If You Don't Matter to God, You Don't Matter to Anyone - Answers in Genesis

As social creatures who live in groups it is advantageous for us to cooperate. Therefore we, and other social animals, have developed a sense of what behavior is considered "good". It is disruptive to society if we are constantly killing each other- so most animals that live in groups don't do that. Humans agree universally on what is right or wrong behavior in broad terms- it is the finer details we tend to argue over. Even chimpanzees and gorillas have a normal pattern of behavior and will correct any behavior by an individual that disturbs the function of the unit as a whole. Ethics is a human construct in which we debate the finer points of what is "good".

Nicely phrased, Kaviaq.

Evolutionary psychology gladly answers your questions about human morality - no god necessary.

Paddy,

I will try to answer some of these questions for you. Hopefully this article won't attract too many trolls and we can keep the conversation civil.

Do you believe it is wrong to kill, simply because killing "is disruptive to society", or do you see anything ethical in killing per se?

I'm sure that everyone would agree that killing is wrong. However, I must ask that you rephrase this question so that it can be better understood. I say that because I think that even religious people would agree that killing "is disruptive to society". That may not be the main reason that someone would think that killing is wrong, but it is certainly something that everyone can agree with. The second part of the question doesn't really make any sense. Please rephrase the question and we will go from there.

However, I stand behind the infallibility of the Bible. If you care to discuss this, we could try and consider some specific issues (like the omnipotence paradox you mention)

I am curious how you reconcile the omnipotence paradox with your beliefs (specifically, that the Bible is infallible). Let's focus on one key aspect of that problem: free will. How is it that you can have free will if someone (god) knows all of the choices you will make in your life? Let's start here and see where it takes us.

Of course we believe killing is unethical behavior. However, as kaviq explained above, ethics are a man made invention and we base our ethics on our inherent moral sense. Morals that were developed through evolution are the most simple guidelines for human societies. As societies became more advanced, that sense of morals has been developed and changed in order to incorporate more complex problems that humans have had to deal with. However, we must keep in mind that things like the Golden Rule make up the basis for our morality and ethics. I think that ethics are based on our universal morals and then are tailored to fit the societies that we live in. Each society will develop its own set of ethics and may even decide collectively to leave our basic morals behind. The evolution of natural morals came to an end when advanced societies arose from agriculture. These days, we begin with our inherent evolutionary morals (the Golden Rule) and then are shaped by the society we grow up in to develop morals and ethics of our own. The example that you gave of the death penalty is a perfect example of this. Our underlying moral sense tells us that killing is wrong, but we also believe that the killing can be justified to deter other immoral acts so we conclude that it is allowable in certain circumstances (the death penalty). ** I personally am opposed to the death penalty but that is not what this discussion is about ** Morals that are a product of our evolution are truly universal but ethics are not. Ethics are based on what advanced societies interpret to be right or wrong.

Paddy,

I think we are on the same page except for one small detail:

Killing is seen, therefore, not as an immoral act per se, but as an act which hinders our evolution, and therefore an act we learnt to avoid and condemn.

What I was saying above is that our morals were derived from activity that best increases our chances of survival.

Are you willing to say, then, that there is nothing inherently wrong with murder?

No, but not for the same reasons that our ancestors would have. Early humans would say that murder is wrong because it affects their chances of survival. I would say that murder is wrong because society has taught me that it is wrong.

Are you willing to say that we have developed an aversion to murder simply because this aversion is beneficial to our survival, but there is nothing inherently wrong (in the moral and ethical sense) with murder?

For early human survival, this may have been true. However, since the rise of advanced societies, we have developed a sense of morals and ethics based on our earlier evolutionary morals that tells us that murder is inherently wrong.

To sum it up, our morals were originally based on the survival of our species but after developing advanced societies we developed our own system of ethics and morals based on our earlier behavioral rules. Now that we don't have to fight for our species survival, our morals and ethics can change over time.

Did any of that make sense or answer your question?

