A Question for Religious People

[C-Nub]

I got this from a book.

Oh, and for the atheists out there, I'm one of you, don't post that there is no God. Just sit on your hands and be good for a while.

Please?

Anyways, here's the question. It might be better suited for the philosophy area, but once again, I'm an internet Jedi, and moderators will leave this thread alone.

Would you rather continue more or less as you are, believing in God and telling people that you know he exists and loves you, or would you rather know for a fact that there's a god, that mankind has been in actual, factual contact with him, but he's a giant worm that lives on mars?

Odd question, I know, but I'm curious. Options again are

A) I believe in God, but I'm kind of not sure even though I sometimes pretend I am.

B) I've seen pictures of God! He's a giant Martian Worm that loves me!



Personally, I have to default to B. I don't believe in God, so if I were to be faced with the choice between having faith and having proof, I opt for the proof. Worms never bothered me though.

[C-Nub]

You know, I was a little quick to get defensive there, so I'm going to pretty much do a 180 here, rather than go back and forth with CNorman, whom I actually like, on whether or not I was out of line. I still don't think I was, but that really isn't relative to whether or not I was offensive to some, and since that wasn't and isn't my goal, I apologize.

I was not trying to be disrespectful, but rather ask a question that interested me in a funny way. I do not, not as a matter of choice or purpose but just by my nature, see religion as something to be revered. I don't treat it as such because it is not natural for me to treat it as such, and I do sometimes fail to appreciate how other people view it.

I don't, not to diminish my apology here, feel like I was out of line or behaving in a way contrary to the forum rules, but at the same time, what I said is clearly not coming across how I intended to say it, and for that, at least, I am sorry.

[cnorman18]

You know, I was a little quick to get defensive there, so I'm going to pretty much do a 180 here, rather than go back and forth with CNorman, whom I actually like, on whether or not I was out of line. I still don't think I was, but that really isn't relative to whether or not I was offensive to some, and since that wasn't and isn't my goal, I apologize.

As I said; I realize that no offense was meant, and I shall backtrack a bit myself.

I don't think "offensive" was the proper word, and I withdraw it. What I was trying to say is that questions like this one--and, indeed, attitudes toward religion like your own--betray a certain unfamiliarity (I would also concede that "ignorance" is too strong a word) with developments in authentic modern religion, both Christian and Jewish.

Only one (1) major Christian theologian of the 20th century was still concerned with the idea of a traditional, personal and supernatural God, and that would be the German neo-orthodox thinker, Karl Barth. I think I will shortly be posting a thread about some of the others, and discussing the views that are substantially missing from this forum.

Small wonder, to be honest and fair, that liberal Christianity gets such short shrift in this forum. There are no liberal Christians here.

I was not trying to be disrespectful, but rather ask a question that interested me in a funny way. I do not, not as a matter of choice or purpose but just by my nature, see religion as something to be revered. I don't treat it as such because it is not natural for me to treat it as such, and I do sometimes fail to appreciate how other people view it.

I don't, not to diminish my apology here, feel like I was out of line or behaving in a way contrary to the forum rules...

Nor do I.

...but at the same time, what I said is clearly not coming across how I intended to say it, and for that, at least, I am sorry.

A graceful and articulate apology, and more than was needed. I too, overstated my concerns and have tried to correct that since.

By the way, I'll go with plan A.

And I like you, too.

[C-Nub]

Since I am still interested in the answer, allow me a chance to rephrase the question here;


Would you rather

A) Continue to believe in God as is, whatever your personal definition of him be,

or;

B) Be faced with proof that there is a God, but his nature is not only counter-intuitive, but in a lot of ways something or somewhat absurd to us and our indoctrinated definitions of him/her/it/them to date?

The giant, physical worm manifestation example was intended to illustrate that absurdity, and was, once again, lifted from a book (in my bathroom) without being altered (but paraphrased) by me.

[dvablackbird]

Since I am still interested in the answer...

Dear C- Nub,

As you are still interested in an answer, I’m going to try to give you one in my own way. I don’t have any kind of believing and atheism is only a special one among them. My religion is observing, seeing and understanding of everything so as it really is.

You can read e.g. in Bible, God is a spirit.
Worms, men with beards, triangled eyes, any picture or verbal describing that all stuff is merely symbolic, has not much relevance.
Funny enough, that spirit is also your own spirit as well as my and anybody else.
Spirit is just your mind, your consciousness. It can be in many different states, you know.
As example you can take slipping, dreaming, any kind of mood and any kind of intoxications.
But there is also a special one you don’t know, and you are looking for.

You may ask me why you, as well as most people on the earth do not feel that God’s spirit inside of themselves.
Very simple answer. You probably would continue your request, but you wouldn’t find any better.

You cannot perceive God simply because you don’t know yourself.

You can have a lot of information about yourself but you certainly don’t know the structure of your psyche and nature of your ego – your psychological “I�; and this is the most significant factor.
You are a prolongation of many generations and you are living in the world of words, in verbal dimension implying words, pictures and every kind of other feelings that runs in constant movement, in dividing and conflict any parts with each other. That verbal noise and chaos in your consciousness including subconsciousness (you probably call it your normal life) disturbs you to perceive God.
Understanding of that whole structure of mental activities causing conflicts, noise, and suffering in your mind brings it to quietness. Silent mind is able to perceive that ever-new dimension you may call it God, love, timeless, truth, freedom or whatever. That is a state of bliss.

Any human being is able to get it and all religions are in there.

[InTheFlesh]

What you're failing to realize,
is that faith in God is backed up substance and evidence.

You are here right?
But yet you are uncertain of how you got here right?
If you're certain of your origin, post your proof here and we can continue.

[MagusYanam]

Would you rather

A) Continue to believe in God as is, whatever your personal definition of him be,

or;

B) Be faced with proof that there is a God, but his nature is not only counter-intuitive, but in a lot of ways something or somewhat absurd to us and our indoctrinated definitions of him/her/it/them to date?

I'm not sure what kind of choice this is. My faith in God demands some level of absurdity, since so much of our own existence as human beings is absurd and depends so much upon subjectivity. I don't expect that a proof for God will ever turn up, or if it does it is likely not to be very convincing at all to people who don't already believe it, because faith is willing to accept a fundamental absurdity to the universe that is not amenable to proof.

What you're failing to realize,
is that faith in God is backed up substance and evidence.

I beg to differ.

If there were substantive evidence for God in the natural world, it would be impossible to entertain even the idea of faith.

[InTheFlesh]

Heb.11
[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[McCulloch]

Heb.11
[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

It does not say that faith is supported by evidence or that it has substance.
It says that faith is the substance; that it is the evidence.
So when you cannot find a substantial argument or evidence, you fall back onto faith.

[InTheFlesh]

That is your interpretation,
the bible offers a different one.

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?"

If God did create man,
are we not substance and evidence of the work of his hands?
Your unbelief doesn't remove the proof that he exists!
The faith of God is very substantial.

[McCulloch]

That is your interpretation,

What I posted was not interpretation. It was simply citing the text of the Bible.

the bible offers a different one.

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?"

Perhaps I am stupid but I cannot see how this passage offers a different interpretation.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

If God did create man,
are we not substance and evidence of the work of his hands?
Your unbelief doesn't remove the proof that he exists!
The faith of God is very substantial.

I am not arguing that my unbelief proves that God does not exist anymore than you (presumably) are not arguing that your belief proves that God does exist. The passage you cited in Hebrews, however says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. It does not say that faith is based on evidence. Maybe some other passage says this, why don't you look?