You may believe so.
But without some credible source, they mean nothing.
- Status
But without some credible source, they mean nothing.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I will pray for you, truely you are lost and need the light of Christ.
V
vsedriver
Guest
None of the things you listed are God’s fault. They are man’s fault.
God gave us the capacity to love and the free will to choose to love or not. He gave us a Savior and teachers. It is not God’s fault if we do not love each other.
B
Betterave
Guest
So again, difficult question, but here’s an answer:
To begin with the question is difficult because you claim you don’t know *anything *about God - so where to begin? I think you should agree to refer the God-concept or (God-concepts, if you want to actively consider more than one possible God) when you talk about knowing about ‘God’/God. In that case you do know plenty about God, your question is just about which parts of what you know are worthy of belief and why. On the whole you find that none of it is worthy of belief, but you are interested in making a voluntary movement “towards God” (on the assumption that He may exist), so how is that possible?
First, you don’t need to believe God exists, you only have to think that it is a genuine possibility which may be worth investigating. And you do seem to be thinking along these lines. In other words, you are fundamentally open-minded on the issue, since you are willing to treat God as a live option (a concept from William James’ essay “The Will to Believe” - which is worth reading, b.t.w.).
As far as making a movement, the fundamental stance of admitting the need to be open-minded on a particular issue is the first move. Beyond that move, I’m sure you are familiar with some of the possibilities for further steps (prayer, consulting a priest, reading books, dialoguing on CAF, just sitting and *thinking *about what really makes sense), but it is really up to the individual to decide which suits him or which he is ready for at a given point in his search. From what you have said here it seems you might start by just establishing a base-line of what ‘God’ means to you and then really subjecting it to criticism so as to decide - on the assumption that God does exist - which parts you would judge to be worthy of belief and which not (and why). That’s rather vague advice for now, but I think it would be better for you to sort through your base-line beliefs before suggesting anything more specific about how to proceed.
S
Spock
Guest
I agree. I do know a lot about the concept or concepts pertaining to God or gods. But that does not really translate into knowing about God, itself.
Very well said. This is the question.
Thanks for the advice.
Now, let’s go back to he hospital for a second (where I had my heart attack “fixed”). The chaplain came to my room, and we had a very pleasant conversation. He asked me about my feelings and attitude, and when he heard my answers he complimented me for my very optimistic view on life. He added that obviously my faith is very strong.
Well, I must admit I told him that I have no faith at all, but if there is some afterlife I will be very pleasantly surprised. Not this might come strange, but it is true.Indeed, when I contemplate on God’s possible existence, I come to a few simple conclusions. Obviously God must be very capable, all the way to be able to create a universe. With such incredible powers I find it impossible that God would be “evil”. Makes no sense at all. Looking around me I cannot imagine that God would be “benevolent”. These attitudes are simply not applicable “up there”. Most probably neutral, who created the universe for some unimaginable purpose, but most definitely not for our “sake”. To think that we (humans) are somehow “special” seems to be the height of arrogance.
These are just a few thoughts. If you wish to talk about them, or their ramifications, please let me know.
C
cargau
Guest
Yes God is quite capable. God is not evil, although evil is a reality and God sometimes permits evil, though He does not will the evil in itself. I believe that God works through evil to bring souls (His creation to Himself).I agree. I do know a lot about the concept or concepts pertaining to God or gods. But that does not really translate into knowing about God, itself.
Very well said. This is the question.
Thanks for the advice.
Now, let’s go back to he hospital for a second (where I had my heart attack “fixed”). The chaplain came to my room, and we had a very pleasant conversation. He asked me about my feelings and attitude, and when he heard my answers he complimented me for my very optimistic view on life. He added that obviously my faith is very strong.
Indeed, when I contemplate on God’s possible existence, I come to a few simple conclusions. Obviously God must be very capable, all the way to be able to create a universe. With such incredible powers I find it impossible that God would be “evil”. Makes no sense at all. Looking around me I cannot imagine that God would be “benevolent”. These attitudes are simply not applicable “up there”. Most probably neutral, who created the universe for some unimaginable purpose, but most definitely not for our “sake”. To think that we (humans) are somehow “special” seems to be the height of arrogance.
These are just a few thoughts. If you wish to talk about them, or their ramifications, please let me know.
God is love itself. There is nothing vanilla or neutral in that. He loved you and me into existance. Further, the Father sent His only son for the salvation of everyday folks like you and me. Pretty amazing. That is why they call it the Good News.
Christianity is the only religion that reveals a God that loves like this. Most cultures “invented” a God that ruled and owned Man. Man was subservient to God. But, Jesus came to serve. Now who would ever think to “invent” such a God???
