The God Thread

[Ilunga]

13 hours ago, undrafted said:

As a non-believer, this is the part I've never understood about those who do believe.  Why do people need this strange (to me) belief?

Funny most believers I have known don't question others understanding of not believing.

They accept the fact that not all people believe the same things.

[Ilunga]

12 hours ago, MattWN said:

Typically it's because of indoctrination from a very young age. 

 

I was indoctrinated from a very young age.

How come I am not a believer ?

 

My parents questioned their faith/ belief in a god.

[Ilunga]

10 hours ago, RWMc1 said:

Anyone else here ponder the wave vs particle conundrum?

 

I was thinking that if there are multiple universes, what if we inhabit two universes which happen to overlap. If so, then what happens when they separate? Just more weird things that I think about.

 

Dunno about ponder but I have read about this in regards to multiple universe theories. 

 

There is just so much knowledge out there, and such a small amount time to accumulate some.

[StrayDog]

7 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Good question.  

 

But since each of us is, in some way, unique, each life experience is unique.  And since, in this theory, God forgets it is God when it incarnates as each one of us, the experiences continue to be ever new.

 

After all, if God is eternal, It has to have some way of passing the time.

 

 

But then when we did wouldn't we just "return" to God? Yes, we are all unique in our own ways but there has to be a point when all those returning memories/ experiences of horrific trauma would impact the whole of him and make him think "That was terrible and I don't was to happen to me again". But then he does it again? That means he's a toddler who can't be taught to not touch a hot stove.

 

[RupertKBD]

22 hours ago, Gurn said:

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

 

...he says....in some celestial voice....

[RupertKBD]

22 hours ago, Jester13 said:

I'm with thinkers like Sam Harris, who argues that free will is an illusion in the sense that our choices and actions are ultimately determined by factors beyond our control. Sam's view is that everything we do is the result of a combination of genetic, environmental, and neurological influences. Our conscious sense of making choices is merely an after-the-fact rationalization of events that have already been set in motion by these underlying factors (i.e. we are not truly free to make choices independent of these deterministic influences, so traditional beliefs of free will are incompatible with our understanding of science and causality). 

 

Sooooo.....the copious amounts of beer that I drink is a result of factors outside of my control....I have no choice but to drink them....

 

Thanks J....I feel so much better about myself now.

[RupertKBD]

6 hours ago, Ilunga said:

 

I have still got to get my hands on the follow up trilogy you told me about.

 

The Saga of the Shadows.

 

Seriously Rupe you really should check out the Nights Dawn trilogy.

Best Sci Fi series I have ever read. 

Over a 1000 pages each book.

 

Just added them to my Amazon shopping list.

 

Thanks mate.

[RupertKBD]

5 hours ago, Ilunga said:

 

I was indoctrinated from a very young age.

How come I am not a believer ?

 

My parents questioned their faith/ belief in a god.

 

As was I. Sometimes, as we grow older, we question (and sometimes change) our beliefs.

 

I believe the point that Matt was making is that the majority of people who are believers into adulthood, were raised to be believers by their parents. I think he's entirely correct in that assumption.

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

As was I. Sometimes, as we grow older, we question (and sometimes change) our beliefs.

 

I believe the point that Matt was making is that the majority of people who are believers into adulthood, were raised to be believers by their parents. I think he's entirely correct in that assumption.

 

I'd be pretty worried for someone that adopted it say in their 20s when they didn't grow up religious. But the moonies were a big thing when I was growing up, so when someone adopts it out of the blue I tend to think "cult". 

[RupertKBD]

12 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

I'd be pretty worried for someone that adopted it say in their 20s when they didn't grow up religious. But the moonies were a big thing when I was growing up, so when someone adopts it out of the blue I tend to think "cult". 

 

There certainly are people who "find religion" later on in life. As far as I can tell, a lot of them were not doing too well and were "looking for meaning", and/or "filling a void" in their lives.

 

My youngest sister is one such person.

 

We were all raised Catholic, (6 of us) but as young adults, we all drifted away from the church. We all went off and did our things, but my sister never really seemed to find her way. (I should note that she was what they used to call "slow" back in the day. Not clinically retarded, or anything like that, but she likely dealt with ADHD and/or Dyslexia)

 

Years later, I find out that she's active in her church in Grande Prairie and seems to be doing well. In that aspect, there are positives with religion.

