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.

[kayky]

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?

To a great extent, I think I can. Bear with me for a moment.

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.

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 think that on the subject of mythology I may be in a position to present the more scholarly point of view. Your background is science; my background is the humanities, especially language and literature.

While myths contain fantastical elements, they have little to do with fantasy or fraud. Their purpose is to communicate basic truths about human nature and the human condition in story form: truths that may be difficult (especially in a pre-scientific age) to communicate in any other form.

And, yes, it is quite possible to determine what these truths are and to evaluate their validity. The same techniques of literary analysis that would be applied to any other work of literature can be employed to "interpret" myths. A literary work cannot mean anything you want it to. While there is some "wiggle-room" (hence, careers in literary criticism), the interpretation is always bound by what is present in the text itself. The validity of what "truth" is being communicated by a specific myth can be evaluated by comparing it to common human experience to see if it holds up. Knowledge of modern psychology makes this process more reliable than in the past.

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?

I think is more like a wish or a hope. People naturally fear death and find comfort in such teachings. I personally find comfort in the knowledge that, if all is of God, then all is as it should be. I figure that if I found nonexistence bearable before my birth then I should be able to endure it after my death! And if there is more to come...well, that would be a bonus.

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

You sound a little macho here, Z . :2gun: This does not describe my interest in religion at all. My guidance comes from within myself. External vehicles are tools only, which can be discarded if they outwear their usefulness.

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).

If approached with intelligence, there is no need for ancient wisdom and rituals to conflict with modern science. The ancients may not have had the benefit of our modern scientific knowledge, but that does not mean they were not wise in their own right.

They have endured for a reason.

What reason do you propose?

The reason I propose is that truth is always truth. It does not change from one generation to the next.

Dictatorships have endured for a reason too. So what?

I'm not sure comparing the search for spiritual, pschological, or philosophical truth to dictatorships is a logical comparison.

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.

Unfortunately, it is only what I consider the superficial "claims" of religion that can be challenged in debate. It is impossible to get to the core issues in this format; and, thus, it does not lend itself to the advancement of understanding of what is actually occurring in the realm of spiritual experience. Studies have been done on mystics from various religious backgrounds (Catholic nuns, Buddhist priests, etc.) on what actually occurs in the brain during a claimed spiritual experience. These studies show that, regardless of cultural differences, the same area of the brain is being activated in each case. This demonstrates, at least, that, whatever this experience is, it is a universal experience even the individuals involved use a different vocabulary to describe it.

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.

And that is a wise approach. Achieving "beginner's mind" (Buddhism) or "becoming as a little child" (Christianity) is impossible without it. Ralph Waldo Emerson taught that each generation should seek out truth as if the search had never been undertaken before.

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

This is good advice only if you trust yourself.

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.

That is because the connection that makes these things possible already resides within you whether you acknowledge it or not.

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 would never dismiss anyone's testimony out of hand (unless the testifier is wearing a straight-jacket!). But I would want to carefully compare this person's experience with the preponderance of anecdotal evidence that has been gathered across the generations concerning such experiences as well as my own personal experiences.

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

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.

And what you say here proves my point about the limitations of the debate format in reaching any kind of true understanding in this matter.

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

Without spiritual discipline, such is the danger. But if we can never in a disciplined way trust ourselves to distinguish between what is real and what is not, then we cannot trust ourselves to know anything at all.

[kayky]

Z, you might want to look into the work of Joseph Campbell if you wish to have a greater understanding as to where I am coming from regarding mythology. He is considered the foremost contemporary authority on the subject of mythology.

[kayky]

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?

Form exists only in the physical universe. So the aspect of God which transcends the physical universe would indeed be formless.

If God existed before the physical universe came into being, then God must be the source and substance of that universe. God took on form the moment the physical universe came into being but remained formless as well in his transcendence to the physical universe.

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.

The dichotomy between good and evil is an invention of the human mind. In God there is only unity. Evil disappears in the face of ultimate goodness. The natural world has never lost that connection, and thus there is no dichotomy between good and evil in the natural world. For example, animals are not moral beings capable of making moral judgments. But when we as human beings achieved self-consciousness--the knowledge of a distinctive, individual self-hood--we felt alone and "naked" (like Adam and Eve). We believed we no longer had that connection to the unity that is God that the natural world experiences. This gave rise to moral judgments, and the possibility of evil.

[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...

[kayky]

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 Garden of Eden story is an ancient myth of profound significance. If you reread my interpretation of this story, you'll find it is a little different than the more traditional Christian take.

[bernee51]

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.

[Skyangel]

Form exists only in the physical universe. So the aspect of God which transcends the physical universe would indeed be formless.

If God existed before the physical universe came into being, then God must be the source and substance of that universe. God took on form the moment the physical universe came into being but remained formless as well in his transcendence to the physical universe.

Are you saying God is formless ( invisible ) and takes on any form ( visibility ) at will and this formless God taking on form is a never ending process?

The dichotomy between good and evil is an invention of the human mind. In God there is only unity. Evil disappears in the face of ultimate goodness. The natural world has never lost that connection, and thus there is no dichotomy between good and evil in the natural world. For example, animals are not moral beings capable of making moral judgments. But when we as human beings achieved self-consciousness--the knowledge of a distinctive, individual self-hood--we felt alone and "naked" (like Adam and Eve). We believed we no longer had that connection to the unity that is God that the natural world experiences. This gave rise to moral judgments, and the possibility of evil.

Was the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" created by man or by God?
If there is no good or evil, to what do you perceive the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be referring? Why, in the story was Adam told not to eat of it?

[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.

[bernee51]

Form exists only in the physical universe. So the aspect of God which transcends the physical universe would indeed be formless.

If God existed before the physical universe came into being, then God must be the source and substance of that universe. God took on form the moment the physical universe came into being but remained formless as well in his transcendence to the physical universe.

Are you saying God is formless ( invisible ) and takes on any form ( visibility ) at will and this formless God taking on form is a never ending process?

I'm sure Kayky will give her view, however, my understanding is as follows...

God, in this sense, is the ground of all being and being iteself. The emergent universe is 'spirit coming into form'.

The dichotomy between good and evil is an invention of the human mind. In God there is only unity. Evil disappears in the face of ultimate goodness. The natural world has never lost that connection, and thus there is no dichotomy between good and evil in the natural world. For example, animals are not moral beings capable of making moral judgments. But when we as human beings achieved self-consciousness--the knowledge of a distinctive, individual self-hood--we felt alone and "naked" (like Adam and Eve). We believed we no longer had that connection to the unity that is God that the natural world experiences. This gave rise to moral judgments, and the possibility of evil.

Was the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" created by man or by God?
If there is no good or evil, to what do you perceive the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be referring? Why, in the story was Adam told not to eat of it?

The tree of good and evil is a metaphor, a human construct, devised to bring subsatnce 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'.

[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.