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

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 xman

We've defined these terms better already. In science, a theory is something which is credible, not just any old fairy story. I can't really argue with you until you've read the thread and visited the Critical Thinking link I recommended in my signature. I'll encourage you again to do that and catch up on the debate.

X

Experiments under controlled conditions yield fairly undeniable results. Theories such as evolution and the Big Bang draw conclusions by looking at circumstantial data.

Why is that accepted as valid for scientific theories (that have yet to be proven), and not for people's experience of God (also not proven, but some of us find a great deal of circumstantial evidence as well)?

Big Bang theory and evolution fail the critical thinking test just as much as theological theories do.

Originally Posted by jockeys

Why is it so shocking that chemical reactions in your head can cause chemical reactions in other places in your body?

When your brain is "afraid" (that is, the evolutionally conditioned state of danger recognition and subsequent fight-or-flight response,) it is undergoing chemical reactions involving adrenaline. Adrenaline does other stuff to your body, too. Other chemicals are the same way.

The chemical reaction in your head affects the chemical reaction in your chest. Nothing new here, move along.

OK, I think I lost the train of thought of why I brought up the heart in the first place?

I guess it was to do with the amount of emphasis being placed on "brain power" as the way to understand all things. I failed in my attempt.

I'm off to find some sushi/local delicacies and modify my internal chemistry with some cold beer (hey, I have to do some real world research on this topic!) at a local resturant here in Osaka...

I'll report my finding later.

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.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Big Bang theory and evolution fail the critical thinking test just as much as theological theories do.

Someone should really tell all those scientisits that their critical thinking skills have faltered.

Evolution is known to occur, we have many examples of it happening (recently, Dr. Behe was forced to admit that evolution was undeniably at work in a new trait in HIV, he is one of evolution's leading opponents and teaches biochemistry).

The disputable aspect is whether or not man evolved from proto-ape creatures, not that it happens.

The situation is this: Evolution is known to occur, we have witnessed a few instances of speciation in the relative blink of the eye that we've known to look for it, and we see a possible link between apes and ourselves that hints at a common ancestry. If something is known to occur, known to create new species and there seems to be a strong connection between two separate species, then there is no erred logic in putting all of those details together.

But if only there were a book written in the bronze age that could clarify these modern concepts for us, oh wait there is! Huzzah!

Seriously, the religious establishments of the world have yet to be right on a single explanation of the natural world, but somehow this issue is the tie-breaker?!

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Someone should really tell all those scientisits that their critical thinking skills have faltered.

Yes, actually someone should.

Just because a theory is popularly accepted by a peergroup, does not make it any more valid (or that would apply to religion as well). Nor the fact that someone is a scientist makes them any better than the rest of us shmoes.

Evolution is known to occur, we have many examples of it happening (recently, Dr. Behe was forced to admit that evolution was undeniably at work in a new trait in HIV, he is one of evolution's leading opponents and teaches biochemistry).

The disputable aspect is whether or not man evolved from proto-ape creatures, not that it happens.

The situation is this: Evolution is known to occur, we have witnessed a few instances of speciation in the relative blink of the eye that we've known to look for it, and we see a possible link between apes and ourselves that hints at a common ancestry. If something is known to occur, known to create new species and there seems to be a strong connection between two separate species, then there is no erred logic in putting all of those details together.

But if only there were a book written in the bronze age that could clarify these modern concepts for us, oh wait there is! Huzzah!

Seriously, the religious establishments of the world have yet to be right on a single explanation of the natural world, but somehow this issue is the tie-breaker?!

Baah! OK, I don't know what you are referencing, a new trait in HIV, but it is still HIV, it has not evolved into Ebola, or some other new form altogether. Yes, through natural selection change occurs. That can be observed. If you want to extrapolate the change seen within a species and then say over great periods of time one thing must have lead to another...well, that's all fine and good, but it's not any more proof than my saying that many people have had experiences of God, X, Y, Z.....and thus....

(FYI, I did go out for my beer chemical modification experiment, so bear with me...)

It's not about religion being right on the issues regarding scientific endeavors. I'm saying that all of you pragmatists out there are poking holes in religious belief because it lacks hard evidence, all it has going for it is some vague connect-the-dots if you look hard enough something about it, and at the next instant you reference the Big Bang or evolutionary theory as the pinnacles of scientific understanding, except that they as well lack anything more than a connect the dots and it's obvious what it's telling you (assuming you draw the conclusion you want it to first).

Evolution take the idea of puntuated equilibrium to explain why there is not a full spectrum of change in the fossil record. The fact is they are starting with the answer they want to see, and viewing the data in that regard. If they looked at the data truly without a preconcieved answer already formulated, then what could be made of the fact that new species seem to change/appear rather suddenly?

Black holes are also well accepted scientific theory, yet nobody has actually seen one, only the effects of them. Sound familiar?

The analogy between scientific theories being capricious endeavors in dot connecting and religious belief falls flat because it assumes that there is no wieght to plausibility, not to mention because one is based on hearsay, the other on testable data, reviewable artifacts, and logical thought processes.

If we would just go out to a museum, find a bunch of coincidental fossils and spout any random theory about their interconnectedness, sure, your analogy would work.

But speciation is known to occur, the time span we're talking about allows for the plausibility of large scale differentiation once speciation occurs, and if given more time than the couple of decades since DNA was discovered, we're more than likely to find more solid proofs.

How do you reconcile a track record that shows religion to be, not just wrong, but embarrassingly so on every occassion that it has butted heads with the scientific community?

How do you reconcile the fact that Neanderthals were a different species but shared our toolmaking capabilities and a sort of abstract expression that is seen nowhere else in nature? And the bible makes no mention of these advanced creatures, God assumes no credit for their existence. Has it ever been shown that the bible makes mention of humanoid creatures living 130,000 years ago?

Even if you want to reserve judgment on which side is right, give it some time, we're still in the relative infancy of evolutionary biology.