God

[angeldraws]

I was interested to read Styleys post referring to heaven and what happens there.....

Can anyone convince me that there IS a god - this is a serious question and not meant in any derogatory way, so please dont offend anyone.
Thanks
A

[mibn2cweus]

Belief in the existence of God is, in most cases, formed around an assumption that there is a force or causal agent acting on behalf of our destiny, that our wishes, hopes and dreams as well as our reason for existing and purpose in life come to a focus and point in the direction of this supposed or alleged entity.

There are three prevailing views on where this coalescence of our best interests is manifested. One belief is that the good of society is this point and as a result everyone bickers and disagrees on what is in the best interest of this diverse and complex entity we call society. A second view states that only an impartial external arbiter, a god in heaven, can make such determinations and as a result god is kicked around and finally out of the cosmos leaving humankind lost and disillusioned.

A lesser known third view to which I subscribe and when possible prescribe is that we are each as rational adult individuals responsible for our own destiny to the extent we can achieve the freedom to exercise the essential right to do so. For people like me the focus comes ultimately to the person we find when looking in the mirror of highest resolution and greatest clarity where we find the one true, merciful, caring, living god, the source and manifestation of reason hope and joy, the individual who has acknowledged and declared that they are the creator and expresser of their own destiny, that we are each of us inescapably and throughout our existence our own God.

While were at it, the devil, the enemy of those who are struggling to be responsible for their own life, is anyone who believes in and worships a lesser god and does not fight for the essential rights of the individual, promote reason as the only just means and defend the freedoms that enables each of us to fulfill our own destiny.

[naomi24]

Clanad Me a Hun? Oh, I'm cut to the quick. :o)

[Theland]

Mibs - So you see Man as a god? For all your clarity, you agree with Lucifer, and his five, "I wills."
I don't like that concept at all.

[Theland]

The Bible speaks in Genesis of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Whether you take this literally or anecdotally, the point is, it is spot on when it comes to beginning to describe the human condition. Yes, our history is littered with those who have had some temporary successes in their careers as gods, and none of them have had any positive effect on the human race.

[123everton]

Naomi correct me if I'm wrong but you believe that the soul (spirit) can survive the body after death, and not only but also that the soul can leave the body and go on a journey of discovery (out of body experiences) which are revealed to the subject in revelations via dreams.
But the question is about BELIEF NOT DISBELIF. The questioner is asking people to try and convince her of the existence of God any God it could be a Hindu God, or a Buddhist God.
Time and time again you write in saying what you don't believe in, saying what you disagree with.
This is a golden opportunity for you to say what you believe in, so please for the benefit of all (without referring to Christianity, or any other) just plainly and simply espouse your belief system.
I can promise you two things, one, I'll respect you for it and two, I'll respect it.

[naomi24]

123 Oh good grief! This is like deja vu. You have a real problem reading my posts, don't you? I've asked you to look at the thread entitled "Satan", in which I've very clearly outlined my BELIEF. It was posted on 8 January by Le Chat, and if you look at the answers towards the end of the thread (on the penultimate page, I believe), you'll find what you're looking for. It's quite a long answer, so I don't really relish typing it all out again just because you can't be bothered to look.

Incidentally, firstly, this is a discussion forum where opposing views ought to be welcome - and according to you, it seems they are - from anyone except me. Secondly, I don't understand why you tell me that this is my "golden opportunity" to outline my beliefs. I've outlined my beliefs many times on AB, but you wouldn't know that since you clearly don't read what I've written, but simply prefer to jump in with both feet. Thirdly, I'm not sure you've got it right with regard to my views on out of body experiences, so let me take this "golden opportunity" to explain it to you. They may occur, but since I have no personal experience of them, I have to say I don't know whether they do or not.

To everyone else Since 123 won't take the trouble to look at the thread I've asked him to look at, if anyone can tell me how to cut and paste posts on AB, I'll willingly do it. Thank you.

