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.

[Zzyzx]

.

There is a 'tool' one can use to discern truth in a debate claim and that 'tool' is called 'verifable evidence.' Christian god claims have no evidence, do not contain even the appearance of truth, but are propaganda only.

Any claims of an invisible spiritual santa claus type gift giver god in the sky is simply a religious fiction regardless of whether it is

What other concept of god is available in Christian lore?

Christian fiction and false doctrine or some other religions fiction and false doctrine.

How does one determine what religious doctrines are false or fictional?

The concept is merely an adult concept which they call spiritual in order to give them a reason called faith to replace the concept of the childhood fantasy of santa claus and this religious fantasy tries to make santa real in a spiritual sense.

Does that suggest a sense of security (whether it be real or not) in belief in a heavenly father or other such spirit?

The tool which you call verifiable evidence can only apply to tangible things. It cannot apply to intangible and invisible things.

Correction: many invisible things can be verified by evidence. Air, for instance, is not visible, but its existence and presence can be verified. Ultraviolet radiation is invisible to humans " but can be demonstrated to exist.

Some things are undetectable " such as gods and spirits and ghosts and fairies and demons. Those things cannot be shown to exist.

[For example if a person came and told you they were in pain or had a headache. How can you verify they are telling you the Truth and not just being some kind of hypocondriac ?

I am not a medical person " so I have no idea how I might respond. If my wife says that she has a headache, that could mean many things . . . I dont go there.

If a man comes along and tells you he is a son of God, would you believe Him ?

If someone says that to me, I take it to mean that they are a worshiper of the Christian god and consider themselves one of gods children " a common perception. I do not accept the notion, but do not usually disagree. Their delusions or illusions or beliefs are their business, not mine.

What verifiable evidence would you require as proof?

I would readily accept that HE THOUGHT he was a son of god. Since I have no confidence that any of the proposed gods exist, one would have to start by showing evidence FIRST that such things do exist " then showing a biological relationship (or claiming a psychological relationship).

A birth certificate naming God as the Father?

That would be a nice novelty item to sell to god worshipers.

What if he has no birth certificate at all?

US citizens might elect him president.

Is that proof he was never born?

Birth certificates are relatively modern inventions. Many people in the US during settlement and frontier days had not such thing, for example " and simple entries in a family bible were made to record births. So, absence of a birth certificate is not indication of lack of birth.

If I remember correctly my mother, born at home in a rural area in 1905, did not have a birth certificate. I do not question that she was born.

When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God the religious people of his days did not even believe Him in spite of the fact their own OT bible taught them they were all sons of God.

Perhaps people of his day distinguished between a claim of being THE son of god for a claim of being A son of god. The former is a claim of exclusivity and the latter is a term of commonality.

If I tell you I am the spirit of Truth inside a body. What verifiable evidence do you require to prove that I AM what I say I AM. ?

I will ask that you verify any CLAIM that you make. DEMONSTRATE that you speak truth.

You may perceive me as a liar and perceive my words as a lie if you wish but Truth cannot lie. I AM that I AM.

You (generic term) may also be NUTS " a fruitcake " certifiably insane. I have no way of knowing " and do not express an opinion.

If I tell you I deceive people who refuse to beleive me, am I a deceiver?

See above.

[Truth does deceive people but not because I am a deceiver. The reason they are deceived is because the result of turning away from truth and rejecting it is to end up living in delusions and believing lies.

In the case of people turning away from truth YOU (generic term) have NOT been deceitful (provided that you spoke truth).

There are only two choices in this life. One is to turn to the Truth and live in reality and the other is to turn to fables and live in deception.

There are many false dichotomies presented in life.

No one can demonstrate that they possess TRUTH.

With three heads?

Are you referring to the false doctrine of the trinity or do you perceive God as some kind of three headed monster?

If the trinity is a false concept within Christendom, what is TRUTH " and how do you (generic term) know that your interpretation is truthful?

[The head/heads of something does not necessarily refer to physical body parts. The head/heads of a corporation for example can be the people who have the ultimate authority in that group of people. The head of a school is the school master or principle. The head of any group is the person or people in charge of it and that number can vary in reality but the ultimate authority is ONE authority or one LAW no matter how many people it takes to enforce that law.

God is not just three entities. God is ALL and in ALL.

Interesting concept. Kindly verify that it is something more than opinion.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

Noted " quote from unverified source.

