I don't know if God exists

[OMGJ]

Well, I’ve started to doubt heavily, recently. I do believe that there is a purpose in life, but I want to know if there is a god (or God Himself). I mean, I’ve been praying my whole life and I don’t feel like I’m getting any feedback or response. I need some sort of direct revelation. I’ve started to question if Jesus really existed. I do believe that the universe was created; there are many signs that point to that direction. It would be awesome if God existed. I don’t want to lie to myself through prayer or just make up some voice in my head that replies to whatever I say. I don’t want to create “God” in my head. And if I have had contact with God, I don’t think it was enough to prevent me from doubting now.

Hello friend…

First of all I want to say that I honour you for being honest about your doubts. Too many times people fear having questions about their faith and they try to suppress them thinking that they will just go away. You are most definitely not alone in seeking for answers; seeking for Truth actually. We all go through our various degrees of crises in our lives. It is my belief that these doubts enter into our hearts and minds because the Lord is leading us into a deeper understanding of Him.

I am reminded of a classic reflection that you probably know very well: Footprints In The Sand. It is great when we see both our footprints and the Lord’s footprints in our faith walk with Him. But there will be times when we look back and we see only one set of footprints in the sand. We become troubled and we ask, “are you there Lord?”. Only to hear His loving and gentle response that, “I have carried you in My arms”.

I will include you in my prayers dear brother (or sister) and certainly keep praying for God to reveal Himself to you. Might I also suggest for you to seek for a spiritual advisor to help you personally in finding the answers to your questions. While these forums can be a means to find some answers, it can be very cold and a touch unfriendly.

May God bless you.

In Christ,
OMGJ

 

[Heuchler]

Let me clarify my point again. The goal of a game of chess is to checkmate your opponent. This goal must be presupposed before the game begins, or else you’re not playing chess. With that goal firmly in place, certain moves will always be better than others - with respect to the goal - to checkmate your opponent. There will be moves that will be unquestionably bad (and to say otherwise is to not make sense). There will also be moves, whose merits can be honestly and intelligently debated, with perhaps no consensus reached. This fact does nothing to make chess any less an objective system. It doesn’t require that we know everything all the time, nor does it require we always agree on what’s good or bad. Every scientific discipline has open questions or points of contention within it. This does not make them less scientific.

And so it is with morality. Morality relates to the well-being of conscious creatures. Unabated, indefinite suffering is bad, and worth avoiding. This is a presupposition. I don’t need to prove it, anymore than I need to prove that an argument which contradicts itself is “illogical.” It simply is - and anyone who says it isn’t just isn’t making sense.

Once you grant that unabated, indeterminate suffering is bad, you simply must admit that there are moral and immoral choices that can be made to lessen (or lessen the chances of) unabated, indeterminate suffering. And like chess - there will be some choices that are obviously better than others. And there will be choices which will invite intelligent debate, and will resolve themselves without a consensus. And like chess, this does render the whole enterprise subjective or unscientific.

Ok I see where the misunderstanding arises. You are taking it to mean that chess morality is “was that a smart move” when I define it as the rules which were already in place of what the Bishop, rook etc. do and what moves are legal. And I find that the true morality of chess is not which moves are the best which will lead to winning/a happier life (I would take that to be more like intelligence and what type of job you get which will lead to a better life. You also have to rely upon the rules of logic inside of our own universe instead of the example being a contained system like our own universe is.).

Morality is more like the established rules of what we are to do and what not to do. To break the rules of the game is insanity because it is simply wrong as defined by the creator of the game. But if there is no God or creator of Chess rules then there would be no reason a rook can’t move diagonally or why a horse has to make an L.

But I’ll argue against your position that morality is based not on how the pieces can move but on the moves of the game. Why is it that the game is meant to kill the king? What is there to say that you have to kill the king to win (in our world, be happy and morally right). There is no true object at the end and true reason to play in any such way unless you have a creator of chess who rules that all actions should be geared toward killing the most people (in our case, creating more order and helping others). So, who can say that it is wrong to play chess trying to get to the other side of the board without getting your pieces taken if there is no person who created chess? Or for what reasons should you keep try to keep your pieces alive? There is no inherent and fundamental reason to try to play the game in the way we do except that a higher power than simple chess pieces has ordained that these pieces should move and try to kill the king.

