Christian Nationalism; The Right-wing Addiction

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-10-2022, 11:04 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Matthew 7:1 pretty much sums that up for those of a Biblical bent.

Perhaps.

Or one might argue that verse 5 negates the first verse once the prerequisite of dealing with your own sins is met.

One might also argue that this verse isn't talking about "judging" in the sense of legislation, but instead in the sense of judging people in your own arrogant self righteousness as if you've never done anything wrong yourself.

[*michaelsean*]

People can vote for whatever reasons they choose, legislators should not.

Btw, why did we leave black evangelicals off the list?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-10-2022, 10:55 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: As a Christian myself, I have to say I find the idea of legislating sin to be quite a dilemma I currently find myself battling with.

When I was younger, I always believed that we should have laws that try to stop things like abortion from happening. But as I've gotten older I've found myself questioning this belief.

This really came about when I started thinking about sin as a whole and why ALL sin isn't legislated and why Christians such as myself seem to only cherry pick certain sins like abortion and why we don't look at legislating things such as premarital sex or even something as simple as just lying.

It got me wondering..... Does God really want Christians to legislate sin, or are we off base here? And if we as Christians are to believe that God wants us to legislate sin, I think that leads to a second question, which again I find myself struggling with, which is what is the appropriate punishment? That to me is a very important question I believe a lot of Christians might not ponder.

If you're going to believe that God wants you to legislate sin, you also then have to know what God considers an appropriate punishment, otherwise are you really asserting God's will, or are you simply following your own?

At this point, I'd say I don't really have a belief on the matter of legislating sin, but rather I have put my previous beliefs on hold until I feel I have a satisfying answer.

I'm pretty much in step with you here. And I think most religions have it wrong as they evolved to serve themselves. There is no punishment; we are not here to prove our worthiness to God. There would be no purpose for God to do this.

[samhain]

(07-10-2022, 10:55 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: As a Christian myself, I have to say I find the idea of legislating sin to be quite a dilemma I currently find myself battling with.

When I was younger, I always believed that we should have laws that try to stop things like abortion from happening. But as I've gotten older I've found myself questioning this belief.

This really came about when I started thinking about sin as a whole and why ALL sin isn't legislated and why Christians such as myself seem to only cherry pick certain sins like abortion and why we don't look at legislating things such as premarital sex or even something as simple as just lying.

It got me wondering..... Does God really want Christians to legislate sin, or are we off base here? And if we as Christians are to believe that God wants us to legislate sin, I think that leads to a second question, which again I find myself struggling with, which is what is the appropriate punishment? That to me is a very important question I believe a lot of Christians might not ponder.

If you're going to believe that God wants you to legislate sin, you also then have to know what God considers an appropriate punishment, otherwise are you really asserting God's will, or are you simply following your own?

At this point, I'd say I don't really have a belief on the matter of legislating sin, but rather I have put my previous beliefs on hold until I feel I have a satisfying answer.

I'm not a Christian, but I guess this is where the idea of opposing Christian philosophies like predestination and free will come in.  My question in the matter of legislating sin is more for people who believe in predestination.  If God knows all and all that will ever happen, then why would someone who believes in such a thing even attempt to legislate sin?  All events are willed by God himself in this sense, so applying human law based on what God or the Bible would classify as sin is completely futile.  

Laws are made for humanity, not God.  They are how people or governments or whatever human entity happens to be in power maintains order.  They aren't about salvation or righteousness.  Hardcore theocrat politicians at the highest levels serve themselves, and use religion as a carrot to bring the believing masses to heel. They trick people into thinking that serving a politician or party is the same as serving God.

I totally understand why Christians want to have influence in politics and law, but it makes no logical sense to me.  It seems like a waste of energy for a group of people that believes in the will of God being the only thing determining anything that ever happens.

[Sled21]

… Oh, and there we were all in one place
A generation lost in space
With no time left to start again
So come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack Flash sat on a candlestick
'Cause fire is the devil's only friend
… Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in Hell
Could break that Satan's spell
… And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight.............

[*michaelsean*]

(07-12-2022, 11:17 AM)Sled21 Wrote: … Oh, and there we were all in one place
A generation lost in space
With no time left to start again
So come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack Flash sat on a candlestick
'Cause fire is the devil's only friend
… Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in Hell
Could break that Satan's spell
… And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight.............

Why did he have to do Mick like that?

[Lucidus]

(07-11-2022, 01:10 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Good questions.

So, this might be a bit of a long winded answer, but bare with me. I apologize if it seems like I'm lecturing, but I like to discuss in a sort of frame work answer, and I'm not necessarily speaking to you as if you don't already know these things. With that said....

I greatly appreciate responses that are informative, nuanced and well-stated. It make these types of discussion much easier to have and maintain, in my opinion. 

Quote:First off, there needs to be a distinction made regarding "proof". There are two ways human beings use the concept of "proof".

1. Undeniable proofs, that is evidence that is accepted as truth because it cannot be questioned or an alternative answer cannot be provided.
2. Deniable proofs, that is evidence that is accepted as proof but is questionable or an alternative answer can be provided.


First off, there needs to be a distinction made regarding "proof". There are two ways human beings use the concept of "proof".

