How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Trailblazer]

So the more we see effects by known causes the less likely God becomes. That's science.

Known causes are science, unknown causes might be God. Both can exist and I see no conflict.

Just as if no gods exist.

As if God does exist since God can never be detected as causing anything.

So no one should assume any gods exist

No, they shouldn't.

given the lack of evidence. Everyone should be an atheist, according to your proclamations.

There is no lack of evidence.

So since we know the causes of many, many things God becomes irrelevant.

If all you care about is causes of things.

Which isn't you. No one can know anything about a real God according to you and your 101 logic. So atheism is your only rational default, not any religious belief.

No, nobody can know the essence of God, God's intrinsic nature, but we can know some things by what scriptures reveal about God.
I do not need to know everything about God so atheism is not my default. I like that God is a mystery.

How can imaginary anythings cause effects? More 101 logic?

I said: Only your imaginary god could ever be detected by humans.
I meant that a God that was real could never be detected by humans.
In other words, if you detected something and called it God it would not be the real God, it would be a god you imagine.

 

[Audie]

I think that lots of those Christians that do take the Bible literally are honestly trying to believe. And when one of them has some doubts, they are told that Satan is trying to deceive them. For those Christians Jesus, the Bible and the NT are the answer. And we all know, they are absolutely convinced that is the truth.

Or... they are pretending to be convinced, and that they have no doubts. And when they are at Church, they are pretending all is well, and they are good Christians.

What a life.

In any event, they don't have info they
say they do. Like that there was a world wide flood.

Which fits the definitionition of " charlatan"
as @Augustus learned.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is no reason to believe that a god that was causally connected to nature could not be detected.

No, that's religion 101, where one makes unfalsifiable declarations.

The Bible and NT are filled with God doing things and sending angels (messengers) and having prophet tell of coming events that he had in the works... like destroying a city or two by sending fire from heaven. Moses parted the sea and told Pharoah about the plagues God was going to send.

Or... logic 101... God didn't do anything. People just wrote him into their history as if their God was real and did all those things.

 

[F1fan]

Known causes are science, unknown causes might be God. Both can exist and I see no conflict.

Couldn't the unknown be natural causes we don't understand yet? Why assume any God at all since there is no way to know, according to you? It's irrelevant.

As if God does exist since God can never be detected as causing anything.

Thus irrelevant since we can't know. So we default to being atheists.

No, they shouldn't.

Good, all people should default to being atheists.

There is no lack of evidence.

Wait, you said God can't be detected if it exists, so there can't be evidence of a God.

If all you care about is causes of things.

You do. You're making a point of cause as an important issue.

No, nobody can know the essence of God,

Since no one can know if they aren't just imaginary. So we default to being atheists.

God's intrinsic nature,

Is something you can't know, according to you, so this phrase is meaningless.

but we can know some things by what scriptures reveal about God.

Just stories, not facts.

I do not need to know everything about God so atheism is not my default. I like that God is a mystery.

You can't know anything, according to you. Unless you just want a fantasyland framework in your head, atheism is the default.

I said: Only your imaginary god could ever be detected by humans.

I meant that a God that was real could never be detected by humans.
In other words, if you detected something and called it God it would not be the real God, it would be a god you imagine.

Well this describes believers. No atheists think like this.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I think that lots of those Christians that do take the Bible literally are honestly trying to believe. And when one of them has some doubts, they are told that Satan is trying to deceive them. For those Christians Jesus, the Bible and the NT are the answer. And we all know, they are absolutely convinced that is the truth.

Or... they are pretending to be convinced, and that they have no doubts. And when they are at Church, they are pretending all is well, and they are good Christians.

While I can't speak for other former Christians or for those who are still Christians, I definitely "played church" and pretended to feel the presence of God for years when I was a Christian because, first, I never felt the presence of God as other Christians claimed they did, and second, I was hoping that it would kick in somehow if I thought about it a lot. As I explained in an earlier post (#97), it took me several years to finally acknowledge to myself that I had been pretending to experience God's presence in my life when I never genuinely did, and I realized that I needed to be honest with myself and stop pretending.

 

[CG Didymus]

What a life.

