Belief systems poll

[Kyriakos]

I'm very happy to concede I'm not nearly smart enough and I'd like to hear why God wants to be represented by all kinds of denominations which make different claims to what God wants

How am I to decide which one is right?

Divide et impera

 

[Calvinist]

I'm very happy to concede I'm not nearly smart enough and I'd like to hear why God wants to be represented by all kinds of denominations which make different claims to what God wants

How am I to decide which one is right?

If you can't figure it out based on my username, you obviously aren't well versed in Christian theology

Inspired from here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-arminian-god-is-not-just-pansy-but.html (A blog entry written by someone who isn't me)

Many atheists and other assorted unbelievers claim that Christianity can't be true because... why can't God just prove himself?

Well, of course he can, but the question is, if He did so, would this lead to the results that he wants.

The Arminian should say yes, because the Arminian says God wants every person without exception to be saved. Thus, the Arminian conception of god is a fool because he sincerely wants to save everyone, but cannot figure a way to do so. Even if "free will" is an obstacle God cannot pass for some reason (Which of course he can, he's God) there's still the fact that God could, as this blog entry mentions, rearrange the stars so they spell "Jesus is Lord". Or do any number of other things to make his existence undeniable. So, why doesn't he do this?

Because the Arminian conception of god does not exist.

The Biblical version, on the other hand, sovereignly chooses who will or will not be saved (John 10:26-29 and John 6:37-44 are two of many examples of such.) The Biblical version of God blinds those who he does not want to believe (Mark 4:12.) Many idolaters complain that a loving God wouldn't do that. First of all, this claim is idol worship, because the Bible says God does this, and second of all, we all deserve Hell anyway, because we've transgressed God's Laws.

So, why doesn't God give clear, irrefutable evidence that He's real? Well, Romans 1 says he does. But why doesn't he make it clearer? Because some, most, were created for destruction.

If you repent and believe, you will be among those who are saved. But if you die without believing, that is proof you were created for destruction.

No, actually the 'why' is beyond me. I cannot envision why a god would want to behave in the way you describe God behaving. I can certainly imagine a god that does behave in such a way, but not the 'why'.

But I'm sure the reasons would be analogous to 'ineffable'.

Says the guy who doesn't believe the Bible

 

[Akka]

Many atheists and other assorted unbelievers claim that Christianity can't be true because... why can't God just prove himself?

Well, of course he can, but the question is, if He did so, would this lead to the results that he wants.

Even far before we reach such contrived parts, the entire premises are bogus to begin with, like having a supposedly "good" god creating a world built upon life preying upon life, and with pointless suffering (like diseases).

This alone makes the very idea of a loving and omnipotent god a logical absurdity.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So your god won't reveal itself to me since I'm created for destruction?

Your god is a bastard.

And you forgot to mention how I'm to decide all those claims you made are more true than other people's claims about it.

 

[Borachio]

Out of all the myriad religions in the world, one has to be fortunate enough to either choose Christianity in the first place or be conceived by Christian parents.

And, out of the 40,000 Christian denominations, one must be fortunate enough to choose the correct one.

Seems like predestination is where it's at after all.

Actually, I don't think this is right. And I'm very surprised that anyone thinks so. Still, such is life. Full of surprises.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Maybe god just looks at a lot of smermatozoa videos?

After all, they start as many thousands, and in the end they all die apart from one.
Which in turn is transforming into something else.

No win situation, really

 

[El_Machinae]

Says the guy who doesn't believe the Bible

"Doesn't believe" might not be the right phrase. "Is aware of specific errors" might be a way of putting it. It's akin to saying I don't "believe" in Newtonian physics. I mean, I don't believe, technically, but it's more that I know where they're insufficient. That said, no, I don't know why a god would behave the way you describe/believe God to behave.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Strong atheist. I think there's overwhelming evidence which suggests that there is no god of the gaps, no supernatural force interfering with our everyday life, or even our history. There's no difference between prayer and a lucky rabbit's foot. When you die, you are no different than the ants you step on every day. You perish, and in the scheme of things, nobody cares that you've perished, and those that do care will all eventually perish, and no one will even remember that you existed. This falls under the category of getting over oneself. One is nothing more than the flesh and blood that sustains one's consciousness. Without it, you are perpetually unconscious. You don't wake up. There is no cloud city with golden streets and golden gates, no choir of angels, no bearded santa claus figure sitting on a throne. These are the imaginings of silly human beings with very limited imaginations. Just look at the myths themselves, it has uninspired bronze age dullard written all over it. Cities with walls and gates, lords, gold and precious jewels, it's all meant to give hope to the ancient and medieval peasants who knew nothing beyond the walls of their cities, nothing beyond the economics of gold and jewels being precious, nothing beyond the benign or malevolent rule of a dictator. They imagined heaven to be precisely the same, with a benevolent dictator. Any example of any human-created mythology regarding the supposed supernatural is rife with ridicule-worthy speculation.