1. Undeniable proofs, that is evidence that is accepted as truth because it cannot be questioned or an alternative answer cannot be provided.
2. Deniable proofs, that is evidence that is accepted as proof but is questionable or an alternative answer can be provided.

When someone asks me to prove God to them, I have to ask, well what do you mean? 
Are you asking if I can provide undeniable proof? Or are you asking me to provide deniable proof?

In the instance of providing deniable proof, I suppose one could "prove" God's existence, but that all depends on what it is you're asking as evidence for proof. For example, asking someone to show that they can walk on water as proof for God's existence, If someone actually did this, some people might actually be moved to believe God exists because they value walking on water as proof for God's existence. Others however, who don't value that as evidence would simply either explain it away or say it amounts to nothing more than a cool party trick. 

In the case of providing undeniable proof, I personally don't believe anyone can do this.

I believe that God is all powerful, so the idea that I could somehow prove God's existence is actually contradictory to that. if I could prove God exists, then that would mean I have some sort of control over God, which I don't believe anyone does. In my opinion, the only undeniable proof for God's existence is for God to actually reveal himself. 

That's it. 

I've never found these definitions to be particularly useful, as I believe there is only one undeniable proof. Therefore, all other proofs would necessarily fall into the deniable category. 

Instead, when I speak of proof, what I'm referring to is that which is available to, and able to withstand scientific rigor; be identified, observed, investigated, analyzed, evaluated, tested and concluded to be the best and most accurate explanation.

When I ask someone for proof that God is real, I'm asking for evidence that could meet that criteria -- meaning that in necessarily manifest in the natural world and is subject to natural methodologies. If the evidence falls outside that scope, I'm not sure what it even means to call it evidence, as it's simply conjecture based on that which can't be currently accessed or investigated; of no use in terms of real-world utility.

Quote:There's nothing any human being can say or do to provide undeniable proof of God's existence. We can try to provide evidence for his existence, but this is problematic because again, any evidence that can be provided would fall into the realm of deniable proof, and thus, whether the evidence provided is considered "proof" or not is completely up to the individual looking for proof and how they personally value the evidence provided. 

Falling into the category of deniable proof isn't the problem. The problem is the level of the claim itself; an all-powerful entity that created everything and has the power to affect our existence for eternity, and who can occupy a realm outside of know space and time. 

It seems to me that proving that claim would first require that we prove the supernatural exists, and that we have a meaningful way to access and investigate it. Until that becomes possible, proving God is impossible, in my opinion. 

Quote:So, to answer your two questions, I believe only God can truly prove his own existence, and any thoughts he has can only truly be revealed on his own accord. Anything beyond that is left to faith and assumption. I personally believe in God for reasons I don't believe can be verified because again, I don't believe any human being can actually prove God's existence in a way that is undeniable.

I find it a little too curious that a God that's capable of revealing himself to everyone chooses not to. It seems he would know what would be 100% effective on each individual; as to leave no doubt of his existence. Yet, he decides for other methods that seem all too human in terms of nature. I find the issue of divine hiddenness is a huge problem for a God that wants everyone to know and believe in him.

Two common objections are that if God revealed himself in a way that would convince everyone of his existence, it would prevent us to seeking him out as a desire for the relationship, or that very act would violate our free will. However, I find these objections to be inadequate for a couple of reasons:

First; if God is omniscient, then he already knew every instance of belief, nonbelief, the reasons why and what would constitute evidence for every individual. The fact that he created every person knowing what evidence would convince them and chose not to grant them said evidence, would seem to suggest he doesn't actually care about it to the degree the Biblical authors claimed on his behalf. 

Second; everyone knowing for a fact that God exists doesn't mean that everyone would choose to follow him, worship him or desire a relationship with him. In the Biblical accounts, Lucifer knew God existed, and still chose to reject him. Lucifer's free will was not violated by the knowledge of God's existence. 

Quote:So that probably leads to the question, why believe in God then?

Because I believe I have deniable proof for his existence and I value the evidence. It's a personal anecdote.

When I was in highschool I stayed in a hotel for a sports event that I qualified for and decided to go to the pool that was there (in the hotel). No one else was in the pool area with me and I thought it would be a great idea to go to the deep end by myself even though I didn't know how to swim. I was holding on to the side of the pool and thought to myself "Hey, I'll try to teach myself to swim". So, I kept letting go of the side of the pool and would flail my legs, and once I felt myself sinking I would quickly grab on to the side of the pool again to catch myself. I did this multiple times over and over again and successfully caught myself each time I felt my body sinking,

Well..... one time I wasn't so lucky and I felt myself sinking and went to grab the side of the pool and my hand was too slippery and it slipped right off. I fell all the way to the bottom of the pool. 

Man.... even typing this right now I remember how scared I was.

Anyway, my feet touched the bottom and I screamed like an idiot, thinking someone would actually hear me. I quickly realized my situation and got a grip of myself and pushed off the floor of the pool with my feet and started to float back up, but I didn't breach the top of the water and I started sinking again and that's when I completely panicked and screamed again, but this time I remember screaming "God help me". Probably sounds really cheesy, but honestly I don't care. After I yelled that, I'll never forget it. I felt two hands come up under my arms and lift me up to the top of the water and I felt my head come up out of the water and I just reached out and grabbed the side of the pool. 