Societies can't function properly if murder for no reason is allowed. I don't really think that much thinking even had to be involved to realize that murder was bad.

Pardon me, but I think your skirting the question :-)

And I think that you are misunderstanding the answer I'm giving. If murder was allowed it would rip the very fabric that holds society together so to speak. We don't need it in order to survive anymore, we need it to have functioning societies.

I feel like you are trying to get me to say that our laws are arbitrary without god's guidance. In reality, the people who wrote the bible created the moral codes found within it based on exactly what I outlined above. As societies formed they drew upon morals that were built-in (Golden Rule) and formulated their own primitive ethics. They sought to give people instructions on how to live their lives and also to explain things they didn't understand. These morals and ethics were written for the society that they existed in and applying them to our society is... well... unrealistic.

Paddy said: "By question to atheists: do you condemn killing simply because of it's potential danger, or do you see any moral, ethical problem associated with it?"

Of course I think killing is unethical and immoral. I don't even believe in killing animals for food- I am vegan. I don't break laws and I go out of my way to help other people. But I believe that morality is inborn and has evolved along with us and other social creatures. I think the Bible and other ancient texts were written by humans. Laws were developed by humans as well. This doesn't negate the importance of laws or make immoral behavior OK.

It seems our main difference is that I believe our moral sense is a consequence of the existence of good and evil, while you both would say it is a consequence of our needs.

Close, but not quite. Our moral sense is a consequence of our environmental needs. We developed a need for morals based on our environment.

To me, it's a question of what is good and what is evil, to you it seems a question of what is beneficial to us and what isn't (as individuals or as a society).

I wouldn't agree with that statement. A distinction must be made between morality that developed in response to our environmental needs and morality that is created by society based on those primitive ideas of right and wrong.

I believe our moral sense is a consequence of the existence of good and evil

a question of what is good and what is evil

How do you define good and evil with objectivity? I would say that you can't. All "moral laws" are defined by people in the context of their environment and society that they live in. How do you conclude that something is good or evil without basing your conclusions off of someone else's definition?

By question to atheists: do you condemn killing simply because of it's potential danger, or do you see any moral, ethical problem associated with it?

As an atheist, I believe all humans are equal, and none has the right to take another's life unless it is in self-defense, civil punishment, or national warfare (this is because both sides agree to the conflict and accept the fact that killing will ensue). We all have the right to life, as humans, and to stomp on that right of another is wrong in any sense. If some people need the threat of divine punishment to keep them from slaying another, then so be it, but my feelings on murder are based on respect for life and the personal lives of others.

I believe in God, so I trust His definition of what is good and what is evil.

Have you spoken to god personally about his definition of good and evil? Or do you trust someone else's opinion on what is good and evil? Keep in mind that since god didn't personally write the bible it is really only the opinion of the writers about what they think god would consider good and evil.

One of the points made in the article I seeded was that, if we are only a "bag of biological chemicals", then whence comes our importance, or the importance of life? How would you, as an atheist, answer that?

What is it about being a "bag of biological chemicals" that makes us unimportant? How would you, as a Christian, answer that?

Keep in mind that since god didn't personally write the bible it is really only the opinion of the writers about what they think god would consider good and evil.

I suspect that God has the power to make sure that the writers would get it right. Do you think he doesn't, that is of course, for you, assuming there is a God?

One of the points made in the article I seeded was that, if we are only a "bag of biological chemicals", then whence comes our importance, or the importance of life? How would you, as an atheist, answer that?

Well, for one, we are far more complex and advanced than a simple "bag of biological chemicals". We are the most socially and technologically advanced animal on this planet. Due to that we are prone to form lasting relationships with other humans, and this is what makes life important to us. Had we never evolved past lone animals, wondering the wild to gather food for ourselves and the occasional random mating, we wouldn't have such an importance on life, only on survival. The strong bonds human share with one another is what gives us that importance on life: our parents, our kids, our friends and families, etc etc.