In any event, they don't have info they
say they do. Like that there was a world wide flood.

Which fits the definitionition of " charlatan"
as @Augustus learned.

Charlatans.. They can sure preach a good story. "God loves you and is ready to meet your needs. All you need to do is show your faith by trusting him and giving him your money. And you know God will bless you a hundred-fold."

 

[CG Didymus]

Just stories, not facts.

As if Baha'is believe in any Scriptures as being literally true except theirs. So, what do symbolic stories about a symbolic God tell us? Maybe that ancient people made up myths about their Gods all the time?

 

[Audie]

Charlatans.. They can sure preach a good story. "God loves you and is ready to meet your needs. All you need to do is show your faith by trusting him and giving him your money. And you know God will bless you a hundred-fold."

Elmer Gantty didn't invent the preacher -as-
con- man trick.

Lots, most I guess, are sincere though.

 

[CG Didymus]

While I can't speak for other former Christians or for those who are still Christians, I definitely "played church" and pretended to feel the presence of God for years when I was a Christian because, first, I never felt the presence of God as other Christians claimed they did, and second, I was hoping that it would kick in somehow if I thought about it a lot. As I explained in an earlier post (#97), it took me several years to finally acknowledge to myself that I had been pretending to experience God's presence in my life when I never genuinely did, and I realized that I needed to be honest with myself and stop pretending.

I truly felt something... something pure light and love. Trouble is I felt it while believing three different contradictory things. So, I came to think that it wasn't what a person believed, but that they believed it and believed they would feel the light and love of God.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Since no one can know if they aren't just imaginary. So we default to being atheists.

I respect the fact that you are an atheist, F1fan, and I would never criticize or belittle you for it. But I respectfully disagree with your opinion. And, rather than revising what I've previously stated, I've decided to re-post what I've already written on a related topic. Of course, you have the right to disagree.

As I've previously stated, I don't believe that there is any kind of sufficient evidence for the existence of God or any other deity, for that matter. I don't entirely believe in the existence of gods because I haven't seen any evidence that fully convinces me of their existence. And while I practice Wicca, I will acknowledge that I lack sufficient empirical evidence or alleged evidence that any deities exist. Having said that, I choose to believe in the prospect of supernatural deities while recognizing that I can't prove or disprove their existence. I've always been interested in spirituality and supernatural beliefs, but I'm not willing to say that I'm absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the God of the Bible or other deities actually exist. I'm not all-knowing and all-powerful, and I can't be in all places at once or explore all of space and time. So, as far as I'm concerned, I can't honestly determine whether there is only one God, if there are other deities, or if there aren't any deities at all. Therefore, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I've made the decision that I don't need or want the biblical God in my life, and I feel that I'm better off without him. I'm also very content not to follow any deities at this point in my life.

 

[CG Didymus]

Elmer Gantty didn't invent the preacher -as-
con- man trick.

Lots, most I guess, are sincere though.

Yes, I think many are sincere. But, as many of us here think, they are wrong about what they believe is true. I knew Pentecostal Christians that truly believed they were speaking in tongues and getting "words" of knowledge from God. Other Christians thought that those Christians were just fooling themselves.

 

[F1fan]

As if Baha'is believe in any Scriptures as being literally true except theirs. So, what do symbolic stories about a symbolic God tell us? Maybe that ancient people made up myths about their Gods all the time?

Bahai's seem predatory where it comes to various religious texts and doctrines. They pillage these religions for scraps that might bolster their religion, and ignore the rest.

Yes, I think many are sincere. But, as many of us here think, they are wrong about what they believe is true. I knew Pentecostal Christians that truly believed they were speaking in tongues and getting "words" of knowledge from God. Other Christians thought that those Christians were just fooling themselves.

I think such fringe and extremist religious views involve willful blindness, which is a legal term. They are surely aware that there is facts and evidence that their beliefs are untrue, but manipulate their own minds to remain faithful.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I truly felt something... something pure light and love. Trouble is I felt it while believing three different contradictory things. So, I came to think that it wasn't what a person believed, but that they believed it and believed they would feel the light and love of God.