We are not special because of anything WE say or do. That would be arrogant. Rather we are special to God because Jesus died for us. In the end, in God’s eyes we are very special, indeed. And there is nothing arrogant about stating that reality…
S
Spock
Guest
My analysis was founded on one thing only: “contemplating that the world was created by some being we shall call God”. Nothing else. From this assumption only one thing follows: namely that this being was able to perform this act, it had the power and the knowledge.
All the other assumptions you introduced are just that: insofar unsupported assumptions. I am not contemplating the Christian teachings in this thread. There are other threads dealing with those. In this one I am exploring how far can one go using the assumption that God created the world. We cannot go very far, unless I am missing something, or unless you can substantiate your other assumptions without referring to Christianity at all.
P
PAboy57
Guest
Glad you are up and writing Spock.
To answer you question above you would have to remove Adam and Eve. Just say God made 1 guy and 1 woman but they would eventually have to find each other??? So this guy starts wondering how all of this came to be. Finally since nothing he talks to can communicate with him he starts yelling – anybody out there???
Sooner or later the God would answer since He is a loving God. I really have trouble imaging a situation other than Adam and Eve. God had to leave a signature in man to make him want to find Him. Even if he found the woman and had fun, sooner or later they would both be yelling to try and make sense of their surroundings.
I have trouble buying in to the cave man principle because they were just to dumb to survive against such odds. a child taking 13 or so years to really be useful vs all the things that could harm them. even with some brain power the odds are way against them.
So we come back to God writing himself on the heart of man. That’s how I see it.
I lack the ability to think like a cave man. With your new hardware maybe you have the capability. Mine doesn’t help me though.
Take care.
S
Spock
Guest
Thank you.
Sorry, you are still thinking “inside” the Christian box. In my scenario the only assumption was that some entity (called “God”) created the world. Nothing else. No “first humans”, no Garden, no angels, no “fall”, nothing else. This God set up the laws of nature, which happens to lead to some form of abiogenesis. We are an example of that abiogenesis.
Ok. Some people do posit the question: “why this universe?”, “how come that we are as we are?”. Does the universe have a “meaning”? Etc… (Personally, these kinds of questions mean nothing to me.) But suppose those people call for an answer. Let’s talk about this “calling out”. I see and hear no answer. If you say that there is, tell me where? How can I hear it? How can I know that this supposed answer really come from the creator? Again, please remember, stay with what we can perceive, what we can see and hear. Do not refer to ancient texts of questionable nature. Stick with what we know and make logical inferences from it.
C
cargau
Guest
What you call assumption is in itself an assumption. You are assuming that I am assuming.
While there is no scientific proof for many of my assertions, there is evidence to support what I am saying including the use of human reason, Scripture, philosophical and metaphysical understandings, etc. Science is limited in what it can prove. The inability of science to provide empirical proof does not mean that something is incapable of existence.
There are some (not you), for example, who may purport that the existence of the world was a random act. But, reason would question the liklihood that we live in a world where out of chaos comes such incredible order. How would this have happened? Which side is easier to rationalize or explain since science cannot answer this question either way.
Or, how do we come to understand Jesus of Nazareth in light of the willingness of so many early Christians to die for him? Absolute proof, not really. But it seems to me one would be pained to bet against it.
You may have read in a history book that Washington crossed the Delaware in the late
1700s. How do you know? Were you there?
The point is, some things we must accept on faith. But, not a blind faith, rather one based on reason and shared knowledge and understanding. Trying to explain creation or understand the motivations of God is impossible unless you are willing to accept certain realities based on faith. We would all like see all and understand all but that will never happen.
I think maybe you need to make some good, reasonable assumptions before you can get yourself to the next level.
God bless, yes the same one who created the universe and you and me…
S
Spock
Guest
I agree with you in principle, but the devil is in the details. Could you give a few a examples of what you consider to be “blind faith” and what you consider “faith based on reason”? It may very well be that we define “faith” differently, or maybe we draw the dividing line differently.
C
cargau
Guest
Blind faith is a belief in something without sufficient evidence or any evidence to support a claim. Fundamentalist belief in the historical exactitude of Scripture is an example of “Blind Faith”. Scripture scholars have studied the words written in the Bible by first knowing the language, culture, politics and the texts written by ancient near eastern literature to get a sense of the intent of the author. Many of the stories found in the Bible are not, of themselves historical but rather pastoral in nature.
The exegetical scholarship of Scripture has given us a clearer depiction of what may or may not be historical.
Since fundamentalists do not have the luxury of a Magesterium to guide Scripture readers as to what is historically true, they are left to accept all of Scripture as historically valid. That is blind faith.
Did creation really take seven days? Did Moses really part the Red Sea? Did God really destroy Sodom and Gommorrah? Or, were these stories written to convey an underlying message to God’s people who were struggling with the loss of their homeland and captivity in a foreign land?