In essence, Humanity is what makes life for humans so important. Also, keep in mind that life, in it's general meaning, is the most important thing for all living organisms, which is why all animals have survival instinct, so the question is pretty moot overall. Importance of life is not exclusive to humans, by any means.

Is there anything outside of the bible that makes you believe it to be infallible?

If I wrote a book about god, filled it with extraordinary stories, miracles that this god had performed, gave instructions about how to live your life, and then claimed in the book that it was the inspired word of god, would you believe it? Probably not. But is that really much different than the Bible? Or the Qur'an? Or the Book of Mormon? Or any other religious text for that matter? What is it about the Bible that makes it different from any of these others?

Because God really did inspire the people that wrote the Bible.

And how do you know that? Why would you doubt anyone that claimed that now?

As much ridicule that a person gets when they say they believe in God, that he answers prayer, why would I doubt them?

You still haven't answered: How do you know what is in the Bible is the inspired word of god without quoting something in the Bible?

why would I doubt them?

So if I told you that I talked to god, you would believe me?

#1 I would listen to you. #2 I would compare with what God has all ready said, #3 I would pray about what you told me, depending on the answer I received I would listen to more or discard what you say.

That said, the (again, neo-Platonic) notion that good and evil exist as absolute quantities strikes me as a semantic and metaphysical sleight of hand; we simply replace the appearance of detriment to man with the displeasure of God, call it "evil," and revile it based on agreed upon authority. I fail to see how that differs substantively from any other system of devising moral precepts.

What do you think of the system of morality that is devised by God speaking to a man or woman, and telling them what is good or what is bad, and telling them to share with those around them?

Grandpastephen: What do you think of the system of morality that is devised by God speaking to a man or woman, and telling them what is good or what is bad, and telling them to share with those around them?

Well, we'd first have to judge the veracity of the man or woman claiming to have heard God's council. For the evidentialist, the philosophical naturalist, the atheist (I'm none of the above, but I enjoy the functional utility of their epistemic systems), this is the real barrier to belief.

The thing is, if we took such for granted--not only that people have been spoken to by God, but that a specific people were counciled by a specific god, that the Bible is, in fact, of greater veracity than, say, the whole body of Vedic scripture or the various sutras of early Buddhism--then we'd have arrived at exactly what I was talking about in my post. We've been told by a being that created us what his preferences are . . . but we haven't really been told why his preferences are to be taken as an objective measure of "good." What if this "god" was, as the early Gnostics believed, the demiurge, a being as lost and mistaken and contingent as we are, or, in evolutionary terms, simply the dominant lifeform in the "last" universe, part of an infinite regression of rising species ultimately done in by pride in their own singularity?

thelyamhound - I am just an old farmer, so I am not 100% sure that I know exactly what you said,

but we haven't really been told why his preferences are to be taken as an objective measure of "good." What if this "god" was, as the early Gnostics believed, the demiurge, a being as lost and mistaken and contingent as we are, or, in evolutionary terms

if I understand this right, then I would say we are up s#*t creek with out a paddle. Someone once told me that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, I believe that God is the father of our spirits, that he wants us to succeed, he helps us all he can. I do understand the problem with the "veracity of the man or woman claiming to have heard God's council". I think for those who really want to know that God will help do the verifying.

Someone once told me that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, I believe that God is the father of our spirits, that he wants us to succeed, he helps us all he can.

Occam's Razor, that principle is called. I have issues with it, but it's as useful a directive as any.

Still, it seems to me that a being who remains hidden to the senses NOT existing is simpler than his existing, but remaining hidden to our senses and our capacities for reason out of some arbitrary desire for us to cultivate "faith."