 

[ASimon]

These directly challenged Harris’s book and claims, but he never responded to them, and, as you may have noticed, after his first speech, he gave up even trying to defend his book’s claims. He simply resorted to his usual ad hominems and red herrings about how mean God is in the OT and how hell is a really mean doctrine, which of course, is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether Harris can objectively ground morality in a naturalistic setting.

If the topic of the debate was “Is God the Foundation of Morality?” (Note: It was actually “Are the Foundations of Moral Values Natural or Supernatural?”), then I think it’s personally reasonable to call into question the moral wisdom of the Bible. And if you think it isn’t, why not be critical of Craig for having the temerity to attack the arguments presented in Harris’s book? Wasn’t his job, as you say, to simply defend the idea that God was the foundation of morality?

 

[Curious_Seed]

Well, I’ve started to doubt heavily, recently. I do believe that there is a purpose in life, but I want to know if there is a god (or God Himself). I mean, I’ve been praying my whole life and I don’t feel like I’m getting any feedback or response. I need some sort of direct revelation. I’ve started to question if Jesus really existed. I do believe that the universe was created; there are many signs that point to that direction. It would be awesome if God existed. I don’t want to lie to myself through prayer or just make up some voice in my head that replies to whatever I say. I don’t want to create “God” in my head. And if I have had contact with God, I don’t think it was enough to prevent me from doubting now.

Out of your comments or appeal there is one sentence which stands out for me.

" I need some sort of direct revelation. "

What was Jesus’ response to Peter, when Peter said Jesus is the Son of God?

Did He not tell Peter that only by revelation from the Father was he able to say that?

We come to know God only by revelation.

You will never believe in Jesus, until the Father reveals the Truth to you.

Your confession, of that revelation, is your belief.

Revelation, confession, belief.

Revelation, no confession, no belief.

Confession, no revelation, no belief.

Ask God to reveal Himself to you - it is a prayer that will not go unanswered.

Once revealed, the belief needs to be sustained by faith.

Faith is yours by hearing (reading) the Word (the Bible).

So,

Revelation, then confession, then belief, then sustained by faith.

Christians who do not read their Bible may be surprised that Jesus, one day, says I never knew you.

God is your Daddy.

Your prayers will all be answered, and the life your Daddy has in mind for you will be developed, as you are continually pruned, abiding in Christ.

 

[danserr]

If the topic of the debate was “Is God the Foundation of Morality?” (Note: It was actually “Are the Foundations of Moral Values Natural or Supernatural?”), then I think it’s personally reasonable to call into question the moral wisdom of the Bible. And if you think it isn’t, why not be critical of Craig for having the temerity to attack the arguments presented in Harris’s book? Wasn’t his job, as you say, to simply defend the idea that God was the foundation of morality?

That doesn’t answer the question of Harris’s total failure to respond to Craig’s criticisms of his argument as Harris presented it that night and in his book. Those 3 criticisms were directly relevant to whether Harris could ground objective moral values and duties in a naturalistic context and Harris wholly failed to respond to those criticisms. So obviously it was entirely appropriate for Craig to make those criticisms and interesting that Harris couldn’t defend himself. (What do you mean “temerity”- that was the subject of the debate!)

As to God’s appearance in the OT, this is just wholly irrelevant. 1. Harris’s picking out a few passages to criticize without trying to place them in or understand them in context is intellectually sloppy. 2. There are those who believe that the supernatural is the basis of morality who do not take the bible literally, so the issue is totally irrelevant. 3. At most Harris’s claim would force the Christian who adjust his doctrine of biblical inspiration so that it would not imply inerrancy. Hardly a traumatic adjustment. Hence Craig was right to point out that this was irrelevant to the debate that evening and recommend Paul Copan’s Is God Moral Monster for those interested in a really understanding of those bible passages in context, not only the superficial understanding that Harris offers.