;]Where, outside of non-evidentiary religious promotional material and propaganda, is there any evidence of what characteristics a 'god' would even entail? We cannot properly define invisible, undetectable,supernatural 'somethings' that are not known to exist.

If you can define something then you can detect what you can define.

Definitions exist for many words that relate to things that cannot be detected directly. Examples might include love, hate, respect, etc.

Can you detect Authority and servitude?

Yes. Servitude is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as: the condition of a slave or serf : a state of subjection to an owner or master. That CONDITION can be detected.

Can you detect Life and death?

Yes. Life is defined as the state of a material complex or individual characterized by the capacity to perform certain functional activities including metabolism, growth, reproduction, and some form of responsiveness or adaptability. The processes involved in metabolism, growth, reproduction and responsiveness CAN be detected " which meets the definiton.

Death is defined as: the ending of all vital functions without possibility of recovery either in animals or plants or any parts of them : the end of life. The absence of vital functions can be detected (and again meet the definition).

[Can you detect Love and hate? Can you detect kindness and unkindness? Can you detect evil and righteousness? All these things are invisible of themselves and only manifested and detected in the actions and words of people.

Agreed

If you define God as an invisible fictional character because you have detected Gosd as such then that is what God is to you in reality.

I ASK god worshipers for a definition of god (and have asked for many years) without receiving a coherent answer. I do not purport to supply a definition.

If you define God as reality then that is what God is to you in reality.
If you define God as ALL and in ALL then God is reality in reality as well as fiction in fiction and is both real as well as fictional.
God is what He is.
I AM that I AM.

All that is a religious platitude " which is meaningless to a Non-Theist. Are you attempting to talk only to god believers?

Truth can be perceived as true and can also be perceived as a lie.

Perception does not alter truth. No matter how a person chooses to perceive gravity, for instance, they are bound by its effects.

That is the mystery and magic of Truth.

I, for one, am NOT interested in mystery and magic of truth. I prefer reality. Others are welcome to choose mystery and magic and fantasy if they wish.

It makes sense to those who know how to do magic and make something appear to be real when it is not real at all.

Appear to be real is not truth. Illusion is not reality " no matter how cleverly presented.

Life is full of illusions.

Many illusions are available for those who seek or accept illusions. Serious study of nature seeks to reduce or eliminate illusions. Illusionists and deceptionists (of all types) seek to create and maintain illusion for those who accept what they present (including the gullible and nave and fanatical religionists).

One of the objectives of critical or analytical thinking (and the scientific method of studying nature) is to MINIMIZE and offset delusion by obtaining information from multiple sources (not all of which are likely to be delusional in the same direction).

[kayky]

Many religionists attempt to defend or promote their chosen beliefs and worship rituals by claiming that a favored god is real " based upon stories that cannot be verified. They often proselytize with claims of truth and promises or threats to coerce or convince others to join them in worship.

I am totally against the idea of proselytizing in any form and believe strongly that each individual has his or her own path to walk. I think it extreme arrogance for anyone to attempt to interfere with that path despite good (yet misplaced) intentions.

When ancient tales of miracles are offered as proof that their god is real (or Jesus was divine), I challenge the truth of the tales. Without the resurrection and promise of reward or threat of punishment in an afterlife, Christianity has little to offer. In truth, none of the claims or stories can be shown to be anything more than human imagination functioning as fable, fiction, fantasy or fraud.

Now here is where I think you miss the boat. Myths do not prove truth: myths reveal truth. They have nothing to do with fantasy or fraud. (I'm sure you're aware of the work of Joseph Campbell.) I do not know if there is an "afterlife" or not, and that is certainly not where I find value in religion (Christian or otherwise). I don't even think that religion is necessary to honor that aspect of human experience that I am talking about. But, for me, I find the ancient ways to be the best ways. They have endured for a reason.

Positions based upon emotion (lack of verifiable evidence), do not lend themselves to debate or intelligent discussion (in my opinion).

And, thus, religious debate (though entertaining and often thought-provoking) is an exercise in futility.

Taking a position because I think so or because my mother (or preacher or book) says so " a position that cannot be verified as truthful and accurate " makes no sense to me; though I realize it appeals to many people.

It appeals to the intellectually lazy. By the way, my mother is convinced that I am going to Hell because she finds my religious views so radical.

