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.

[Zzyzx]

.

I know I will get shot down for posting this but the argument post after post is "unfounded statement" and "you can't prove that".

Since you seem to resist proof, do you prefer fantasy – or believing "on faith alone" – without asking for evidence that what is claimed is true?

It always comes back to those points. By default you can always make yourselves feel right because all you have to say is "you can't prove that".

What do you suggest – believing everything one is told? How is judgment used to attempt to evaluate claims if one does not ask for evidence?

Do you believe in black holes? Now have you seen one? Do you believe in string theory? Have you seen these strings that are in question?

"Believe in" is often applied to fairies, unicorns and gods, and very seldom to scientific ideas (by people who actually study nature and science). I do not use the term applied to myself.

I can honestly say that I do not "believe in black holes or string theory". There is nothing there to "believe in". Those are theories that one can accept or not accept.

Although I have studied sciences, done advanced research and taught college Earth science classes, I do not claim special knowledge of those subjects and DO NOT promote their acceptance. I make no attempt to convince anyone that black holes exist or that string theory is accurate.

Those who promote religion often attempt to convince others to "believe in" and worship their favorite "gods". They are selling the concept or theory without acknowledging that what they say is nothing more than theory and opinion – supported only by religious promotional literature. Perhaps they project their proselytization onto others.

You believe that there is evidence of these phenomenons but you can't prove that they are real.

Do you assume that you know what I, personally, accept or reject – AND why I do so? Are you omniscient?

I accept (NOT "believe") that there is some evidence to support the theories, but do not go any further than that.

So you choose what to think is real based on people's explanations.

As a person who has studied and done advanced research in sciences I do depend upon information beyond my personal experience.

HOWEVER, when consulting sources a credible researcher verifies the sources and looks for "convergence of evidence" – meaning evidence drawn from wide sources including credible (researched) opposition views.

You believe there was a big bang, but still there is no true proof that it actually happened.

Again your omniscience fails.

There are plenty of people who have had experiences where they felt God. They believe in Him, in part, because of this.

Personal, unverifiable, experiences may convince the person involved and those who choose to believe without asking for evidence of truth. However, stories about personal experiences have no merit in debate. Holy Huddle sub-forum may find more receptive audiences – churches may also provide supportive and unquestioning audidences.

So you have taken people's word on multiple scientific phenomena blindly with no actual proof, but you argue over and over with religious people who claim that they know God and have experienced Him.

You are entitled to honor people's word about "god experiences" that they claim to have had. Do you show equal enthusiasm and acceptance for claims of experiences with "gods" other than your favorite – say Allah?

You are NOT entitled to decide what if any evidences I have accepted or will accept – unless you think you are one of the thousands of "gods".

Please get over yourselves.

It would be far easier to promote religion if people would just "get over themselves" and do as they are told, wouldn't it? Thank you just the same but I prefer to think for myself and to make my own decisions.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

I appreciate the civil discussion of what counts as a supported statement or an unsupported statement.

Our general approach as moderators is to let debaters challenge each other for support for statements. We will typically only step in if a debater repeatedly makes a statement without support after being challenged to provide it.

In addition, it is true that many debaters offer opinions as part of their posts that they do not attempt to support. Zzyzx, for example, has declared that everything he writes is opinion. If the moderators addressed every such instance of the expression of opinions, we would end up filling threads with corrections and warnings. However, if a poster seems to offer nothing but opinion, and is not willing to assert any of these as claims, or to provide support for them, than this really runs counter to the notion that this is a debate forum. Making an unsupported assertion and then claiming it is "only opinion" after being challenged for support might in some contexts be considered less than ideal debating practice.

As far as the use of the Bible (or other religious texts) for support, it would seem problematic to have a debate forum on Christianity and Religious issues and not allow people to use the Bible to support their assertions.

In any debate, the debaters are going to make certain assumptions, one might say the axioms from which their arguments proceed. The assumptions that different debaters make may vary greatly and be at odds. Debaters can feel free to challenge the assumptions of other debaters and argue for their invalidity or incorrectness. However, the moderators are typically not going to get into the business of deciding "assumption A is allowed but assumption B is not." Thus, for example, debaters who argue from a Biblical basis are in general not going to be cited for breaking the rules on that basis alone.

I realize those wishing for clearcut rulings and parameters may consider the above unsatisfactory. However, please keep in mind moderating is always going to be a judgment call, and that we only have so much time to police the threads. We will in general let you all police yourselves as long as the overall effect is reasonably productive debate.