 

[ASimon]

That doesn’t answer the question of Harris’s total failure to respond to Craig’s criticisms of his argument as Harris presented it that night and in his book. Those 3 criticisms were directly relevant to whether Harris could ground objective moral values and duties in a naturalistic context and Harris wholly failed to respond to those criticisms. So obviously it was entirely appropriate for Craig to make those criticisms and interesting that Harris couldn’t defend himself. (What do you mean “temerity”- that was the subject of the debate!)

You missed the point. You (incorrectly) stated that the topic of the debate was whether God was the foundation of morality, but presumed to criticize Harris for attacking that idea that it was. Then you completely gave Craig a pass for going after the claims Harris was making in his book about the naturalistic basis for morality. According to you, “the idea was for Craig to defend the idea that God was (the basis for morality), and Harris to defend his claims in his recent book that one can have a naturalistic foundation of an objective morality.” But you only seemed to have a problem with Harris going off the imaginary rails.

As it stands, given the actual topic of the debate, both were perfectly within the framework to take the discussion everywhere it went. Though I can’t be the first person to notice how the Bible never seems to be a relevant battleground for a discussion of God-centered morality. There’s always some excuse why the unbeliever is always doing it wrong. It’s always a contextual problem (as though none of us knows how to read contextually), or we’re taking it all literally (as though taking it figuratively changes anything). Or my favorite - that it’s just a reflection of the time it was written in (as though genocide and infanticide were perfectly moral propositions in Bronze Age Judea).

As for the bit about what Harris did or did not respond to - I’m just not particularly interested in going back over the debate in full to cite what he might have said. I can tell you that Harris does deal with objections #1 and #3 to my satisfaction in his book. As for #2 - I’ll be honest - while I believe the neuro-scientific findings Harris cites which makes free will a non-starter, I’m still having difficulty wrapping my head around the philosophical argument and how it relates to moral obligations. But needless to say, I don’t think it at all likely that the possible contradiction that Craig talks about simply never occurred to Harris. Call it faith if you like, but I have a feeling he’s considered the implications of not having free will. In any event, his free will book comes out in February, so hopefully I’ll have a better idea how it all fits together after I read it.

 

[danserr]

You missed the point. You (incorrectly) stated that the topic of the debate was whether God was the foundation of morality, but presumed to criticize Harris for attacking that idea that it was. Then you completely gave Craig a pass for going after the claims Harris was making in his book about the naturalistic basis for morality. According to you, “the idea was for Craig to defend the idea that God was (the basis for morality), and Harris to defend his claims in his recent book that one can have a naturalistic foundation of an objective morality.” But you only seemed to have a problem with Harris going off the imaginary rails.

None of this changes that fact that Craig was right to attack Harris’s claim that the foundational of morality is natural.

None of it changes the fact that the OT is wholly irrelevant to this. Simply complaining “there is always some excuse” is just a dodge. You ignored my responses and I suppose have made no effort to look at context. Or maybe I am wrong, have you read Copan’s book, after all?

I don’t think it at all likely that the possible contradiction that Craig talks about simply never occurred to Harris. Call it faith if you like, but I have a feeling he’s considered the implications of not having free will. In any event, his free will book comes out in February, so hopefully I’ll have a better idea how it all fits together after I read it.

So, Harris did not respond to the argument, but you are really sure he has a good answer? I wonder what you would think if I said something similar about Craig? If Harris had such a great response to Craig’s other two points, I wonder why he didn’t bring it up in debate? Maybe you would like to tell me Harris’s responses?

As to “ought implies can,” that is simply an elementary point in philosophy, what we are doing here is drawing out its implications as applied to morality in a naturalistic context.
To say that a man should do x, implies that it is at least possible for him to do x. But if there is no free will, then all our actions are necessary. The men who rapes and kills that little girl had to rape and kill that little girl. It was not possible for him to do otherwise (because he was not free). But if he could not have done otherwise, then he was not morally obligated to do otherwise.

Without free will it makes no sense to say that “you should do x.” Either you will or won’t. (Because you are not free). Should has nothing to do with it.

 

[ASimon]

None of this changes that fact that Craig was right to attack Harris’s claim that the foundational of morality is natural.

