Belief in God

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Belief in God

Post by Jersey Girl »

canpakes wrote:
Fri Nov 04, 2022 1:38 am
.
Jersey Girl -

Let me start with a disclaimer, of sorts.

When I ask you questions like these, I’m very interested in your perspective; I’m not looking to trap you into a particular response or to force a conclusion … these are more oriented towards a kind of thought experiment (as much as my walnut-sized brain can participate in, anyway), and I enjoy reading how other folks approach these subjects.
canpakes if you were trying to trap me into forcing a conclusion, I wouldn't mind in the least. Based on my early experiences online, I'd probably see it coming though. I don't mind examining my own thoughts and ideas. That's essentially why I write posts to begin with. Also considering the perspectives of others and learning from them. That's the other piece of why I've been on these boards for so blasted long. And...to laugh. :-)
That said -
Jersey Girl wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2022 7:03 pm


The only answer to that I can think of or even imagine, canpakes, is that anything God creates outside of his holiness is destined or has the potential to become corrupted. Then I ask myself what about the angels, can angels become corrupted? And the answer to that, in my view, is yes they can.
Putting aside angels at the moment … how does an entire world become corrupted by - or, more to the point, become victims of the ‘corruption’ from - the single action of two uninvolved individuals designed to be susceptible to suggestion?
Because if the account is true and accurate, we would all be their descendants and have inherited what we call human sin nature. I haven't formally studied world religions but I am sure there are similar explanations found in other religions. If the account is not true and accurate, it still describes the state of being human including human nature.

But here is the thing. I tend to look at the accounts as tribal myth or allegory, handed down through human history first via orality and then finally written down. I think they represent the ancients understanding of the world around them and the people in it. The reason I say this is because I can't imagine that any of the folks who passed on the Genesis account were actually present at creation. Same thing with the Flood account. People will argue global vs. local. I've done it myself. I think it was local. Could they be literal? I'm open to that perspective as well. But if one takes the position of myth/allegory, there also needs to be a line drawn between those accounts and what I consider to be historical accounts. It's very difficult for me to wade through the Old Testament because I don't know all that much about ancient symbolism and I don't have a good grasp on the time lines. I used to consult an online Jewish resource to try to understand how the ancients read and interpret these scriptures. But I haven't done that in years and years. I'm not interested in it like I was when I started online discussion/debate 23 years ago. I'm older now and I'm more about the business of living life because I'm closer to the finish line now.

Jersey Girl wrote:
Wed Nov 02, 2022 11:40 pm
When I read the Genesis account I see a God who created a perfect world (Garden) …
canpakes wrote:What made it perfect?
As reported, sin hadn't yet entered the creation and corrupted it. But here is the thing, if as I stated above that anything God creates out of his holiness is destined/has the potential to become corrupted then...was it already corrupted when he created it?

Don't know. Boggles the mind.
It would seem that anything that ‘corruption’ is, was included within the system from the start. If you propose an alternative ‘corrupted’ existence to an ‘uncorrupted’ existence, then you’re only stating that one of two options is in effect - but either option must have always been there.
Yes I agree and again, you have consider what perspective to take of the Genesis account. As I said, I lean strongly towards myth/allegory but I don't exactly know where to draw the line.
Similarly, if you are going to assign the existence of suffering and death to corruption, then suffering and death are an inseparable part of this existence, when there’s no sure rationalization that either ever needed to be … if an existence is created by a god.
I attribute suffering and death to corruption as feature of creation. I also attribute life itself and development of human conscience, human intuition, human search for something greater than oneself , as well as human attempts to communicate with that something greater than oneself as features of creation. Little off topic, but not really. There are schools of scientific theory that forward the idea that humans are wired to believe in a god. I tie that to creation however creation happened with humans as a focal point and reason for the process. People on previous boards attempted to demean my religious leanings by saying Your brain is wired to believe in god and when I read that I'd think, well of course I think I am. I sometimes used to say in those discussions that I intuit God. That aspect of my life and how I experience it has never changed.

