Well, the bible says that God is love. Those who know love know God, etc. I don't find it hard to beleive that it exists.
Care to elaborate on this? Or is this something that has already been talked about by others (like the fact that God can't be loving since he killed everyone except a couple in the flood).
i'm an atheist and to believe in a god "just in case" is pretty pathetic. and what's teh point of prayers if "God" already hears what you're saying? also, i think it's pretty egotistical of a religion to think that their beliefs are the true beliefs, i.e. if you're pentecoastal and not christian you're going to hell. oh, and i love it when someone preaches the bible to me and they're struggling to support their 3 illegitimate kids. or when they decieve me about their intentions. here's a perfect example: college, 5 years ago. walking out of class this guy comes up and ask me if i like to play sports. he invites me to a flag football game. i say sure. i show up that weekend and before i could say "hut hut", he hits me with, "how do you feel about God?". starts to rant about how we're all god's children and that i should attend their church that night. i'm sure god was pretty proud of his tactics.
Whose logic? If by "logic" you mean "human reasoning," then I would have to say that God is "beyond logic" according to the Bible.
So you'd have no problem with the flood happening again right now? You wouldn't fight or swim or resist God's will?
When I look at the Scriptures, it seems to me that God withholds some things until they're asked for. Why? I believe it's because he knows that they'll not be utilized or appreciated until a person sees the need for them. Prayers are, at least in part, a recognition of needs. Yes, God already knows the need. Yes, he's aware when people recognize their needs even before they pray. But I believe he chooses to withhold some things until this recognition is verbalized (whether internally or externally). By the same reasoning, why isn't it egotistical of you to hold this belief. I presume you think it's one of the "true beliefs," otherwise I doubt you would have made the statement. The same could be said about the fact that your an atheist. Doesn't that, by its very definition, mean you think that people who believe in God are wrong (in the sense of being mistaken)? How is "I believe there is no God" categorically different from "I believe that there is a God, and that he has a Son to whom we must listen"? Both beliefs exclude other possibilities, holding them to be false (wrong, inaccurate, mistaken). Everyone disagrees on some point. Why is that a sign of egotism among religious people, but not among others? It just seems inconsistent to me. It's kind of like the people who are intolerant of intolerance. They're not going to tolerate intolerance anylonger. Is it okay for them to be intolerant of something -- but no one else? If ever the word hypocritical applied to a situation, this would be it. And yet that seems to be a word reserved for Christians. Certainly there are plenty among them too. But not them alone. By the way, I'm not aiming this last part at you, macalu -- the part about intolerance and hypocrisy. I wanted to be sure you didn't mistakenly think that. Your comments about egotism just reminded me of this as a kind of parallel situation. If religious people claim to be right about something, they're being egotistical. If other people are convinced they're right about something (and even state their beliefs as absolute truths), that's apparently okay. In the same way, religious people are hypocrites if their lives are ever out of line with their beliefs (which will happen from time to time even with the best of people). But other people can do things like preach tolerance and yet still be very intolerant of some things. But that's apparently okay too.
I don't really see how what I would do personally is relevant. But just for the sake of argument, I'd do whatever I had to do to get on board. I'd do whatever was necessary to be included among the saved. In a sense, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. There are parallels between the flood and the final judgment day (2 Peter 3:1-13). I believe anyone could have chosen to be saved from the flood. God didn't just spring it on mankind without any warning. Peter talked about the fact that "God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared" (1 Peter 3:20). Peter also called Noah a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5). I take that to mean that he wasn't silent about what was going on or the reasons behind it. There was no reason there had to be only eight saved. Rather than saying that I'd have no problem with the flood happening again, I'd put in general terms. I have no problem with God's judgment, of which the flood was only one example. And just as in the days of Noah, I don't believe anyone has to be excluded from the salvation God has provided. Apparently, not everyone likes the terms (1 Peter 3:20-4:5). Since I believe in the reality of Noah's flood and the final judgment it prefigures, I'm willing to do whatever I believe is necessary to be counted among the saved. In short, I don't think it really matters what I'd have a problem with or not. It's a moot point. All that really matters to me is the facts. I'm trying to determine what those are and act accordingly. I don't think the answer is to fight, swim, or resist God's will. The answer, just as it was for Noah, is to accept it.