And I said as much.

None of it changes the fact that the OT is wholly irrelevant to this. Simply complaining “there is always some excuse” is just a dodge. You ignored my responses and I suppose have made no effort to look at context. Or maybe I am wrong, have you read Copan’s book, after all?

I don’t think anyone’s read Copan’s book, because I’ve never met anyone willing to support these denials with any verifiable facts. The simple reality is, either the Bible is the Perfect word of the Creator of the Universe, or it’s not. And the faithful love to tap dance on this point. Confronted with the gratuitous barbarism, the implausibility, and the arcane edicts, the only recourse for the 21st century Christian is to talk of context, of metaphors, and of temporal legitimacy, as though these concepts are alien to anyone who doesn’t already buy into the whitewash job. And the more distance you put between yourself and the literalism of this profoundly mediocre book, the more at odds you must be with the claim that it is, in any way, Perfect. And if it isn’t Perfect, all the more reason to consign it to simple mythology, alongside the rest of history’s dead Gods.

So, Harris did not respond to the argument, but you are really sure he has a good answer? I wonder what you would think if I said something similar about Craig? If Harris had such a great response to Craig’s other two points, I wonder why he didn’t bring it up in debate? Maybe you would like to tell me Harris’s responses?

For #1 and #3, yes, I’m quite certain he has good answers. Because I’ve read them - they’re in his book and other writings. Assuming he didn’t address them in the debate, why didn’t he? Maybe he’s not that good a debater. I know he doesn’t do them very often - preferring more informal discussion/debate hybrids and simple lectures. On the other hand, Craig is basically a professional debater, and as I noted earlier, has a whole host of high school level tactics he likes to employ to snooker audiences into thinking he’s getting the upper hand. Falsely summarizing his opponents’ claims, falsely claiming that certain points he’s made have been conceded by his opponent, presuming to say what the debate is or is not about and what points his opponent must address to retain any credibility, etc.

As to “ought implies can,” that is simply an elementary point in philosophy, what we are doing here is drawing out its implications as applied to morality in a naturalistic context.
To say that a man should do x, implies that it is at least possible for him to do x. But if there is no free will, then all our actions are necessary. The men who rapes and kills that little girl had to rape and kill that little girl. It was not possible for him to do otherwise (because he was not free). But if he could not have done otherwise, then he was not morally obligated to do otherwise.

Without free will it makes no sense to say that “you should do x.” Either you will or won’t. (Because you are not free). Should has nothing to do with it.

As I said, I don’t have my head wrapped around the contours of Harris’s free-will argument, so it’d be silly for me to parrot it here, even if I felt like it. But to reiterate, do I find it at all likely that he would write a best-selling book about the naturalistic basis for morality, while preparing to publish another book about the illusion of free will, all without foreseeing this elementary objection that Craig raised in the debate? I do not.

Though incidentally, if the conclusions of the neuro-science prove out (and indicate that free will is a non-starter), the implications would appear to be the same for Craig’s basis for morality just the same as Harris’s.

 

[jochoa]

To my friend, ASimon,

Since you are having difficulties understanding the truly loving God, Jesus Christ, please consider the following:
God wanted others to freely choose to love as he loves, as to experience unbreakable peace and limitless happiness as a society and individually. In order to make this happen, he had to design an incredibly complex plan, which would ensure others’ choice to love would be completely free from any feeling of fear or obligation.

Please consider the following:
Do you fear the consequences of not loving as Jesus Christ does?
Do you feel obligated to love as well as Jesus Christ did?

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to a great and rewarding discussion!

 

[danserr]

And I said as much.

I don’t think anyone’s read Copan’s book, because I’ve never met anyone willing to support these denials with any verifiable facts. The simple reality is, either the Bible is the Perfect word of the Creator of the Universe, or it’s not. And the faithful love to tap dance on this point. Confronted with the gratuitous barbarism, the implausibility, and the arcane edicts, the only recourse for the 21st century Christian is to talk of context, of metaphors, and of temporal legitimacy, as though these concepts are alien to anyone who doesn’t already buy into the whitewash job. And the more distance you put between yourself and the literalism of this profoundly mediocre book, the more at odds you must be with the claim that it is, in any way, Perfect. And if it isn’t Perfect, all the more reason to consign it to simple mythology, alongside the rest of history’s dead Gods.

