The Official God FAQ

[MrCynical]

The Christian God because it is the one I believe in. You don't seem to understand most Christians idea of God very well.

Then enlighten me, but just about all of what I've said could be applied to the God of any religion, not specifically Christianity.

The choice is whether so accept God's forgiveness or not. Immorality is a symptom of our rejection of God, not the problem.

"Accepting God's forgiveness"? Of what relevance is it whether I "accept" God's forgiveness? God has either forgiven me, or not. What exactly do I have to do to "accept" it, and what difference does it make? As far as I can tell this boils down to:

1)Everyone sins, and does so from the second of birth (smacks of arrogance, but I suppose it's a reasonably accurate assumption).

2)God offers forgiveness to everyone, but on the condition that you "accept" it.

3)As I've said this "acceptance" process is mysterious to me, but seems to require some active input on my part.

4)It looks suspiciously like this "acceptance" consists of worshipping God. However as I've said above, no God that demands, or coerces worship by threat of future retribution, is worthy of worship.

5)Those of us who do not "accept" God's forgiveness are doomed to hell, regardless of what moral good we do in life, and the evilest person ever to walk the Earth can get to heaven just by carrying out this mysterious "acceptance".

6)This implies God punishes purely for not believing in him, not for the moral choices we make. This is morally unacceptable, and is similar to the childish spite shown by the "God" of the Old Testament.

You seem to imply that people only act immorally becuase of not "accepting" God's forgiveness. However if that is the case then they would have nothing to be forgiven for in the first place. Those who do not believe in God are not necessarily more likely to act immorally than those who do (and frankly I see a lot of truth in the old adage that without God, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. However to get a good person to do evil, you need religion).

I have a lot of trouble with this idea of "accepting God's forgiveness". What exactly does this entail? What does doing this indicate about me as a person? How can I be forgiven before the sum total of my misdeeds are known at the end of my life?

 

[atreas]

@MrCynical:
Very good points. And, by the way, it so happens that Christ's words are on YOUR side, not the side of the religion. For example (I could cite numerous examples, but I have chosen the one that I always liked the best).

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"

All other things about "faith", "belief", etc. are religious fantasies. Only actions matter - but how would the religion sell their product if they said such a thing?

 

[Birdjaguar]

But once again I point out, if life is a test of morality, with the good being rewarded with heaven, and the evil with hell, surely God shouldn't keep kibitzing during the test, especially only to some individuals? Surely an outright silence to all is the only acceptable behaviour?

In any case I still don't see why a God worth worshipping would care whether a good person worships him, affliates themselves to an organized religion that worships him, or indeed believes in him at all. An atheist who does their best to lead a morally excellent life should be regarded the same as Christian, or indeed a member of any other religion, who does the same.

My bolding. If life is a morality test with significant outcomes for winning or losing, then our world would be a very strange one made even more strange by religion. I do not accept such a premise for creation or the life of any individual. I would agree that moral behavior is independent of ritual or dogma. What constitutes moral behavior, though, is probably open for debate.

 

[CaptainF]

You may be right, but only if assume god can be understood through logic and reason.

Well, i'm no logic fanatic, but it seems to me that while god may/may not exist (i'm no atheist), it is simply impossible to know anything about him.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, i'm no logic fanatic, but it seems to me that while god may/may not exist (i'm no atheist), it is simply impossible to know anything about him.

There are two very basic questions implicit in your post. What is god? And what is knowledge?

If you have a notion of what god may be, then you can look for a path to discover more about it. With out any notion about what god is, you will have a very hard time learning more about it.

The same kind of problem applies to knowledge. To know what you know you have to define knowledge and what is accepted as known. If knowledge is defined as explanation supported by observable data that can be replicated, then god gets pretty hard to know. If you change the definition of knowldege, then you open the door to knowing things that currently are not accepted as being explained.

Perfection and I were having this very conversation last night. For him my posts on god and theology lack "substance", because he and I have very different ideas about what knowledge is and how it is obtained. My "compelling evidence" is not accepted in his "court of law".

How we define knowledge controls what we can know. Some feel more comfortable with a more limited scope of inquiry; others are more willing to go outside those bounds. The nice thing is that each of us gets to make that choice for themselves.