I pulled myself out of the water and laid by the side of the pool. I remember how shocked I was thinking "What just happened?". Oddly enough I ended up going back to the pool that day with some of my teammates (they all knew how to swim) and I tried to recreate what happened, because honestly, I don't think I believed it at first. I couldn't recreate what happened and to this day I wholeheartedly believe God saved me from drowning that day.

Quote:So yeah, that's my story. It's not something I'd call undeniable proof, but it's a deniable proof for me.

Thanks for sharing your experience, but as I'm sure you anticipated, I have questions.

Did you give equally serious consideration to the alternative that what you felt was simply your brain's interpretation of fear, stress and adrenaline you were experiencing?

Had you had gotten out absent the feeling of being lifted, after calling upon God for assistance, would you still have given God credit?

If someone else calls out to God while drowning and no help comes, what would you conclude about God?

I realize your account is purely anecdotal, but I still think these are important questions whenever I'm presented with such accounts. These questions aren't meant in any to discount what you experienced, as it's very significant to you. However, I always find it interesting in such instances how or why other reasonable explanations aren't given the same consideration?

[Lucidus]

(07-11-2022, 02:37 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not even religious, and I fully believe two consenting adults should be able to marry each other without any other kind of qualifiers needed.
- - - - - - - -

That said, this whole "you need science to back up your feelings/beliefs/decisions" hardline you're trying to take here is just absolutely faulty. If science was required for laws, we'd end up with genetically matched marriages partners, conceiving bans for people with extreme family histories of cancer and the like. Just sink into a terrible swamp of eugenics... the laws would be made so we'd be bred like farm animals rather than things like love, passion, connections... all things that aren't really scientific.


We believe people should marry for love. Why? Not science.
We believe that children even if they're born with special needs are precious and deserve a chance at life. Why? Not science.
We believe that marriage is between only 2 people. Why? Not science.

We believe in a right to privacy, no illegal search and seizure. There's no science to that, that's just because we don't want to be bugged. That's not science.


Governing solely by the "it must be backed by science" mantra would lead to an eradication of all languages but one. After all preserving culture isn't science, and it's inefficient to have more than one language exist. Heck, for that matter we should start invading and occupying all third world countries. They aren't using their resources or managing their land to it's peak, so we should do it for them.

We feed the poor because of compassion, not science.

We keep having rescue efforts, disaster relief, and rebuilding in disaster prone areas because of compassion, not science. Logic would dictate that it'd be better to just have forced relocation and ban habitation in areas likely to be destroyed by floods/fires/earthquakes/tornadoes.

All hyperbole, obviously, but my point remains that if you want a government governed, led, and inspired by science and ONLY science, you're going to have a dystopic hellscape.

Why you assume I think government should be should be "governed, led and inspired by science and ONLY science"?

Science is an incredibly valuable tool; the best and most reliable current method we have for investigating the reality we all experience, but it is by no means the only tool. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-12-2022, 06:05 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Why you assume I think government should be should be "governed, led and inspired by science and ONLY science"?


Science is an incredibly valuable tool; the best and most reliable current method we have for investigating the reality we all experience, but it is by no means the only tool. 

Quote:That aside; how can we see eye to eye on any stance in which the assertions are justified by a foundation that can't be proven right or wrong?...


...when there is no absolutely no evidence to support the claims.

Quote:People have the right to believe anything they wish, even when it can't be verified to be true...

Quote:...The problem is when those same people want to impose that belief on others...

Your entire point seems to be that anyone's beliefs cannot be used as a basis for opinion because God is not a scientifically proven existence. Continuing your standard, that means that any belief not backed by scientific evidence is inadmissible. Or are you saying only a single group of people have an extra burden of proof for their beliefs to be allowed?


...unless this thread isn't actually about your desire for fact and proof requirements for beliefs and governance, and really it's just a thin premise to get your clearly biased (but not necessarily unwarranted) opinions about a singular group of people out there and how you don't like them.


I guess what I am getting as is I just want you to stop using science as a shield for your "I hate religion/religious people" thread. Just own it and call a duck a duck. Like GMD and his obsession over police (which actually seems to have cooled down quite a bit), and Brad and his obsession over genders (which definitely hasn't cooled down).

[Lucidus]

(07-12-2022, 06:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Your entire point seems to be that anyone's beliefs cannot be used as a basis for opinion because God is not a scientifically proven existence. Continuing your standard, that means that any belief not backed by scientific evidence is inadmissible. Or are you saying only a single group of people have an extra burden of proof for their beliefs to be allowed?


...unless this thread isn't actually about your desire for fact and proof requirements for beliefs and governance, and really it's just a thin premise to get your clearly biased (but not necessarily unwarranted) opinions about a singular group of people out there and how you don't like them.


I guess what I am getting as is I just want you to stop using science as a shield for your "I hate religion/religious people" thread. Just own it and call a duck a duck. Like GMD and his obsession over police (which actually seems to have cooled down quite a bit), and Brad and his obsession over genders (which definitely hasn't cooled down).

God is by definition supernatural. Could you provide any current method of accessing the supernatural, let alone investigating it? Until that time comes -- why should claims and assertions from a supernatural source be applicable in any way to the natural world?