We do ask, however, that you not make a practice of acting as 'vigilante moderators' when we are, in your perception, not addressing situations adequately.

Thanks for your attention.

[dvablackbird]

Hi Zzyzx,

Your friendly, emotionless manner gives me hope our communication can be productive, thank you.
My main life principle is that we human beings are mirrors of each other (without any mysticism) and can get advantage in learning from each other if we want to understand each other and ourselves.

It appears as though English is not your native language

You are right and I apologize for any possible mistakes.

(pardon me if I am wrong).

Your doubt is a pleasant compliment for me.
Luckily or unfortunately, English is my seventh language I have to speak and write because of unusual specific of my life history.

Are you experienced in debate?

Long time ago I came to conclusion it could never be experience enough in debates, particularly in spiritual questions.

...– usually by theists.

I consider atheism as a specific kind of the same believing system hence not much difference from theism.

I have interest in the general subject and in debate. However, my interest may differ from what you might expect.
My overall objective in debating here is NOT to convince or convert anyone – particularly "opponents", but rather to present ideas for readers to consider as reasoned and sound alternatives to the religious dogma and propaganda that permeate our societies.
My primary approach is to ask questions that religionists cannot or will not answer honestly and openly. Are you willing to answer questions honestly and openly without ducking, dodging and refusing to verify statements?

I think I understand your basic position, may pay respect to it and can answer definite Yes to the bold emphasised question excluding possible cases when I don’t know the answer or in my understanding there could not be any verbal answer at all.

I take it from your comments that you are not Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim. That is OK too.

Indeed, I don’t represent any official position of any organized religion or group.

HOWEVER, the statement "God is love" has not been supported. It is NOT ok to make unsupported statements. Kindly support the statement or withdraw it.

It is not supported, I accept; as well, it is not intended to be supported in the course of our conversation in the future though it could serve as a supportive background mutually useful for any parts of dialog.

Let me explain my point of view to this issue. There could be people in the past as well as in present who claimed to have experienced that state of their mind called in words ‘God is love’. Some of them became great preachers or teachers e.g. Buddha or Christ; they became witnesses. They have made great excitement around because the matter is naturally very important for humans. People use to divide themself in groups who believe, don’t care about and who refuse the witnesses and their evidences. Debating and confrontation among different groups and individuals is inevitable, history and current events show that. Confrontations cause tumults, wars, suffering and of course fields for business. Willy-nilly we couldn’t ignore neither witnesses nor their evidences nor the opposition with all consequences. The question is where should I take my own place in this chaos. I like your word ‘approaching’ to the matter.

By the way, is there any possibility that your god beliefs are wrong?

No, impossible because I don’t have any.

I will read and consider all your previous posts in this forum to learn your position IF you will read all of mine.

I appreciate and admire your dedication to the subject and to this forum but wouldn’t you mind if I suggest following: We could gain advantage by understanding from losing possible prejudices if we start everything anew, with fresh mind. Actually, we have already done it.

If a person truly opposes debate, why would they participate in a debate forum?

This is a serious question, I’m sure we will repeatedly come back upon it.
Anticipatory, my aim is to find a contact with my opponent by finding those points in our minds where we are thinking together. I call it mutual understanding. That has a special sense different from arguing, avoids any confrontation and prepares space to get deeply in the subject instead to drown in avalanche of words, ideas, mutual attacks and defending tactics.

Kindly identify and describe "the whole, united structure of the matter we are talking about" as it appears to you.

Actually, I started my entrance here with trying to answer the undemanding question of C-Nub.
To you I would propose another approach to the point i.e. we can go together to it step by step. First, we have to find a ground to start.
As first I suggest:

Please read the last line in my signature in which I acknowledge that my expressions here are opinion. Anyone is free to accept or reject what I offer.

If we are going to discuss a topic with the aim to inform each other about our opinions we could never find consensus and approach to the point about religion, God and myself.
That is certainly a special matter and it demands a special approach.
Truth, however tritely it might sound must be the measure of outcome. Otherwise, we will waste our life energy in twaddle.

If you wish to know my position on a specific topic, feel free to ask. My basic position regarding supernaturalism and worshiping of gods is that although thousands of "gods" have been worshiped by billions of people, no credible evidence has been presented to indicate that any of the "god stories" are true or that any of the "gods" exist.

That is certainly subjective, the matter of personal believing. One may say, it is true; another one - it is nonsense. That way all people are dividing in different religions and groups.