[Octavius]

angeldraws, I firmly believe that only you can decide whether you believe in God or not, and what that form takes really is up to you. If you decide there is no God for you, that�s fine. If you decide that there is a God for you, then that�s fine too, but expect to be ridiculed and vilified as a bonkers religious nutter, particularly on AB.

That aside, if I was a God and I created earth and its people, you can be damn sure that I would make them praise me and quiver in their boots if they dared consider doing anything �wrong� or �sinful�. And lo and behold anyone who misused my name!

A lot of people like to play God, and one of their first tasks is to exert their own authority over the masses according to their own standards and ideology. This is religion in general, but also society in general, whichever part of history you look at (religious or otherwise). Hell darn it, you can even see it in this thread!

[123everton]

I welcome all views just so long as they express a view rather than say you're wrong and that's it.
I have no problem reading your answers (I have'nt read that thread it's true) but you do hate answering questions ever so.
So I'll simplify it for all those people who are reading this (like me) who can't be arsed trawling through the depths of answerbank right now.
Are you a spiritulist?
If so what does spiritulism mean to you?
Or are you an atheist?

[naomi24]

123 Oh dear. You really do have a problem, don't you?

[naomi24]

Apologies, 123 - I was called away. In answer to your questions, no and no.

[123everton]

No problem at all, so by a process of elimination you are an atheist?
The question is about belief not about disbelief.

[naomi24]

123 Why on earth are you talking about a process of elimination? That makes no sense at all, since I've answered your questions. You asked me if I was an atheist, and I said "no", and now you're saying that by a process of elimination you've decided that I'm an athiest. Do you actually know what you're talking about? You really don't read my posts, do you? The last one consisted of only two lines, and therefore, one would have hoped, was not beyond the comprehension of anyone here. However, for your particular benefit, I'll spell it out -

I am not an atheist - and I am not a spiritualist.

Is that clear enough for you to understand?

Thank you, but I know what the question is. However, since I don't believe that the biblical God was, or is, an almighty God - or, indeed, a God of any description - I initially, on this thread, questioned that which I saw as an assumption. Got it?

[WaldoMcFroog]

"If you demand that God appear to you and, for the purpose of argument, He does. Would you (or Waldo, chakka, etc. actually believe? I don't think so. An alternate or series of alternate explanations for the experience would be produced."

I have asked precisely this and remarked that if he existed God must necessarily know my skepticism and the level of proof required by me for belief. He didn't show. What am I to make of this?

"Here's your task [...] prove to me you exist. You can't afford a plane ticket, so you can't appear in person. You can however, have others attest to your existence. I can, then, make an educated determination based on the evidence you present of the likelyhood of the veracity of that evidence."

Who could complain about such a conclusion..? It's entirely reasonable. However, you then go one and make an entirely unreasonable proposition, namely, that the same burden of proof is required for an extraordinary claim. If I gave you my name, address, diary and a few photos, you could quickly piece together a rough biography; not terribly nuanced possibly, but nevertheless, a reasonable fascimile. What would you discover? A story about a human being with no particularly outre claims in it that might raise an eyebrow vis a vis credibility.

This is manifestly not the case with Jeebus, particularly given that if one accepts the reality of Mr Christ, one is also forced to accept that the logical and elegant explanation of evolution is wrong but the preposterous creation myth is true. Cosmology is wrong. Physics is wrong. Biology is wrong. Our ethical norms are wrong. People can rise from the dead, heal the sick, walk on water. Stories with plot holes in 'em so big a six year-old could drive a truck through them are suddenly true.

(cont)

[WaldoMcFroog]

If Christ had existed, he would have to be - in the strictest sense of the word - extraordinary, and I'm sorry, but no, extraordinary claims are not satisfied by the same degree of scrutiny as mundane ones, even if the level of mundanity we're talking about is Julius Ceasar or whatever. Nothing claimed for Ceasar requires any suspension of disbelief or great leaps of imagination.

To apparently try and imply that it's some how either surprising or mendacious to expect a extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims... I hardly know what to say, it's so patently axiomatically true.