Which leads us back to the main question: Life must destroy other Life - often painfully so - in order to succeed. Why?
The only explanation I can think of for your above is that you're referring to destroying life to stay alive--eating? Other than that, I don't see why life must destroy life in any other context. I might be zoning here while reading.
And it’s not so much that I’m asking why a supposed god would design an existence with those features; rather, why should I assume that a god existed to make that decision in the first place? The notion speaks to a dark intent if it is a designed reality, and assuming that a god designed this existence, then that dark intent is assigned to that god by default.
I don't know why you should assume that a god existed to make the decisions that you stated. I haven't asked you to assume the existence of god. I would never dictate to you what you should assume, believe, or not believe. If you are an atheist, I understand that you lack a belief in god. I also leave room for the possibility that if you lack a belief in god that you're intellectually superior to me and have a better grasp on various disciplines such as scientific theory and discovery. Things I don't really pay attention to because my interest lies in people not particularly in science. I don't know if that makes sense. If it doesn't, I'll try to explain myself in more detail but I have a hunch you already know what my focus in life is.

I want to try to address the dark intent that you mentioned above. If that dark intent relies on the assertion that life must destroy of life then I'm not exactly sure how to respond to that. If we consider that God is a divine being and humans are not, then it makes sense to me that physically we and animals are created in the form of tubes that take in food and expel the left overs. (I can't believe I said that just before Thanksgiving.)

If we're destroying life beyond the need for food...what exactly are we destroying as a requirement of life?
Last edited by Jersey Girl on Sat Nov 12, 2022 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Belief in God

Post by Jersey Girl »

KevinSim wrote:
Wed Nov 09, 2022 11:04 pm
Jersey Girl wrote:
Sat Nov 05, 2022 10:48 pm
I'm here for like two seconds because that's really all the time I have at the moment. You wanna know why I think you're a waste of time?
Yes, I do.
Jersey Girl wrote:When you write an opening post like you did whenever you started that thread in Terrestrial in which you named myself and msnobody, and when those posters reply to you, I expect you to reply to their posts. Last I looked up there which was last night or the night before, you had skipped right over my post.
Jersey Girl, you started this post off by declaring you have significantly limited time. In all honesty I wasn't aware that I had skipped anybody, but if I did skip right over your post it was because I also have significantly limited time. Right now my wife has a full-time job so I'm a full-time caregiver for our ten-year-old grandson, and I need to keep the house taken care of. On top of that I'm taking a demanding class at Utah Valley University. I read and post to this forum when I'm unable to put any work in on those other three tasks, and that doesn't happen very often.
I was involved in one thread that generated a huge amount of responses. I started with the oldest and attempted to work my way through the backlog. And I got dinged for doing that; some posters said answering old posts was troll-like behavior! The implication was that I should concentrate on more recent posts, and forget about older posts, so I tried to take that advice, and now I'm getting dinged for that! I can't win no matter what I do! I guess I could drop my UVU class and I could abandon my grandson, but for some reason I don't think those are good options. So what do you want me to do, Jersey Girl?
Why are you asking me what I want you to do when I already said it in the above post you've quoted and replied to here?

Right here, buddy. Right here. I'll emphasize it so you can't miss it a second time.

When you write an opening post like you did whenever you started that thread in Terrestrial in which you named myself and msnobody, and when those posters reply to you, I expect you to reply to their posts.


You named two posters in your OP. All you had to do was scroll through the thread or search on their screen names to find their replies. If you're spread too thin, stop making multiple threads to keep up with. It's rude.
Jersey Girl wrote:What part of Biblical Gospel don't you understand?