However, that's completely separate from claims and assertions made about the natural world. Any natural evidence, offered in the natural world can be investigated by natural means. Any belief about the natural world can be evaluated by any natural means at our disposal -- including the scientific method.

If one person tells you their beliefs are based on interpretations of Vishnu's desires, and another tells you their beliefs are based on societal well-being; which of those can we actually make real-world inquiries about? Which one should be given serious consideration in real-world debates, with real-world consequences, about something such as legislation.

It seems you are more comfortable making making it about me personally, rather than honestly evaluating what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what you think of me or my motives; my arguments either succeed or fail on their own merits. If you can show that my arguments aren't valid, or you have substantive counterarguments, then I'm always interested and willing to engage.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-12-2022, 07:44 PM)Lucidus Wrote: God is by definition supernatural. Could you provide any current method of accessing the supernatural, let alone investigating it? Until that time comes -- why should claims and assertions from a supernatural source be applicable in any way to the natural world?


However, that completely separate from claims and assertions made about the natural world. Any natural evidence, offered in the natural world can be investigated by natural means. Any belief about the natural world can be evaluated by any natural means at out disposal -- including the scientific method.

If one person tells you their beliefs are based on Klingon ideology, and another states they  their basement, and another tells you their beliefs are based on societal well-being; which of those can we actually make real-world determinations about? Which one should be given serious consideration in real-world debate, with real-world consequences?

It seems you are more comfortable making making it about me personally, rather than honestly evaluating what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what you think of me or my motives; my arguments either succeed or fail on their own merits. If you can show that my arguments aren't valid, or you have substantive counterarguments, then I'm always interested and willing to engage.

Which is funny because I never once said that God is anything but supernatural yet you seem to believe I am defending that, I am not, which makes me feel even firmer in my belief that this isn't about evidence with you, it's about an axe to grind. 

I am saying that people's beliefs are built upon many things, not all of them something that can be proven or evaluated with natural evidence or scientific method. That doesn't inherently discount them. What discounts them is when society as a whole decides that's not what we want. 

Your mention of 3 different belief ideology sources are overly focusing on the source over the actual belief. Just because something comes from a good source doesn't mean it's a good belief. Just because something comes from a bad source doesn't mean it's a bad belief. For example... the Klingons apparently have one day each year where they reflect on all of their actions over the previous year and evaluate themselves to see if they acted honorably. Meanwhile societal well-being has decided that while ~4 beers (0.08% BAC) is too much to drive, 3 beers is perfectly fine to operate a 4,000lb machine moving at 70mph. (The proper answer is zero.)

I get it, you're upset because there's civil rights being encroached upon. I agree. That doesn't mean you should broad stroke large groups of people like you're doing in this thread. That's exactly what the problem is in the first place.

Be honest Lucidus, what were you going for when you made this thread title and then immediately grouped religion (and by extension everyone who is religious, about 84% of the world supposedly) with flat earthers and q-anons, if not a hate and vent thread?

[Lucidus]

I never stated you claimed God was not supernatural. I was explaining my reasoning as to what my "standard" as opposed to what you asserted it to be. There's no "axe" involved, but rather an explanation of my position on evidence and available methods, or lack thereof.

If a belief is based on what someone thinks a supernatural entity said or thinks, then yes, that particular part of the person's position should be most certainly be discounted if they assert that it should apply to anyone other than themselves. If they have other arguments that don't involve what that entity says or thinks, then those can be presented and evaluated.

Should we allow any group's beliefs to have a powerful influence in American politics, as long as the beliefs contain at least at least one good idea? See, the issue isn't the beliefs per se. As I stated, people are free to believe anything they want. The issue is when people want to force the conclusion of those beliefs on everyone because they feel justified by supernatural authority. 

It's not a broad stroke. It's a very specific stroke; religion having unwarranted influence on our politics based on an ideology dependent on the pronouncements of an entity we can't question.

There are also religious people who agree that their beliefs can't be justified other than by faith, and that religion should stay out of politics -- respecting separation of church and state. Are those religious people also hating on religion? I find those people to be incredibly honest and have a great deal of respect for them.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-12-2022, 05:49 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I greatly appreciate responses that are informative, nuanced and well-stated. It make these types of discussion much easier to have and maintain, in my opinion. 


I've never found these definitions to be particularly useful, as I believe there is only one undeniable proof. Therefore, all other proofs would necessarily fall into the deniable category. 

Instead, when I speak of proof, what I'm referring to is that which can is available to, and able to withstand scientific rigor; be identified, observed, investigated, analyzed, evaluated, tested and concluded to be the best and most accurate explanation.

When I ask someone for proof that God is real, I'm asking for evidence that could meet that criteria -- meaning that in necessarily manifest in the natural world and is subject to natural methodologies. If the evidence falls outside that scope, I'm not sure what it even means to call it evidence, as it's simply conjecture based on that which can't be currently accessed or investigated; of no use in terms of real-world utility.


Falling into the category of deniable proof isn't the problem. The problem is the level of the claim itself; an all-powerful entity that created everything and has the power to affect our existence for eternity, and who can occupy a realm outside of know space and time. 

It seems to me that proving that claim would first require that we prove the supernatural exists, and then we have a meaningful way to access and investigate it. Until that becomes possible, proving God is impossible, in my opinion.