That said, I do have faith . . . but I place my faith in the Mystic Law, in Gongyo and Daimoku, in the fundamental unity of all things. This IS a faith construct, but to me, inductive or deductive reasoning more clearly illustrates a phenomenon of being as the creative force in the universe than a being; the former requires no explanation for the lack of evidence for his existence (since a phenomenon of being is simply the pervasive force of being, and can be observed in our daily lives; as Sartre notes, once you stop differentiating between the appearance of a thing and the thing itself, you're in a great position to quantify apparent phenomena), while the latter, as I've noted, does.

I do understand the problem with the "veracity of the man or woman claiming to have heard God's council". I think for those who really want to know that God will help do the verifying.

That seems almost a Calvinist viewpoint, whereby faith is a function of grace, of election. I'm not inclined to hew to the Calvinist viewpoint, but it's always struck me as the most intellectually honest of the many branches of Christianity (if sometimes the most morally repugnant, at least to my human understandings of such). In the face of the easy debunking of both evidential and presuppositional apologetics, the notion that only God can give you a reason to believe in God actually makes some sense.

than his existing, but remaining hidden to our senses and our capacities for reason out of some arbitrary desire for us to cultivate "faith."

Faith is important but learning to be obedient, without God looking over our shoulder is as necessary, it take both to get to the finish line.

That said, I do have faith . . . but I place my faith in the Mystic Law, in Gongyo and Daimoku, in the fundamental unity of all things. This IS a faith construct, but to me, inductive or deductive reasoning more clearly illustrates a phenomenon of being as the creative force in the universe than a being; the former requires no explanation for the lack of evidence for his existence (since a phenomenon of being is simply the pervasive force of being, and can be observed in our daily lives; as Sartre notes, once you stop differentiating between the appearance of a thing and the thing itself, you're in a great position to quantify apparent phenomena), while the latter, as I've noted, does.

I am sorry, I know this is important, I also do not understand it enough to discuss. If you are willing to explain it to me as you would a 15 year old (so I can understand) I could then respond in a way that would increase understand for both of us?

Faith is important but learning to be obedient, without God looking over our shoulder is as necessary, it take both to get to the finish line.

One can't, however, be obedient to a being one doesn't believe exists. Well, actually, you can, but would you not be more likely to subject his/her/its dictates to rational inspection (i.e., what is the measurable, empirical consequence of theft or murder, vs. the consequence of, say, homosexual activity)?

So it seems to me that faith is something of a prerequisite for obedience; otherwise, you're obedient to what you know (or at least suspect) is a fiction.

I am sorry, I know this is important, I also do not understand it enough to discuss. If you are willing to explain it to me as you would a 15 year old (so I can understand) I could then respond in a way that would increase understand for both of us?

I'll see what I can do. My religion of practice is Nichiren Buddhism--a branch of Mahayana Buddhism (most of which are derived from the Lotus Sutra) focused on the interpretations of the Lotus Sutra and Tien T'ai's writings (which essntially filtered Indian Buddhism through Chinese Taoist cosmology) espoused by a 13th Century Japanese monk known as Nichiren Daishonin.

A significant portion of our practice involves chanting. Daimoku refers to the repetition of the phrase Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo (said to be the "title" of the Sutra; other traditions hold that Om Mani Padme Hum, also known as the mantra of the Chenrazee, is the title--and I'm not inclined to rain on anyone's mantra;^)); Gongyo refers to the chanting of two chapters of the Lotus Sutra ("Expedient Means" and "Lifespan of the Thus Come One") and an accompanying series of silent prayers.

Mystic Law is a broad term that describes the general condition of being. It's hard to distill down to something simple; I'd link you to my blog post on Ichinen Sanzen (the doctrine of 3000 realms in a single moment of life), but I think I'm still too "green" to post links. Suffice it to say that the center of Buddhist morality is the law of cause and effect (Karma), and analyzes, in a manner not all that different from many branches of Judaism, all behaviors and premises according to their logical consequences.

One can't, however, be obedient to a being one doesn't believe exists.

That is right, that is why I said both are important, faith comes first, with out faith, God can not help us accomplish the obedience part.

a phenomenon of being as the creative force in the universe than a being; the former requires no explanation for the lack of evidence for his existence

What did you mean here?

