What did the rest of it say? I think God most likely does not exist but I choose to have faith in him?
I just don’t believe in these magical tricks of random dudes 400 years later having an insider with Gods will that supersedes the others. I presumed you thought the same.
“Right! You were referring to “magic tricks” by God. IMO, He doesn’t do “magic tricks”; never has and never will.” To quote you.
That’s right. Since there is zero evidence for God.
Christians don’t live longer or shorter lives than non Christians.
Christians are just as likely to be poor or rich within their nation.
Christians die in car wrecks, drug overdoses, murders and so on just like anyone else.
Christians get married, divorced and remarried just like anyone else.
In every single category it seems being Christian or not has zero affect on what happens.
Like a little kid or Christian parents with stage four cancer is probably going to die or cancer just like a little kid of Muslim or Buddhist or Wiccan parents.
There is no historical evidence that proves God exists without a doubt. There is nothing in science that points towards anything supernatural or to any god including ours.
You tell me. What’s something non religious that happens in every Christian’s life that never happens in any non Christians life? What’s the artifact dug up that proves god exists? What’s the scientific problem that only god can make work?
So since I see that’s that is concretely 100% proof that God exists I have to presume logically God most likely does not exist. When faced with that fact, I can either choose to ignore my desire to have faith or I can have faith.
But I don’t have to lie to myself or to others in order to justify my faith because I’m scared of what may or may not come next. Instead, I choose to rest in peace and trust that my faith in God is not misplaced.
So why do you not need faith since you have something that proves without a doubt to anyone with a reasonable mind God is real?
You only know snippets about my life. I did not struggle with doubting my parents loved me. Just that at times they had weird beliefs that seemed to not be reality. But so do most here. The biggest difference was probably cultural beliefs. Like is cussing ok or not. Or maybe that’s just your wife who can’t stand certain combinations of sounds. But I can tell you, even if I was born in your life, there is a good chance I would grow up with the same mentality which seems to be the one you mention, and then act like you did not.
You either have 100% proof or not and you and I both know you don’t. Your words and mine. So you don’t have proof…… but you have these affirming dots in your life that seem to designed to have just happened…… everyone does. It’s why they are coincidences. What’s the top three little dots …. that leads to proof?
Well it would be hard to prove to me that a god exists. But there is no need to convince since I’m already a Christian and don’t struggle with remaining as one.
So who’s the two deities you think always existed? Father and spirit? Or?
That basically says that Jesus made an empty promise and the apostles – especially Paul – screwed up.
It just means I think you did.
Merry Christmas to you also Terry and if you could send the box that would work out perfectly. I imagine they are going to release my dad’s body to me by Thursday to be cremated and tomorrow is when this funeral place opens and we will pick out one unless yours were able to make it first.
So you don’t think they always existed. Just that one or two can now. Unless you think there is a difference between divine being and deity.
And I caught your Freudian slip.
Either way merry Christmas again. I have a date with a bottle of Russian Jesus juice and a kayak to get to. Nice clear night. Some ghostly clouds creating pale irisation. About to shower before the “designated kayaker” shows up to ensure we are all safe out there.
This is pretty much my reaction when arguments about what isn’t supported by the Bible come up. There are many good books and I’ve loved reading quite a few. They all enlarge and inform my view. But I recognize none of them as essential or as the ultimate. I believe the Bible can be sufficient for salvation when embraced in the right way. But I will never believe it alone is necessary and no other will suffice. There are too many examples to the contrary. But I don’t think of salvation as something that opens up a realm after death but only one that opens up your life itself here and now, and that is what matters.
Here he and I probably disagree except I don’t think God is anything like a dude who may or may not exist. Existence isn’t even the issue and neither are magical miracles. Existence as we know it is already miraculous, no magic required.
I appreciate you chiming in. I’m also appreciative and supportive of BioLogos. I’ve recently been looking into UU but haven’t reached out locally except to inquire about their forums which appears to be little more than an email connection to limited discussions. In my first attempt to discuss the notion of God I’ve been discovering the only one responding was obsessed with AI and transhumanism. Not very satisfactory.
Are you active on a live UU community and if so how has that been for you? I won’t be going that route at least until my wife passes. I was a de facto atheist when we met as she is still, and I won’t let that come between us now.
I am active in Religious Naturalists Unitarian Universalists
https://groups.google.com/g/rnuu
That sounds pretty descriptive of me. I don’t think natural has to mean some blind senseless force. I’ll look into it. Thanks.
You should also check out the Religious Naturalist Association:
https://religious-naturalist-association.org/
Personally I am a Pantheist, which I consider a type of Religious Naturalism:
But that is only one view amongst others.
One book you might enjoy is: “the Sacred Depths of Nature” by Ursula Goodenough.
Thanks again. Having finally finished McGilchrist’s The Matter With Things that might fill a void. That was what got me thinking about God at all. I was always content as an agnostic but God as primordial consciousness connects a lot of dots.
I’ve been claiming the panentheist label only because I think what God is is more that the total of what is immanent. Probably not a hugely important distinction.
It doesn’t agree with the teachings of Jesus. “Eternal torment” are His words and the whole point of the parable in Luke 16:14-31 is that this torment cannot be escaped.
This is not to say that the incompatibility is absolute and that some don’t find ways to justify universalism in spite of this. But on the face of it, I see no reason not to take Jesus’ warnings seriously. It agrees with my observation of human behavior that they don’t let go of their sins easily and can be quite resistant to efforts to get them to do so. People can be addicted not only to their sins but even to the misery it brings them. And I don’t think it is simply a matter of understanding… people do things even when they understand how self-destructive they are.
No I did not just make the statements without giving reasons. A god made in the image of man is a potent criticism which has led many people to reject theism in favor of pantheism. And I have elaborated on the problems with universalism both in this post and the previous one.
The naturalism part of this I have some sympathy with – methodological naturalism anyway – both for science and many theological questions. I see little reason to believe in magic, whether divine or otherwise. I only draw the line at the metaphysical naturalism of equating the scientific worldview with the limits of reality. I believe in a supernatural God and a supernatural afterlife. But I think God made this universe to operate according to natural law as a necessity for the process of life, and I think He participates in the events of the world within those limitations.
That’s what we get based on Latin – the Greek is “agewise torment”. The two are quite different.
As for Luke 16, nothing in that parable goes against universalism – I read it three times trying to get that from it and can’t.
Well obviously I do not agree. The majority do not read the text in that way because it frankly looks like twisting the text to meaning contrary to what Jesus is saying. It is too far fetched… and like I said, it doesn’t agree with what I see of human behavior either.
Furthermore, the essence of free will is that love requires is that we have a choice, and I will not buy into the empty choices of either compatibilism or universalism. The point of free will is that we write the future together and our choices do matter in important and crucial ways. Love can be rejected or it is simply not love.
So you have that Bible with a Luke 16:27b “One day in the far future there will be a bridge but not now.”, and a Luke 16:32 “God can convince them but doesn’t feel like it right now.”
To me, universalism sounds exactly like a teaching for itching ears… something people just want to believe, and not realistic at all. But also like I said, I see no incompatibility with Christianity in general. So if you want to read the text that way I do not object – but I will not agree. I do not find it believable.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.