Why do christians believe in god?

[kilese]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

[Slopeshoulder]

Think of Eden as our "existence" within God, before coming into form. In God is unity and wholeness. There is no good and evil. Good cancels evil, just as light dismisses the dark. But then Eve eats of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and she and Adam are cast out from the Garden and the unity it represents. We, as human beings, are the first beings to achieve the self-awareness necessary to judge good from evil, and the possibility of morality reveals itself. But there remains within us the memory of the unity and wholeness we knew in God, and we often feel torn by an angst we do not fully understand. We seek to heal that breach in a variety of ways. But if God is in us and all around us, then that experience of unity and wholeness is always available to us based on our willingness to open ourselves to it.

What is your stance on whether the Adam and Eve and the garden were literally true? I do not consider it literally true as there is lack of historical evidence and inconsistencies found in the story. I regard more as an allegory describing the beginnings of man and our state of existence. Eden, by in large, represents paradise and the allegory tells us of how paradise was lost by the first humans, and why we are currently in a fallen state (sin). That, IMO, is the overall meaning and whether or not it was literally true doesn't matter. Moral teaching and instruction can be pulled from fiction.

The mythos is of a 'fall' - the actuality is one of evolution. It is a metaphor for the evolution from simple consiousness we observe in 'lower' species to the self reflective consciousness which appears to be unique to homo sapiens.

The idea of 'sin' is a religious construct - it does not exist in wider reality. The idea of sin emerged with the emergence of the illusion of duality that is a consequence of the evolution of self reflectivity.

A transformative spiritual practice leads toward a dissolution of the illusion and a realization (a making real) of the unity to which Kayky (hi kay ) refers.

It seems to this reader that you're all saying 95% the same thing, or seeing much the same, albeit through different lenses.

[Flail]

I wrote a long post recently in another thread (Does evidence kill santa?) that myths can be either Falsehood, Fable, Symbol, or Sign. BIG myths tend to be the latter two.

Evidence requests are relevant to the actual text of falsehoods, but only to the interpretation of fables, symbols, and signs, not the text itself.
Evidence requests are also relevant and apropos when literalists try to destroy myth and turn it into spurious truth claims (hence falsehoods).

kids kids kids, you're both right, it's a floor wax AND a dessert topping...

Right on Slopeshoulder. Your myth explanations were informative. Myths can certainly have value when viewed in the light of fable as in Aeosop's Fables or bible stories. As you say, when myth is becomes 'truth' via indoctrination,dogma and ritual practices, it is time to bring out the 'evidence' guns and shoot down the falsehoods.

[Slopeshoulder]

I wrote a long post recently in another thread (Does evidence kill santa?) that myths can be either Falsehood, Fable, Symbol, or Sign. BIG myths tend to be the latter two.

Evidence requests are relevant to the actual text of falsehoods, but only to the interpretation of fables, symbols, and signs, not the text itself.
Evidence requests are also relevant and apropos when literalists try to destroy myth and turn it into spurious truth claims (hence falsehoods).

kids kids kids, you're both right, it's a floor wax AND a dessert topping...

Right on Slopeshoulder. Your myth explanations were informative. Myths can certainly have value when viewed in the light of fable as in Aeosop's Fables or bible stories. As you say, when myth is becomes 'truth' via indoctrination,dogma and ritual practices, it is time to bring out the 'evicence' guns and shoot down the falsehood.

But it's also important to let the meaning of myths that function as symbols and signs work their full effect. I think that's important. Falsehood and fable aren't enough.

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Skyangel.

An agreed upon usage of what a word represents is imperative to a full comprehension of a shared communication.

What then do you perceive as the generally "agreed upon usage" of the word "God" ? Is there even such an "agreed upon usage" of the word in this world?

There are plenty of religious people attempting to push their idea of what the word god means, even going to the point of capitalising the letter "G", as if that gives their version a greater validity.

It would all depend upon who it is that you are in a discussion with as to what meaning is placed upon the word, which is usually dependent upon which religion they are.

Personally, I recognise "Truth" as What Is. Regardless of what description is applied to What Is, it remains What Is.

So for any "writings of men", fiction can as easily represent "Truth" by describing What Is within a fictional setting. For instance ...

"A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it.
-First Law of Mentat"

Dune, Frank Herbert.

... which is a description of "Truth" applied within the fictional setting of the novel.

When people "go with the flow" of a fictional truth and get carried away with it, they end up drowning in the current and being unable to tell the difference between real truth and fiction.

Nowhere does it state, "go with the flow" in the Dune quote, so I am unsure of your source of this quotation that you have used.