However, any honest discussion of religion must, in my opinion, consider the issue of personal religious experience.

Perhaps that is true of discussion " as separate from debate.

And, thus, the oxymoron, "religious debate."

If you simply say that nothing can possibly exist outside the realm of scientific observation, the discussion is shut down.

I presume that you is used in the generic sense. I, personally, do not claim that nothing can exist outside the realm of scientific observation " and am open to the possibility that one or more of the thousands of proposed gods is real.

If you say so, I will have to take you at your word.

However, I ask for REASON TO ACCEPT god theories. All that has been offered is ancient tales in religious promotional literature, conjecture, opinion, and personal testimonials. Which of those am I to accept?

If someone suggests that I accept ancient tales in religious promotional literature, I ask WHICH book, which tales and which religion " and WHY? No satisfactory answer is provided.

Perhaps your path involves none of these things. I have a close friend who is an atheist, but in his own way he is a very spiritual man. At any rate no one should just "accept" anything at face value.

I will tell you this about my own life. When I apply myself to my chosen path, my life transcends the alienation and self-centeredness that often marks human experience; and I become a more compassionate, more creative, and more joyful person. Do I find value in that? You'd better believe it. I do.

If someone suggests that I accept testimonials, I ask if they are willing to accept testimonials as being truthful " from proponents of competing gods and religions. Of course they are not " though few are willing to answer directly and honestly. However, they counsel me to accept their proffered testimonials and ignore those of the competition.

I would never take it upon myself to "counsel" you, Z! But I am very open to the spiritual experiences of those from other religions or even those of no religion. The experience is universally available and not connected to one particular religion or "god." I do not see other religions as competition. I see them as varying paths to the same destination.

I have no interest in winning a debate " or convincing / converting the opposition (or anyone else) to anything. Instead, I present ideas for readers to consider and evaluate " and to use or discard as they see fit " ideas that often oppose religious propaganda.

Once again, if you say so, I will take you at your word.

but I think, in the particular case of religious experience, that may not be intellectually honest.

In what way is intellectual honesty displayed or discarded in this context?

I find it intellectually dishonest because it fails to recognize that the debate format itself does not lend itself to an honest exploration of human religious experience and what it might mean in our understanding of ourselves and the universe. This is not your fault, of course. It's the nature of the beast. It places some "generic" people in the odd position of acknowledging the possibility of spiritual experience while, at the same time, dismissing it out of hand as unworthy of serious consideration.

[Skyangel]

.

What other concept of god is available in Christian lore?

In the traditions of religion there is none but a fictional concept of God presented.
In the bible itself a more realistic concept of God is presented if you read the bible objectively instead of subjectively. If that realistic concept of God was not present in the bible itself I would never have been able to see it.

.

How does one determine what religious doctrines are false or fictional?

The way I do it is to judge the bible and its teachings and all interpretations of those teachings according to the very laws and principles which are taught in the bible itself. After all, the words, principles and laws of God ought to apply to God Himself and His Word as well as to anyone else, otherwise it makes God Himself a hypocrite who exempts Himself from His own laws, does it not?

For example the bible tells us the Word of God is Truth and abides for ever and God never changes. Any doctrines of principles which tend to waver or change over time are therefore false. Truth is stable. Lies and deceptions are not.
Take any promise or prophecy at all in the bible. If the prophecy does not apply to the past preset and future at all times then it not eternal, not stable and not the same for all eternity. If any interpretation of the prophecy does not apply to past present and future at all times then it also is unstable and not eternal. Since the Word of God is eternal any prophecy of God is also eternal. If it only applies to past or only applies to future then it is not eternal is it?
An eternal Word of eternal Truth must apply to all eternal generations of the past present and future and so must its correct interpretations.

I will reply to the rest of your comments later. I have other things I need to do right now.

[kayky]

Have you had any personal experience with hate, rejection and disconnection? Is that part of God according to your perception of God or do you see that as the devil and is that some kind of experience with the devil?
Do you separate God from the devil or see them as "two sides of the same coin" as it were ?

Let me begin by saying that I do not believe in demons, angels, or other such folk. I'm not even sure if the word God, with all of the baggage it has garnered over the centuries, can aptly be applied to modern spiritual experience. I use it for lack of a better word, but I try not to associate preconceived notions to my concept of God beyond what my personal experience tells me. So, while I may find some value in scripture and religious ritual, I do not define God within their parameters. They are vehicles only. I follow the advice of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Trust thyself." I can't vouch for anyone or anything else.

