How Do Christians Reconcile The Following Question Regarding Their Faith?

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course we do, because sin is nothing more than missing the mark. If we always hit the target, there's no real choice and, hence, no imago dei.

Why have that type of sport. Baseball is good, cause even though you get to different bases and choose whether to slid or stay where you're at, you always come back to home base (God)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm curious as to why you think He put it there in the first place. Or maybe He could have just put the tree there and told them not to eat its fruit. They'd have probably obeyed. The thing is, He also allowed the most cunning of individuals ever to have tempted them with godhood by eating the fruit. To me, the tree itself is not all that problematic. But He must have had a reason for allowing Satan to tempt them. What do you think it was?

Maybe. Since he created everything, I don't see why he would put his wisdom (so they won't know good and bad like us) in the garden and/or why he let Satan to roam to tempt them to the knowledge god has.

I can't really learn anything spiritual from that. It sounds two-sided.

 

[Thana]

And I feel the same toward people who think like you. Can you not fathom that? Believers dismiss most things I have to say on the subject of their belief - even when I leave them at a loss for words - which I have to admit, I quite often do. I feel it has to do with what I say reaching a point of becoming so uncomfortable that they have to retreat into a sort of "God works in mysterious ways" cocoon to save their minds from some form of what they would consider "deviance". There's something I feel is being "admitted" implicitly there - though I haven't yet been able to put a description of what it is into words.

You seem unable to "hear" my reasons for questioning - even though you believe it was God who gave me this very ability (the ability to contemplate such things, free will, etc.) - to hear the questions, understand they have no answers worthy of acceptance, and even though I know that to be true, ask them anyway. I cherish it - even as you seem to abhor it. Never pity me - for I never have nor will I ever consider myself pitiable in this regard. The same as you would never accept anyone's pity for your beliefs.

I don't doubt that.
I also don't doubt that you believe Theists are like scared little children and their blankey is the bible that they clutch to their shaking chest at night. But we're not stupid, and honestly I think we analyze our faith a lot more than Atheists do. So whilst I appreciate your view, I don't think it's a very realistic one. The majority of the world is religious, in some way, and has been for most of recorded history. So if anyone was missing something, the smart money would be on non-Theists.

And I don't pity you, I just don't agree with you. Is that so terrible?

 

[buddhist]

Hi Thana,



...which all the more illustrates my point.

There is a Buddhist story about a serial killer named Anguli Mala. Some here may have heard of it already. Basically, the story goes that this serial killer was a jungle dweller who murdered travelers in order to collect 1,000 finger bones for a necklace he was making. One day when he had managed to collect 999 bones, Anguli spotted a monk. The thousandth finger bone, at last! Anguli Mala rushed up to slay the monk... but stopped dead in his tracks. He felt the inner tranquility of this monk, indeed his rageful desire to kill was entirely absent. Overcome by this sense of peace, he asked, "Who are you that you can quell my inner fires?"

"I have quelled my own inner fires," the Buddha replied.

The murderer knelt down, confessed his wrongdoing through tears of regret and remorse, and begged the Buddha to accept him as a monk so that he could try to make restitution with the rest of his days, and perhaps find inner peace for himself. For in that moment, Anguli Mala felt for himself what it was like to truly be at peace. He saw through his self-made delusions, saw the truth of his own evil, and in seeing the truth, wanted a wiser and more compassionate legacy to prevail.

I bring this story up because, if an ordinary man of extraordinary insight (i.e. the Buddha) can conceivably inspire even a serial killer to abandon his evil ways and spend his remaining days trying to make up for his past, what does this redemptive insight say about a God that regards murder, warfare, and genocide as a valid course of action? Or who considers eternal hellfire as the best way to deal with "sinners?"

Ultimately, I think the ancient Hebrews simply imagined and wrote about their conceptions of God based on the limitations of their own insights for their time and place. They did not see the more enlightened view found in this Buddhist story, and their God concept reflected the best they could conjure up in its stead. I think that throughout history, the various God concepts conceived of by the various Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects have been a form of Rorschach test: I believe the God concept of each individual throughout time tells us far more about that individual than it does about what this God (if it even exists) is really about.

Good reference.

I personally believe that Jesus was a man who learned the enlightened ways of Buddhism and other similar philosophies in his sojourn in India during his "lost years", and that he returned to Israel to bring more loving-kindness and other similar teachings and reformations back to his people chained to their bronze-age mythologies.

 

[Thana]

That's...um..the point of debating. That's like saying I don't care about clean teeth, I just enjoy brushing them twenty times a day.