What I mean is that a phenomenon of being has no contingent characteristics . . . or rather, its contingent characteristics are any object that appears to exist. That something can be--that you ARE, that I AM, that the computer I'm typing on IS--is all the evidence we need the being itself exists.

Once we posit A being--a deity, possessed of contingent characteristics like moral preoccupation, love for creation, a desire (or even a tendency) to create, a sense of wrath--we're suggesting that something exists that has (or should have) observable characteristics. But all records of this being having been observed predate most modern methods for verifying verbal and written accounts.

Okay I understand. In responce to this

But all records of this being having been observed predate most modern methods for verifying verbal and written accounts.

if I said that being is still talking to men and women today that same as 2000 years ago would that make a difference?

if I said that being is still talking to men and women today that same as 2000 years ago would that make a difference?

Perhaps. But I'd have to weigh that against all similar claims. What of those who say Allah or Krishna speaks to them? What of the Shintoist's deities? What of those who claim to commune with faeries in the woods?

This is where religious claims become tricky--its not their absolute veracity that becomes problematic, but their relative veracity. And even that isn't a problem when it comes to what an individual believes in so much as it's a problem when it comes to what that individual thinks OTHERS should believe, or how they should behave. Well, and it's a problem when faced with Christ's (alleged) admonishment that "No man comes to the father but through me," a bold statement of the sort that only Christianity and Islam put themselves in the position of having to defend.

Religious claims of truth are difficult-to-impossible to verify by ordinary evidentiary proofs.

Out of curiosity who today claims this

What of those who say Allah or Krishna speaks to them? What of the Shintoist's deities? What of those who claim to commune with faeries in the woods?

Which? I'm sure one could anecdotally point to any of a number of Muslims, Hindus, or Shintoists who claim to have had communion with their respective deities.

As for the faeries in the woods, I might have made that up. ;) Actually, though, I know enough people who claim to be pagans, "nature-religion" enthusiasts, or followers of numens that I could probably dig up one or two.

Do you know of any individuals who claim today to be in or have been in communication with there respective deities?

Not personally, no . . . including any Christians. I hear about it anecdotally, of course, and the frequency with which I hear about it as regards any given deity seems to match the percentages at which people worship, which is to say that it doesn't happen with any greater frequency with regards to one deity than to any other in a statistically significant sense.

Not much room for it to happen in Buddhism, since Buddhism isn't a specifically or necessarily theistic religion.

If you are interested check out the LDS Faith.

Actually, my wife grew up Mormon, which means most-to-all of my in-laws are Mormon. So I've read the Book of Mormon, and some of the accompanying documents. Went to school in Cedar City, then worked for about four months in SLC. Stood out in Temple Square while my brother-in-law got married. Good times. :)

I grew up Catholic, myself.

Then you understand there are some who think God still talk to us today.

Yes, I do understand that. I also understand that this thinking isn't unique to the Christian or neo-Christian traditions; nor do all Christians give these assertions credence (indeed, the vast majority of both Protestants and Catholics would insist that Mormons--and, for that matter, Jehovah's Witnesses--aren't Christian AT ALL, an assertion with which I'd strongly disagree).

Still, I like the idea of ongoing conversation with the divine. It's what I strive for myself, though I don't grant that divine any specific character other than what it reveals daily.

think our creator talks to us in an abstract sort of way,

Could it be that because we don't listen well that we hear in an abstract way?

since I agree that none of it can really be proven one way or the other.

I agree that I can't prove to you and you can't prove to me, I think there are ways for us to find the proof for ourselves.

Grandpastephen: Could it be that because we don't listen well that we hear in an abstract way?