If the physical universe is God coming into form, as I believe it to be, then all experiences of all entities within that universe are a part of God. I find in the ancient myth of the Garden of Eden, clues as to why a form of God can experience such things as "hate, rejection, and disconnection." 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.

It makes me smile when I see people dismissing the Garden of Eden myth as a mere fable about a talking snake and magic trees. Such people fail to recognize the profound wisdom the ancients imbedded there.

[Zzyzx]

.

Many religionists attempt to defend or promote their chosen beliefs and worship rituals by claiming that a favored god is real " based upon stories that cannot be verified. They often proselytize with claims of truth and promises or threats to coerce or convince others to join them in worship.

I am totally against the idea of proselytizing in any form and believe strongly that each individual has his or her own path to walk. I think it extreme arrogance for anyone to attempt to interfere with that path despite good (yet misplaced) intentions.

We are in complete agreement on this issue.

When ancient tales of miracles are offered as proof that their god is real (or Jesus was divine), I challenge the truth of the tales. Without the resurrection and promise of reward or threat of punishment in an afterlife, Christianity has little to offer. In truth, none of the claims or stories can be shown to be anything more than human imagination functioning as fable, fiction, fantasy or fraud.

Now here is where I think you miss the boat.

Or perhaps it is you who is missing the boat. Can you show that you understand or speak truth?

Myths do not prove truth: myths reveal truth.

Myths MAY reveal some truth. Difficulty arises when one attempts to determine WHAT truth is being revealed " and what is truth vs. what is not.

They have nothing to do with fantasy or fraud. (I'm sure you're aware of the work of Joseph Campbell.)

I am only vaguely familiar with Joseph Campbells work.

By my own recognizance, I consider myths to include, at least at times, fantasy and possibly fraud (or at least deception). Consider the Norse or Greek god myths / tales. Can anyone say they did NOT contain fantasy?

I do not claim such myths contain deliberate fraud because I am not privy to the motivation of proponents.

I do not know if there is an "afterlife" or not,

Nor do I, nor does anyone else. However, some CLAIM knowledge of an afterlife based upon reading a book or listening to religious dogma. Is that fraud or mere delusion or deception?

and that is certainly not where I find value in religion (Christian or otherwise).

I see some value in religion if it fills needs for people who seek external guidance and structure in life.

I don't even think that religion is necessary to honor that aspect of human experience that I am talking about. But, for me, I find the ancient ways to be the best ways.

I find no value in ancient ways that conflict with what we have learned about nature in the past couple thousand years. As a person who has studied and taught sciences, I am aware of a lot of conflicts between ancient ways and modern knowledge (in medicine, for example).

They have endured for a reason.

What reason do you propose?

Dictatorships have endured for a reason too. So what?

Positions based upon emotion (lack of verifiable evidence), do not lend themselves to debate or intelligent discussion (in my opinion).

And, thus, religious debate (though entertaining and often thought-provoking) is an exercise in futility.

I do not debate with the objective of changing anyones established position " but rather to present opposition ideas for consideration by those who are sincerely seeking answers to their personal questions about spirituality. It is not healthy, in my opinion, for those who seek answers to encounter only (or primarily) unopposed religious propaganda.

Taking a position because I think so or because my mother (or preacher or book) says so " a position that cannot be verified as truthful and accurate " makes no sense to me; though I realize it appeals to many people.

It appeals to the intellectually lazy.

I agree. However, that is very common in these threads as the position of Biblicists / Literalists / Fundamentalists.

By the way, my mother is convinced that I am going to Hell because she finds my religious views so radical.

Condolences. My mother was a devout Catholic lady who REALLY wanted her four sons to be good Catholic gentlemen (and may have succeeded with one).

However, any honest discussion of religion must, in my opinion, consider the issue of personal religious experience.

Perhaps that is true of discussion " as separate from debate.

And, thus, the oxymoron, "religious debate."

I challenge in debate the CLAIMS made in the name of religion. There is obviously no proving of the existence or influence of gods " or their absence. However, claims that god does such and such CAN be challenged rationally and effectively.

If you simply say that nothing can possibly exist outside the realm of scientific observation, the discussion is shut down.