 

[El_Machinae]

"Accepting God's forgiveness"? Of what relevance is it whether I "accept" God's forgiveness? God has either forgiven me, or not

Suppose you were freezing outside, because it's Man's nature to freeze when outside in the cold.

I open the door to my house, and invite you in. If you want, all you need to do is walk in.

That's all that there is to accepting God's forgiveness. Now, if you love God, you may do more, but there's no need. Really, it's quite liberal.

Now, I don't believe in the Christian God, but that's the message. There's no forced worship, there's no forced love ... you can't force those things. If you're grateful to God, you say thanks (which is just polite). If you're not grateful, then don't be thankful.

But the door is open, it's open whether you accept it or not.

 

[Spartan117]

where did the idea of "god" first originate...and for what purpose?

 

[Birdjaguar]

where did the idea of "god" first originate...and for what purpose?

No one knows, but god or an equivalent designation has been part of civilzation since it arose in Sumer 6,000 years ago. Figurines from paleolithic sites imply the "worship" of things outside ourselves go back tens of thousands of years.

Venus figurines is an umbrella term for a number of prehistoric items, mostly in statuette form, of obese or heavily pregnant women from the Aurignacian or Gravettian period of the upper Palaeolithic, found in Europe. They are among the oldest ceramics known. Like many such artifacts, their true cultural meaning may never be known; however, given that at the time of their construction human society would not have the same tendency towards obesity as it has today (as foodstuffs, particularly those which are fattening, would have been scarce as farming had not yet been invented), they may be emblems of security and success, fertility icons, or even direct representations of various goddesses themselves.

Two much older finds are also often categorized as Venus figurines - the Venus of Berekhat Ram, dating to between 800,000 and 233,000 BCE, and the Venus of Tan-Tan, which dates to between 500,000 and 300,000 BCE, the Middle Acheulean period. Found in Asia and Africa respectively, these were made of stone rather than ceramic. Both pieces are very rough, and may have been given approximate human form by natural geological processes. However, the Venus of Berekhet Ram has striations suggesting human stone tool-work, and the Venus of Tan-Tan bears evidence of having been painted; "a greasy substance" on the stone's surface has been shown to contain iron and manganese and indicates that it was decorated by someone and used as a figurine, regardless of how it may have been formed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines

Wonder and a longing to know and understand has been a part of human kind for a very, very long time.

 

[GenMarshall]

More to the point, why is there anything to forgive? Did leaving the faith cause you to act in a more unpleasant fashion towards other people? Why is it so essential to believe in God and take part in an organised religion? One of the things I have concluded is that any "God" who would demand worship (on pain of eternal torture no less) is neither worthy of worship, or a God.

There is something that God would be willing to forgive me on, the forgiveness that I have left the church by no fault of my own when I was a young child as well as sins I have commited during my agnostic years.

It is essential for me to believe in God because I believe in God, no questions about that. I would tell you but its hard to explain just like its hard to explain colors to a person who is born blind. Why do I want to be in an organised religion? Because I feel it has other devout Catholics there to socialise as well as a fellowship, Plus organised religion is that, Organised. I feel that my religion is organised as well as contains order because I am drawn to that

God does not demand worship, he states it is an obligation to worship him.

A God deserving of worship might appreciate it, but would not demand it, request it, or even resent its absence. Surely any divine being is above such petty ego massaging? A God deserving of worship would judge us based on our actions to others, and there have been plenty of atheists of high moral calibre, and plenty of people who call themselves Christians who's actions disgrace humanity (not a specific attack on Christians by the way, I'm just pointing out that all groups have morally objectionable people). I see no reason why a God would differentiate between someone who did the right thing because their religion told them to, and an atheist who did the right thing because of their own moral beliefs. If anything the atheist may be the morally superior, as they made the choice themselves, not out of fear of some vengeful being in the future.

Often times their choices are sinfull in nature to God. Mainly avocation for same-gender marrages, abortions, euthenasia, and other un-Christian activities (but this is NOT the thread to discuss thoes controversial issues)

Which leaves the question of why God is silent, at least to me, and it would appear many others. If life is a test on which we will later be judged, surely it is better if we do not know the results and rules in advance? Only someone with no belief in God will always show their true colours, not ones of fear of retribution, and so only they can be truly judged.