I am also agnostic in the sense that I don't believe it is possible to prove certain negatives. I can't prove there aren't a species of dragons living on a planet somewhere in the Triangulum galaxy, so therefore I can't prove dragons don't exist. At the same time, I've got no reason to believe in dragons, and the folks running around telling people to imagine dragons are either silly bananas, or really talented musicians.

 

[Kyriakos]

^That is a bit pedestrian as an account of the old mythologies, though. Many people of the archaic or classical age travelled quite extensively all around the med and other parts of Europe, the near east and northern Africa. Most people today travel less, i suppose, than what a number of classical-era people did.

 

[Traitorfish]

Any example of any human-created mythology regarding the supposed supernatural is rife with ridicule-worthy speculation.

"Ridicule-worthy"? That's not very humanistic of you.

 

[Borachio]

Strong atheist. I think there's overwhelming evidence which suggests that there is no god of the gaps, no supernatural force interfering with our everyday life, or even our history. There's no difference between prayer and a lucky rabbit's foot. When you die, you are no different than the ants you step on every day. You perish, and in the scheme of things, nobody cares that you've perished, and those that do care will all eventually perish, and no one will even remember that you existed. This falls under the category of getting over oneself. One is nothing more than the flesh and blood that sustains one's consciousness. Without it, you are perpetually unconscious. You don't wake up. There is no cloud city with golden streets and golden gates, no choir of angels, no bearded santa claus figure sitting on a throne. These are the imaginings of silly human beings with very limited imaginations. Just look at the myths themselves, it has uninspired bronze age dullard written all over it. Cities with walls and gates, lords, gold and precious jewels, it's all meant to give hope to the ancient and medieval peasants who knew nothing beyond the walls of their cities, nothing beyond the economics of gold and jewels being precious, nothing beyond the benign or malevolent rule of a dictator. They imagined heaven to be precisely the same, with a benevolent dictator. Any example of any human-created mythology regarding the supposed supernatural is rife with ridicule-worthy speculation.

Right.

Let's both hope you don't regret saying this at some stage.

I bet you were the small boy who delighted in telling others that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

And, I suppose the word "allegory" means nothing to you, either.

 

[Traitorfish]

Kind of like a crocodile, isn't it?

 

[peter grimes]

I'm with the pizza guy. Not because of his name, but golly gee wiz I think pizza is the closest to divinity I've ever felt.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Entheist. For a while I wasn't sure if agnosticism actually meant what I thought it meant. Now I know the correct terminology. I believe there is indeed a God. Probably a weird part, I also believe there are other ones, just subordinates, in a Hierarchal command structure, akin to, and including, Greek and Roman Mythos.

I also like to think that the religions around the world, although I choose not to be with any of them, are meant to be complementary, rather than contradictory.

 

[timtofly]

Entheist. For a while I wasn't sure if agnosticism actually meant what I thought it meant. Now I know the correct terminology. I believe there is indeed a God. Probably a weird part, I also believe there are other ones, just subordinates, in a Hierarchal command structure, akin to, and including, Greek and Roman Mythos.

I also like to think that the religions around the world, although I choose not to be with any of them, are meant to be complementary, rather than contradictory.

There is only one problem with this direction in logic. The Hebrews had a very hard time in describing God, while the other gods were based on human or animals already known to mankind.

Unless the Hebrews actually saw themselves as removed from all other humans living at the time, they chose a strange way to disassociate themselves.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is probable that the jewish people could not have their own version of a "supernaturally strong human-like" deity, cause they did not have this aspiration in their own society/culture due to lack of strength (at least this is the Nietzschean explanation). While Greek, Norse or some of the Egyptian (and other, like Indian) gods seem to be mostly local types with supernatural power, the jewish god is not even shown anywhere in its true 'form'. It does seem to be a result of weakness, although it is also highly probable that it includes the prehistoric animism, where the god must have been a vastly more shadowy figure or concept.

Then again some of the prominent near eastern gods were rather ominous too, as in Egyptian and Babylonian ones.

 

[Traitorfish]

As if the gods of Plato or Pythagoras were any more clearly-described?

 

[Kyriakos]

I am not really familiar with those, apart from the known concept of god by Plato and later on Aristotle, which is some sort of nameless and immaterial universal creator and not really close to humans anyway (in stark contrast to the "god created humans in his image and likeness" of the bible).
As for Pythagoras, he had some rather interesting ideas, such as god as a geometrical shape, or Y (the greek ypsilon) as the letter of god, because (iirc) it represents the point where a double path becomes a sole one).

That said, i can't say i have really researched those divinity-centered ideas.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, the point is, trying to explain Israelite monotheism as psychological tends to fall a bit short when held up against the actual history of Eurasian monotheism. Nietzsche is grand and all, but the man wasn't a historian of religion, nor would I imagine that he expected his writing to be taken as any such authority.

 

[timtofly]

As if the gods of Plato or Pythagoras were any more clearly-described?

Neither did Plato and Pythagoras bind themselves with a very long list of laws to attempt to appease their divinity.