]I presume that you is used in the generic sense. I, personally, do not claim that nothing can exist outside the realm of scientific observation " and am open to the possibility that one or more of the thousands of proposed gods is real.

If you say so, I will have to take you at your word.

I say so.

However, I ask for REASON TO ACCEPT god theories. All that has been offered is ancient tales in religious promotional literature, conjecture, opinion, and personal testimonials. Which of those am I to accept?

If someone suggests that I accept ancient tales in religious promotional literature, I ask WHICH book, which tales and which religion " and WHY? No satisfactory answer is provided.

Perhaps your path involves none of these things.

That is correct. My path, since childhood, has not involved ancient tales from any religious promotional literature " or the dogma developed from them. Self-identified priests and prophets have had no influence upon my decisions or my paths.

I have a close friend who is an atheist, but in his own way he is a very spiritual man.

The term spiritual has little or no application to my view of life. I am aware of the definition of the term " but do not consider it applicable to me personally.

At any rate no one should just "accept" anything at face value.

I agree (except what my wife tells me because we have a relationship based on truth and trust).

For life in general, I like an idea put forth by Ronald Regan (not necessarily one of my favorite people) " Trust but verify.

I will tell you this about my own life. When I apply myself to my chosen path, my life transcends the alienation and self-centeredness that often marks human experience; and I become a more compassionate, more creative, and more joyful person. Do I find value in that? You'd better believe it. I do.

I will take your word for all that " without adding have to.

I will tell you about my life " when I apply myself to a chosen path, my life does not involve alienation and self-centeredness " and I am characteristically compassionate, generous, understanding, creative and joyful. I need no outside influence to be so.

If someone suggests that I accept testimonials, I ask if they are willing to accept testimonials as being truthful " from proponents of competing gods and religions. Of course they are not " though few are willing to answer directly and honestly. However, they counsel me to accept their proffered testimonials and ignore those of the competition.

I would never take it upon myself to "counsel" you, Z! But I am very open to the spiritual experiences of those from other religions or even those of no religion. The experience is universally available and not connected to one particular religion or "god." I do not see other religions as competition. I see them as varying paths to the same destination.

I appreciate your not counseling me. Others are often not so wise.

I am open to EVIDENCE of truth from any source. However, I am NOT influenced by testimonials, opinions, tales, unverifiable information, threats, or promises (the mainstays of supernaturalism).

Do you accept as truthful testimonials from anonymous people?

I have no interest in winning a debate " or convincing / converting the opposition (or anyone else) to anything. Instead, I present ideas for readers to consider and evaluate " and to use or discard as they see fit " ideas that often oppose religious propaganda.

Once again, if you say so, I will take you at your word.

Thank you. I will accept your word about your personal position and perceived experiences.

but I think, in the particular case of religious experience, that may not be intellectually honest.

In what way is intellectual honesty displayed or discarded in this context?

I find it intellectually dishonest because it fails to recognize that the debate format itself does not lend itself to an honest exploration of human religious experience and what it might mean in our understanding of ourselves and the universe.

The debate format does NOT claim to lend itself to honest exploration of human religious experience. Since no such claim is made, there is no intellectual dishonesty.

I am among the first to acknowledge that supernatural beliefs do NOT lend themselves to debate " and wonder why religionists attempt to defend or promote their beliefs in this format (and sincerely suggest they should not " particularly the Literalist / Biblicist / Fundamentalist / Fanatical

This is not your fault, of course.

Fault is not an issue.

It's the nature of the beast. It places some "generic" people in the odd position of acknowledging the possibility of spiritual experience while, at the same time, dismissing it out of hand as unworthy of serious consideration.

Some of us are open to consider EVIDENCE of spiritual experience " but are not willing to accept testimonials as proof. We, perhaps obviously, have not had what we consider to be a spiritual experience " though we may have experienced something similar to others who are convinced that their experiences were spiritual.

Who is to say that someones spiritual experience is or is not delusion, hallucination, or emotional event?

[Skyangel]

.

Does that suggest a sense of security (whether it be real or not) in belief in a heavenly father or other such spirit?

I am suggesting that the security, mystery and magic that children place in the fictional Santa Claus is transferred to an invisible imaginary spiritual being in the sky which is worshipped in religions. It is adults replacing their chidhood security blanket with an adult version of the security blanket. Some do it through religion and some do it through drugs and alcohol or other things which they tend to get addicted to in the land of fantasy as they attempt to escape reality.

