• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. "?

osgart

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
God is not obvious to reason. Existence has no intrinsic moral laws that govern the physical world. Nature does a lot of arbitrary and evil things.

To discover God you would have to be exceptionally smart, or extremely fortunate. Or have the educational resources available to guide you into the knowledge of God.

There is no physical presence of God.
There is no sovereign rule that is obvious.
There is no preserved, reliable historical accounts that match with scientific reality or everyday observation.

Man has to rely on their own judgment, and volition. Man has to learn from total unknowingness everything they need to survive. If God exists and desires us to know God then God would make it dirt simple and vanilla obvious.

The convincing arguments for God's existence are book length and very challenging to comprehend.

Where is the plain simplicity?
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Tiberius said:
Then who created God? Claiming that God is the creator doesn't explain how God got started.
Click to expand...

How can you explore such questions for things which reside outside the realm of nature?
Normal rules of logic, physics, maths etc don't even exist in whatever this realm is. If we
struggle to even believe something exists where nothing is thought to be, then ordinary
rules of intellect don't work.
 
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
PruePhillip said:
How can you explore such questions for things which reside outside the realm of nature?
Normal rules of logic, physics, maths etc don't even exist in whatever this realm is. If we
struggle to even believe something exists where nothing is thought to be, then ordinary
rules of intellect don't work.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to stop believers from claiming that God is the uncaused causer, the uncreated creator. If we are going to say we can't explore questions for things that are outside nature, then we can't say anything with certainty about God.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Tiberius said:
That doesn't seem to stop believers from claiming that God is the uncaused causer, the uncreated creator. If we are going to say we can't explore questions for things that are outside nature, then we can't say anything with certainty about God.
Click to expand...

It depends what "God" we are speaking of. Certainly the God of Judaea Christianity
needs not be explored through philosophy, logic or science.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Tiberius said:
Then who created God? Claiming that God is the creator doesn't explain how God got started.
Click to expand...
"Then who created God?"

That is an attribute of God, that He always existed and will exist, so one's question is faulty, please. Right, please?
Further, there is no other claimant. Right,please?

Regards
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational."
Click to expand...

Irrational is a flawed thinking. God is an irrational belief ergo that person is irrational in this one instance.
 
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
paarsurrey said:
"Then who created God?"

That is an attribute of God, that He always existed and will exist, so one's question is faulty, please. Right, please?
Further, there is no other claimant. Right,please?

Regards
Click to expand...

Then why can't we just say that of the universe and avoid the need for a God altogether?
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Tiberius said:
I'm gonna need something better than that.

I mean, that's about up there as me claiming I could convince you that Spider-man is real, and I can prove it if you'd just read these comic books...
Click to expand...

Okay, the bible makes certain theological, scientific, historical and prophetic statements.
Some of these can be seen as "opinion" but others cannot.
For many theological statements made in the bible there exists historic parallels - as if
appealing to the skeptic, but more likely to shore up the faith of the believers.

Thus the theology is about God the creator who has a people to Himself, who calls
them out of bondage but delivers them also to punishment. We are in condemnation
through the sin of our natural (animal) bodies but God will send a Redeemer to pay
the sin - whoever loves the Redeemer will reign with Him when He comes in glory.

So the chosen people are symbolized by the Jews. Called out of Egypt to the Promised
Land. But in sin they are led into Babylonian captivity. They are a people few in number
amidst the nations but they will endure when all other peoples are gone. They will be a
blessing to those who bless them. They will suffer for rejecting their Messiah and be
exiled into all the nations. Eventually they will come out of the nations that were their
"graves" take back their nation "with the sword" and rebuild what was thrown down. And
they will mourn when they see their King because it's the lowly one they crucified.

There's a Depth to this you won't find in Greek or Roman mythology.
 
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
PruePhillip said:
Okay, the bible makes certain theological, scientific, historical and prophetic statements.
Some of these can be seen as "opinion" but others cannot.
For many theological statements made in the bible there exists historic parallels - as if
appealing to the skeptic, but more likely to shore up the faith of the believers.

Thus the theology is about God the creator who has a people to Himself, who calls
them out of bondage but delivers them also to punishment. We are in condemnation
through the sin of our natural (animal) bodies but God will send a Redeemer to pay
the sin - whoever loves the Redeemer will reign with Him when He comes in glory.