.

And I reject your false dichotomy, that the bible must be perfect or else it is not in any way the word of God. I have said why, I think you and you have not answered that argument.

And mocking the idea of taking an idea in context simply shows poor historical understanding. You would not take any other document out of context, why the Bible? I see, though that you may be incapable of doing anything except mocking it.

For #1 and #3, yes, I’m quite certain he has good answers. Because I’ve read them - they’re in his book and other writings.

To call Craig a professional debater is just silly and it’s just one of the excuses people who lose to him like to trot out, along with the others you (and Harris) have employed. (I don’t get it, on one hand he is a “professional debater,” on the other he is employing “high school lever debate tactics,” which is is?)

If these objections Craig raises are so elementary, I wonder why Harris didn’t answer them, since it is not only Craig but many others he has been criticized by as well for his failure to do so. If the objection is as elementary and obvious as you claim (it makes it all the more surprising that Harris didn’t respond to it, even if he is a poor debater. Surely he would have thought to respond to such obvious points that were so central to his case?

Since you don’t seem willing to really consider Harris’s claims and objections to them, hopefully you will keep some of these problems in mind when his book on free will comes out, since if he really does deny free will, then morality goes out the window.

Though incidentally, if the conclusions of the neuro-science prove out (and indicate that free will is a non-starter), the implications would appear to be the same for Craig’s basis for morality just the same as Harris’s.

Nope, one cannot disprove free will on the basis on neuroscience. All it could offer evidence for is that on naturalism, there is no free will. I agree with this. But given theism, including the falsity of determinism and the existence of the soul, there is every reason to think that God would make his creatures free. So you may have a choice, either affirm God and keep the existence of free will and morality, or reject him and find yourself unable to say “thank you for passing the mustard.”

 

[ASimon]

To my friend, ASimon,

Since you are having difficulties understanding the truly loving God, Jesus Christ, please consider the following:
God wanted others to freely choose to love as he loves, as to experience unbreakable peace and limitless happiness as a society and individually. In order to make this happen, he had to design an incredibly complex plan, which would ensure others’ choice to love would be completely free from any feeling of fear or obligation.

Hi jochoa - thanks for checking in.

Having considered this, I can only say that if God’s intention was make sure his creations could choose to love without any fear or obligation, I must judge his effort a spectacular failure. If he truly wanted us to have the free choice to do this, he could’ve done without creating a place of eternal torment for those who decline the opportunity.

If going to hell is really the worst thing that can ever happen to anyone, I don’t see how it can be honestly considered a free choice to act in a way that would avoid it. At the risk of seeming crass, it’s a little like a mugger holding a gun to your head and “asking” for your wallet. This is only a choice in the most reductionist sense.

Please consider the following:
Do you fear the consequences of not loving as Jesus Christ does?
Do you feel obligated to love as well as Jesus Christ did?

We must define the terms further. How does Jesus Christ love, in your view?

 

[danserr]

Hi jochoa - thanks for checking in.

Having considered this, I can only say that if God’s intention was make sure his creations could choose to love without any fear or obligation, I must judge his effort a spectacular failure. If he truly wanted us to have the free choice to do this, he could’ve done without creating a place of eternal torment for those who decline the opportunity.

If going to hell is really the worst thing that can ever happen to anyone, I don’t see how it can be honestly considered a free choice to act in a way that would avoid it. At the risk of seeming crass, it’s a little like a mugger holding a gun to your head and “asking” for your wallet. This is only a choice in the most reductionist sense.

We must define the terms further. How does Jesus Christ love, in your view?

And yet many people seem to freely reject God.

The flaw in your mugger analogy is that then the mugger is obviously holding the gun immediately to your head. God, however, does nothing comparable. He does this by making his existence less obvious, hence people don’t feel directly threatened and can still freely chose him or reject him (as many do).