Well no, you can use debate as a method to learn. As a way to have a discussion. It doesn't have to be a way to win an argument.

Which is a lot different than humans being clay, isn't it? (Look at what I was responding to and you'll get it).

I never said that. I just used the human/clay analogy to show the vast difference between men and God. That it's not merely the difference between a parent and child.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

...the parent/child analogy can only go so far.

I've been told this countless times, even though Christians themselves use the analogy of God to "father" all the time. And I mean, very possibly not a sermon goes by where He is not referred to as "The Father" or simply "father" at some point. I've at least never been to one where the analogy wasn't made, at least in passing.

So what I have come to realize is that the analogy of God to a "father" only applies in Christian minds when that analogy casts a positive light on God. Any time it is negative, something like the above is uttered. It's actually extremely annoying, and I am sure you can understand why. It is hypocritical to a degree - and also somewhat closed minded. If the analogy of God to father is not valid - then STOP USING IT.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Thana,

I've had to explain that in regards to God, the parent/child analogy can only go so far.
And we don't create children. We are not their makers, parents yes but not their makers. We have no control over anything but their conception (And if you believe in predetermination then not even that) , everything else is a process that we have no hand in.

And if God regarded us as mere clay, Then Christianity wouldn't be true. And I'm a Christian so, obviously I don't think that. All I was doing was using an analogy to make a point.

I fail to see the moral difference between a maker and a parent. So what if this God made everything. How does the ability to create universes grant anyone a reprieve from morality?

 

[Katzpur]

Maybe. Since he created everything, I don't see why he would put his wisdom (so they won't know good and bad like us) in the garden and/or why he let Satan to roam to tempt them to the knowledge god has.

I can't really learn anything spiritual from that. It sounds two-sided.

Maybe He wanted them to have a perspective that only comes from knowing both good and evil. I mean, stop and think about it. What is "good" if the word has no counterpart? How can something even be said to be "good" if there was no frame of reference for the word? Remember, when He cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden, He said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." So a knowledge of both good and evil is clearly a godly quality. I can't imagine that God would ever feel threatened by man's gaining knowledge, can you?

 

[Deathbydefault]

I believe it is only an abuse of power if the person does not have a right to wield it.

Who decided that this god had the right to wield such power? itself?

 

[Kartari]

Hi buddhist,

Good reference.

I personally believe that Jesus was a man who learned the enlightened ways of Buddhism and other similar philosophies in his sojourn in India during his "lost years", and that he returned to Israel to bring more loving-kindness and other similar teachings and reformations back to his people chained to their bronze-age mythologies.

I am not sure about the evidence for this. But it is an interesting possibility... I've always wondered about the similarity between the terms Christ and Krishna. More to your point, it would help to explain why there is a clear deviation in some of Jesus' teachings from what came before, especially some of the Gnostic texts.

 

[Thana]

Hi Thana,



I fail to see the moral difference between a maker and a parent. So what if this God made everything. How does the ability to create universes grant anyone a reprieve from morality?

Just because God gave me the ability to breathe does not mean that I think God breathes. Just because God gave me the capability for morality does not mean that He is bound by it.
It's not a reprieve, It's just that our morality is as fallible as we are. So why would it apply to an infallible God?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The majority of the world is religious, in some way, and has been for most of recorded history.

I don't find this to mean much of anything, really. People thought the world was flat for how much of recorded history? Quite a lot actually. And with faith claims we're not just talking about the debate between whether the world is flat or round - we're talking about a multi-faceted mess of conflicting views and ideas, people whose views differ by a whole WORLD of separation, literally - and even when not that drastic a difference you STILL have people breaking off to form their own sects because they didn't agree with their originators - and this happening dozens of dozens of times over. We're talking about literally millions of people BEING WRONG in one way or another. In fact, all the above proves is that people are prone to being wrong for long periods of time.

So if anyone was missing something, the smart money would be on non-Theists.

What is it, exactly, that you think I might be "missing?"

And I don't pity you, I just don't agree with you. Is that so terrible?

Your textual "countenance" stated otherwise to me - that you did pity me, in a way. You can say that's not what you intended - and that's fine. But "perception is reality", and I know what I perceived. Even the quote above this one, basically explicitly that your bet is on "non-theists" being the ones "missing something" lends itself to your feeling that I am beneath your belief-driven stance somehow. You don't need to lie to me - who am I, after all? If you need to lie to yourself for whatever reason, then that's a different matter, of course.

