Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

The point I was trying to make is that they looked elsewhere for those answers, while you've said (and many people have done the same throughout history) the God offers all answers if you'll accept him.

He seems suspiciously selective about which answers he gives us, if it's even true that "god's answers" are anything more than subconscious resolutions. He really should have let us in on the secret of equal rights for all human beings, that piece of knowledge came at the price of countless innocent lives. Or how about knowledge of microorganisms, man those little buggers killed millions of people before they were discovered.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The point I was trying to make is that they looked elsewhere for those answers, while you've said (and many people have done the same throughout history) the God offers all answers if you'll accept him.

Wow, I didn't realize I said that, I must have been typing in my sleep! Although I do recall saying that God offers everyone answers about his existence if they will accept him.

I don't know for sure, but I think God enjoys when I study his creation in order to discover what makes it tick. What specifically am I shortselling myself by believing in God?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

He seems suspiciously selective about which answers he gives us, if it's even true that "god's answers" are anything more than subconscious resolutions. He really should have let us in on the secret of equal rights for all human beings, that piece of knowledge came at the price of countless innocent lives. Or how about knowledge of microorganisms, man those little buggers killed millions of people before they were discovered.

Yes, and it would have been helpful if God would have simply removed all pain from the world too - or better yet not even create it - aren't these issues for the religious establisments to tackle? There are just as many questions about God as there are about the natural world he created. But those questions only encourage us and spur us on toward more discovery and more questions upon questions. Men smarter than you have believed in God and men smarter than I have rejected him. Like I say, each person has to be convinced for himself

Russel, you are making alot of interesting and excellent points.

However, the flaws that human beings have in interpreting and administrating God's laws,as per "organized religion" are human problems, not God's problems. The fact that most people don't actually love their neighbor as themself, but instead oppress them, lie to them, etc, etc.has little to do with God Himself.

Jesus Himself railed against the religious leaders of the Jewish people, for just this reason. The very people who should have known Him (the religious leaders) made use of their offices for personal gain, and were the one who had Him put to death.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Russel, you are making alot of interesting and excellent points.

However, the flaws that human beings have in interpreting and administrating God's laws,as per "organized religion" are human problems, not God's problems. The fact that most people don't actually love their neighbor as themself, but instead oppress them, lie to them, etc, etc.has little to do with God Himself.

Jesus Himself railed against the religious leaders of the Jewish people, for just this reason. The very people who should have known Him (the religious leaders) made use of their offices for personal gain, and were the one who had Him put to death.

Wouldn't it be just as likely that the "human flaws" lead one to believe in something that doesn't exist as to not believe?

Another question;
The following are the Ten Commandments (or some version there of amazingly as these are the Laws of God you'd think we'd have more agreement on them and no so many different versions).

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."



If God is omnipotent why would would he display such base, petty human emotions that being jealousy? That last line is really over the top, punishing children for deeds of there parents, personally not the kind of guy I'd want to follow.

"Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day."

"Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

You shall not kill / You shall not murder"
The translations differ , which greatly change the meaning. As it doesn't specify what one shouldn't kill so how would one square away hunting or the eating of meat, for that matter plants are living so eating them would include killing them?


"Neither shall you commit adultery."

"Neither shall you steal."

"Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor."

"Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

If God created man in his image why would He find it ok to enslave his creations and treat them as property?

"Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife."

You guys are totally right, religious establishments have additional problems, mostly rooted in human greed and egotism.

But I do feel that it's important to make clear the issue that belief in the supernatural, and any subsequent knowledge gleaned from it, is invariably colored by the personal biases of the individual in question.

I would think that there'd be more consistency betwixt believers and much less animosity, if indeed these people (who sound equally genuine in their convictions) are communicating (or sensing or what-have-you) the same deity (the one true God).

Or are there sundry Gods in a hierarchy from True to Frivolous, or maybe, just maybe, it's the intangible processes in the brain occurring just below the surface of the rational mind.

Man's ego is very much like another entity, it is said that one can come to know it through meditation or introspective thought and that it often reveals things that would have otherwise gone unknown about the manifest actions we readily undertake, both positive and negative. Analyzing it tends to instill a sense of calm amidst mental anguish; peace of mind in discovering what the brains unconscious processing makes of our day-to-day experiences. And interestingly enough is experienced in different ways for different individuals.