I do not want to end up in the fires of Hell as well as being separated from God. Hell is a place of sevear torture and a place absence of God and his graces that he provides.

In other news, I wonder what happened to MobBoss, I have not seen him respond to any of these post in this thread .

 

[Jeebus McChrist]

Forgive me for not reading the thirty-six page thread, as this might have already been answered, but I have a couple of questions. If they've already been answered, ignore me.

Had you been born in another place, in another time, you would have been taught a different religion or belief system. The question is: were you chosen to be born in a Christian family, or perhaps in a place in which Christianity is practiced, because you are luckier/better/etc. than those who are born to learn Hinduism or another religion? Of course, this all goes into the idea that you are not just the product of your mother and father, but a predetermined being who was brought into existance by God, which is a whole other story, but...

Okay, let me try again. To put it bluntly, what makes you so special to be chosen and placed in a good Christian home (assuming this is the case) over the people of whom are placed, say, in a Cannibalistic village?

This leads to another question. Are those "savages" subhuman?

Ignore them if they don't make sense to you. It all made sense in my mind.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Welcome to OT J McC.
I'm glad I'm not a christian and therefore can avoid answering.

 

[Markus6]

2)God offers forgiveness to everyone, but on the condition that you "accept" it.

3)As I've said this "acceptance" process is mysterious to me, but seems to require some active input on my part.

As with any other forgiveness to recieve it you must admit you've done something wrong, apologise, and try not to do it again.

4)It looks suspiciously like this "acceptance" consists of worshipping God.

Worship is a natural reaction to being forgiven. Perhaps you should try not to be so suspicious.

You seem to imply that people only act immorally becuase of not "accepting" God's forgiveness.

No. I said that people act immorally because we rejected God at the fall.

How can I be forgiven before the sum total of my misdeeds are known at the end of my life?

It's a once for all choice. At the end there's not going to be a weighing scale with with the number of wrong things you did in one end and the number of times you confessed in the other. Forgiveness is a one time transaction.

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"

It took me a while to see how this supports your point but I think I get it now. I still don't think it helps you. The son is judged on his active decision to go to the vineyard, not on his quality of work while he is there. The point of the parable is that words are meaningless if they are not supported by your actions. The "acceptance" of God's forgiveness is an action taken by your heart, not your mouth. Paul's letters make it quite clear that faith is more important than works but I assume you would call these "religious fantasies". This quote of Jesus' should still help:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

The whole of the story of Nicodemus says a lot on the subject. It is also quite clear that works (good deeds) are an indication of faith:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

The point here is not that his deeds are saving him, but that his faith is dead. The faith vs. works question has been quite lively in the church. There are a lot better examples of Jesus seemingly advocation works only salvation but has it goes against my point I'll leave you to dig them up.

 

[MrCynical]

As with any other forgiveness to recieve it you must admit you've done something wrong, apologise, and try not to do it again.

Which I would do from my own moral code anyway, and would not specifically address such an admission to God. I still see no requirement to believe in God here.

Worship is a natural reaction to being forgiven. Perhaps you should try not to be so suspicious.

I might appreciate being forgiven, but I'm not going to fall down on my knees and worship someone for it. By that logic worship should be given to humans who forgive great misdeeds (and I have committed no sins requiring such grandiose displays of forgiveness anyway).

No. I said that people act immorally because we rejected God at the fall.

I wondered how long it would be before this turned up. My actions, moral or immoral, are mine and mine alone. I alone am responsible for them, and I am responsible for no one else's, certainly not for the apparently hideous sin of a far distant ancestor eating an apple when they were told not to.

It's a once for all choice. At the end there's not going to be a weighing scale with with the number of wrong things you did in one end and the number of times you confessed in the other. Forgiveness is a one time transaction.

Then the actions of a person in life are meaningless. The mass murderer and the innocent child will receive the same fate. If there is to be forgiveness, there must also be justice.

God does not demand worship, he states it is an obligation to worship him.

That's the same thing!

Often times their choices are sinfull in nature to God. Mainly avocation for same-gender marrages, abortions, euthenasia, and other un-Christian activities

Atheists and Christians both sin. The main difference is that an atheist avoids sin for the sake of their own moral code, whereas a Christian may simply be doing this from a fear of divine retribution, not their own moral choices.