I share your sentiment regarding these types of debates.

As for your response.

I think we're essentially saying the same thing here, albeit in a different manner. As the argument currently stands, you and I both have common ground in claiming that God is impossible to prove, if I'm understanding your argument correctly. The difference however seems to be that you believe that God cannot be scientifically proven. This might seem strange, but I both agree and disagree with your assessment.

I feel it's difficult to say whether or not God can be proven scientifically. I think this not because a conclusion needs to be made as to whether it is true or not, but because it is both true and false at the same time. Now I do understand by saying that, it seems like it contradicts my previous point that only God can prove himself, but I don't consider these two statements to be contradictory. 

The funny thing about science is that science paired with time is what has created many of the things that we have discovered today. As humanity has progressed with technological advancement, so also has the discoveries of science. So it begs the question, has God not been discovered because it's a fact that science will never find him? Or, is there a grand assumption being made here and 100....1000.....10,000 years from now God will be "discovered" by science and we are simply living in the wrong era?

Now, as to my point about the "contradiction". Lets say we live in the year 7022 and technology is vastly more advanced than where we are right now. Science becomes so advanced that it somehow discovers a "supernatural" force. You're so astonished by this scientific discovery, that it causes you to believe in God.

The truth is, that scientific discovery actually wouldn't prove anything to anyone other than you and people who value the scientific evidence in exactly the same way you do. This is because, as I alluded to in my previous post, everyone has differing standards of "proof". So, whenever someone asks for God to be scientifically proven, they're really asking for someone to meet their standard of scientific proof, because there is no universal standard by which the existence of God can be tested, so your belief is completely up to how you view scientific evidence as an individual and what that "discovery" would personally mean to you.

We would still be within the realm of deniable proof even if God was "scientifically" discovered, because again, what does that mean? How do you scientifically prove God if there isn't a standard to even prove beings like God exist, let alone "supernatural" forces. As an athiest would argue against a Christian, (and I'm not saying this to be snarky, just making a point), how would you know that what you scientifically discovered isn't Vishnu? Or Krishna? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? That's the problem in asking for scientific "proof".

My point ultimately being, God would still have to reveal himself to make his existence a complete and utter fact without question. No scientific discovery can prove that in the realm of undeniability. Any attempts to do so would either meet alternate explanations or be questioned on validity. 

Imagine you don't know who I am. Actually, you don't have to imagine that because it's a fact that you don't know who I am. It's also a fact that you won't ever know who I am unless I personally show you who I am. You could of course gather enough information to find out where I'm responding to you from, but you would never actually know who is actually typing this message to you right now. Even if you found out where I live, what car I drive or where I work, you could never prove that I am the person that actually typed this message. This is very much the same with God. No matter what we "discover" concerning God, it will always be faith until he actually reveals himself.

That's why I don't believe my statements to be contradictory. You of course never claimed they were, as you haven't responded yet, but I figured I should explain my position in that regard since I appeared to be making two contesting points.

Quote:I find it a little too curious that a God that's capable of revealing himself to everyone chooses not to. It seems he would know what would be 100% effective on each individual; as to leave no doubt of his existence. Yet, he decides for other methods that seem all too human in terms of nature. I find the issue of divine hiddenness is a huge problem for a God that wants everyone to know and believe in him.


Two common objections are that if God revealed himself in a way that would convince everyone of his existence, it would prevent us to seeking him out as a desire for the relationship, or that very act would violate our free will. However, I find this objection to be inadequate for a couple of reasons:

First; if God is omniscient, then he already knew every instance of belief, nonbelief, the reasons why and what would constitute evidence for every individual. The fact that he created every person knowing what evidence would convince them and chose not to grant them said evidence, would seem to suggest he doesn't actually care about it to the degree the Biblical authors claimed on his behalf. 

Second; everyone knowing for a fact that God exists doesn't mean that everyone would choose to follow him, worship him or desire a relationship with him. In the Biblical accounts, Lucifer knew God existed, and still chose to reject him. Lucifer's free will was not violated by the knowledge of God's existence. 

I think you bring up some thought provoking objections here. However, I believe there's a few counter points to be made.

In your first objection, you would have to make the assumption that God actually hasn't revealed himself to those who would require that revelation for belief in him. Now of course, you could say that you are a personal example of this and that God has never revealed himself to you, but I have no way of actually knowing that myself because I haven't personally lived your life. The reality here is that we all live within our own circular logic in that regard and can only confirm it for ourselves. You can't prove to me what God has or hasn't revealed to you just as I can't prove to you what God has or hasn't revealed to me.

Secondly, I think the concept of "caring" is a bit more complicated than human beings give it credit for. If someone doesn't call you everyday, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't buy you that new toy that you know will make you happy, they don't care about you. If someone doesn't go out of their way to say hi, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't help you with a debt situation, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't feed you, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't call the cops, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't help you find a job, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't tell you someone's doing shady things behind your back, they don't really care about you. And so on, and so on.

These are the types of constraints we as a society place upon the concept of "real caring" and we typically consider ourselves to be the author of what "caring" really means. But perhaps we should think a little more about this. Does God really not care about us because he doesn't reveal himself in an undeniable fashion? Well, I would first say even if God revealed himself to us, that doesn't necessarily mean we would get into heaven, depending on what interpretation you believe, so there's that point to make. But lets say one wants to argue from the standpoint that just believing in God will get you into heaven and if God revealed himself to us it would show he really cares about us, but he doesn't reveal himself so he really doesn't care about us. 