I have no problem with "believers" giving whatever name they want to similar phenomena, but it's quite a different course of action to claim that an actual entity exists who accomplishes the above goals for them, and can be cited as an adviser when the reality is that their own judgment is at work more than anything, if there is anything else to speak of.

No, there has been no supporting proof "that could apply to anyone other than the believer, for whom it was obvious", which is unacceptable in any other type of discourse. There has yet to be an instance when God provided his children with any form of knowledge that wasn't already being championed by secularists. And there has yet to be a connection between the billions of "believers" and the particular deity that they have come to know (most of which are at serious odds with the rest of their companions).

So I contend, whole heartedly, that the notion of the supernatural is mankind's abstract terminology for that which is within his own mystically complex mind. The similarities are too many to ignore. The history and claims of religious and spiritual conventions are often strikingly opposed to the actions of it's constituents. And there has yet to be a reconciling of any of this amongst "God's children" no matter how much they all claim to strive toward that end.

Call it what you will, but please realize that there are other explanations.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

You guys are totally right, religious establishments have additional problems, mostly rooted in human greed and egotism.

But I do feel that it's important to make clear the issue that belief in the supernatural, and any subsequent knowledge gleaned from it, is invariably colored by the personal biases of the individual in question.

It certainly seems that way often. Often it doesn't though. This is something that would cause me to question God's existence if he hadn't proved himself to me, but like you have already mentioned, it would not disprove his existence, just call it into question and further investigation. I think it's important to ask any believer in God why his or her belief is colored by their own individual personal biases. I don't think that personal bias can be a substitute for real faith

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I would think that there'd be more consistency betwixt believers and much less animosity, if indeed these people (who sound equally genuine in their convictions) are communicating (or sensing or what-have-you) the same deity (the one true God).

I would think so too. But isn't it a human quality to be inconsistent and disagree with each other regardless of belief in God? Or is man without God a truly peaceful and harmonious creature? Although I agree with you that ideally a common belief should unite any large number of people who hold it, I don't think I can recall any such examples in human history

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Or are there sundry Gods in a hierarchy from True to Frivolous, or maybe, just maybe, it's the intangible processes in the brain occurring just below the surface of the rational mind.

Is maybe strong enough for you to conclude that there is no God at all? For me it is just another reason to ask more questions and look for more answers

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Man's ego is very much like another entity, it is said that one can come to know it through meditation or introspective thought and that it often reveals things that would have otherwise gone unknown about the manifest actions we readily undertake, both positive and negative. Analyzing it tends to instill a sense of calm amidst mental anguish; peace of mind in discovering what the brains unconscious processing makes of our day-to-day experiences. And interestingly enough is experienced in different ways for different individuals.

Ah, you have noticed that correlation, and so have I! If God did indeed create man after his own image, wouldn't this be an expected correlation? The difference is that we should never expect that ego to extend beyond itself while we should expect an all powerful God to make his presence known outside of the construct of the ego, although accepting such proof of God will still be left up to the individual.

Isn't it also interesting that man's ego has a tendency to question its surroundings and discover and ask questions? It is said that it is the glory of God to conceal something and the honor of men to search it out. Don't different people study the same things and then arrive at different conclusions? And we say some are right and some are wrong until someone else comes along and says "look what I discovered" and we trust what they say because we can build on it and make it work in our own experiences. And what's wrong with that?

It is still the same with God except that we cannot force God's hand as we can nature's. We can recreate natural reactions and situations in order to confirm theories, but if God is his own person, how can we test him by our own methods? To set up our own frameworks and expectations for God is to invite confusion and doubt about him. And I don't think that's wrong, I just think it's futile. It's that presupposing that God should be who we think he should be (the ego effect again? Funny that part of your argument against God's existence is the same as other's argument for it: that God's existence or non existence is dependent on what you or I expect him to be.) If he is God then he is who he says he is and does what he says he'll do. What I say about him is of little consequence for you unless you put more faith in me than in yourself - I took up my questions and doubts with him and he answered me according to himself, not according to what I or anyone else wanted.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I have no problem with "believers" giving whatever name they want to similar phenomena, but it's quite a different course of action to claim that an actual entity exists who accomplishes the above goals for them, and can be cited as an adviser when the reality is that their own judgment is at work more than anything, if there is anything else to speak of.