I would say rather that the very definitions of concrete and abstract arise from human constructs. These ideas are essentially socio-linguistic; by even using the word "talks" with regards to the creator, or even words like "communicates," we're assuming there's some sort of language involved . . . and language is an inherently anthropogenic concept (at least so far as we know). Abstraction, in a socio-linguistic framework, is easily associated either with the pre-linguistic or the objectively undefinable (for instance, a word like "time" or "love" will mean different things to different people, not all of which are describable in the linguistic setting).

Of course, when speaking ontologically, the contrast between concrete and abstract tends to mean something else. Specifically, that which is concrete clearly exists, can be observed and measured; that which is abstract has to be inferred, or imagined inductively, because it has no readily observable properties (though it may have arguably observable effects; once it has enough of these effects, it may "graduate" to being seen as concrete).

I agree that I can't prove to you and you can't prove to me, I think there are ways for us to find the proof for ourselves.

A proof that cannot be shared or agreed upon isn't, however, an objective proof; rather, it's a subjective testimony.

it's a subjective testimony.

That might be true in the world, but in realityif I can prove something to my satisfaction that is good enough for me. When I need to make a decision on what to do with my life I can only make it based on two things, what I hope is true and what I know is true. It is difficult to made decision based on what someone else tells me they think the truth is.

It could be proof to onesself, while not being proof to another. Each one of us lives in different realities. So what is proof to me may not be proof to you and vice versa.

That might be true in the world, but in realityif I can prove something to my satisfaction that is good enough for me. When I need to make a decision on what to do with my life I can only make it based on two things, what I hope is true and what I know is true. It is difficult to made decision based on what someone else tells me they think the truth is.

EXACTLY!!! And here I thought I wasn't getting through to you. :)

Now take that exact statement, and imagine for a moment that everyone thinks that way, more or less, at least regarding those things that we can't illustrate by way of the empirical sciences. Do you see why they might not care to be beholden to what you tell them you think the truth is? Furthermore, do you not see that they might even take offense at the notion that your understanding of truth, verifiable ONLY by way of subjective intuitions, is somehow a flimsy basis for devising moral codes?

Sorry. This . . .

Furthermore, do you not see that they might even take offense at the notion that your understanding of truth, verifiable ONLY by way of subjective intuitions, is somehow a flimsy basis for devising moral codes?

. . . should end with, " . . . is somehow the ONLY basis for devising moral codes, and/or that their own understandings of truth are a flimsy basis for same?"

I don't really think anyone should take offence at someone telling them what they perceive to be reality , unless that someone is just trying to pound it down thier throats, I oppreciate differing opinions because it helps me come to a better conclusion. A person with an open mind would take everybodys point of view into consideration before reaching a conclusion.

I don't think anyone should use the word "Only" when dealing with theological issues....

Provided that this perception of reality isn't being used as basis for law, I probably agree. That said, we should also be ready and willing to debate those premises. For instance, if I take exception to the notion that "No man comes to the Father but through me [Jesus Christ]," on the basis that there isn't enough information to verify the resurrection (and therefore no specific proof of Christ's divinity), I should feel at liberty to make that exception known. I grant that exception is probably different from offense, but I wonder if that difference is more in degree than in kind.

troy back aways you said

It could be proof to onesself, while not being proof to another. Each one of us lives in different realities. So what is proof to me may not be proof to you and vice versa.

The nice thing about God is he will know what each one of us will need to be proof, that is why we are not suppose to trust in the arm of man.

I think law should be reached by a debate with everyones perception of reality taken into account, mutually accepted by all parties involved. I think thats the only fair way.

"I grant that exception is probably different from offense, but I wonder if that difference is more in degree than in kind. ts the only fair way to do it I think. "

I'm not sure what you mean?

thelyamhound

Furthermore, do you not see that they might even take offense at the notion that your understanding of truth, verifiable ONLY by way of subjective intuitions, is somehow the ONLY basis for devising moral codes, and/or that their own understandings of truth are a flimsy basis for same?"

I can see why someone else could be offended, but other than based on what I believe how do I make a decision. Do I base my decision on what Troy believes?