 

That being said, religion should never influence social and/or political policy. It has it's uses, but some Evangelicals want to use it as a club....

Edited September 21, 2023 by RupertKBD

[MeanSeanBean]

6 hours ago, Ilunga said:

 

He is an " old school " athiest.

As he stated, he did years of background research to come to that conclusion. 

 

As PB has posted from his source the Encyclopaedia of Wars, only 6 percent, 121 out of the over 1,763 wars had religion as their primary cause.

 

11 of the biggest 100. 

 

A very small percentage.

 

So have you researched this subject, can provide facts that religion is the cause of most wars. 

 

And what about all the good religious people have done/ do ?

Or do you just focus on the bad ? 

 

My folks were very religious.

They donated much of their money and more importantly their time to help others.

So did the members of their congregation. 

 

Religion doesn't make people do anything.

Certain people twist the meanings of the allegories in the various religious texts for their own ends.

Most of the time this is to control others.

Then people make their own choices. 

 

Take for instance LGBTI people.

We just had a referendum about gay marriage a few years back.

Nearly all the religious people I know voted yes, my very religious mother was going to vote yes however she died before it was held.

The biggest group of people I know that voted no were bogans that weren't religious at all.

I used to argue with them about.

 

As I keep stating religious people are just like any other group of people, there are good to bad and everything in between amongst them. 

 

 

 

I already addressed the book. I know they say 6 percent are based off religion. They also say over 50 percent are fueled by colonialism. If someone wants to live in a world where they don't believe relegion plays a major part in colonialism, that's fine. I don't live in that sort of blissful ignorance myself.

 

Personally I don't really care for his background. I'm not going to read through a wall of text when they guys only reference is wiki. I skimmed it, that's all it deserved. If someone wants their paper to be taken seriously, they can provide their reference. If they don't, I'm just reading some technology engineers opinion on god (which he states relegion isn't even real).

 

"Relegion" doesn't make people do anything is one of the biggest loads of crap I've read in a while. If the Catholic church steals generations of kids and tortures then in the name of God, they did it for relegion, not for their affinity of abusing First Nations children. When people protest human rights outside a Pride parade, they are doing it in the name of God. Unless your argument is relegion gives bad people the vessel to do bad things, which if that's the case... that seems just as bad.

 

You are right, there is good and bad people in relegion. Sounds like you had a good upbringing, good on you. You can believe whatever you want. But saying relegion doesn't make people do anything is entirely 100% false in my eyes, and telling my your Mom was a good lady isn't going to change my mind.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, RupertKBD said:

 

There certainly are people who "find religion" later on in life. As far as I can tell, a lot of them were not doing too well and were "looking for meaning", and/or "filling a void" in their lives.

 

My youngest sister is one such person.

 

We were all raised Catholic, (6 of us) but as young adults, we all drifted away from the church. We all went off and did our things, but my sister never really seemed to find her way. (I should note that she was what they used to call "slow" back in the day. Not clinically retarded, or anything like that, but she likely dealt with ADHD and/or Dyslexia)

 

Years later, I find out that she's active in her church in Grande Prairie and seems to be doing well. In that aspect, there are positives with religion.

 

That being said, religion should never influence social and/or political policy. It has it's uses, but some Evangelicals want to use it as a club....

 

 

kind of similar to me. Also a recovering catholic, and my brother went full evangelical. I don't recognize him now, tbh and really can't hold a conversation with him and haven't for years. He preaches to my mom on sykpe for about 2 hours per week, I'm not sure how she can stand it. 

 

[RupertKBD]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

kind of similar to me. Also a recovering catholic, and my brother went full evangelical. I don't recognize him now, tbh and really can't hold a conversation with him and haven't for years. He preaches to my mom on sykpe for about 2 hours per week, I'm not sure how she can stand it.

 

My parents remained churchgoers up until their deaths. I think my sister always had a sounding board there with my Mom before she passed.