.
Correction: many invisible things can be verified by evidence. Air, for instance, is not visible, but its existence and presence can be verified. Ultraviolet radiation is invisible to humans " but can be demonstrated to exist.

Some things are undetectable " such as gods and spirits and ghosts and fairies and demons. Those things cannot be shown to exist.

That depends on your definition of these things. Even things like ghosts and fairies in mythology can be defined as fictional and exist in fiction. You cannot say they do not exist at all. You can say they do not exist in reality but only exist in fiction but the fact that they can be defined proves they do exist even if they do only exist in fiction and fantasy and mythology. The statement that " X " does not exist is illogical if you can define "X" at all. Anything that does not exist at all has no name or definition or any representation of it in any way, fictional or otherwise.
fictional things exist in the imagination of man and are represented in the fictional stories and very tangible art works inspired by the imagination of man.

.
Birth certificates are relatively modern inventions. Many people in the US during settlement and frontier days had not such thing, for example " and simple entries in a family bible were made to record births. So, absence of a birth certificate is not indication of lack of birth.

That same principle applies to any evidence at all. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To think or believe something does not exist because a person refuses to accept any evidence as real evidence does not mean what they deny exists is indeed absent. Many people have been alive on this planet and have died and left no record that they have ever been alive on the planet. That does not mean they were never alive.

.
Perhaps people of his day distinguished between a claim of being THE son of god for a claim of being A son of god. The former is a claim of exclusivity and the latter is a term of commonality.

Jesus clarified His position by telling them they were all sons of God. They still did not believe Him or understand Him.
If I say I am the child of my father, I am not saying I am the only child of my father. My brother is also the child of my father.
It all depends on the perception of the hearers or the readers. Jesus spoke words which could be interpreted in many different ways and were indeed interpreted in many ways and are still interpreted in many ways today. I can't see that changing in the future either.

.
I will ask that you verify any CLAIM that you make. DEMONSTRATE that you speak truth.

I do. Truth is always truthful but can be perceived as a lie as well depending on whether people wish to doubt the statements made or not.
I am that I am and you can chose to believe me or not. Your belief or unbelief will not change who or what I am. It can however change your opinion of me.

.
You (generic term) may also be NUTS " a fruitcake " certifiably insane. I have no way of knowing " and do not express an opinion.

That is true. Anyone might be insane but most people who are certifiably insane have usually been diagnosed as such and are in some mental health institution and not allowed to interact with people on the internet. If I personally was certifiably insane, I am sure my family would have had me institutionalized by now.

Mark Twain wrote "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. "

There are many false dichotomies presented in life.

No one can demonstrate that they possess TRUTH.

Truth is not a posession. It is a way of life. It is honesty, integrity, stability, and faithfulness to your own words. People do not posess truth. They either are truthful or they are not truthful. To be truthful is to be full of Truth, living in Truth and having the Truth living in you. I am that I am regardless of how anyone perceives me.

Interesting concept. Kindly verify that it is something more than opinion.

If I ask you "Who are the heads of the states of America", would you understand I am talking about the people in authority or would you interpret that in a different way?
The fact that the word "head" can be perceived as the leader or authority figure of something and is used in that way can be seen in the dictionary meanings of the word.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=head
a person who is in charge; "the head of the whole operation"
(the front of a military formation or procession) "the head of the column advanced boldly"; "they were at the head of the attack"
(the top of something) "the head of the stairs"; "the head of the page"; "the head of the list"
head (the educator who has executive authority for a school) "she sent unruly pupils to see the principal"

Definitions exist for many words that relate to things that cannot be detected directly. Examples might include love, hate, respect, etc.

You agreed with me that all those conditions can indeed be detected in the actions and words of human beings. Therefore in spite of the fact that they cannot be detected directly or outside of a body they can indeed be detected in that which manifests them or in which they manifest themselves.

I ASK god worshipers for a definition of god (and have asked for many years) without receiving a coherent answer. I do not purport to supply a definition.

I am giving you a definition of God. It is up to you to either accept my definition or reject it. The God I know and understand is manifest in Love, Light, Life, revelation, people, Truth, integrity, and everything that is also opposite to all those things. The God I believe in is ALL you can ever think of or imagine. The words "I am that I am" say it all regardless of how anyone perceives the "I AM "

All that is a religious platitude " which is meaningless to a Non-Theist. Are you attempting to talk only to god believers?