And anyway, God can’t not make hell exist. Hell is simply the natural consequence of rejection of God. God is the source of all goodness, joy, happiness, etc. When people reject God, then they cut themselves off from all these things. The result of this is hell. How could it not be? Hell is like a diver cutting his own breathing tube. It is not the fault of the oxygen that he drowns, it was his choice to separate himself from the oxygen. And because, he respects people’s free will, God allows that choice.

Anyway, hell is not a reason to become an atheist. It is a reason to become a Christian universalist. I don’t think this is a good view, based on what we know of human nature, but it is an option.

 

[ASimon]

And yet many people seem to freely reject God.

The flaw in your mugger analogy is that then the mugger is obviously holding the gun immediately to your head. God, however, does nothing comparable. He does this by making his existence less obvious, hence people don’t feel directly threatened and can still freely chose him or reject him (as many do).

There is no flaw in this analogy, because I do not reject God. I don’t believe he exists, so logically, I can’t reject him. I’m not telling the mugger that I won’t give him my wallet. I’m telling the mugger that I don’t believe his gun is loaded. Ergo, he is not a mugger at all. He may as well be a child holding a plastic toy.

My point was that, to the believer, God and eternal torment in hell are as real as anything else they can possibly experience (despite being less obvious). But yet, they treat this opportunity to love God or not as a free choice. But they are no less coerced into loving God and a mugging victim is coerced into handing over his wallet.

And anyway, God can’t not make hell exist. Hell is simply the natural consequence of rejection of God. God is the source of all goodness, joy, happiness, etc. When people reject God, then they cut themselves off from all these things. The result of this is hell. How could it not be? Hell is like a diver cutting his own breathing tube. It is not the fault of the oxygen that he drowns, it was his choice to separate himself from the oxygen. And because, he respects people’s free will, God allows that choice.

So hell is not God’s fault - it’s just a natural consequence of rejecting God. As though God doesn’t have a hand in creating natural consequences. As for the rest of it, let’s say I’m rejecting God, and so cutting myself from all goodness, joy and happiness. I don’t appear to be suffering any detriment thanks to this. So what is wrong, exactly, with spending an eternity this way?

 

[danserr]

There is no flaw in this analogy, because I do not reject God. I don’t believe he exists, so logically, I can’t reject him. I’m not telling the mugger that I won’t give him my wallet. I’m telling the mugger that I don’t believe his gun is loaded. Ergo, he is not a mugger at all. He may as well be a child holding a plastic toy.

My point was that, to the believer, God and eternal torment in hell are as real as anything else they can possibly experience (despite being less obvious). But yet, they treat this opportunity to love God or not as a free choice. But they are no less coerced into loving God and a mugging victim is coerced into handing over his wallet.

Obviously there is a flaw somewhere because people are able to disbelieve in God perfectly well. So obviously God is not holding a gun to people’s heads. And to tell Christians that they are coerced into loving God is not only presumptuous, but simply foolish, how would you know? As one Christian said, Christians don’t worship God from fear of hell. Belief is not a form of fire insurance! Christians worship God because he is a proper object of worship. He created us, loves us, and made us for eternal happiness with him. How could we not love him back?

So hell is not God’s fault - it’s just a natural consequence of rejecting God. As though God doesn’t have a hand in creating natural consequences. As for the rest of it, let’s say I’m rejecting God, and so cutting myself from all goodness, joy and happiness. I don’t appear to be suffering any detriment thanks to this. So what is wrong, exactly, with spending an eternity this way?

God is no more responsible for the creation of hell than light is responsible for the creation of shadow. In one sense it is, but in another, the light is hardly to blame. God’s action is limited by logical possibilities, obviously omnipotence cannot do the logically impossible. The the logical necessity of rejecting God is hell. Again, God is the source of all goodness and happiness, how could rejecting Him be anything but hell?

As to why this rejection of God is suffering, but you are not suffering now, there are several appropriate explanations. A very easy to understand one is that as embodied creatures, our choice is not yet fully made, we make it in this life. When we die and only our souls are left, we will look on the consequences of our choices and there will be nothing else, only our souls and the acceptance of God, or else, we are left shut in on ourselves because of our rejection of all goodness and all that it entails.