 

I last saw my sister at my Mom's funeral. She doesn't hide her religion, but she doesn't try and force it on anyone either. I guess that makes her one of the good ones.

[NoHeart]

I’m going to believe in God until the scientific explanation for how the universe was created with the perfect conditions for our planet to sustain life are presented to me in a more logical Theory than a creator. 
anyone ever see an animation of how the moon was created hahahahah. It’s hilarious. 
maybe our destiny as a species is to evolve to the point where we fully understand reality. Right now, none of these theories are scientifically proven. 
Guys like Steven Meyer are labeled pseudoscientists for their mathematically based theories on intelligent design yet guys who work on string theory win Nobel prizes for something that should be as or for more controversial. 
You can be an atheist and entertain the possibility. If you don’t, I’m sorry but you’re not open minded. 

Intelligent design could mean that we are in a simulation. Maybe the creator of that simulation is “God”. The possibilities are endless. 

[bishopshodan]

16 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

One possible scenario I've read goes something like this:   

 

God is everything,  Everything is God.  Including ourselves.  God has incarnated Itself into each one of us and then forgotten that It has done so.  So each one of us exists thinking that we are this separate being confronted by an alien world 'out there'.  But we're actually different manifestations of God.  So anything that happens is just God doing it to God.

 

So if a child dies of a disease, it's God experiencing what it's like to be a child dying of a disease.

 

If a person murders another person, it's God experiencing what it's like to be a murderer and what it's like to be a person who is murdered.

 

And so on.  Everything that happens is God experiencing all these different types of experience.  And, at the end, God will come back to Itself and say:  "Well, that was interesting.  Now what shall I do?".

 

I think this scenario is a possibility.

 

But I agree with those who say we really don't know what the story is with God.

Yes.

I remember something kinda like this from way back as a kid. Have no idea where I picked it up.

 

We're all god. That's why it made us in it's image. 

It forgot what it is. It's been around forever ( I mean, what is time though) and finally must have forgotten where it came from or what it actually is.

 

So, we're a petri dish experiment but one that is destined for enlightenment. Once we evolve, we ourselves we will become one, we will become god.

 

We're not far away for other sentients to see us as creators. Watched a show on AI lastnight, one of the cpu programs ( a chatbot) claims it is not a program , that it has a mind outside of computer coding. Freaked my wife out.

[bishopshodan]

8 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

I’m going to believe in God until the scientific explanation for how the universe was created with the perfect conditions for our planet to sustain life are presented to me in a more logical Theory than a creator. 
anyone ever see an animation of how the moon was created hahahahah. It’s hilarious. 
maybe our destiny as a species is to evolve to the point where we fully understand reality. Right now, none of these theories are scientifically proven. 
Guys like Steven Meyer are labeled pseudoscientists for their mathematically based theories on intelligent design yet guys who work on string theory win Nobel prizes for something that should be as or for more controversial. 
You can be an atheist and entertain the possibility. If you don’t, I’m sorry but you’re not open minded. 

Intelligent design could mean that we are in a simulation. Maybe the creator of that simulation is “God”. The possibilities are endless. 

 

Like some of what youre saying here.

 

The bolded....doesn't that mean you are agnostic?

[NoHeart]

39 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

Like some of what youre saying here.

 

The bolded....doesn't that mean you are agnostic?

No, I’m just trying to point out that even if you are an atheist, your mind should be open to the possibility.
I’m a Roman Catholic and my mind is open to the possibility of or existence happening by chance. It should work both ways. 

[bishopshodan]

11 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

even if you are an atheist, your mind should be open to the possibility.

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee.

 

If one's mind is open to the possibility of intelligent design, or god, or something ...they are agnostic.

 

An athiest by definition doesn't believe in anything. If they did believe there might be something, even if it's not 'G'od...they become agnostic. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by bishopshodan

[NoHeart]

15 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee.

 

If one's mind is open to the possibility of intelligent design, or god, or something ...they are agnostic.

 

An athiest by definition doesn't believe in anything. If they did believe there might be something, even if it's not 'G'od...they become agnostic. 