Thats why I don't like the word "Only" as in my way is the only way...and why I think when it comes to law it should be based on EVERYONES understanding... Like in a democracy...I think you probably agree with that right?

Grandpastephen: The nice thing about God is he will know what each one of us will need to be proof, that is why we are not suppose to trust in the arm of man.

And yet you trust in the infallibility of the Bible, written by men, said (by men) to be inspired by God. At some point, to place faith in ANY assertion of truth, are you not offering trust to some insitution or other brought to us by man?

Troy: I think law should be reached by a debate with everyones perception of reality taken into account, mutually accepted by all parties involved. I think thats the only fair way.

Well, we do live in a democracy, and it appears to be preferable to other extant forms of governance, 'tis true. In the absence of objective values or understanding of truth, the best we can hope for might be the most inclusive confluence of subjective values and interests.

Some thoughts: The imperfection of majority rule is that majorities aren't unimpeachable--they may simply vote to enshrine their shared prejudices. That's why we enumerate such rights as the freedom of religion, or, if we go back to the Declaration of Independence, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness: to illustrate that there are certain basic human liberties with which even the majority cannot interfere. What's more, the 9th Amendment suggests that the people continue to reserve such rights beyond those enumerated.

Me: "I grant that exception is probably different from offense, but I wonder if that difference is more in degree than in kind. ts the only fair way to do it I think. "

Troy: I'm not sure what you mean?

I'm not sure I can simplify it further, but I'll try. Taking exception to an idea is a perfectly rational response, but if one's reaction is so strong that the emotional element of it overwhelms the rational, it becomes offense.

OK- I see what you mean. Sometime I have to read your post carefully, You have a much larger vocabulary than me! LOL! Even though I do read alot!
When discussing rational things one should try not to let personal emotion into the equation, but I guess that is human nature...

OK- I see what you mean. Sometime I have to read your post carefully, You have a much larger vocabulary than me! LOL! Even though I do read alot!
When discussing rational things one should try not to let personal emotion into the equation, but I guess that is human nature...

OK- I see what you mean. Sometime I have to read your post carefully, You have a much larger vocabulary than me! LOL! Even though I do read alot!
When discussing rational things one should try not to let personal emotion into the equation, but I guess that is human nature...

man...how the hell did I post that three times??? LOL!

Troy I got this idea from Charlie Courtois and changed it some to fit me

1. Belief starts by hearing an idea or the planting of a seed

2. Beliefs become faith when we act upon the idea and inquire of God if he is there and if the idea is true, the seed sprouts with the right conditions

3. Faith becomes a motivator by the Spirit's confirmation that the idea is true, the plant grow as we care for it.

4. Faith can become Knowledge as we change our live to conform to the truth we learn, that truth sets us free, the plant fruits and we can eat.

I am a farmer so I like to use plants as examples for a person.

I think if we try we with the Saviors help can get to that knowlege place.

When God gave a revelation to a man or women I suspect he had the ability to make sure they knew what he wanted said. The people reading what was said may or may not understand what was written depending on how well the understood things of God. When the scriptures where translated I again suspect that God had the ability to make sure the message he wanted known survived the translation. As far as I know there is no way to translate so that every word in the original has a word meaning the same thing in the new version? Of course you still have the original problem with the people reading the new version, do they understand the things of God enough to understand the new version?

D.D. Might you be assuming that this

One would think that the clearest and brightest mind in the universe, that of so-called God, would be intelligent enough to give a revelation clear and bright to the point where there would be no need for interpretation.

is a good thing? If this life is a test, maybe God did it the way he did for a reason?

But then the questions are, what is he testing, and for what reason? If scholarship were the difference between a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and an atheist (we'll narrow it down to those examples, but as you well know, there are many, many more), then we'd assume there'd be some plurality of all scholars on one side. If base intelligence were the matter, then there'd be a clear inductive or deductive winner. If intuitive reasoning were the guidepost, we'd all be Abrahamic anthropomorphic monotheists at birth (using your presuppositions as a given), and all other faith constructs would deviate from the intuitive in some incontrovertible way.