The whole thing. I have seen no reason to believe different people don't think the Bible means different things. If there's some systematic way to tell precisely what the Bible means on any one particular subject, I certainly don't know what that systematic way is. Jersey Girl, is it impossible to imagine that someone like me would have trouble understanding that there's some way of interpreting the Bible that's guaranteed to get me to that one biblical gospel?
Jersey Girl wrote:I mean you actually asked me if my comment about belief in Jesus was relevant to this thread you (and LDS believer) made about God. Again, are you joking?
I was not joking. This thread was about the concept of God in general, God that many people believe in, and many of those people don't believe Jesus is that God. Jersey Girl, you were the first person in this thread to mention Jesus. Although I've got to point out that after I expressed my opinion that Jesus was off topic, I did go on to express my opinion about Jesus. I have no problem talking about Jesus; I just didn't want anyone to accuse me of going off topic myself.
Good grief. :roll:

This is what was asked of you: I would like for you to articulate the biblical gospel as understood by evangelical Christians.


This was your reply: Msnobody, what exactly does "biblical gospel" mean? Are you talking about the gospel as the Bible describes it?

:roll: No, KevinSim, when someone asks you to articulate the biblical gospel as understood by Ev Christians, they are most definitely NOT asking you to address the gospel as the Bible describes it.

They are asking you to describe your understanding of the biblical gospel as understood by Ev Christian's from the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the back of a Campbell's soup can.

Now that I've got that all out of my system, don't bother yourself with a reply. I won't read it. I won't even see it.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: Belief in God

Post by Jersey Girl »

I'm bolding a couple of things I wanted to hear about from you.
Some Schmo wrote:
Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:15 pm
Jersey Girl wrote:
Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:48 am
On the other hand...if a Creator God exists and if (too many if's for an atheist, I know but I have to represent my own position) and if that God wired humans to be able to sense and/or communicate with it/him/her, then I think it's possible that when humans assert God they have experienced that being in some form. Yes, I know you are going to say that's subjective based on individual experience but when I think of God in that way, I have to ask "Why wouldn't it be subjective to the individual?" Because I think that aligns with the teachings of Christianity. It may align with the teachings of other religions that I am not well familiar with as well.

(I opened a door for you there if you want to walk through it or pass on it, either way is okay with me.)
If someone were to experience god, there would certainly be a subjective component, but there might also be an objective one if it were to break with tradition and visit a group of people, allowing them to take pictures. Then we'd have documentation and congruent witness accounts.

As it stands, every single account of a god is made by unverifiable sources; in other words, they are all subjective experiences, and as a result, suspect.
On the whole, I agree that the accounts are subjective. I think of them as personal to the individual. I understand that folks are looking for verification, a picture even as you suggested. I submit to you that the accounts and the people who share them are the evidence. But I understand that you are asking for physical evidence of some sort.

If you will entertain this (it's okay if you'd rather not), tell me what physical evidence exists for love and do you think the evidence is reliable?


Do you mean like the Big Bang, the singularity and all the scientific theories? Also I don't know what you mean that the first idea is untenable. If you'd like to explain that further, I'm ready to read and think about it.
You said, "The Creation is corrupted therefore God is outside of the Creation and can't control what happens on the inside so to speak." I agree that idea doesn't work within the context of Christianity.

All I was getting at there is that if you ignore everything you've ever heard about Christianity or any other version of the origin of the universe other than the scientific one, one idea is as good as the next. The thing that makes the scientific theory better is all the supporting evidence.
Sure, you can say that one idea is as good as the next. But Christianity (and other theories of the origins of the universe) does exist in the world. Religious thought and belief exists. Subjective experiences exist. It is something that we contend with whether or not we subscribe to it. Scientific theory does have supporting evidence. As new evidences or other (how do I say this) discoveries are made, knew knowledge is introduced that changes and updates theory. Sometimes new discoveries upend everything we thought we knew. I'm not saying that the scientific method isn't reliable. Surely we rely on it. But we rely on the reworking or discarding of theories as well. My comments about that aren't really having anything to do with god. I'm just sharing what I think about science.

Let me ask you another question. Do you think humans are spiritual beings? If not or if so, why do you think that?