 

[ASimon]

Obviously there is a flaw somewhere because people are able to disbelieve in God perfectly well. So obviously God is not holding a gun to people’s heads.

He’s not holding a gun to the unbelievers head, because to the unbeliever, God doesn’t exist at all, therefore there is no ultimate consequence for disbelieving in him. I constructed the mugger analogy for the Believer (those who think going to hell is the worst thing that can ever happen to someone). You’re trying to apply it to everyone, as though God’s existence was a truism. It’s not.

And to tell Christians that they are coerced into loving God is not only presumptuous, but simply foolish, how would you know? As one Christian said, Christians don’t worship God from fear of hell. Belief is not a form of fire insurance! Christians worship God because he is a proper object of worship. He created us, loves us, and made us for eternal happiness with him. How could we not love him back?

Nobody does anything in this life without trying to influence their conscious experience. To say that Christians don’t worship God for any reason having to do with fear of hell or hope of heaven is to give them more credit than any person deserves. That’s how I know. Because being in heaven is supposed to the greatest thing ever, and being in hell is supposed to be the worst thing ever. Because worshiping God is an avenue to heaven and not worshiping him, an avenue to hell. But at the same time, I’m expected to believe that these realities have not a single thing to do with why Christians worship God. Yeah, okay.

 

[danserr]

He’s not holding a gun to the unbelievers head, because to the unbeliever, God doesn’t exist at all, therefore there is no ultimate consequence for disbelieving in him. I constructed the mugger analogy for the Believer (those who think going to hell is the worst thing that can ever happen to someone). You’re trying to apply it to everyone, as though God’s existence was a truism. It’s not.

.

And I’ve shown perfectly well why Christians loving God is not because of coercion. Your claim to get in my head and tell me (or other Christians) that our love for God is really a servile fear is ridiculous.

Nobody does anything in this life without trying to influence their conscious experience. To say that Christians don’t worship God for any reason having to do with fear of hell or hope of heaven is to give them more credit than any person deserves. That’s how I know. Because being in heaven is supposed to the greatest thing ever, and being in hell is supposed to be the worst thing ever. Because worshiping God is an avenue to heaven and not worshiping him, an avenue to hell. But at the same time, I’m expected to believe that these realities have not a single thing to do with why Christians worship God. Yeah, okay.

You’re very cynical. Of course Christians hope for heaven, that simply goes with loving God! But it doesn’t follow from that that our love for God is a mercenary hope any more than a young man who marries a woman because he loves her. Probably he will also hope for happiness from that marriage (I would hope), but no one seriously thinks that he is mercenary for that hope or that something is wrong with that.

I never said that *no *Christians every worshiped God from fear of hell. Some people’s adherence to God may have begun in fear of hell (though I suspect far fewer than you would like to think), but the Church has always recognized this to be undesirable and worked to cause this servile fear to develop into filial fear. The latter being when one is afraid to disapoint a father he loves, which, of course, is perfectly appropriate.

It remains the case that you telling Christians they only worship God from fear of hell is absurd and presumptuous. I am sorry for your cynical view of human nature.

 

[ASimon]

You’re very cynical. Of course Christians hope for heaven, that simply goes with loving God! But it doesn’t follow from that that our love for God is a mercenary hope any more than a young man who marries a woman because he loves her. Probably he will also hope for happiness from that marriage (I would hope), but no one seriously thinks that he is mercenary for that hope or that something is wrong with that.

I never said that *no *Christians every worshiped God from fear of hell. Some people’s adherence to God may have begun in fear of hell (though I suspect far fewer than you would like to think), but the Church has always recognized this to be undesirable and worked to cause this servile fear to develop into filial fear. The latter being when one is afraid to disapoint a father he loves, which, of course, is perfectly appropriate.

It remains the case that you telling Christians they only worship God from fear of hell is absurd and presumptuous. I am sorry for your cynical view of human nature.

There’s nothing cynical about it. I’m simply taking the principles of behavior that we all live under, all the time, and applying them to religion and faith-worship. I help an old lady across the street. Why? Because I want to see her get across the street safely. Why do I want to see her get across the street safely. Because it makes me feel good to know she got across the street safely. BINGO! And there we have self-interest.