While your analogy is entertaining, is there a pint to it at all ?

If feelings (sensory perception) alone were a recognition of being "in a body", then a paraplegic would not be recognised as being "in a body".

The fact that you have control of a physical body and can recognise the interactions that it has with the environment that surrounds it, in no way determines that you are "inside a body". All it shows is that the sensory perceptions of the physical body are working to give you data about your surrounding environment.

Any paraplegic is still aware of being in a body even if the body has no sensory perceptions. Their self awareness tells them they are inside the body. Any conscious self aware person understands they are in a body.

Have you talked with any paraplegic to confirm what you state here ?

You also misunderstand what being paraplegic represents. It is not that there are no sensory perceptions, it is that the signal is not recognised because of a failure in the transference of the signal.

Do you mean that you think that anyone that does not agree that their essence is not contained within a body is not a "conscious self aware person" ?

The breathing of the physical body simply shows that it is functioning in a manner to continue experiencing life. In no way does the physical body's functioning count as verifiable evidence that the essence that you are is "in" your "body".

Can you point out a place within the physical body in which the essence of who you are resides ?

Has verifiable evidence ever been presented that this is the physical receptacle for the essence of who you are ?

The fact that a body is functioning proves there is life in the body. Life is the essence of the Spirit of Life. It is what it is. I am what I am. I am in Life and Life is in me. The Spirit of Life is all through the body not in any one section of the body alone in the way you are suggesting.
My body is its own visible and verifiable evidence that it is indeed a body. If I, the Spirit of Life, was not in it the body would be dead.

What is this "Spirit of Life" ?

A body being a body is not in question. What is in question is whether the essence of who you are is inside the physical structure.

So far you have made many claims, yet have failed to back them up with evidence. If the essence of who you are (from your reasoning) is through every cell in the physical structure, then why has it never been described by scientists looking through electron microscopes ?

Is it because it doesn't exist ?

Or do you believe that they are hiding the truth from us all ?

Your choice to perceive 'God' as mankind is not in question. You are entitled to make this your belief if you so choose to.

For verifiable evidence that you are indeed made in the image of 'God', you would require to show that 'God' has a human physical body. Do you have such evidence ?

Is there a photo of 'God' that you or anyone else has taken that can be offered as evidence ?

Or is there video footage of this apparently human appearing 'God' ?

Since you do not question my perception of God, the verifiable evidence that God has a human physical body is in any photos you can take of the human race and if you don't accept the photo of the human race then try a video or try looking at them in reality as they walk and talk all around you. The human race ( God ) is a body of people. Open your eyes and you will see many of them all over the world.

The reason that we are involved in this discussion is because I am questioning your perception of 'God'.

At this point, I find your reasoning to be based upon a circular argument and that you have offered no verifiable evidence to support your claims.

Yet this in no way answers the question of how an apparent physical 'God' can be represented within two different forms. If 'God' is a male, then 'God' made man in his image. If 'God' is female, the 'God' made woman in her image.

God can be present in many forms not just two. God is the Spirit of Life and Life is present in animals and plants as well as in human beings. Do you define Life itself as male or female?
The idea of God being a male Spirit is nonsense in my opinion.

The word man in the bible refers to mankind plural which includes male and female . It does not refer to just one man. Read Genesis 1: 26-27 and notice the plural words, us, our, them.

Personally, I define "Life" as Love In Form Evolving. I haven't copyrighted the phrase, so you are free to use it.

Are you claiming that the Genesis account of creation is literal ?

If "God is a Spirit", then how could the physicality, whether male or female, be made in his image ?

God is the Spirit of Life which can exist in any body regardless of what body it chooses to manifest itself in. The physical body is merely a way for the Spirit of Life to manifest itself so people can see Life inside the bodies of people, inside the bodies of animals, inside the bodies of plants. God is in ALL.

Can you point to this "Spirit of Life" ?

Is it a tangible thing ?

We actually have a similar idea about the manifestation of Life, where we part ways is in the basis of it being from the biblical accounting. Personally I find the biblical accounting to be contradictory nonsense.

Common sense and logic show the bible to be a work of fiction which contains many contradictions within the narrative of the plot,
..........................................
Hence, why I asked for verification that would make your claim truthful. So far you have yet to provide verification.

Truth needs no evidence to verify it is Truthful any more than you need evidence to verify you are what you are. Truth is its own evidence just as you are your own evidence. It is what it is regardless of whether people see it as Truth or truthful or not. Obviously many people cannot tell what is Truth even when the Truth is standing directly in front of them as in the case of Jesus standing in front of the people who called Him a liar. Very few can recognize or understand truth. It is what it is and people have a choice to believe it or not.