Oh no. You agreed with me? You're supposed to provide the conflict to my own assertions. I don't know what to do with you now, Schmo.
We agree often. Often, my silence is assent.
I think we seem to agree on social matters.
You ask, why did god create such crappy humans? I think mentioned that in another post but in case I didn't actually post it, I would say that God is holy and anything he creates outside of himself is not holy and destined to become corrupt. I think I used the example of angels somewhere on this thread posed the question: Is it possible for angels to sin? And to that I say, "Yes".

In the interest of fairness, I'd have to ask myself where does my assertion leave Jesus? I don't know the answer to that right this moment but I will think about it. I don't mind challenging myself to think and think harder about a thing.

And then you (or I) have to ask if God is holy and anything he creates outside himself is not holy and destined to become corrupt then why put us all through it?

Possible answer: Because he is a creator and he wanted to create us. He made a way out of the suffering.

(There's another open door if you care to walk through it. You can pick it up and carry the ball or pass. It's okay with me either way.)

So far I haven't quoted scripture. How'm I doing when I bat things around?
If there is a creator of the universe, I guess I'm at a loss for how this creation can be corrupted unless the creator baked corruption into the universe.
So, I think I said this in another post on this thread. If God is holy and he creates something (like angels I guess or us humans) does it automatically follow that what he creates is holy as well? According to what is presented in the Bible, there's no evidence to suggest that what he creates is holy. Quite the contrary is true based on what we read throughout the Old Testament and New Testament.

Actually, as I think of it just now, there is Old Testament evidence (if you rely on it as an explanation or indication) to suggest that what is outside of God must be purified so therefore what is outside of God must not be holy like he is.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by Some Schmo »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Sat Nov 12, 2022 12:19 am
On the whole, I agree that the accounts are subjective. I think of them as personal to the individual. I understand that folks are looking for verification, a picture even as you suggested. I submit to you that the accounts and the people who share them are the evidence. But I understand that you are asking for physical evidence of some sort.
People's accounts are certainly evidence, just not reliable. What makes them so problematic is the fact that every person's god is different. There is so much room to argue over the various god ideas because we don't have any external thing to decide our arguments.
If you will entertain this (it's okay if you'd rather not), tell me what physical evidence exists for love and do you think the evidence is reliable?
My wife has been making me meals for years now; she keeps me alive. That's pretty physical evidence of her love for me.

Of course, to me, love is action, not the associated feelings.
Sure, you can say that one idea is as good as the next. But Christianity (and other theories of the origins of the universe) does exist in the world. Religious thought and belief exists. Subjective experiences exist. It is something that we contend with whether or not we subscribe to it.
No doubt. I find myself contending with it constantly.
Scientific theory does have supporting evidence. As new evidences or other (how do I say this) discoveries are made, knew knowledge is introduced that changes and updates theory. Sometimes new discoveries upend everything we thought we knew. I'm not saying that the scientific method isn't reliable. Surely we rely on it. But we rely on the reworking or discarding of theories as well. My comments about that aren't really having anything to do with god. I'm just sharing what I think about science.
I think you may have a fundamental misconception about scientific theories. They wouldn't be theories without a ton of supporting evidence and peer reviewed studies. Theories are sometime tweaked as new information is discovered, but the theories themselves are almost never completely upended.

What you seem to be talking about are hypotheses, but scientists don't live their lives based on hypotheses, unless they're crackpots.
Let me ask you another question. Do you think humans are spiritual beings? If not or if so, why do you think that?
It depends on what you mean by spiritual. If by that you mean, do human beings feel things deeply, and sometimes have transcendental experiences that change the way they think? Then yes, that's what I think humans are.

If by spiritual you mean religious in some way, then no, I don't think humans are spiritual by default. I think that behavior has to be taught.
If there is a creator of the universe, I guess I'm at a loss for how this creation can be corrupted unless the creator baked corruption into the universe.
So, I think I said this in another post on this thread. If God is holy and he creates something (like angels I guess or us humans) does it automatically follow that what he creates is holy as well? According to what is presented in the Bible, there's no evidence to suggest that what he creates is holy. Quite the contrary is true based on what we read throughout the Old Testament and New Testament.