Now, I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with this. I better not be - the human race probably wouldn’t have survived this long if helping others didn’t have this effect on us. But I am suggesting that religious faith and worship isn’t allowed to exist in this walled garden of enlightenment - where people only do good “for its own sake.” It’s egotistical and insulting to the rest of us.

 

[danserr]

There’s nothing cynical about it. I’m simply taking the principles of behavior that we all live under, all the time, and applying them to religion and faith-worship. I help an old lady across the street. Why? Because I want to see her get across the street safely. Why do I want to see her get across the street safely. Because it makes me feel good to know she got across the street safely. BINGO! And there we have self-interest.

Now, I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with this. I better not be - the human race probably wouldn’t have survived this long if helping others didn’t have this effect on us. But I am suggesting that religious faith and worship isn’t allowed to exist in this walled garden of enlightenment - where people only do good “for its own sake.” It’s egotistical and insulting to the rest of us.

There’s nothing cynical about it. I’m simply taking the principles of behavior that we all live under, all the time, and applying them to religion and faith-worship. I help an old lady across the street. Why? Because I want to see her get across the street safely. Why do I want to see her get across the street safely. Because it makes me feel good to know she got across the street safely. BINGO! And there we have self-interest.

Now, I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with this. I better not be - the human race probably wouldn’t have survived this long if helping others didn’t have this effect on us. But I am suggesting that religious faith and worship isn’t allowed to exist in this walled garden of enlightenment - where people only do good “for its own sake.” It’s egotistical and insulting to the rest of us.

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to insult you by suggesting that some people might actually do something good, not because there is something in it for them, but because it is actually the good thing to do, or for love of the person for whom they do it, maybe even for love of God. Obviously, no one is perfect, so human motives will often be mixed. We are not perfect. But to reduce yourself to a selfish animal acting purely out of desire for personal benefit and gene survival is not only absurd, but ignores the real and frequent instances of human selflessness. Frankly, I rather doubt that you are as selfish as you are trying to confess to being. I suspect there is at least a small part (and maybe more) of you that really wants to help another person out of love for them, not simply because it makes you feel good (though of course as I showed above, it is perfectly right to feel good because you have done well).

Christians do try to act from love of God and for love of others. We fail to meet those standards often, of course, because we are human. But we thoroughly refuse to give up those standards and reduce ourselves (and others) to animals.

 

[jochoa]

Hi jochoa - thanks for checking in.

Having considered this, I can only say that if God’s intention was make sure his creations could choose to love without any fear or obligation, I must judge his effort a spectacular failure. If he truly wanted us to have the free choice to do this, he could’ve done without creating a place of eternal torment for those who decline the opportunity.

We must define the terms further. How does Jesus Christ love, in your view?

Thanks for your time, consideration, and sharing your thoughts ASimon! I look forward to further discussion.

I apologize for asking you, for upon answering the question, you changed your beliefs to deism.
Since you are currently of the atheistic mindset, you obviously do not fear the consequences of Hell because you do not recognize it exists.
And since you do not recognize Jesus Christ is God, you do not feel any obligation to Him.

Therefore it can be said that Jesus Christ has fulfilled the initial task of ensuring that people are completely free to follow Jesus Christ.
And in the least, some people are free to choose without fear of persecution.

From my research and experimentation and interpretation of the Scripture defining and surrounding the Greatest Commandments, Jesus Christ’s Love is the following: Always wanting to, being, and spreading the means to perfect patience and kindness and motivation for God with all the body and all the soul and all the thoughts and all the will equally towards others and the self, as to gain unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy as a society and individual.

Please know my friend, when you fully embrace the most difficult challenge of growing in oneness with Jesus Christ’s Holy Spirit, although there will be struggles, the level of peace, happiness, and energy in your self and relationships will grow tremendously.

Please know that I want to see you and your relationships experience this unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy, for it is when you grow closer to oneness with it, that the world as a team will become better.

Therefore, please share any questions you might have, especially those which instill doubt in you, and I will deeply consider your questions as to help you see the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?