Truth is What Is. Evidence is the objective description that we give to convey our comprehension of What Is.

'Jesus' is a mythological character contained within the biblical narrative. No one has been "standing in front of" 'Jesus', unless you count the other mythological characters within the biblical narrative to have some substance that has never been proven. If you have evidence to show otherwise, please provide it to support your claims.

You had previously used the word "more" ...

"It is far more than just a fictional book like The Lord of the Rings.

... to which I was questioning you about it. Considering both were written by men, for the bible to "far more than just a fictional book like The Lord of the Rings", then the writers of the bible would by necessity have to be "more" in some manner.

As it is your assertion, then it is your requirement to provide your reasoning for your claim.

I am comparing metaphoric writings to fictional writings when I say the bible is more than a fictional book. I am not comparing authors. The authors are irrelevant.
I am saying that writings which have metaphoric meanings have far more depth than a mere fiction which people read just for the entertainment value of its outward appearances.
Metaphoric writings have more than one meaning and can be interpreted in many ways.
You can judge for yourself if metaphoric writings have more depth and more meaning than fiction or not. If they don't in your opinion then no one will ever convince you they do.

Yet you haven't proven that the bible is more than a fictitious book.

Your reasoning is faulty in regards to "fictional writings". Something expressed within "fictional writings" carries as much validity, if it is true, as if it was expressed outside of the "fictional writings".

The judgment of "more depth and more meaning" is subjective. A christian will make the subjective judgment of the bible having "more depth and more meaning" than "fictional writings" because they invariably believe that the bible is the 'Word of God', and is therefore superior to any writings of man.

Of course, this doesn't make it so. In fact, an objective reading of the bible will show it to be contradictory nonsense.

[Skyangel]

The tree of good and evil is a metaphor, a human construct, devised to bring substance to the idea that mankind was one 'innocent' in that they then, like all non sentient animals were not aware of the idea of 'good' and 'evil'.

A metaphor for what in your opinion ?
It can't be a metaphor for innocence. It is illogical to say "Do not partake of innocence".
If it is merely some object of temptation to give an idea that man was innocent before they got tempted then man was still innocent in the process of "eating" from that "tree" since they would have no idea that it was wrong to do what God said not to do if they had no concept of right and wrong before partaking of right and wrong.
If they had no clue it was wrong to disobey and no concept of wrongdoing then what we perceive as disobedience in the story was not wrong to them was it?

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Notice " In the day you eat of it, ( same day ) you will surely die. "
Did God lie?
Did they die in the same day? If so how did they die? It was not physically according to the story and they were still able to "'talk" to God and Eve still had children and considered them to be a "gift" from God. ( Gen 4:1)

How old was Adam when he died? Where is any record of his death? How about Eve? Any record of her death ?

[Skyangel]

The idea of 'sin' is a religious construct - it does not exist in wider reality. The idea of sin emerged with the emergence of the illusion of duality that is a consequence of the evolution of self reflectivity.

Sin is not a religious construct at all because we still have laws in this world which are not religious at all and anyone who breaks the laws of the land suffers the punishment for the crime. This principle exists in the reality of the world all around us not just in religions. Hence it is a human construct in general to punish other people for doing what men have decided is the wrong thing to do.
Breaking laws is wrong according to mans standards regardless of whether those laws are religious or not.
The word sin is nothing but a transgression of a law according to the biblical definition of sin.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

And these words are the so-called 'word of god'. This, like sin, is a religious construct.

Society has determined and continues to determine what is considered good or bad. Religion calls this sin.

I am pointing out that the same principle which you call a religious construct is also adopted by the laws of the world. Why do you think the whole world has adopted the same principle of calling an action good or evil and punishing those who disobey the laws of the land?

[Skyangel]

There are plenty of religious people attempting to push their idea of what the word god means, even going to the point of capitalising the letter "G", as if that gives their version a greater validity.

It would all depend upon who it is that you are in a discussion with as to what meaning is placed upon the word, which is usually dependent upon which religion they are.

Exactly, and to understand what they are talking about when they speak about God/god we need to get them to define the word and explain how they perceive it.
When I read the bible I see the bible defining God/god as many things so the God/god/gods of the bible is what the bible defines them to be, is it not? Any other god/gods/God/Gods is also what the writings about them define them to be.
When you understand the definitions in the writing themselves, you logically ought to be able to understand the writings.

Nowhere does it state, "go with the flow" in the Dune quote, so I am unsure of your source of this quotation that you have used.