The point is, the redaction of these stories had a higher purpose than just providing a snippet of ancestral history. They were teaching the Hebrew people about a loving God who entered into covenant and what was expected by God for the people He loves. That is to love God and to love neighbor.
The message was that the chosen people of God repeatedly fell into sin thereby violating the very covenant that God lovingly entered into with humankind. The big sins were ones of idolatry and social injustice. There is a recurring theme of blessing, sin, punishment and mercy. Ultimately, that mercy came from God in the person of Jesus Christ.
Understanding metaphysical realities is a difficult task. It would be a lot easier if these realities were as easy to solve as 2 + 2 = 4. They take centuries to unfold. But, real faith does not exist outside of reason. Reasonable folks can be open to a belief in loving God.
Sometimes when we have doubts, we need to heed the advice of St. Augustine who said that we should believe so that we may understand. So often, we are tempted to understand so that we may believe. The Holy Spirit will give us what we need to accept the truth of God’s participation in our world and our lives.
S
Spock
Guest
Very good definition. Maybe you could add “or if the available evidence contradicts the claim”.
Very well. I agree with what you say, but I disagree with what you don’t say.
Tricky, huh? You did not say, but you imply that the Magistretium is the guiding light, which separates the historically correct parts from the allegorial parts in the Bible. So, I have a few questions or observations:- How do you classify your faith in the Magistretium? Is it a reasonable faith, or a blind one? If you classify it as reasonable, on what grounds?
- Next comes an observation. I looked at the Cathecism and the Dogmas, and was very disappointed. At the very least I was expecting a list of all the biblical verses and some annotation next to each of them, telling which verse should be understood literally and which one allegorically. And if a certain verse should be read allegorically, then what is the “hidden” meaning of the analogy?
- Really disapponting was the very first dogma in this compilation (theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm), which reads: “1) God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.” It is disappointing, because it stops right here, and does not explain “how”? It is just an empty claim. When I looked at the Cathecism, there was nothing else, no details. If the CC would have an actual, philosophical proof for God’s existence, why not declare it from the rooftops? Of course, the answer is simple, there is not such “proof”. It is a naked assertion, which is binding on the Catholics (to doubt the dogmas is heresy, if I am not mistaken). But it is not helpful to non-Catholics. Why should a non-Catholic accept the Magistretium, the dogmas, the inerracy of the Pope, etc… ? If the Church has the “meat”, then why does it not say it?
The magistarium decided upon what would be and what would not be in the bible.
Having faith that they are authorities on the bible itself is not a problem since they actually put the bible together.
So the concept in faith towards the magistarium where biblical matters are concerned is aking to having faith in Edison as an authority on the light bulb.
S
Spock
Guest
Not all of it. Part of it, maybe. And the fact that they did it, is not assurance that they did it right. Also the selection process was conducting by taking votes. Sometimes one vote separated the rejection or the acceptance of a book. Quite unlike Edison, whose authority is based upon the repeatability and verifyability of what he did, not because he was the first…
To put faith into a group of fallible people may or may not be warranted. But to classify that faith as reasonable there should be some external evidence, not just a self-authentification.
B
Betterave
Guest
That is strange, and kind of funny. I guess he doesn’t run into many happy atheists?Now, let’s go back to he hospital for a second (where I had my heart attack “fixed”). The chaplain came to my room, and we had a very pleasant conversation. He asked me about my feelings and attitude, and when he heard my answers he complimented me for my very optimistic view on life. He added that obviously my faith is very strong.
So if a creator God exists, he is clearly very capable/powerful and is not ‘evil.’ I think that makes sense.
I can see/guess why you are rejecting the label ‘benevolent’ too, but I don’t see how your rejection makes sense and I suspect it is maybe mainly grounded in one of your original claims here: if God was benevolent, he would make himself known more clearly by beneficient acts - e.g., he wouldn’t let a guy like you fail to know of his existence (and he wouldn’t let nasty things happen to innocent people, he wouldn’t let nasty people happen, period, etc.).
But it seems like your honest agnosticism about God is based on the assertion of propositions which you also don’t know about the world (its purposes, our place in it, the ways ordained for created things to attain their ends, etc.) - the world which God created, provided he exists. So it seems to me that you should also clearly grasp in your mind (and frankly confess) a healthy and honest agnosticism about your assessment of the world as a kind of realm of (possible) purposes in which man may (or may not) have a special place. Agree?
It might sound counter-intuitive, but if the world is God’s creation*, then agnosticism about God should imply a certain agnosticism also about the world. (Or instead of ‘agnosticism,’ we might use Augustine’s famous term: docta ignorantia, learned ignorance.)
- or if we just admit that we don’t know that the world is *not *God’s creation]
Oh?
Which book of the bible did they decide should not be in there?
Here is a hint…none.
Which one did they decide to put in?
Another hint…all of them.
They built the bible.