I must ask, at what point does our personal viewpoint of "caring" no longer make God "God"?

If God revealed himself and we went to heaven but then found out heaven has a bunch of rules you have to follow, otherwise you get thrown out, then some people would just revert back to "God doesn't care about us". My point being, God would essentially have to lose godly authority and abide by the rules of man to show that he "cares" for us. I don't see why God would ever do that. It would basically make him not God anymore, and he would be much more a supernatural entity that simply acts upon the very wishes of his own creation.

What kind of "God" is that? And what happens when people in heaven have differing opinions about things and asks God to act on their behalf to show he cares? A God constantly acting on the whims of man to show how much he cares about them and their desires wouldn't just be an eternal contradiction, but would usher in an eternal age of chaos, because lets be honest..... This isn't just about belief. This is about the concept of the judgement of man and sin as a whole.

Quote:Thanks for sharing your experience, but as I'm sure you anticipated, I have questions.

Did you give equally serious consideration to the alternative that what you felt was simply your brain's interpretation of fear, stress and adrenaline you were experiencing?

Had you had gotten out absent the feeling of being lifted, after calling upon God for assistance, would you still have given God credit?

If someone else calls out to God while drowning and no help comes, what would you conclude about God?

I realize your account is purely anecdotal, but I still think these are important questions whenever I'm presented with such accounts. There questions are meant in any to discount what you experienced, as it's very significant to you. However, I always find it interesting in such instances how or why other reasonable explanations aren't given the same consideration?

You guessed correctly.

If I'm going to be honest, it's hard for me to say it was anything natural. I actually felt by my body stop mid-sink and instantaneously change direction. I just really can't credit that to natural happenings and I instead give the credit to God. I am severely aware of the assumption being made here, but it's one I'm willing to make.

You asked if someone called out to God while drowning and God didn't save them, what would I conclude? Well, nothing really, other than God's will is above mine. What would you conclude?

Hopefully I haven't come off as arrogant in my responses. I have enjoyed the conversation so far and await your response.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-12-2022, 05:49 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I greatly appreciate responses that are informative, nuanced and well-stated. It make these types of discussion much easier to have and maintain, in my opinion. 


I've never found these definitions to be particularly useful, as I believe there is only one undeniable proof. Therefore, all other proofs would necessarily fall into the deniable category. 

Instead, when I speak of proof, what I'm referring to is that which can is available to, and able to withstand scientific rigor; be identified, observed, investigated, analyzed, evaluated, tested and concluded to be the best and most accurate explanation.

When I ask someone for proof that God is real, I'm asking for evidence that could meet that criteria -- meaning that in necessarily manifest in the natural world and is subject to natural methodologies. If the evidence falls outside that scope, I'm not sure what it even means to call it evidence, as it's simply conjecture based on that which can't be currently accessed or investigated; of no use in terms of real-world utility.


Falling into the category of deniable proof isn't the problem. The problem is the level of the claim itself; an all-powerful entity that created everything and has the power to affect our existence for eternity, and who can occupy a realm outside of know space and time. 

It seems to me that proving that claim would first require that we prove the supernatural exists, and the we have a meaningful way to access and investigate it. Until that becomes possible, proving God is impossible, in my opinion. 


I find it a little too curious that a God that's capable of revealing himself to everyone chooses not to. It seems he would know what would be 100% effective on each individual; as to leave no doubt of his existence. Yet, he decides for other methods that seem all too human in terms of nature. I find the issue of divine hiddenness is a huge problem for a God that wants everyone to know and believe in him.

Two common objections are that if God revealed himself in a way that would convince everyone of his existence, it would prevent us to seeking him out as a desire for the relationship, or that very act would violate our free will. However, I find this objection to be inadequate for a couple of reasons:

First; if God is omniscient, then he already knew every instance of belief, nonbelief, the reasons why and what would constitute evidence for every individual. The fact that he created every person knowing what evidence would convince them and chose not to grant them said evidence, would seem to suggest he doesn't actually care about it to the degree the Biblical authors claimed on his behalf. 

Second; everyone knowing for a fact that God exists doesn't mean that everyone would choose to follow him, worship him or desire a relationship with him. In the Biblical accounts, Lucifer knew God existed, and still chose to reject him. Lucifer's free will was not violated by the knowledge of God's existence. 


Thanks for sharing your experience, but as I'm sure you anticipated, I have questions.

Did you give equally serious consideration to the alternative that what you felt was simply your brain's interpretation of fear, stress and adrenaline you were experiencing?

Had you had gotten out absent the feeling of being lifted, after calling upon God for assistance, would you still have given God credit?

If someone else calls out to God while drowning and no help comes, what would you conclude about God?

I realize your account is purely anecdotal, but I still think these are important questions whenever I'm presented with such accounts. There questions are meant in any to discount what you experienced, as it's very significant to you. However, I always find it interesting in such instances how or why other reasonable explanations aren't given the same consideration?