I am adressing all readers regardless of belief. You ( generic) may perceive the words " I am that I am " as a meaningless religious platitude if you wish. However, if you look at those words with an objective amd generic view point and stop applying them only to religion but apply them to all things including all things in nature, and imagine a tree or a rock saying those words then you might perceive the Truth in those words. Regardless of who or what says those words, those words remain Truth and apply to ALL things that exist visible and invisible. Even if the worlds worst compulsory liar who could not speak the Truth said those words " I am that I am ", they would be speaking the Truth.
Truth is what it is. A lie also is what it is.

I agree with your statement
"Perception does not alter truth. No matter how a person chooses to perceive gravity, for instance, they are bound by its effects."

.

I, for one, am NOT interested in mystery and magic of truth. I prefer reality. Others are welcome to choose mystery and magic and fantasy if they wish.

Real Truth is reality. False truth is fantasy and deception. Any deception is usually based on some reality which it is trying to hide behind the scenes .

.

Many illusions are available for those who seek or accept illusions. Serious study of nature seeks to reduce or eliminate illusions. Illusionists and deceptionists (of all types) seek to create and maintain illusion for those who accept what they present (including the gullible and nave and fanatical religionists).

Serious study of nature will show you that even nature is full of illusion and camouflage. Camouflage, deception, is all about one truth or one reality hiding another truth or another reality. Not even nature elimiates illusion and deception. All we can do is understand it and why it happens. Once you understand it you are no longer deceived by it but can see the things that are camouflaged and hidden from those who have no clue what to look for. it is all about being aware of the reality of nature all around us and how it can deceive those who are unaware of its principles of camouflage.

I agree that many people are deceived by the illusions presented by religions and their false doctrines.

[Skyangel]

[quote="kayky
Let me begin by saying that I do not believe in demons, angels, or other such folk. I'm not even sure if the word God, with all of the baggage it has garnered over the centuries, can aptly be applied to modern spiritual experience. I use it for lack of a better word, but I try not to associate preconceived notions to my concept of God beyond what my personal experience tells me. So, while I may find some value in scripture and religious ritual, I do not define God within their parameters. They are vehicles only. I follow the advice of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Trust thyself." I can't vouch for anyone or anything else.

If the physical universe is God coming into form, as I believe it to be, then all experiences of all entities within that universe are a part of God. I find in the ancient myth of the Garden of Eden, clues as to why a form of God can experience such things as "hate, rejection, and disconnection." 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.

It makes me smile when I see people dismissing the Garden of Eden myth as a mere fable about a talking snake and magic trees. Such people fail to recognize the profound wisdom the ancients imbedded there.[/quote]

You make the statement " IF the physical universe is God coming into form, ... and claim you believe it is.
Could you please clarify what you mean by " God coming into form"? Are you implying that God has not yet come into any form and is formless? Are you suggest that God will somehow take on some form at a later date or "come into form" at some later date?

You make the statment that "There is no good and evil. Good cancels evil, ..." etc

I ask you how can good cancel evil if there is no good or evil in the first place? How can Eve or anyone else partake of any knowlege of good and evil if good and evil do not exist?
How can anyone judge between good and evil if there is no good or evil.

You appear to be contradicting yourself with your statements which appear to be very confusing and contradictory.

[WinePusher]

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.

[Flail]

Zzyzx wrote:

Some things are undetectable " such as gods and spirits and ghosts and fairies and demons. Those things cannot be shown to exist.

Skyangel responded:

That depends on your definition of these things. Even things like ghosts and fairies in mythology can be defined as fictional and exist in fiction. You cannot say they do not exist at all. You can say they do not exist in reality but only exist in fiction but the fact that they can be defined proves they do exist even if they do only exist in fiction and fantasy and mythology. The statement that " X " does not exist is illogical if you can define "X" at all. Anything that does not exist at all has no name or definition or any representation of it in any way, fictional or otherwise.
fictional things exist in the imagination of man and are represented in the fictional stories and very tangible art works inspired by the imagination of man.

It goes without saying(patently obvious) that things that have been created by artists(writers,sculpters,song writers,painters) exist as 'art' or 'fiction'...which may have absolutely nothing to do with their actual verifiable existence in the real world. Aeosp's fables teach wonderful lessons, but I have yet to experience a talking frog.