outlaw, According to the Bible, we are born with a sinful nature, which derives to us from Adam. (Augustine coined the phrase, "original sin.") We aren't sinners because we sin. We sin becase we are sinners. So even babies aren't innocent in that sense. Noah was a sinner, too, but he was a "righteous" man, and he "found favor in the eyes of the Lord." No one can earn his/her way to heaven, though. Righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible says about Noah, "By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith (Hebrews 11:7)." Sinning against God is a capital offense, and it's due to God's mercy and grace that he doesn't destroy everyone instantly. "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)."
subtomic, Thanks for your thoughtful answer. You raised an interesting point when you wrote, "You yourself describe the Christian God as 'just,' yet this same God is allowing 3 people (myself included) to suffer and eventually die unjustly." Though I understand that sentiment, I would still argue that God is just. He never acts unjustly. The fact that God allows injustice in this world does not make him unjust; that he allows suffering does not make him unloving or uncompassionate. We have a limited perspective, and we can't understand everything God does. I trust in God, though, because "his understanding no one can fathom."
SC, When I say it's a faith informed by reason, I mean that it's neither blind nor irrational, and that intellect and reasoning can carry you to a certain point before you have to step out in faith. For example, I consider the specified complexity of the DNA molecule, and I reason that only an intelligent being can account for it. It's not proof, but it's evidence that points to God. I use reason to examine the Bible. For example, I look at Isaiah 53, a prophecy written about 700 years before Christ, and I see that it's not only historically accurate, it's theologically accurate. You can argue that it's just a coincidence, or that the New Testament writers rewrote history/theology to fit the prophecy. I reason that it's more likely than not that it's a prophecy that was legitimately accurate. When I say Christianity is a historical faith, I mean that it's based on real people, places, and events. The things those people said have been documented. The events that took place and the places where they occurred have been documented. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947, demonstrate the incredible accuracy of copyists of Scripture over a 1,000-year period. There are over 5,600 known Greek manuscript copies of the New Testament, with about 99.5% textual accuracy. A person can examine various types of evidence and evaluate the historical reliability of the Bible. For example, archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Bible. That doesn't validate the miracles documented in the Bible, but it strengthens the overall case. Getting back to Isaiah 53, these are some verses: 1. "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (v.5)." 2. "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (v.6)." 3. "He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth (v.7)." 4. "After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (v.11)." Consider those verses in light of Christian history and theology. We are all sinners. Christ was crucified. He died for our sins. He died willingly. He rose from the dead. We are saved by faith in Christ. It's astounding, at least to me. That one chapter doesn't prove anything, but it's an example of evidence to be considered by someone examining the validity of Christianity. He/she can give it whatever weight he/she chooses, but just assigning it a specific weight requires reasoning. Then there is a lot more evidence to consider, and it requires more reasoning. If there wasn't enough time before the Gospels were written for a legend to develop about Christ's resurrection, then why was it recorded as a fact by the Gospel writers? Is it more likely the Gospel writers lied or told the truth? Or did they just exaggerate? Or did other people rewrite the Gospels? Intellect and reason can carry you to a certain point. Then you need faith. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith. "'I am not not insane, most excellent Festus,' Paul replied. 'What I am saying is true and reasonable.'" - Acts 26:25
This post is not one to counter others in the thread, but more of a general comment: I consider myself to be an educated person. I majored in mathematics and minored in chemistry and physics. I have graduate hours in math and working on an MBA. I believe in evolution; I believe in neanderthal man and dinosaurs. But I also believe that there are things that just can't be explained by science and I have never seen why it is such a big deal to be able to accept things by faith alone. I guess that is why I was always fascinated by stuff like UFOs, Stonehenge, the pyramids, Bermuda Triangle, etc because it gave me the sense that "we don't know all the answers" and I think the world would be a boring place if we did know all the answers. Don't get me wrong - I think that we should always be searching for the truth, but there are some things that we will never know the answer, too. Only God knows them and why that is so hard for some people to accept is something I don't understand. I feel that as I have gotten older, I have been more tolerant (or tried to be) of this and I respect the views that others have on religion. So, hopefully I didn't come across in a bad way - I am just saying this as a comment in general. BTW - TraJ - some great posts, man! It was a pleasure to read.
I second that. Would also like to add for the person asking why God would let Cain kill Abel, or why he'd let the serpent trick Adam and Eve if he knows all and knows exactly what's going to happen... My guess would be that he did it to put in a book to give to people, who have the same nature as the mentioned people, to learn from it.
