn you to an eternity in His presence. If you don't want a God, you won't get a God. However, you seem to believe that hell is unfair. Well, if hell is unfair, wouldn't believing in God do you more justice?

I see it two ways:
1. Person spends lifetime rejecting God
2. God excuses the behavior anyway, allows person into heaven.
3. Person is miserable in heaven because he has to spend eternity worshiping God against his will.
4. God loses.

The alternative:
1. Person spends lifetime rejecting God.
2. God sends person out of His presence into what we commonly refer to as Hell ("Hell" isn't in the Bible, btw, but is rather an English analog to related words in Greek and Hebrew)
3. Person is miserable in hell despite God's merciful granting of same person's desire to exist apart from God.
4. God loses.

So, really, it's a setup we create to make ourselves feel better. If it really bothers you that much, you can always read the Bible and learn about God's plan for humanity, experience it for yourself, and make the decision to accept His plan for your life. I love talking about this stuff, as you might be able to tell, and though I don't always have the time nor ALL the answers, I do try my best.


But you're free NOT to believe in God, right? At least God has given you a choice. If your life is spent in rebellion to God, why would you be happy in heaven WITH God?


He did that already. Humanity rejected Him. Why should it be any different NOW? It makes much more sense for people who do experience God to share their stories as a witness to what God has done for them. If you won't believe them, you wouldn't believe a dead guy coming back to life to tell you about it, and you probably wouldn't even believe God if He showed up on your front door.


No, because the circumstances that led to us being the way we are wasn't something God did directly. Now, true, God allowed to situation to become what it is, but we have ability to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions and to decide whether what we learn about God merits faith in God. If we determine that we are good and perfect human beings and everything we do is right, fair, just, and so on, then why should we need God? We don't need to be saved if there's nothing to be saved from.

Hence, if you are a good and perfect person, you don't need God anyway. You'll do just fine on your own. But if we aren't perfect and there is something greater than ourselves, then we cannot exist in any meaningful way apart from God. There is then a need for redemption and atonement.

That doesn't mean you'll never have doubts. Doubting is healthy in that you are searching for the truth. But outright rejection is not the same as doubting. It means you are no longer doubting and that you've got your mind made up that there is no God at all. I don't know exactly what you believe, since you say that Christianity isn't convincing you. You didn't say you DIDN'T believe, and that leads me to believe that you aren't completely ruling it out, either. I don't KNOW, so you'll have to explain your position more if you really care to. I do think, though, that Biblical claims on the person and nature of God do make more sense than the claims of other religions.

Abrahamic religions, among which are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. According to both the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, Abraham is the forefather of many tribes, including the Ishmaelites, Israelites, Midianites, Edomites, and others. Abraham was a descendant of Noah's son, Shem.Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus is a descendant of Abraham, while Muslims believe that Muhammad was also a descendant, through Ishmael.

So I dont understand why its just Christians that are being talked about an their beleifs in God

What about my Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters they have diffrent beleifs about God

As a Muslim, I find this entire thread to be rather funny (but primarily sad) in the multitude of profoundly amateurish comments and general paramoralistic thinking. Has anyone considered that it is simply Allah (swt) that guides whom He chooses to any given faith, and that there is no deviation from this process? Or that the concept of choosing 'which one' 'correct' God to worship is a moot point, as all monotheistic faiths by definition worship the One God? For what it is worth, I was initially 'raised' as a Christian, became aware of what I perceive to be logical flaws within the religion at about six years of age, then set out to study basically as many religions, philosophies, and schools of thought as possible. The only one I did not study was Islam, and after many years of essentially atheism followed by agnosticism, I happened to realize that I had overlooked one of the greats. So, I picked up a copy of the Qur'an, read it cover to cover seven times, and then dug deep into questioning everything imaginable about the faith. What convinced me was the absolute scientific accuracy without contradiction, and the more difficult-to-quantify fact that it was the only religious text that was genuinely and profoundly moving of all that I had read (and that is a long list...)

I pretty much left the fold of Islam in the years following 9/11 due to intense social stigma and pressure, isolation (on top of all this danged Asperger's, lol!), and a general environment of kufr (disbelief). I had reverted (converted, in the colloquial) about 1.5 years prior to that horrendous crime. Became extraordinarily arrogant and unconcerned with the religion; quite a jaded feeling to see all of these Muslim 'leaders', especially here in America, act as apologists for an event which Muslims did not have anything to do with. Not just in the sense of the purity of the faith (diametrically opposed to murder, etc.), but in the evidential sense of culpability in the commission of the crime itself. NONE.
Very disappointing indeed, but *alhamduLillah* I was guided back after re-synthesizing all processed objective worldview information with Islamic teachings after tedious, intensive study and thought. Long story short, that is. Eight year, painful process in reality.