When people make public statements regarding belief in gods as though the statements were true, I ask for verification of truth.

I suppose, you already know well they could prove nothing but would try to make you believe in that by means of endless telling (violence is never excluded also) what they believe were true.

< I do not criticize or challenge anyone's private and personal beliefs.

Well, but the subject of the nature of believing in general could be not only interesting but extremely useful as well.

Those who cannot or will not supply evidence of truth (other than quoting religious promotional literature and ancient tales by Bronze Age storytellers) often resent being challenged to substantiate their claims. By acting indignant or refusing to respond to challenges they demonstrate to readers that what they say cannot be trusted to be true.

There is a special reason because truth cannot be taken or given from one man to another. Nowadays it is the highest time to understand that humble truth to stop those divisions, wars and injustices.
In my view, only free from any prejudice (and believing in anything is already prejudice) mind is able to get truth. Quiet mind is precondition for understanding.

Are you opposed to following the rules to which you agreed when joining the forum?

Not at all.

...The implications of stopping rotation can be analyzed with an understanding of Earth sciences and astronomy (the study of nature).

Well, that story from Bible is about nature of time.
Time is a mighty factor in our life, deserves appropriate respect. Time is a product of our psyche and we all can easily observe that phenomenon in ourselves. Later we can discuss about, if you want.

Without the "resurrection", Christianity is a fraud. Are you willing to defend the "resurrection" story as being literally true – and event that actually happened in the real world?

Christianity is based on believing. A matter of believing can never be fraud because of its own nature; believing is contra part of knowledge isn’t it.

< You are encouraged to challenge ANY statement that I make.

Generally no, but we have to speak about the nature of a statement per se.

Do you have something particular in mind?

Probably I do but anyway that has nothing to do with proselytizing.

Let's take a topic and discuss it WITHOUT any reference to each other. Fair enough? Can you do that

If you mean to search and discover objective facts and solutions - yes, we are together.

Regards.

[C-Nub]

I find it odd that the moderating team will come out in support of using the Bible as credible 'source' despite the fact that violates the first rule of any reasonable bibliography by being a self-sourcing volume.

'The Origin of Species,' for example, is not a self-sourcing book, and is called into question with the same sort of frequency as the Bible is around here, and should certainly be as relevant a text for this forum as the Bible itself is. Why, then, is the bible sacrosanct as a 'source,' one that we must accept as valid or allowable, but there is no such defense made for Darwin's works, which are called into question with far weaker arguments despite the fact that they are far better supported by evidence and observation?

Just a thought.

Moving on;

I know I will get shot down for posting this but the argument post after post is "unfounded statement" and "you can't prove that". It always comes back to those points. By default you can always make yourselves feel right because all you have to say is "you can't prove that".

And you, in turn, can make yourself feel right by providing blanket statements with no support whatsoever outside of your own really, really strong belief in them. Who's wrong here? Well, in a regular conversation, we'd be pretty closed minded and obtuse for pointing out that you can't prove your claims. This, however, is a debate forum, and as such, we're actually adhering pretty closely to the rules. You see, nothing that can't be proven can be added into 'evidence' for a debate, which is essentially a trial for an idea with the two sides playing the role of council for the respective 'clients.' "God told my client to kill that man" would be no more acceptable in court than "God said let there be light!" is here. If that bothers you, well, you shouldn't have joined a debate forum.

Do you believe in black holes? Now have you seen one? Do you believe in string theory? Have you seen these strings that are in question?

No one could ever see a black hole. 'Seeing' depends on the light reflected from an object. Light that hits black holes does not reflect, in fact, any light that crosses what's called the 'Event Horizon' of a black hole becomes trapped in its gravity, and cannot escape.

That said, what we have photographed are the stars orbiting black holes in the center of our and many, many, many other galaxies. We know a black hole is there because of the speed at which the stars orbit an 'invisible' or 'black' object. We're able to tell the mass of the stars by their spectrum, and we're able to calculate their velocity by measuring the distance between their positions and factoring the amount of time it took them to get there. We are then able, using math that Newton pioneered, to calculate the amount of gravity required to move objects of that size at that speed in that orbital path. What we end up with is a series of objects, called Super-Massive Black Holes, which can range from a million solar masses to a over a billion solar masses. We know these are black holes because any object with the mass necessary to generate that sort of gravity would be either a very, very, very large star, which we would then be able to identify as a star because, well, we could in fact see it, or a black hole, which, as I explained earlier, we couldn't.