 

[Thana]

I've been told this countless times, even though Christians themselves use the analogy of God to "father" all the time. And I mean, very possibly not a sermon goes by where He is not referred to as "The Father" or simply "father" at some point. I've at least never been to one where the analogy wasn't made, at least in passing.

So what I have come to realize is that the analogy of God to a "father" only applies in Christian minds when that analogy casts a positive light on God. Any time it is negative, something like the above is uttered. It's actually extremely annoying, and I am sure you can understand why. It is hypocritical to a degree - and also somewhat closed minded. If the analogy of God to father is not valid - then STOP USING IT.

Really? I've never heard others bring it up before.

I don't see how God being a father could be cast in a negative light, but it's our best way of personalizing Him that is why we use it.

 

[buddhist]

Hi buddhist,

I am not sure about the evidence for this. But it is an interesting possibility... I've always wondered about the similarity between the terms Christ and Krishna. More to your point, it would help to explain why there is a clear deviation in some of Jesus' teachings from what came before, especially some of the Gnostic texts.

There are apparently some old records in a monastery in India regarding an individual matching Jesus' description traveling there to learn from them during that period in time. Just as I don't know for myself the validity of the record found in the chosen orthodox books (e.g. Christian gospels), I also don't know for myself the validity of this monastic record so, like you said, I believe it's an equally alternative possibility to consider.

 

[Thana]

I don't find this to mean much of anything, really. People thought the world was flat for how much of recorded history? Quite a lot actually. And with faith claims we're not just talking about the debate between whether the world is flat or round - we're talking about a multi-faceted mess of conflicting views and ideas, people whose views differ by a whole WORLD of separation, literally - and even when not that drastic a difference you STILL have people breaking off to form their own sects because they didn't agree with their originators - and this happening dozens of dozens of times over. We're talking about literally millions of people BEING WRONG in one way or another. In fact, all the above proves is that people are prone to being wrong for long periods of time.

But nothings changed, even though we've gained more knowledge, the majority of the world still believes in something.

What is it, exactly, that you think I might be "missing?"

God.

Your textual "countenance" stated otherwise to me - that you did pity me, in a way. You can say that's not what you intended - and that's fine. But "perception is reality", and I know what I perceived. Even the quote above this one, basically explicitly that your bet is on "non-theists" being the ones "missing something" lends itself to your feeling that I am beneath your belief-driven stance somehow. You don't need to lie to me - who am I, after all? If you need to lie to yourself for whatever reason, then that's a different matter, of course.

I didn't say it was my bet, I just said that the smart money was on them. I don't bet on God's existence, I believe in it.

And I don't consider you beneath me. Come on, do you think I've never doubted before? That I can't understand how one can easily see a godless world? Don't assume you know me or my thoughts.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Really? I've never heard others bring it up before.

I don't see how God being a father could be cast in a negative light, but it's our best way of personalizing Him that is why we use it.

Hmm... what I posted cast God in a negative light with respect to the ways in which I feel a true, loving father would behave. And I have said the same things to other Christians in discussions and their response was the same - except those others were even less tactful than yourself and plainly stated that "you can't compare God to a human father." And that after having just sung songs about God being a "good good father", and making analogies in their own sermons directly comparing His love to the love of a human father. They obviously aren't keeping track. Good thing I am there to do it for them.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

God.

Nice try. And with that little bit of cheese I am done.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Thana,

Just because God gave me the ability to breathe does not mean that I think God breathes. Just because God gave me the capability for morality does not mean that He is bound by it.
It's not a reprieve, It's just that our morality is as fallible as we are. So why would it apply to an infallible God?

Okay, but how can a Christian with this view claim God to be both benevolently loving and destructive to the degree of genocide? Love is a human term as well, after all. It would imo be more accurate to regard this God as, at best, indifferent towards human suffering and as morally ambiguous. For these qualities would best describe the God you describe; a loving and benevolent God would behave quite differently.

 

[Thana]

Nice try. And with that little bit of cheese I am done.

Well I thought it was pretty obvious.
What did you expect me to say?

 

[Thana]

Hi Thana,



Okay, but how can a Christian with this view claim God to be both benevolently loving and destructive to the degree of genocide? Love is a human term as well, after all. It would imo be more accurate to regard this God as, at best, indifferent towards human suffering and as morally ambiguous. For these qualities would best describe the God you describe; a loving and benevolent God would behave quite differently.

Why do people see death as bad? It's an end to suffering and pain, an end to doubt and fear. If it were anything, it'd be a mercy.
God gave us life and free will and everything bad that happens to us is because of our choices and our ancestors choices, and at the end God cleans up our mess and gives us rest. What is so malevolent about that?