Are people here actually arguing that the flood is historical fact? Or are they just explaining the myth of the flood, etc.?
Still waiting on your response, ZRB. MEOWGI, I can't speak for others but I have heard the flood story in other religions, but I think that shows that some type of event like the flood did take place. As for if it was Noah or someone else, who really knows for sure. It could be that it was the same person but his name is obviously different depending on what language is being used. The problem is that this event happened at least over 2,000 years ago and recording history was not all that great back then. After all, no one even painted a picture of Christ when He was on this earth, and He came here way after the flood, so that should tell you something right there.
But how can it be the same flood in other religions if everyone else was killed? There are a lot of flood myths in other religions a cultures, but you need to understand what a myth is. Check out Joseph Campbell. Joseph Campbell remains the world's premier mythologist. He was responsible for popularizing the impact and importance of myth as spiritual metaphor that drives people's lives and modes of being. A professor at Sara Lawrence College, Campbell spent his life dedicated to the comparative study of mythology and religions across the globe. He traveled internationally meeting with holy people from all cultures and walks of life. He pioneered the concept of the Hero Quest, now internationally famed after consulting for George Lucas during the making of Star Wars. Campbell's candor, gentle humor, compassion and brilliance brought myth into the forefront of religious, anthropological, psychological and spiritual studies. His life acts as a beacon, a guiding force, to those who strive to achieve a direct, mystical experience of and with God. What is Myth? Myth is the symbolic language of God speaking to and through you in an effort to commune with his/her creation. Myth undulates within the psyche guiding you, sometimes gently and often violently, in the direction of your genius, your destiny, your cross and your purpose. Myths are active agents controlling you until you become aware of the unfolding, timeless, ageless mythic drama in your life. Myths reverberate through your soul, tearing into your heart making you feel your emotions, physiology and biology. When you experience myth, you know it in every pore as the resonating draw of universal, genetic, ancient consciousness. Myth-making awakens you to illuminated states of awareness and enlivens your connection to God. Myths shout that YOU ARE ALIVE!
One of my least favorite arguments for being a Christian is "if you are wrong about your beliefs, you'll go to hell and all this will have been a waste." I think it is my least favorite because as an 18-year-old who knew virtually nothing of the real world, I actually used it on an atheist who was quite a bit older and found the whole discussion rather amusing. Now, as someone who has studied a wide range of religious faiths and come away feeling that no one path has all the answers, I find that argument less and less appealing. It seems based in the idea that those who are non-believers are somehow less informed than believers. I have these two Jehovah's Witnesses that come to my door about every month, give me their info and try to interest me in their beliefs. If they weren't extremely sweet older ladies, I'd probably have told them "no thanks" a long time ago but we often chat about plants and my cats and it is pleasant enough. But, everyone so often, they'll bring some higher-up from their church who puts the hard sell on me. They even gave me this book that explained why Christianity is a better choice than other religions. Nothing surprising there. What was surprising is all of the inaccuracies about other religions contained both in the book and in their thinking. The next time they came back, I spent 30 minutes explaining to them that Buddhists did not believe the Buddha was "God" and that Shiva is not the only Hindu diety. As someone who has really taken a lot of time to try and figure out just exactly what I do believe, I find the "you better believe before you die or else" argument to be a little insulting as if my choices somehow were misguided along with the choices of billions of other people. I respect the reason for the argument and I understand the feeling of being compelled to witness to others. It just seems that far too often the people doing the witnessing know very little about wide range of religious and philisophical beliefs and, as a result, treat those beliefs like a child's belief in the tooth fairy when they are often as or more serious than the beliefs of the Christian doing the witnessing.
I thought my words were clear: "I believe in Noah's flood." I guess I could be reading too much into your post, but it came across as if such a position is incredible. If that is the sense of your questions, why do you find it incredible that some are actually arguing that the flood is historical? I'd like to hear your reasons for rejecting it.
I think that's a pretty convenient argument. Either you can explain his actions or you can't. You can't just limit it to when good stuff happens. When something bad happens, people always say "God works in mysterious ways" when something good happens, they thank him for it as if the good thing happened because he willed it to. God not unjust? How about his destruction of Sodom where he destroyed the town supposedly because of homosexuality? yet he spares Lot even after he volunteers his two virgin daughters to get raped?