This is very different from opening a Bible, reading it, taking a look around the world for a bit and noticing it isn't the least bit like the bible described, and then believing the book anyways.

As for string theory, hey, would you look at that, we call it a 'Theory.' The reason we do that is that we KNOW we haven't proven it yet. That's how THEORY works. You come up with a hypothesis, then you seek to prove it. You do not prove it, and then try to come up with a hypothesis after the fact.

You believe that there is evidence of these phenomenons but you can't prove that they are real. So you choose what to think is real based on people's explanations. You believe there was a big bang, but still there is no true proof that it actually happened.

Unlike Zzyzx, I actually do believe in these phenomena, but it's still rude to make the assumption we do. We actually DO, as I just pointed out, have proof of a black hole. It's like looking at a nest and a bunch of feathers and claiming that it isn't proof of a bird. This is vastly different from the bible. As for the big bang, we have the convergent history of the galaxies, that's a big piece of evidence. We can see that they're moving, and if we trace their movements back to a little under fourteen billion years, we find they all come from the same place. Then there's the cosmic background microwave radiation, which the theory of the big bang stated we'd find, and then we subsequently found. That's a pretty interesting piece of evidence. Then there's the W-Map satellite, which you clearly haven't heard of, which took a picture of the big-bang itself using the microwave radiation that it left over. Funny thing, if you line up the current web-of-galaxies to the density of the W-Map photo, you discover that they line up identically. That's another HUGE piece of evidence, because, you know, it's a photograph. Something we can "see".

There's a huge difference between not being able to prove something and not knowing that we've proven it. 'Proof' is also a slightly subjective term. It is not an absolute term, there is no such thing as absolute, conclusive proof, because one of the requirements of proof, demonstrating that you yourself exist, is impossible to do absolutely. There will always be some doubt in all cases where 'proof' is provided, and that's why courts insist upon using the term 'reasonable' doubt. The Big Bang has been proven to an extent that would be acceptable by any reasonable court of law, and that is the standard to which science should aspire. The Bible, however, has not been proven or even evidenced to nearly that extent.

There are plenty of people who have had experiences where they felt God. They believe in Him, in part, because of this.

There's people who swear they were anal probed by aliens, too. I have an (ex)sister-in-law who, when she fails to take her medication, swears up and down that she was adopted, she's Jewish, and that she has AIDS (she wasn't, she isn't and she doesn't.) There are people who swear that they've heard the voice of Allah, and some three thousand years ago, there were Greek oracles that everyone believed could commune with the Gods, plural. Having lots of people who believe something proves one thing and one thing only; lots and lots of people can be wrong.

So you have taken people's word on multiple scientific phenomena blindly with no actual proof, but you argue over and over with religious people who claim that they know God and have experienced Him.

No, we have not taken their word blindly. We have, first off, taken the time to understand how scientific discovery and 'fact' works. Every claim any scientist makes is scrutinized, examined and studied for merit. If the claim is found to be a reasonable or plausible one, grant money is provided for experimentation, which, if successful, is the grounds for the publishing of a paper in a scientific journal. Once published, other scientists in the same field recreate the experiment to test the results, and examine the theory to ensure that the results are relevant to the hypothesis. THEN, and only then, are the findings accepted as valid. In some cases, these theories prove something, like the existence of black holes or the Big Bang, but most of the time they are added to a volume of evidence in support of any given theory until such a time as the collection of evidence becomes large enough to firmly establish the theory as an actual, scientific fact.

The Bible is a book that says that it's right about everything and has none of the work, experiment, peer review or scrutiny in support of its claims that all scientific fact is required to acquire.

It is a very common tactic of theists to try to put the Bible on equal footing with scientific research and theory, and it is downright dishonest and manipulative to do so. Science is the exact opposite of the Bible in how it is sourced and verified, it is under constant review and changes it's conclusions on a regular basis as new data and information arrives. Christianity is a stagnant myth culture, unable to progress with new information because of how infallible it views its dogma to be. There are only two reasons to try to make the comparison, one is of ignorance, which is forgivable as well as worthy of pity, and the other is a more sinister attempt to discredit the work of generations by equating their work with the random and unsupported ramblings of an ancient text written prior to any scientific understanding whatsoever in period where rainbows were God's message to us and mental illness or disease in general was the work of demons.

Please get over yourselves.