No, it isn’t.
For that we have to see if their work holds up against the scrutiny of history.
It does.
People can run through the same logic the magistarium did and reach the same conclusion.
It is repeatable.
There is.
The church that uses this bible.
S
Spock
Guest
I certainly would not know. Don’t forget, this happened in the Buckle of the Bible Belt, where people usually do not openly admit their atheism. And the hospital is a Catholic one, so there is no real incentive to come clean.That is strange, and kind of funny. I guess he doesn’t run into many happy atheists?
Partly so, but not just that. After all if one only looks at the facts, there are lots of “bad” things and there are lots of “good” things out there. Hard to strike a “balance”, which one is more prevalent.
One of the reasons I find the apologetics so seriously lacking is tied to this problem. The apologists want to give all the credit to God for the good stuff, and want to “whitewash” God when it comes to the “bad stuff”. And all that in the light of Bible, where (allegedly) God himself admits that he created all the light and the darkness (both good and evil). Now if God has no problem of admitting it, why do the apologists bend over backwards and try to explain it away?
Certainly agree. We must resort to speculation, since the information is missing. Now, we lack some of the information, but not all the information. We have access to the facts, and based upon the facts we can try to draw conclusions - always keeping in mind that our conclusions are provisional, and need to be reviewed if and when new information arises. Looking at the facts only, the world does not reflect the handwork of a benevolent deity. To be sure, it does not look like the handwork of a malevolent deity either. As a matter of fact it looks like as if there were no deity at all, or, if there is one, he looks totally neutral and uncaring.
B
Betterave
Guest
Certainly I can understand where you’re coming from, and I think questions like this are fundamental and important human questions that are posed by all people of all cultures and religions. So I would ask you again to establish a positive baseline: what do *you *think about it? Not just about God and about how the Christian God does or does not seem to fit with the worldly data, but about “good” and “bad” as such? Are these *illusions *in some sense (why the scare quotes?) - perhaps things that can be transcended through enlightenment? Are they fundamental principles of the universe? Are they “merely human” realities, or do they apply to other parts of the cosmos? If they are merely human realities, does this mean that humans don’t matter to the cosmos and its supposed creator, or that in fact the cosmos doesn’t matter apart from humans?
I’d say there are different apologists for different views and each view needs to respected as a sincere attempt to grapple with the important question you raise here.
As far as “what the Bible says,” I don’t think that your characterization is a fair one. The Bible is a *collection *of books, from different authors coming from different cultures, and including several different genres - and certainly when you look at the Bible as a whole the need for apologists to “explain things” is quite obvious.
This is hardly an absurd position, it’s probably fairly similar to the view that a very bright guy like Aristotle had. But as I said above, I think we need to get more clear about what you mean by “good” and “bad” before we can properly understand your (presumably logically posterior) judgments about “benevolence” and “malevolence” (i.e., the *willing of the “good” and the “bad”).
S
Spock
Guest
Excellent. Let’s do this.
I will describe several scenarios to clarify what I mean. (By the way, the quotes are just separators here, not scare quotes. )- An environment where there are no living beings. In such an environment, the concepts of “good” and “bad” cannot be defined. For example, the tide waves will polish the pebbles of the beach to a nice, round shape, but neither the tide nor the pebbles “care”. To be round and smooth is not “better” for the pebbles than to be rough.
- The next enviroment contains living entitites, but only simple ones, without a nervous system. In other words, vegetation. In this environment, “good” and “bad” can be defined as the synonyms of “useful” or “beneficial”, as opposed to “harmful” or “detrimental”. Everything that promotes life for the living beings is good for them, everything that is detrimental to their life is bad for them. Naturally, there will be conflicts, a smaller sized vegetation under the shade of a larger one “suffers” from being cut off from sunlight. There is no “universal” good in this world. Sunshine is usually good, but too much sunshine is bad. Proper amount of water is good (varying from plant to plant), but too much water or drought is bad, etc…
- Now, let’s consider life with a nervous system, but without higher brain functions. Everything said before still applies, but we need to add the pleasantness factor to life. Everything is good, if it promotes life or enhances its pleasure. The reverse is “bad”. These are biological attributes. The beings are not aware that they seek out the pleasant experiences, or try to avoid the unpleasant ones, they do it instinctively.
- Finally, life with consciousness. The same biological imperatives still apply, but they may become more complicated, by introducing a “moral” aspect, which may lead to disagreements. But I tried to make a first cut of defining “good” and “bad”, on which we can hopefully build upon.
Well, I may respect the effort, but not necessarily the outcome.
Certainly the Bible is a compilation of several writs. I wonder, however. Do you think that there is a need to explain literally every verse and sentence? Are there no sentences, which stand on their own right, which clearly mean what they say? Just curious, since it does not really belong to this conversation.
- Status