Just to address this part. That’s an assumption that our purpose here is to believe in God. That would be an odd purpose. If, as an exercise, you assume the existence of God then think of why we would be here. I think the major religions have confused it all for their own gain.

[*pally*]

What we need to remember is that very little of the "Chrisitan Nationalism" movement actually involves real Christianity. It is some sort of bastardized thing that uses God as a driving force but it is wrapped in a warped version of Christianity intermixed with a weird patriotism thing that is all ultimately a power grab for extremist ideas. It is an anti-democratic pro-authoritarian message that most Americans should be fighting against not for

[GMDino]

(07-12-2022, 11:21 PM)pally Wrote: What we need to remember is that very little of the "Chrisitan Nationalism" movement actually involves real Christianity.  It is some sort of bastardized thing that uses God as a driving force but it is wrapped in a warped version of Christianity intermixed with a weird patriotism thing that is all ultimately a power grab for extremist ideas.  It is an anti-democratic pro-authoritarian message that most Americans should be fighting against not for

100% this.

But it's not new.  Anyone who believes THEY fully understand their religion and that everyone else should follow their version too is dangerous.

No matter the person, no matter the religion.

That's why it was tried so hard to keep religion separate from governing when the country was formed, IMHO.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(07-11-2022, 12:15 AM)Lucidus Wrote: My issue isn't with the religious belief in and of itself. People have the right to believe anything they wish, even when it can't be verified to be true. People should be free to believe in any god or and any religion, and they should be able to live their own lives according to that belief.

The problem is when those same people want to impose that belief on others; desiring laws and policies that are based on affirmations of interpretations of recollections of assertions made on ancient parchments.  

I wonder how much "respect" Christians would have if Islam ascended to a position of power and influence within American politics; openly advocating for legislation that's in adherence with Allah, the Quran and Sharia?

Bingo: as I have been saying for a while now, religion (especially the Catholic Faith, as it is what I am most-familiar with), is inherently a FANTASTIC thing: there is a shit-ton of wisdom in the pages of the Bible (mainly Old Testament) and a bunch of lessons and morals are conveyed, that are UNIVERSAL, whether based in religion, nature, etc.

It's when assholes (ie: Americans that have destroyed and distorted the words in a book) insert their own selfish beliefs/interpretations and all that great stuff, to take advantage and manipulate people, is where religion gets a bad rap: that's not the fault of what the religion stands for, that's the fault of selfish human beings (and yes, I realise the hypocrisy of a religion created to control people, being an, "innocent thing," in this case).

But of course, like *everything* on the planet, nothing is black and white when it comes to morals, laws (except laws of nature and science; those are infallible), thus a book, written by men, where things have been passed on verbally, should be taken contextually, a stance that Catholicism has taken since many years before I was born. When read contextually, the Bible is an awesome book, full of great stories, lots of wisdom and a huge cast of characters that reflect everyday humans that you come across in your daily life (I mean, maybe not Kings and leaders of nations, but you get my drift).

And yes, I am FULLY aware of the MANY serious and awful transgressions that members of the Catholic Church have done in the many centuries since the religion's inception... but again, these are men inserting their own selfish goals and desires and using a book as their reasoning; God or any other entity in the Canon did not explicitly state that the crusades were to happen, for example.

TL;DR: religion isn't bad, man is bad.

(07-11-2022, 01:10 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Churches have changed in the last 20 years. Don't let the extremists ruin the work that many others have gone thru


There is definitely some stories in the Bible that have roots based on true stories.
How true is anyone's guess. 

Kinda hard to say the Flood didn't happen, when cultures all around the world have references to it in their history. 
Just like cities being destroyed from Fires raining down from the skies, earthquakes, it has been proven that some of those cites lived along faultlines, near volcanoes, or even Meteorites falling from the skies. Cities abandoned because of droughts. These things all happened. No denying any of that from a scientific stance. I think alot of it was man not understanding WHY those things happened, so just easier to say the God(s) were punishing us.

After that, the stories are left open to interpretation. Four of us might read the same story and likely come away with four different interpretations.
As far as what Jesus/God thinks? we will likely never know, best i take away from all of it, is be kind and treat everyone respectfully and live a good life and be true to yourself and others. Anything else you take away from it, likely is what some MAN's interpretation is of some story. Guess there is only one true way to know the answers for sure, but i'm not in a big hurry to find out.

Hence the need to take things contextually; Samson (if he did exist) did NOT push down two pillars and crushed all of the Philistines; it's an allegorical way of teaching you that if you do stupid shit and allow demons (ie: Delilah) to overcome you, it can be your ruin and downfall and that redemption may come at the cost of your life.

Or the Ark; whether or not EVERY creature was put on and all that jazz (which we know is kinda, almost impossible), the story is clearly meant to state the same thing as above: if things are craptastic and there's no way of undoing all of the shit that has happened, one way to right everything is to start anew: FLOOD your current life and WASH AWAY all of the bad shit and then once you have weathered the fallout from doing it, you should come out on the other side with a fresh, new perspective on things and be able to start anew.

Context, meaning, morals; that's what the Bible should be read as, not followed word for word and adhered to, word for word.

[CKwi88]

Put me firmly in the "religion is awesome on an individual level" camp. While I don't give two hoots about religion I know know that after my father's divorce it got him back on track to being a functional adult.