So the chosen people are symbolized by the Jews. Called out of Egypt to the Promised
Land. But in sin they are led into Babylonian captivity. They are a people few in number
amidst the nations but they will endure when all other peoples are gone. They will be a
blessing to those who bless them. They will suffer for rejecting their Messiah and be
exiled into all the nations. Eventually they will come out of the nations that were their
"graves" take back their nation "with the sword" and rebuild what was thrown down. And
they will mourn when they see their King because it's the lowly one they crucified.

There's a Depth to this you won't find in Greek or Roman mythology.
Click to expand...

By this logic, anyone who read the Bible would be convinced. But that isn't true, is it? And much of the Bible is just boring, repetitive, and just plain implausible.

I mean, the townspeople come to Lot's door because they want to rape the angels who were visiting him, and Lot said, "Nah, here, you can rape my daughters instead." I mean, really? Does this seem like a reasonable thing a father would say about his daughters? See Genesis chapter 19.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Tiberius said:
By this logic, anyone who read the Bible would be convinced. But that isn't true, is it? And much of the Bible is just boring, repetitive, and just plain implausible.

I mean, the townspeople come to Lot's door because they want to rape the angels who were visiting him, and Lot said, "Nah, here, you can rape my daughters instead." I mean, really? Does this seem like a reasonable thing a father would say about his daughters? See Genesis chapter 19.
Click to expand...

Lot was Abraham's nephew. He "chose the well watered plains of Jordan" and he looked
to Sodom. Soon he was IN Sodom itself. We don't know much about Lot's relationship with
God, but we know one thing - Abraham would not have lived in Sodom. We can also infer
that Abraham wouldn't have offered up his daughter to be raped.
But as an aside - when you hear some people (often gays do this) say "How dare you judge
us" I think of this account. People won't be judged by moral standards.
 
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
PruePhillip said:
Lot was Abraham's nephew. He "chose the well watered plains of Jordan" and he looked
to Sodom. Soon he was IN Sodom itself. We don't know much about Lot's relationship with
God, but we know one thing - Abraham would not have lived in Sodom. We can also infer
that Abraham wouldn't have offered up his daughter to be raped.
But as an aside - when you hear some people (often gays do this) say "How dare you judge
us" I think of this account. People won't be judged by moral standards.
Click to expand...

Uh, this doesn't actually deal with the points I raised.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Tiberius said:
Uh, this doesn't actually deal with the points I raised.
Click to expand...

What was the point you raised about Lot then? He seemed to be one odd character.
Not all the people in the bible are there for examples of moral rectitude. Even King
David, the symbol of the rejected and reigning Messiah, raped a man's wife and
had that man killed.
 
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
PruePhillip said:
What was the point you raised about Lot then? He seemed to be one odd character.
Not all the people in the bible are there for examples of moral rectitude. Even King
David, the symbol of the rejected and reigning Messiah, raped a man's wife and
had that man killed.
Click to expand...

My point about the story of Lot was that it portrays a man offering to send his daughters out to be raped. This is a man who God sees as good (hence why God allowed Lot to be saved). Like I said, implausible. Or does God think that offering your daughters to be raped is a good thing?
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Tiberius said:
My point about the story of Lot was that it portrays a man offering to send his daughters out to be raped. This is a man who God sees as good (hence why God allowed Lot to be saved). Like I said, implausible. Or does God think that offering your daughters to be raped is a good thing?
Click to expand...

I get your point. There's a lot I struggle with some elements of the bible.
Was it culture? Was it translation? Was it priestly redaction? Or are we
missing something important?

Lot would have offended his uncle in being prepared to marry a Canaanite
and live in Sodom. The two things Abraham did not do. Yet is says that
God had mercy upon Lot, just as he did upon the wickedness of David, a
man God said was "after my own heart."

As an aside. Are you offended with homosexual culture today? Do you
notice how the term "tolerance" for "gays" is morphing into "celebration"?
At what point will you lose your job, your social media presence etc by
saying you merely "tolerate gays." ? We have a celebrity sportsman who
was pilloried and lost his career for lumping "gays" in with adulterers,
divorcees etc as being in danger of God's judgment on Facebook.
The "gays" of Sodom did not appreciate that Lot said they were wicked. I
can see that happening in our cultural Marxist, Political Correct and Woke
culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top