I never felt anything remotely like it could be the presence of God, even during the years I was street preaching and the leader of an evangelism team. At first, I just thought it was normal for me not to feel anything and that other Christians who claimed they did were pretending like I was. However, after an evangelical pastor I was counseling with told me that I was a cursed soul, that God hated me, and that God was punishing me for the sins of my biological parents, I began to believe that there was something truly wrong with me and that no amount of praying on my part would ever change God's view of me.

 

[F1fan]

As if Baha'is believe in any Scriptures as being literally true except theirs. So, what do symbolic stories about a symbolic God tell us? Maybe that ancient people made up myths about their Gods all the time?

Bahai's seem predatory where it comes to various religious texts and doctrines. They pillage these religions for scraps that might bolster their religion, and ignore the rest.

Yes, I think many are sincere. But, as many of us here think, they are wrong about what they believe is true. I knew Pentecostal Christians that truly believed they were speaking in tongues and getting "words" of knowledge from God. Other Christians thought that those Christians were just fooling themselves.

I think such fringe and extremist religious views involve willful blindness, which is a legal term. They are surely aware that there is facts and evidence that their beliefs are untrue, but manipulate their own minds to remain faithful.

 

[Trailblazer]

Couldn't the unknown be natural causes we don't understand yet? Why assume any God at all since there is no way to know, according to you? It's irrelevant.

Good point. I don't think we should assume God did anything when we cannot know if God did anything.

Thus irrelevant since we can't know. So we default to being atheists.

Good point. If knowing what God is causing is the only reason you'd be a believer, you may as well be an atheist.

Good, all people should default to being atheists.

All people are not assuming God exists, some people base their belief upon the evidence they see.

Wait, you said God can't be detected if it exists, so there can't be evidence of a God.

Good point. I meant that the actual entity we refer to as "God" cannot ever be detected but God's reflection can be detected in His Primary Mirrors who I refer to as Messengers.

You do. You're making a point of cause as an important issue.

I do not know how all that got started, but for the record I don't care what God causes since I cannot know what God causes.
The only thing I believe with certainty that God causes is for the Messengers to appear on earth.

Since no one can know if they aren't just imaginary. So we default to being atheists.

The essence of God can never be known, and we cannot even imagine what it is.
I understand why the essence of God can never be known by anyone, not even by the Messengers, so I do not expect to ever know it.
If you need to "know" that the essence of God you will have to default to being an atheist.

Is something you can't know, according to you, so this phrase is meaningless.

It is not meaningless. It means we cannot know God's intrinsic nature.

Just stories, not facts.

There might be some factual information in the Bible, but some of what we read in the Bible is stories, not facts. Baha'u'llah did not write stories, He wrote what was revealed to Him by God, but it is not factual, because what He wrote cannot be proven to have come from God.

You can't know anything, according to you. Unless you just want a fantasyland framework in your head, atheism is the default.

I never said I cannot know anything about God. The Baha'i position regarding what we can and cannot know about God is as follows:

Knowledge of God

The Baháʼí teachings state that God is too great for humans to create an accurate conception of. In the Baháʼí understanding, the attributes attributed to God, such as All-Powerful and All-Loving are derived from limited human experiences of power and love. Baháʼu'lláh taught that the knowledge of God is limited to those attributes and qualities which are perceptible to us, and thus direct knowledge of God is not possible. Furthermore, Baháʼu'lláh states that knowledge of the attributes of God is revealed to humanity through his messengers.[12]

From: God in the Baháʼí Faith

Well this describes believers. No atheists think like this.

That's not true. Some atheists believe that if God was real God could be detected by humans. Thus one basis for their atheism is that God is not detectable.

 

[F1fan]

Good point. I don't think we should assume God did anything when we cannot know if God did anything.

Since we can't know, a God isn't even relevant.

Good point. If knowing what God is causing is the only reason you'd be a believer, you may as well be an atheist.

Believers have non-rational reasons to believe.

All people are not assuming God exists, some people base their belief upon the evidence they see.

They "see" evidence because they need to convince themselves of some reason to believe. There is no actual evidence. If there was, critical thinkers would be believers.