While your analogy is entertaining, is there a pint to it at all ?

When I say " go with the flow" am referring to the words " Understanding must move with the flow of the process"
The point I am making is that if the process of understanding leads you to a false truth when you move with the flow of the process then you would need to swim against the current to find your way back to reality and away from deception.

Have you talked with any paraplegic to confirm what you state here ?

You also misunderstand what being paraplegic represents. It is not that there are no sensory perceptions, it is that the signal is not recognised because of a failure in the transference of the signal.

Do you mean that you think that anyone that does not agree that their essence is not contained within a body is not a "conscious self aware person" ?

I had a paraplegic friend who was paralyzed from the waist down and had many discussions with him. Yes he confirmed what I am saying but I do understand others might have a different opinion and see it differently. What makes you think that I misunderstand what being a paraplegic represents? What experience or knowledge do you have with paraplegics?

No, I do not mean that anyone who does not agree that their essence is not contained in a body is not a "conscious self aware person " I am saying that anyone who is a conscious self aware person is also aware they have a body regardless of whether that body is paralyzed or not. They are usually aware their body is paralyzed or at least my friend was aware of it till the day he died.

What is this "Spirit of Life" ?

It is the essence of who I am. If you leave out the word Spirit and just use the word Life will it make it easier for you to comprehend?

A body being a body is not in question. What is in question is whether the essence of who you are is inside the physical structure.

So far you have made many claims, yet have failed to back them up with evidence. If the essence of who you are (from your reasoning) is through every cell in the physical structure, then why has it never been described by scientists looking through electron microscopes ?

Is it because it doesn't exist ?

Or do you believe that they are hiding the truth from us all ?

No one is hiding any truth from anyone. Science simply calls the spirit of Life, Life without any reference to the word spirit. They can tell if a body is dead or alive by the movement in the heart and brain functions as well as the breath or whether the body is breathing or not. Usually if it stops breathing and the heart stops functioning and it cannot be resuscitated, the medical profession pronounces a time of death. That time is usually when the body can no longer be resuscitated. The bible also calls the "spirit" the "breath" the words are synonymous. Life exists and you can tell when life is no longer in a body and science then pronounces that body to be dead. That life is all through the body when it is in the body.

Your choice to perceive 'God' as mankind is not in question. You are entitled to make this your belief if you so choose to.

The reason that we are involved in this discussion is because I am questioning your perception of 'God'.

At this point, I find your reasoning to be based upon a circular argument and that you have offered no verifiable evidence to support your claims.

You made a statement that my choice to perceive God as mankind is not in question. Then you contradict your own statement and claim to be questioning my perception of God. This makes you appear to be a very confused person who can't make up your mind whether to question me or take my word for it.

Truth is circular. It begins with Truth and ends with Truth no matter how many ways you go around it and how many sights you wish to see along the way. Truth is Truth and always proves itself. It is what it is, regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. The beginning and end of the Truth are always the same. It keeps repeating itself in life and death. It is a cycle which is circular like any cycle.

Personally, I define "Life" as Love In Form Evolving. I haven't copyrighted the phrase, so you are free to use it.

Are you claiming that the Genesis account of creation is literal ?

Interesting definition but can you prove that is what it is?

I do not take the Genesis account of creation literally. I perceive it as being purely metaphoric. I perceive the word "Adam" as many people not one individual man. In Hebrew the word is plural and refers to all males and all females of the human race.

Can you point to this "Spirit of Life" ?

Is it a tangible thing ?

We actually have a similar idea about the manifestation of Life, where we part ways is in the basis of it being from the biblical accounting. Personally I find the biblical accounting to be contradictory nonsense.

The only way I can point out the spirit of life is to point out living things and explain to you how I know they are alive as opposed to how I know something is dead. If something is alive I perceive that living thing as a body which has the "spirit of life" in it. Leave out the word spirit and just use the word life and I am still saying the same thing.
Is life a tangible thing in your opinion? I can touch living things. Am I touching life when I touch a living thing? I think I am.

Truth is What Is. Evidence is the objective description that we give to convey our comprehension of What Is.

'Jesus' is a mythological character contained within the biblical narrative. No one has been "standing in front of" 'Jesus', unless you count the other mythological characters within the biblical narrative to have some substance that has never been proven. If you have evidence to show otherwise, please provide it to support your claims.