I do not want to end up in the fires of Hell as well as being separated from God. Hell is a place of sevear torture and a place absence of God and his graces that he provides.

And neither would I. However, as I have said, any God worthy of fearing the absence of would judge our final fate on our morality, not our faith and ritual directed at him.

 

[El_Machinae]

I might appreciate being forgiven, but I'm not going to fall down on my knees and worship someone for it. By that logic worship should be given to humans who forgive great misdeeds (and I have committed no sins requiring such grandiose displays of forgiveness anyway).

If you hurt someone, and were incapable of compensating them - but then they forgave you, you'd feel better about yourself and that person. There's no need to be dramatic about the worship - any worship you see that's not voluntary isn't really wanted by the Christian God.

If you accept the forgiveness, then you'd just see that God's a pretty cool dude for offering it. It's not a requirement to worship Him, but you can't actually accept the forgiveness unless you believe that (a) you've sinned and (b) you've been forgiven.

You can easily imagine deliberately offending me, being unable to rectify the transgression, and me being forgiving of it. If you accepted that I forgave you, you'd be a happier person. If you don't accept it, you have two choices - not try to rectify, or attempt to rectify (knowing that it's futile, because you cannot completely pay me back, due to the transgression).

Then the actions of a person in life are meaningless. The mass murderer and the innocent child will receive the same fate. If there is to be forgiveness, there must also be justice.

This is true, they're both sinners, and so deserve the same fate. The gradient of the sin doesn't change that there was a sin (and a child can knowingly do something they feel is wrong, at a certain point in development). The 'justice' would be harsh, and you're free to subject yourself to it. You're also free to be forgiven. It's your choice.

Again, I'm not a Christian, but you're getting too angry at the concept of 'forced worship'. There's no forced worship, only the acknowledgement that you can be judged (and you know you'll fail) or forgiven.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Another thing to remember is that acccording to Christianity God is not ever going to give us what we deserve. There is no use demanding justice from Him, as He intends to give everyone far more than we could ever claim. As He loves us, we will get far more than mere justice.

 

[CaptainF]

There are two very basic questions implicit in your post. What is god? And what is knowledge?

If you have a notion of what god may be, then you can look for a path to discover more about it. With out any notion about what god is, you will have a very hard time learning more about it.

The same kind of problem applies to knowledge. To know what you know you have to define knowledge and what is accepted as known. If knowledge is defined as explanation supported by observable data that can be replicated, then god gets pretty hard to know. If you change the definition of knowldege, then you open the door to knowing things that currently are not accepted as being explained.

Perfection and I were having this very conversation last night. For him my posts on god and theology lack "substance", because he and I have very different ideas about what knowledge is and how it is obtained. My "compelling evidence" is not accepted in his "court of law".

How we define knowledge controls what we can know. Some feel more comfortable with a more limited scope of inquiry; others are more willing to go outside those bounds. The nice thing is that each of us gets to make that choice for themselves.

Very well said.

 

[carlosMM]

While they are innocent, I would agree. However, a youth of 14-15 is past the age of being innocent.

exactly. innocence is gone, blind belief also, intelligent thinking starts to become the primary force.

now wasn't it you who said that a kid's belief is at an especially high risk at that age?

what conincidence.........

 

[carlosMM]

I happen to think you were, but just dont understand the nature of the assault. Everyone is attacked, even non-christians. When the world tells you its ok to have sex outside of marriage, or its ok to do drugs, or ok to do whatever kind of sinful activity the world deems ok, then that is an attack from the enemy.

Nice how you promote your religious agenda by mixing religious and non-religious issues

sex before marriage in the same league as drugs : :thumbdown

 

[MobBoss]

Nice how you promote your religious agenda by mixing religious and non-religious issues

sex before marriage in the same league as drugs : :thumbdown

You dont think a teen pregnancy can ruin a kids life just like drugs can? I my opinion, pre-marital sex and illegal drug use are neither condusive to the overall betterment of society, but rather simply cater to the desires of the individual. And both have far more negatives involved in each case than positive returns.

 

[El_Machinae]

Teen pregnancy doesn't have to ruin a teen's life. In fact, it often just makes the tough parts tougher. But the life isn't ruined.

OTOH, abuse CAN ruin a life. Whether the person is abused, or abused drugs.