There is a concept in Islam of 'jahiliyya' meaning ignorance, or the state of being in which one has no knowledge of the continued narration of Abrahamic (as) faiths (and others) that culminated in the final prophethood of Muhammad (saws) and completion of the Message. In these circumstances, it is generally believed and accepted that Allah (swt) simply judges one upon the quality of their individual deeds and actions throughout their worldly life - a far more egalitarian concept than that of many other religions. It is never our place as individuals to carry on as though we are the arbiters of judgment - that is for Allah (swt) alone, praise be to Him!

Do not take this incorrectly; I have respect for anyone that is capable of providing a qualification to their personal beliefs, with exception only towards polytheism. Even atheists get a hat tip, assuming again that you can back up how you base your conclusions in a logical fashion devoid of simple ad-hominem 'arguments.' Frankly, it is difficult anymore for me to understand or empathize with much beyond agnosticism, ethical philosophy, or monotheism outside of my own faith due to the argument for Islam being of sound logic and reason. I will not set about to prove the veracity of my faith in these terms, however hypocritical that may sound in light of the previous statements, but instead invite anyone to read and explanation of the Qur'an in their native language, do the research on their own terms, think critically, ask questions, and draw their own conclusions.

Then again, there are those lurking in these very forums that still believe a bunch of Saudi cavemen based out of a mountain fortress in Afghanistan defied the most heavily protected airspace in the world openly for hours undisturbed; overpowered combat trained pilots despite mostly having slight builds and boxcutters, then proceeded to fly impossible maneuvers into several targets without any measurable piloting skill. Not to mention brazenly defying the laws of physics, going as far as magically collapsing three skyscrapers with two planes, and producing such intense temperatures with what amounts essentially to refined kerosene as to keep steel molten for months afterwards. All of this directed by a powerful wizard boogeyman with a satellite phone, so feared be his magic as to die on several occasions, the last time 9.5 years after the first, all while aging in reverse throughout the timespan. None of this, of course, having anything to do with the forensic proof of nanoscopic engineered super-thermitic material evenly dispersed on a nanoscopic carbon adhesive matrix, that could only have been developed at Diamond Head or in Herzliya, and found in every dust sample tested from the destruction of said skyscrapers. No reasonable conclusions may be drawn from the acting agents of the only ideological group having de facto access to the internal framework of the buildings, a controlling interest in the government of the victimized nation (and the subsequent official 'investigation'), the sole motivation and logistical capability of conducting the attacks, and a well-documented history of this behavior in recent times, being coincidentally arrested in several locations with explosives and cash on hand after being observed in jubilant celebration of said events. Also worth overlooking is the testimony of 1500+ professional architects, structural engineers, chemists, physicists, demolition experts, pilots, first-response firefighters and EMTs on the scene, etc. contradicting the official account of events - because, after all, Popular Science called shenanigans on it. Whew.

Because all of that is scientifically incredible, logically flawed, historically irrelevant, and above all things intrinsically implies a deviant and hateful brand of dread 'anti-semitism*'

*regardless of scientific evidence and/or historic accuracy of whom exactly claims to be Semitic

Again, I have nothing against any people of faith or otherwise, unless it promotes abject racism or bigotry in the cause of aggressive violence towards others. Nor do I harbor resentment towards those who are fence-sitters, or even those diametrically opposed to the cause of religion entirely. Present your reasoning, and you have my respect. But do not toss about slander, libel, bigotry, poorly researched argument, or simpering ad-hominem attacks and expect anything polite in return. Play in the big leagues, where folks like us Muslims can say both with pride and humility that science and logic are the methodology in proving the veracity of our faith in Allah (swt) and his Messengers, angels, etc. All of them, from Muhammad (saws), Jesus (as), Moses (as), back to Abraham (as) and Adam (as), who have passed down the unchanging Message of Islam throughout recorded history, catastrophe, and beyond.

Salaams to all the Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, agnostics, and everyone else out there!

*apologies for poor grammar and verbosity