If supernatural judgment has ever been given, surely there is historical and current evidences of it. But that would be difficult to prove, wouldn't it, even if true? If God is a person dispensing such judgment, how could an experiment be set up to show that it is him? Maybe he has addressed that issue somewhere already? Or how can you prove in every case that someone's judgment was not borrowed from anyone else?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

No, there has been no supporting proof "that could apply to anyone other than the believer, for whom it was obvious", which is unacceptable in any other type of discourse. There has yet to be an instance when God provided his children with any form of knowledge that wasn't already being championed by secularists. And there has yet to be a connection between the billions of "believers" and the particular deity that they have come to know (most of which are at serious odds with the rest of their companions).

The difference knowing God and believing God exists could quite possibly separate the billions from mere handfuls, couldn't it? As we both know, proof is more than just claims, which is why each person has to be convinced himself. You are right that there has been nothing that has ever proven God to you, and I have accepted that throughout the course of the conversation. That you say there has been no proof is exactly what I expect, and I agree that there have been many such proofs that God has provided people with forms of knowledge that were not already being championed by secularists. In fact, I daresay that for every believer that claims to have heard from God, you can find someone who doesn't make such claim who knew it before him. And then you can keep digging and find a believer who knew it before him. And so on and so forth. God's creation has been around for a long time subject to analysis, scrutiny, discovery, etc. And yet still we don't know everything about it. Someone specializes in mathematics and another in medicine, and yet nobody knows the sum total of it all. Why is it strange that God would tell somebody something even though someone else already knows it? I don't know how your lack of being convinced in this matter should prove to anyone other than yourself that God doesn't exist. And that's fine, because I know it cuts both ways.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

So I contend, whole heartedly, that the notion of the supernatural is mankind's abstract terminology for that which is within his own mystically complex mind. The similarities are too many to ignore. The history and claims of religious and spiritual conventions are often strikingly opposed to the actions of it's constituents. And there has yet to be a reconciling of any of this amongst "God's children" no matter how much they all claim to strive toward that end.

Call it what you will, but please realize that there are other explanations.

I don't ignore those similarities either, and yet I know God lives. The history of claims and convictions contradict each other often and the believers of God range just as widely in actions as the nonbelievers. Believers can make claims such as I make that contradict another and it is most easy and natural to say, "look, you can't all be right about God, therefore what you're all calling God must not exist. It is just not possible that you're all right about him!" And yet he remains. Before we were here and after we are gone, he will remain and even though we can argue about whether or not we are satisfied with the evidence or lack thereof, our conclusion really can't change the truth of the matter. As I think we both know, either he is or he isn't.

I hold that it is perfectly reasonable to be willing to discard circumstantial evidence when greater evidence is presented. When I think about everything you presented in your last post, all I can find is that you are not satisfied to believe in God because what you see in this world is not what you would expect if God were true. You say there should be more agreement between believers but more disagreement between who men say God is and who men really are (in their egos.) Not only does some of this seem contradictory to me (though it doesn't matter at all) but I think such contradiction between what we initially expect and what we later discover to be true is constant in the physical material and natural world around us as well. As man's knowledge increases and builds upon past generations, we discard previously-solid notions and move forward with models and theories that more closely mirror new observations that we never had the ability to make before. It seems perfectly logical to me that if creation is the work of a creator, that we would often find ourselves at initial odds with it over disagreements between claims of observations of him and between those who study him.

Of course I realize there are other explanations. They just fall far short of convincing me that God does not exist. For me to deny his existence because of doubts and maybes that half the world has and half the world doesn't have is silly. I have to examine it for myself. Who would you really trust to tell you the truth about a creator? You'd have to get it straight from the creator wouldn't you? And I have, and it would be completely unreasonable for me to pretend he doesn't exist even in the face of others' doubts and misgivings.

Originally Posted by Hutch

If God is omnipotent why would would he display such base, petty human emotions that being jealousy?

maybe it's a case of man creating God in his own image, eh?

seriously, every holy book ever written was penned by man. whether he was divinely inspired or not, I won't speak to, but it was written down by man, and written down in his own terms. Thus, man's deities have always been suspiciously like man himself, down to the last childish tendency, down to the last capricious act of genocide.