Your "mythical character" is defined in the bible itself as the Truth. People stand in front of "the Truth" daily and can't even see it. You said yourself "Truth is what is. " You appear to define Truth as that which exists. Am I correct in that interpretation of your words? If so, then people face that which exists daily do they not? "That which is " = The Truth.
It needs no evidence but itself. It stands there daily and in principle says, " I am that I am " regardless of whether it speaks those words or not.

Yet you haven't proven that the bible is more than a fictitious book.

Your reasoning is faulty in regards to "fictional writings". Something expressed within "fictional writings" carries as much validity, if it is true, as if it was expressed outside of the "fictional writings".

The judgment of "more depth and more meaning" is subjective. A christian will make the subjective judgment of the bible having "more depth and more meaning" than "fictional writings" because they invariably believe that the bible is the 'Word of God', and is therefore superior to any writings of man.

Of course, this doesn't make it so. In fact, an objective reading of the bible will show it to be contradictory nonsense.

Are you asking me to prove the bible is metaphoric in nature or are you asking me to prove that metaphors have more meaning and depth than mere fiction? If it is subjective in your opinion then what do you see as the difference between metaphoric writings and fictional writings? If you do not perceive metaphoric literature as more meaningful than fiction then how will anyone convince you it is?
If you don't even see the bible as metaphoric writings and can only see it as nonsense, then how can anyone change that perception anyway? No one but you can change your own perception.

[bernee51]

The tree of good and evil is a metaphor, a human construct, devised to bring substance to the idea that mankind was one 'innocent' in that they then, like all non sentient animals were not aware of the idea of 'good' and 'evil'.

A metaphor for what in your opinion ?
It can't be a metaphor for innocence. It is illogical to say "Do not partake of innocence".
If it is merely some object of temptation to give an idea that man was innocent before they got tempted then man was still innocent in the process of "eating" from that "tree" since they would have no idea that it was wrong to do what God said not to do if they had no concept of right and wrong before partaking of right and wrong.
If they had no clue it was wrong to disobey and no concept of wrongdoing then what we perceive as disobedience in the story was not wrong to them was it?

Tht is exactly right...and what's more, there was no choice but to eat. Just as there is no choice but to evolve.

[
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Notice " In the day you eat of it, ( same day ) you will surely die. "
Did God lie?
Did they die in the same day? If so how did they die? It was not physically according to the story and they were still able to "'talk" to God and Eve still had children and considered them to be a "gift" from God. ( Gen 4:1)

How old was Adam when he died? Where is any record of his death? How about Eve? Any record of her death ?

What died, what ceased to exist, was mankind's simple consciousness - it evolved into self refelctive consciousness.

What died was the inability to as "Who am I?"

[bernee51]

The idea of 'sin' is a religious construct - it does not exist in wider reality. The idea of sin emerged with the emergence of the illusion of duality that is a consequence of the evolution of self reflectivity.

Sin is not a religious construct at all because we still have laws in this world which are not religious at all and anyone who breaks the laws of the land suffers the punishment for the crime. This principle exists in the reality of the world all around us not just in religions. Hence it is a human construct in general to punish other people for doing what men have decided is the wrong thing to do.
Breaking laws is wrong according to mans standards regardless of whether those laws are religious or not.
The word sin is nothing but a transgression of a law according to the biblical definition of sin.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

And these words are the so-called 'word of god'. This, like sin, is a religious construct.

Society has determined and continues to determine what is considered good or bad. Religion calls this sin.

I am pointing out that the same principle which you call a religious construct is also adopted by the laws of the world. Why do you think the whole world has adopted the same principle of calling an action good or evil and punishing those who disobey the laws of the land?

Simple...it is called evolution. We could no more live as we do without these processes than we could without eyes.

[Skyangel]

The idea of 'sin' is a religious construct - it does not exist in wider reality. The idea of sin emerged with the emergence of the illusion of duality that is a consequence of the evolution of self reflectivity.

Sin is not a religious construct at all because we still have laws in this world which are not religious at all and anyone who breaks the laws of the land suffers the punishment for the crime. This principle exists in the reality of the world all around us not just in religions. Hence it is a human construct in general to punish other people for doing what men have decided is the wrong thing to do.
Breaking laws is wrong according to mans standards regardless of whether those laws are religious or not.
The word sin is nothing but a transgression of a law according to the biblical definition of sin.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

And these words are the so-called 'word of god'. This, like sin, is a religious construct.

Society has determined and continues to determine what is considered good or bad. Religion calls this sin.

If you truly believe sin is merely a religious construct and sin does not exist in reality. How do you explain the law breaking done by law breakers in this world? Are you saying they are really doing nothing wrong at all?
Why do you think the whole world has adopted the idea of punishing people for breaking man made laws?