Good point. I meant that the actual entity we refer to as "God" cannot ever be detected but God's reflection can be detected in His Primary Mirrors who I refer to as Messengers.

So not an entity at all, just something that might be possible, and we can never know. So largely irrelevant.

I do not know how all that got started, but for the record I don't care what God causes since I cannot know what God causes.
The only thing I believe with certainty that God causes is for the Messengers to appear on earth.

So no real evidence, and no real reason to believe. Some just want to believe for comfort.

The essence of God can never be known, and we cannot even imagine what it is.

Why assume a God would have an essence, you don't know? Might as well say it has blue eyes. You don't know. Why play with these ideas when you have no facts?

I understand why the essence of God can never be known by anyone, not even by the Messengers, so I do not expect to ever know it.
If you need to "know" that the essence of God you will have to default to being an atheist.

No one knows of any God, or that it has an essence, or that Messengers are genuine. What rational option is there but to not believe in any of these ideas? How can a thinker be convinced these are even likely true given the lack of evidence?

It is not meaningless. It means we cannot know God's intrinsic nature.

Why assume a God would have an nature? Why even bring it up? How is any of this relevant to ponder, there is no way to know any of it?

There might be some factual information in the Bible, but some of what we read in the Bible is stories, not facts. Baha'u'llah did not write stories, He wrote what was revealed to Him by God, but it is not factual, because what He wrote cannot be proven to have come from God.

He claimed data was from God, but why believe him? Nothing in his texts suggest he couldn't have written it himself.

I never said I cannot know anything about God.

You would have to verify it for yourself, and that's the case since there are no tests that otehrs have provided that can be trusted. Yet you already said you can't know directly, so you you can't really know anything. You can read your texts and believe, like any other believer.

The Baha'i position regarding what we can and cannot know about God is as follows:

Knowledge of God

The Baháʼí teachings state that God is too great for humans to create an accurate conception of. In the Baháʼí understanding, the attributes attributed to God, such as All-Powerful and All-Loving are derived from limited human experiences of power and love. Baháʼu'lláh taught that the knowledge of God is limited to those attributes and qualities which are perceptible to us, and thus direct knowledge of God is not possible. Furthermore, Baháʼu'lláh states that knowledge of the attributes of God is revealed to humanity through his messengers.[12]

From: God in the Baháʼí Faith

None of this is credible. You can take his word for it, but you can't call it factual and true. If you want to believe it, that is what other believers do too.

That's not true. Some atheists believe that if God was real God could be detected by humans. Thus one basis for their atheism is that God is not detectable.

Maybe some do, but they speculate just like you do, and none of us have any evidence one way or another. We are all agnostic because where it comes to religious ideas none of us have any facts, and the evidence, like what you claim, is so weak that it only appeals to those seeking to believe.

 

[dybmh]

Bahai's seem predatory where it comes to various religious texts and doctrines.

Every Bahai is different. I haven't seen anything in their scripture that is predatory. And they cannot be predatory if they do not want to consume anything. They have good intentions and don't seem to do any harm.

 

[blü 2]

To set moral standards for God is a logical fallacy (false equivalence) since God is not a human.

If there was a real God and if that God behaved as set out in the Tanakh and NT, then I would unhesitatingly declare the morality of that entity appalling.

Not least the ego trips with the human sacrifices, the sponsoring of invasive war à la Putin, the massacring of surrendered populations, the murderous religious discrimination, women as property, on and on.

As for the suggestion that we should just suck it up because God knows what [he]'s doing, well so does Putin. To approve God's conduct is to have no personal morality, just brainless subjection ─ how could it be otherwise?

 

[Augustus]

What a life.

In any event, they don't have info they
say they do. Like that there was a world wide flood.

Which fits the definitionition of " charlatan"
as @Augustus learned.

An entire week ago you disagreed online about how a word is commonly used in real life and you are still thinking about it enough to bring it up daily in multiple unconnected threads?

Whatever floats your boat…

 

[dybmh]

if that God behaved as set out in the Tanakh

The last time we discussed this, you did not know the stories accurately and you refused to consider the actual language of the text. Has any of this changed?

If not then you simply don't have enough/any data to make the claims you're making.