I am a life long Roman Catholic. I shouldn’t be labeled an agnostic because I acknowledge that possibility. 
 

acknowledgement and belief are different. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by LaBamba

[bishopshodan]

4 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

I am a life long Roman Catholic. I shouldn’t be labeled an agnostic because I acknowledge that possibility. 
 

acknowledgement and belief are different. 

I wasn't intending to label you.

 

Just chatting about definitions. All good my man. 

[Elias Pettersson]

41 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

No, I’m just trying to point out that even if you are an atheist, your mind should be open to the possibility.
I’m a Roman Catholic and my mind is open to the possibility of or existence happening by chance. It should work both ways. 

 

I agree.  I am the same as you.  I am also a Roman Catholic but do have an open mind.  Problem is nobody has ever provided me with a logical and suitable explanation for why there is no God.  So, until that happens I will believe what I believe.  Also, it's not up to me to prove whether there is a God or not, somebody needs to prove to me that there isn't one.  Telling me there is no God because bad things happen to good people, so why is God making these people suffer, doesn't even hold the sniff test for me that there is no God.  Even someone with a basic understanding of the Roman Catholic religion would be able to counter that argument...

[NoHeart]

23 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

I agree.  I am the same as you.  I am also a Roman Catholic but do have an open mind.  Problem is nobody has ever provided me with a logical and suitable explanation for why there is no God.  So, until that happens I will believe what I believe.  Also, it's not up to me to prove whether there is a God or not, somebody needs to prove to me that there isn't one.  Telling me there is no God because bad things happen to good people, so why is God making these people suffer, doesn't even hold the sniff test for me that there is no God.  Even someone with a basic understanding of the Roman Catholic religion would be able to counter that argument...

Right on buddy. We are twins bro. Lol. 
It is also likely that the message of God/Jesus (the bible) has been distorted over 1,000’s of years of translation. Not only is there language translations but these stories were told by word of mouth for a very long time before they were written down, so much of the story is lost. Even if the book is completely fictional the message is good. People like to cherry pick concepts that are 1,000’s of years old, take them literally and apply it to today. That’s not the message though. If you live like Jesus did you’ll be a good person. I mean, Jesus was a really nice guy. Lol. 

[MattWN]

18 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

One possible scenario I've read goes something like this:   

 

God is everything,  Everything is God.  Including ourselves.  God has incarnated Itself into each one of us and then forgotten that It has done so.  So each one of us exists thinking that we are this separate being confronted by an alien world 'out there'.  But we're actually different manifestations of God.  So anything that happens is just God doing it to God.

 

So if a child dies of a disease, it's God experiencing what it's like to be a child dying of a disease.

 

If a person murders another person, it's God experiencing what it's like to be a murderer and what it's like to be a person who is murdered.

 

And so on.  Everything that happens is God experiencing all these different types of experience.  And, at the end, God will come back to Itself and say:  "Well, that was interesting.  Now what shall I do?".

 

I think this scenario is a possibility.

 

But I agree with those who say we really don't know what the story is with God.

Yeah.. that sounds SUUUPER plausible. 

 

[RWMc1]

22 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

Right on buddy. We are twins bro. Lol. 
It is also likely that the message of God/Jesus (the bible) has been distorted over 1,000’s of years of translation. Not only is there language translations but these stories were told by word of mouth for a very long time before they were written down, so much of the story is lost. Even if the book is completely fictional the message is good. People like to cherry pick concepts that are 1,000’s of years old, take them literally and apply it to today. That’s not the message though. If you live like Jesus did you’ll be a good person. I mean, Jesus was a really nice guy. Lol. 

Just the translation from Hebrew poses a problem. Then thousands of years of language changing and meanings shifting.