Actually, as I think of it just now, there is Old Testament evidence (if you rely on it as an explanation or indication) to suggest that what is outside of God must be purified so therefore what is outside of God must not be holy like he is.
So your god isn't omnipotent either.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
KevinSim
Bishop
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 08, 2022 1:09 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by KevinSim »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:28 pm
Now that I've got that all out of my system, don't bother yourself with a reply. I won't read it. I won't even see it.
Wow, Jersey Girl, you're harsh. My crime, in your eyes, was to ask for clarification on what "biblical gospel" meant. I'm high functioning autistic. One of the things that means is that I often ask for clarification on things that seem obvious to other people. Is that such a bad thing?
You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to. You're free to post or not post, as you please. I'm curious though, whether other Biblical Christian posters are as harsh as you are.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by Some Schmo »

I've just got to say, Jersey Girl, that I agree with KevinSim. You're being unnecessarily harsh with him in this thread, and it doesn't seem warranted. We all have busy lives and this board shouldn't be anyone's top priority. I'm also confused why you're upset he asked for a clarification.

I suppose I'm saying this because I'm impressed with how long he's hung in this conversation. I'm impressed with you hanging in too, but I think you should cut him some slack.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by Some Schmo »

I've been thinking about this a lot lately (given this thread) and it seems to me that big problem is that most god believers don't think of it as an idea. Ultimately, the god hypothesis is just another human idea. The problem is that people born today were never around when the idea was gaining traction. Now they think of it as an actual external thing. By now, so many people have bought into the god idea that people don't say, "what my god wants," acknowledging the truth that the god they are thinking of is a product of their imagination, but instead just say "god" like it's a thing that everyone knows about, like China or dark matter.

Contending with god belief, to me, feels like arguing with people over whether leprechauns exist. Why should I even damned bother with such an obviously dubious belief?
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Belief in God

Post by Chap »

Some Schmo wrote:
Sun Nov 13, 2022 6:32 am
I've been thinking about this a lot lately (given this thread) and it seems to me that big problem is that most god believers don't think of it as an idea. Ultimately, the god hypothesis is just another human idea. The problem is that people born today were never around when the idea was gaining traction. Now they think of it as an actual external thing. By now, so many people have bought into the god idea that people don't say, "what my god wants," acknowledging the truth that the god they are thinking of is a product of their imagination, but instead just say "god" like it's a thing that everyone knows about, like China or dark matter.
Above you make very effectively a point that I have previously tried to bring to the fore. And don't forget the effect of capitalisation: not just "god", but "God".
Some Schmo wrote:
Sun Nov 13, 2022 6:32 am
Contending with god belief, to me, feels like arguing with people over whether leprechauns exist. Why should I even damned bother with such an obviously dubious belief?
That is (sigh) rather how I often feel myself nowadays. But children may be reading this board ...
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2469
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by Some Schmo »

Chap wrote:
Sun Nov 13, 2022 1:31 pm
Above you make very effectively a point that I have previously tried to bring to the fore. And don't forget the effect of capitalisation: not just "god", but "God".
Right, and not just "him," but "Him."

When you think about it, it's a pretty vain way of describing just another one of your own unoriginal ideas. It's demanding respect for an unprovable notion. It's ridiculous.

ETA: One of the most obvious clues that the god idea is an ancient fabrication is the tradition of regarding this god as male. If that doesn't give it away, I don't know what does.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Belief in God

Post by canpakes »

Some Schmo wrote:
Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:45 am
If you will entertain this (it's okay if you'd rather not), tell me what physical evidence exists for love and do you think the evidence is reliable?
My wife has been making me meals for years now; she keeps me alive. That's pretty physical evidence of her love for me.

Of course, to me, love is action, not the associated feelings.
Your partner’s actions can absolutely be a manifestation of love … but intent can factor in on both sides of the exchange. : D

Still, this question prompts another, for you, Jersey Girl (and I still owe you an answer from a previous post; will have to find that).

What actions of love to you see - either from God or other external entities driven by God - as evidence that ‘God loves us’?
Post Reply