[mibn2cweus]

Theland, Those of us who acknowledge and maintain responsibility for our own lives and the consequences of our own actions do not do harm to others so why do you find this threatening? Taking ones own life into ones own hands and fulfilling ones own destiny through hard work and realizing ones own potential makes such an individual an asset to all those around them. Why do you find that unacceptable?

When you ask for gods help how can you deny that you are acting in your own interest? The difference between you and me is that I admit openly and honestly that I have my own best interest in mind and I strive to fulfill my own interests by being productive, self sufficient and self-realizing. That you find this evil is further proof that you worship a lesser god and that can only result in making of yourself something less than the human being you were born with the potential to become.

Rather than condemn those who told you it was wrong for you to live your life in the pursuit of achieving your own potential you have chosen to turn against yourself and anyone else who respects and values their own existence and condemn your greatest allies, me and anyone else who declares your right to be your own best friend.

No matter how hard you attempt to deny it to others as well as your self, your god is none other than the god you have created yourself within your own imagination. Even if you have managed through the encouragement of your enemies to deluded yourself into believing that your god exists somewhere outside yourself the real and inescapable fact is that whoever or whatever you turn to for guidance or for help, you will still be you, albeit by your own design and belief, your own worst nightmare.

Now if you will excuse me, I�m off to see if I can find a place where I can have a �positive effect on the human race�.

[Theland]

Mibs - That must be the rehearsal room surely?

[chakka35]

Clanad, to your points:

1. I used �moot� with its most common meaning: to suggest, to put up for discussion.
Theists suggest that God exists but stop there, failing to supply any evidence to justify the suggestion

2. You refer to �all references to (Jesus)�. Let�s look at what they are:
Paul�s epistles, written between AD55 and AD60. Paul did not know Jesus and produces no eyewitnesses.
An anonymous gospel, later called Mark, written about AD70. It says nothing about Jesus� birth or resurrection. No eyewitnesses.
Two more anonymous gospels, later called Luke (AD80-85) and Matthew (AD85-90), largely copies of Mark but which add totally conflicting genealogies of Jesus and totally conflicting accounts of his birth. All eyewitness, if any, long dead.
A fourth anonymous gospel, later called John, probably written at the turn of the century but given an earlier date by some scholars. It differs from the three synoptic gospels in a number of ways.
That really isn�t enough to establish the exitence of an ordinary chap, let alone a supernatural miracle-worker.

3. Re Tacitus: �contemporaneous� does not mean �within a generation of� and even if it did it would not apply to Jesus and Tacitus. We don�t know when Jesus is supposed to have lived but he was certainly dead by the time Paul makes the first mention of him in AD55 � the year Tacitus was born! Tacitus was writing about 50 years later than that and all he said about Jesus is:
�Their [the Christians�] originator had been executed in Tiberius� reign by the procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate.�
.. which was available in the gospels by then.

4. The dates I have for Philo are 25BC to AD50. I have no dates for Justus and will now do more research. Why should the New Testament writers have mentioned either when neither said anything about Jesus?

cont�d�

[chakka35]

cont�d�

4. Does it really not strike you as odd that not a word was written about Jesus during his lifetime? His friends and relations (probably illiterate, I grant you), the scribes and Pharisees he debated with, the thousands he preached to, the wise men he counselled, the sick he healed � not a word from any of them No mention of him in Jewish or Roman records.. And not one word from an eye-witness ever � even after he was dead.
Is it not rummy that the earliest people who wrote about him never knew him and were writing after his death, four out of the five anonymously?
(I have ignored the non-NT gospels, but it doesn�t matter; they have no more authenticity than the chosen four.)
Do you never lie in bed and ponder this huge flaw in the story?

[Octavius]

It certainly seems to be something you do chakka.

I prefer to spend my time being more active in bed, rather than pondering over lifes mysterys. And I do it religiously.

[chakka35]

Good one, Octavius!

Alas, though, you're wrong. I don't have to ponder it because there's no mystery in it for me. I just wonder how Christians reconcile their beliefs with the facts. Perhaps the answer is that they don't try. Ho hum.