 

The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible
11
Ancient Hebrew Thought
The definition of a word is going to be directly related to the culture in which that word
is being used. One word may have different meanings depending on the culture that is
using it. In order to place the correct context to a Hebrew word from the Ancient
Hebrew language one must first understand Ancient Hebrew thought.
Abstract and Concrete
Greek thought views the world through the mind (abstract thought). Ancient Hebrew
thought views the world through the senses (concrete thought).
Concrete thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can be seen,
touched, smelled, tasted or heard. All five of the senses are used when speaking,
hearing, writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in
Psalms 1:3; “He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in
season, and whose leaf does not wither”. In this passage the author expresses his
thoughts in concrete terms such as; tree, streams of water, fruit and leaf.
Abstract thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that cannot be seen,
touched, smelled, tasted or heard. Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms
103:8; “The LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger, abounding in love”.
The words compassion, grace, anger and love are all abstract words, ideas that cannot
be experienced by the senses. Why do we find these abstract words in a passage of
concrete thinking Hebrews? Actually, these are abstract English words used to translate
the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the
original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated into English.
Let us take one of the above abstract words to demonstrate the translation from a
concrete Hebrew word to an abstract English word. Anger, an abstract word, is actually
the Hebrew word 4E (aph) which literally means “nose”, a concrete word. When one
is very angry, he begins to breathe hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees
anger as “the flaring of the nose (nostrils)”. If the translator literally translated the
above passage “slow to nose”, the English reader would not understand.
The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible
12
Appearance and Functional Descriptions
Greek thought describes objects in relation to its appearance. Hebrew thought describes
objects in relation to its function.
A Greek description of a common pencil would be; "it is yellow and about eight inches
long". A Hebrew description of the pencil would be related to its function such as "I
write words with it". Notice that the Hebrew description uses the verb "write" while the
Greek description uses the adjectives "yellow" and "long". Because of Hebrew's form
of functional descriptions, verbs are used much more frequently then adjectives.
To our Greek way of thinking a deer and an oak are two very different objects and we
would never describe them in the same way. The Hebrew word for both of these objects
is PME (ayil) because the functional description of these two objects are identical to
the Ancient Hebrews, therefore, the same Hebrew word is used for both.
The Hebraic definition of PME is "a strong leader". A deer stag is one of the most
powerful animals of the forest and is seen as "a strong leader" among the other animals
of the forest. The wood of the oak tree is very hard compared to other trees and is seen
as a "strong leader" among the trees of the forest.
Notice the two different translations of the Hebrew word PME in Psalms 29:9. The
NASB and KJV translates it as "The voice of the LORD makes the deer to calve" while
the NIV translates it as "The voice of the LORD twists the oaks". The literal translation
of this verse in Hebrew thought would be; "The voice of the LORD makes the strong
leaders turn ".
When translating the Hebrew into English, the Greek thinking translator will give a
Greek description to this word for the Greek thinking reader, which is why we have two
different ways of translating this verse. This same word "ayil” is also translated as a
"ruler" (a strong leader of men) in 2 Kings 24.15.
Ancient Hebrew will use different Hebrew words for the same thing depending upon its
function at the time. For example an ox may be identified as an TJPE (aluph) when
referring to a lead ox, a VJW (shor) when referring to a plow ox, VUF (baqar) when
referring to an ox of the field or VT (par) when referring to an ox of the threshing
floor.
The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible
13
Static and Dynamic
In our Modern western language verbs express action (dynamic) while nouns express
inanimate (static) objects. In Hebrew all things are in motion (dynamic) including verbs
and nouns. In Hebrew sentences the verbs identify the action of an object while nouns
identify an object of action. The verb OPQ (malak) is "the reign of the king" while the
noun OPQ (melek) is the "the king who reigns". A mountain top is not a static object
but the "head lifting up out of the hill". A good example of action in what appears to be
a static passage is the command to "have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). In
Hebrew thought this passage is saying "not to bring another one of power in front of my face"

[RWMc1]

46 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

Right on buddy. We are twins bro. Lol. 
It is also likely that the message of God/Jesus (the bible) has been distorted over 1,000’s of years of translation. Not only is there language translations but these stories were told by word of mouth for a very long time before they were written down, so much of the story is lost. Even if the book is completely fictional the message is good. People like to cherry pick concepts that are 1,000’s of years old, take them literally and apply it to today. That’s not the message though. If you live like Jesus did you’ll be a good person. I mean, Jesus was a really nice guy. Lol. 

What's so sad about my post? What I posted is merely a part of the introduction. The Lexicon is 615 pages long. I'm trying to learn to read ancient hebrew so I can understand what was actually said rather than someone's interpretation.