Wow. Don't we sit on the tallest horse. Forum rules prevent me from responding to this with the appropriate string of four letter words and not-entirely physically possible instructions, but rest assured, what little respect I might have had for you faded into nothingness with this little holier-than-thou statement.

There's nothing that says 'Jesus loves you!' like an arrogant Christian making a stupid argument and then sitting there smugly as if he's accomplished something. Well done sir.

[Sjoerd]

In any debate, the debaters are going to make certain assumptions, one might say the axioms from which their arguments proceed. The assumptions that different debaters make may vary greatly and be at odds. Debaters can feel free to challenge the assumptions of other debaters and argue for their invalidity or incorrectness. However, the moderators are typically not going to get into the business of deciding "assumption A is allowed but assumption B is not." Thus, for example, debaters who argue from a Biblical basis are in general not going to be cited for breaking the rules on that basis alone.

I completely agree with this. Zzyzx has stated that he will not challenge anyone's opinion and I agree with that too. I do object against personal opinions being stated in a way as if they were supported by evidence or as if they were true statements that any sane person should accept. Forgive me my attempt at omniscience, but I think that Zzyzx and I have a lot of common ground here.

Therefore, I think it is nonsense to refuse "God is love" by challenging its underlying assumption that the Bible is true. I applaud OnceConvinced's approach, which basically says: "Based on the assumption that the Bible is true, you claim that God is love. I argue that based on the assumption that the Bible is true, this claim cannot be defended".

I believe that the ultimate purpose of a debate is a consensus in the sense of "We may disagree, but if I held exactly your assumptions and opinions, I would agree with you."
But all of this is just my opinion.

[Sjoerd]

'The Origin of Species,' for example, is not a self-sourcing book, and is called into question with the same sort of frequency as the Bible is around here, and should certainly be as relevant a text for this forum as the Bible itself is. Why, then, is the bible sacrosanct as a 'source,' one that we must accept as valid or allowable, but there is no such defense made for Darwin's works, which are called into question with far weaker arguments despite the fact that they are far better supported by evidence and observation?

You are missing the point. All scientific works are credible because they are supported by empirical observation. The Bible is not a scientific work and makes no claim that it is supported by empirical observation. If you insist that anything that is not supported by empirical observation is meaningless, that is just another assumption.

You see, nothing that can't be proven can be added into 'evidence' for a debate, which is essentially a trial for an idea with the two sides playing the role of council for the respective 'clients.'

I disagree with this. This would only work if both sides had the same assumptions about evidence and judgment, which is so in the court room but not in a religious debate.

As for string theory, hey, would you look at that, we call it a 'Theory.' The reason we do that is that we KNOW we haven't proven it yet. That's how THEORY works. You come up with a hypothesis, then you seek to prove it. You do not prove it, and then try to come up with a hypothesis after the fact.

No scientific theory can every be proven, neither string theory nor evolution theory nor the theory of gravity. All that we can do is backing them up with a huge load of evidence, causing us to prefer them over alternative scientific theories backed up with less evidence.

There's a huge difference between not being able to prove something and not knowing that we've proven it. 'Proof' is also a slightly subjective term. It is not an absolute term, there is no such thing as absolute, conclusive proof, because one of the requirements of proof, demonstrating that you yourself exist, is impossible to do absolutely. There will always be some doubt in all cases where 'proof' is provided, and that's why courts insist upon using the term 'reasonable' doubt. The Big Bang has been proven to an extent that would be acceptable by any reasonable court of law, and that is the standard to which science should aspire. The Bible, however, has not been proven or even evidenced to nearly that extent.

You are talking about "evidence" instead of "proof". As stated above, I disagree with the assumption that a debate forum is a court of law.

No, we have not taken their word blindly. We have, first off, taken the time to understand how scientific discovery and 'fact' works. Every claim any scientist makes is scrutinized, examined and studied for merit. If the claim is found to be a reasonable or plausible one, grant money is provided for experimentation, which, if successful, is the grounds for the publishing of a paper in a scientific journal. Once published, other scientists in the same field recreate the experiment to test the results, and examine the theory to ensure that the results are relevant to the hypothesis. THEN, and only then, are the findings accepted as valid. In some cases, these theories prove something, like the existence of black holes or the Big Bang, but most of the time they are added to a volume of evidence in support of any given theory until such a time as the collection of evidence becomes large enough to firmly establish the theory as an actual, scientific fact.
...
It is a very common tactic of theists to try to put the Bible on equal footing with scientific research and theory, and it is downright dishonest and manipulative to do so.