Skyangel wrote:

That same principle applies to any evidence at all. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To think or believe something does not exist because a person refuses to accept any evidence as real evidence does not mean what they deny exists is indeed absent.

Again, stating the obvious makes no point. And just because someone accepts as 'real evidence' something purely fictional does not bring it to 'life'.

Skyangel wrote:

Many people have been alive on this planet and have died and left no record that they have ever been alive on the planet. That does not mean they were never alive.

Until there is verifiable evidence as to a person 'having lived', we would have to reserve some doubt. However, if this person having 'actually lived' was not central to the writings attributed to or about him, it might be a minor point not worthy of proofs. On the other hand, if this person were claimed to be a supernatural being(god), the likes of which has never been demonstrated with verifiable evidence and around which has been constructed a religion that judges half the world to hell, we should demand authentic verifiable evidence to sustain a heavy burden of proof.

Skyangel wrote:

It all depends on the perception of the hearers or the readers. Jesus spoke words which could be interpreted in many different ways and were indeed interpreted in many ways and are still interpreted in many ways today. I can't see that changing in the future either.

Agreed. This is the point of indoctrination and rituals.


Skyangel wrote:

Truth is always truthful but can be perceived as a lie as well depending on whether people wish to doubt the statements made or not.

Agreed. This is perhaps the case wherein Christians perceive the lie that 'Jesus was God' as the Truth....or that the God of the bible exists when the Truth is that He does not.

[Skyangel]

It goes without saying(patently obvious) that things that have been created by artists(writers,sculpters,song writers,painters) exist as 'art' or 'fiction'...which may have absolutely nothing to do with their actual verifiable existence in the real world. Aeosp's fables teach wonderful lessons, but I have yet to experience a talking frog..

Have you never experienced talking animals on movies? You have no idea what you are missing. * tease* I have heard many frogs "talk" in "frog language", not that I understand the language but they do make a kind of croaking noise.
I do agree many fables have lessons and morals in them which teach good principles.

Again, stating the obvious makes no point. And just because someone accepts as 'real evidence' something purely fictional does not bring it to 'life'.

Stating the obvious is sometimes necessary because many times people tend to overlook and ignore the obvious simply because it is so obvious. Many people have "lost" or misplaced keys or things which have been lying right in their line of sight all the time. The obvious is not all that obvious to some people, especially if they are blind or half blind. Anything that is fictional obviously does not come alive in reality. Why are you stating the obvious? Are you trying to make a point?
If people accept fictional stories or even parables as real evidence of whatever they wish to believe in, that fiction however does become a reality in their imagination. They end up believing in "invisible friends" and such things who will never let them down in their imaginations. It is a form of escape from reality which does not involve drugs to get high but merely involves "faith" and a good imagination instead. The bonus is that it's free.

Until there is verifiable evidence as to a person 'having lived', we would have to reserve some doubt. However, if this person having 'actually lived' was not central to the writings attributed to or about him, it might be a minor point not worthy of proofs. On the other hand, if this person were claimed to be a supernatural being(god), the likes of which has never been demonstrated with verifiable evidence and around which has been constructed a religion that judges half the world to hell, we should demand authentic verifiable evidence to sustain a heavy burden of proof.

The bible itself tells us Jesus is the Truth, Jesus is a door, Jesus is a vine and many other metaphoric things which the name Jesus refers to. The name is merely a metaphor for that which saves people from their confusion and doubts and hate and anything else they need saving from. The name means "Jehovah is salvation". The name Jehovah means "the existing One"

If the existing one is salvation then the one who is existing is you and me and all the rest of the existing people on this planet. The human race exists and we are our own salvation. We have the power and ability to feed all the starving in this world and heal all the sick in this world and stop all wars in this world but we as one human race don't. Why not?

Phl 2:12 ............... but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Agreed. This is perhaps the case wherein Christians perceive the lie that 'Jesus was God' as the Truth....or that the God of the bible exists when the Truth is that He does not.

That all depends on how you perceive the God of the bible and whether you perceive that God as a single invisible divine being or as the tangible reality of mankind on this planet. One exists and the other obviously does not.

Jehovah is the existing one.

I am that I am.

Truth sets people free from fiction and deception.