That said, I think the OP's point, to oversimplify, is that theologies should not encroach on philosophies when it comes to crafting laws. Not so much that all decisions should be backed in science and scientifically provable fact, but devoid of undue religious influence. That is also a camp that I fit squarely into, and probably the overwhelming majority of this board as well. Regrettably, the same can't be said of a growing sect of the US.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-13-2022, 02:54 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Put me firmly in the "religion is awesome on an individual level" camp. While I don't give two hoots about religion I know know that after my father's divorce it got him back on track to being a functional adult.

That said, I think the OP's point, to oversimplify, is that theologies should not encroach on philosophies when it comes to crafting laws. Not so much that all decisions should be backed in science and scientifically provable fact, but devoid of undue religious influence. That is also a camp that I fit squarely into, and probably the overwhelming majority of this board as well. Regrettably, the same can't be said of a growing sect of the US.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who ignores the good a religion can do for an individual. The problems arise when the individual forces that religion on those who don't want to live under that person's chosen path.

[Lucidus]

(07-12-2022, 11:21 PM)pally Wrote: What we need to remember is that very little of the "Chrisitan Nationalism" movement actually involves real Christianity.  It is some sort of bastardized thing that uses God as a driving force but it is wrapped in a warped version of Christianity intermixed with a weird patriotism thing that is all ultimately a power grab for extremist ideas.  It is an anti-democratic pro-authoritarian message that most Americans should be fighting against not for

In the Pew Research numbers I cited in the OP, 68% of all Christians surveyed thought that laws should be influenced at least somewhat by the Bible. That's a disturbing number and definitely more than just the extremists. While it's the hardcore Evangelical movement that is the driving force in terms of the desire for Christian Nationalism, there are far too many moderate Christians who seem to share the Evangelical idea of using the Bible to influence law and policy. 

(07-12-2022, 10:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just to address this part. That’s an assumption that our purpose here is to believe in God. That would be an odd purpose. If, as an exercise, you assume the existence of God then think of why we would be here. I think the major religions have confused it all for their own gain.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding; but are you stating that belief in God, by way of Jesus, isn't extremely important? That would seem to render John 3:16-18 rather useless. 

(07-13-2022, 12:06 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Bingo: as I have been saying for a while now, religion (especially the Catholic Faith, as it is what I am most-familiar with), is inherently a FANTASTIC thing: there is a shit-ton of wisdom in the pages of the Bible (mainly Old Testament) and a bunch of lessons and morals are conveyed, that are UNIVERSAL, whether based in religion, nature, etc.

As difficult as it is for me, I will refrain from espousing my thoughts on the Catholic Church.

Quote:It's when assholes (ie: Americans that have destroyed and distorted the words in a book) insert their own selfish beliefs/interpretations and all that great stuff, to take advantage and manipulate people, is where religion gets a bad rap: that's not the fault of what the religion stands for, that's the fault of selfish human beings (and yes, I realise the hypocrisy of a religion created to control people, being an, "innocent thing," in this case).

There's no denying that everyone interprets the Biblical passages in their own way. Sometimes for very nefarious reasons. Sometimes for selfish reasons. Sometimes for innocuous reasons. 

Quote:But of course, like *everything* on the planet, nothing is black and white when it comes to morals, laws (except laws of nature and science; those are infallible), thus a book, written by men, where things have been passed on verbally, should be taken contextually, a stance that Catholicism has taken since many years before I was born. When read contextually, the Bible is an awesome book, full of great stories, lots of wisdom and a huge cast of characters that reflect everyday humans that you come across in your daily life (I mean, maybe not Kings and leaders of nations, but you get my drift).

If you're stating the Bible should be viewed as simply a literary work, then I agree. 

Quote:And yes, I am FULLY aware of the MANY serious and awful transgressions that members of the Catholic Church have done in the many centuries since the religion's inception... but again, these are men inserting their own selfish goals and desires and using a book as their reasoning; God or any other entity in the Canon did not explicitly state that the crusades were to happen, for example.

TL;DR: religion isn't bad, man is bad.

I'll leave this one alone as well.

Quote:Hence the need to take things contextually; Samson (if he did exist) did NOT push down two pillars and crushed all of the Philistines; it's an allegorical way of teaching you that if you do stupid shit and allow demons (ie: Delilah) to overcome you, it can be your ruin and downfall and that redemption may come at the cost of your life.

I understand what you're trying to say, but at the same time, we must acknowledge that for any instance of meaningful allegory, there is also an utterly absurd or disturbing instruction meant to be taken very literally.

Quote:Or the Ark; whether or not EVERY creature was put on and all that jazz (which we know is kinda, almost impossible), the story is clearly meant to state the same thing as above: if things are craptastic and there's no way of undoing all of the shit that has happened, one way to right everything is to start anew: FLOOD your current life and WASH AWAY all of the bad shit and then once you have weathered the fallout from doing it, you should come out on the other side with a fresh, new perspective on things and be able to start anew.

Context, meaning, morals; that's what the Bible should be read as, not followed word for word and adhered to, word for word.

This is part of the problem. You could view the Noah's ark story as allegory. However, the means of "starting anew" required the extermination of every single human except for one chosen group. That seems an incredibly dangerous allegory.