Scientific theories are not facts and will never become facts. Scientists and scientific theories never prove anything, we leave that to the mathematicians.

You are completely correct that some religionists make feeble scientific claims based on the Bible, but it's just that, feeble science, because science requires evidence for a claim, and extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims that are against well-supported theories. However, I have not seen any such claims on this thread. We are not talking about science or evolution at all here. The investigation of "God is love" is well beyond the scope of science.

[AB]

.

God is love.

This is a baseless claim

No, you are wrong. This is not a baseless claim. It is stated in the Bible. Now, I don't care if you beleive in the bible or not. Just because you don't, doesn't make it true. It is in the bible God is Love. So by saying 'God is love' is not a baseless claim.

So ZZ, you are incorrect in that response. Come on now, lets keep this debate true.

This is a topic I think I could debate one on one. The bible quite clearly SHOWS that God is not love even though it says otherwise. The world also shows that God is not love. So AB, if you are up to it, I'd like to challenge you on that.

Are you contending with the "baseless claim" issue? Or are you wanting to start a new discussion?

[dvablackbird]

St. Paul wrote as well:
“So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.� Cor. 13.13

God is love.

Unfounded statement, as pointed out by Zzyzx

Hello dear Sjoerd,

‘Unfounded statement’, it is certainly depends on what you would accept as ‘founded’. Actually, it is your unfounded statement as well.
At any rate, it is subjective. Can you see this? The question is who is the judge setting up the norms.
Maybe you could see it with me, we human society doesn’t have any one which would have truth and justice for all. The only authority remains power and violence. We are divided and live in permanent arguing and conflict with each other.

As for me personally, that statement have been a key point in my life. First, many years ago, it was founded on the authority of Bible that I had accepted as Holy Scripture and statement of witness, a man who personally experienced that God’s love (St. Paul). I just couldn’t find any ground not to believe that.
With the time, after many turbulences it my life and my mind it became founded on my personal view.

It has nothing to do with a dogma. It is dynamic and lived.

It is not my believing anymore. I can see it like you can see now your monitor in front of you. Look at this.
Deliberately I do not declare, wether I have personally experienced that love or not. In any case, it would have been nothing as well, just a claim, a subject to believe or not, a reason for people to divide themselves in groups again and for further arguing and fighting.
We have already enough arguing, wars and injustice on the earth. Shouldn’t we look for a way to find consensus instead of that? Not only blind believing, not only blind denying but seeing the things in our life so like they are and understanding them objectively.

[Sjoerd]

St. Paul wrote as well:
“So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.� Cor. 13.13

God is love.

Unfounded statement, as pointed out by Zzyzx

Hello dear Sjoerd,

‘Unfounded statement’, it is certainly depends on what you would accept as ‘founded’. Actually, it is your unfounded statement as well.
At any rate, it is subjective. Can you see this? The question is who is the judge setting up the norms.
Maybe you could see it with me, we human society doesn’t have any one which would have truth and justice for all. The only authority remains power and violence. We are divided and live in permanent arguing and conflict with each other.

As for me personally, that statement have been a key point in my life. First, many years ago, it was founded on the authority of Bible that I had accepted as Holy Scripture and statement of witness, a man who personally experienced that God’s love (St. Paul). I just couldn’t find any ground not to believe that.
With the time, after many turbulences it my life and my mind it became founded on my personal view.

It has nothing to do with a dogma. It is dynamic and lived.

It is not my believing anymore. I can see it like you can see now your monitor in front of you. Look at this.
Deliberately I do not declare, wether I have personally experienced that love or not. In any case, it would have been nothing as well, just a claim, a subject to believe or not, a reason for people to divide themselves in groups again and for further arguing and fighting.
We have already enough arguing, wars and injustice on the earth. Shouldn’t we look for a way to find consensus instead of that? Not only blind believing, not only blind denying but seeing the things in our life so like they are and understanding them objectively.

Hello Blackbird,

I most definitely agree with your opinions! However, it would be better if you stated from the beginning that this is your opinion/interpretation of God. The way you stated it, it does sound like a dogma.

[dvablackbird]

Hello Blackbird,

I most definitely agree with your opinions! However, it would be better if you stated from the beginning that this is your opinion/interpretation of God. The way you stated it, it does sound like a dogma.

Thanks for your feedback, Sjoerd
It is quite important, you know.
It gives incentive to look for a better form to express myself.