Don't get me wrong--I think there's much of value in the Abrahamic constructs. But when we posit that they aren't constructs, and that there are grave consequences for following any other construct, then there'd have to be some basis to which man has access that would serve to differentiate better theology from worse theology (with some possible degrees of error, of course). It's one thing if you believe that all religion is a path to the divine; it's quite another if you believe apostasy is a literal possibility. Christ's intonation that "No man comes to the Father but through me" seems to ask that we accept the latter. But I've yet to see anyone offer a reasoned case that the man ever uttered these words (assuming, arguendo, that he existed, and wasn't a composite based on several populist rabbis of the time, gussied up with messianic dressing taken from dubious Greek rewrites of Hebrew scripture).

I suppose all of this could boil down to the whole "us[ing] the foolish things of this world to confound the wise." That phrase is always the toughest to swallow though. If your God is made up (which isn't my assertion, btw), it sounds like a way of calling people fools for failing to see the emporer's clothes. If your God exists (which isn't my assertion, either), then it looks like we're being toyed with.

In other words, what skills is he testing? On what basis would he have us find for his existence? And if it is our "desire to obey" being measured, how does he treat the individual who chooses to "obey" the dictates of the Lotus Sutra, the Koran, even de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom?

I am sure you know I believe that we existed as spirits befor we where born, that we lived, learned and grew in the presence of God. We all develope differently, so the test will be different for each of us, some of us need no test, they often set the test for others, those that die early or are born handicaped. As far as the desire to obey, if a person does all they can with what they are given, God will know the truth of that, then that is how they will be judged. I hope that answers the question.

But you have a way of addressing the parts of my post that are easy,

I would say I address the part of your post that I think is most important

I know that when I say what is important to me that makes me sound very arrogant, that is not my intent, and I am sorry about that, I will try to be more complete in the future. Steve

What do we need the scriptures for if they are not indisputable and infallible and can be interpreted every which way (and have been)?

The only way that the scriptures would be indisputable is if God struck down anyone that tried to dispute them. If that happened everyone would obey the commandments, then the test would be of no value.

I ask again, what value do the scriptures have? How much of them are indisputable and infallible?

The scriptures are completely open to dispute, and if you dispute them you would believe they are not infallible. In fact I would go so far as to say without the spirit they have little worth.

is open to questioning as to some evidence of such a reality.

If God came down and wrote in flaming letters across the sky the scriptures are true, we would not need faith, and the test would be useless.

So basically what you are saying is that the scriptures can't be procalimed as a Truth, indisputalbe or infallible, but can only be accepted (or not) on faith alone, with which I would agree.

I am sure that there are truths that you hold dear, that if they were discussed that many would dispute with you that they were fairy dust. What it come down to is where is your love, do you love fun and pleasure, do you love learning and philosophy, do you love work and money or do you love finding the truth?

So basically what you are saying is that the scriptures can't be procalimed as a Truth, indisputalbe or infallible,

Can the space program (trip to the moon) be proclaimed as true, indisputable, fact?

Does anyone dispute the horrors of Germany's behavior in world war two?

What it come down to is where is your love, do you love fun and pleasure, do you love learning and philosophy, do you love work and money or do you love finding the truth?

What are learning and philosophy (along with science and empiricism) for, if not for finding the truth?

I am sure that there are truths that you hold dear, that if they were discussed that many would dispute with you that they were fairy dust.

For my part, perhaps. But then, none of those dearly held truths hold that failure to give them credence leads to hell.

You know I believe it is not my job to convert anyone, unless they want to know if the idea of God might be true, and if they are willing to listen to see if the spirit will answer there pray, no one will ever believe.

For my part, perhaps. But then, none of those dearly held truths hold that failure to give them credence leads to hell.

If you think there is even a chance that there might be a hell, it is worth some effort to investigate.

Grandpastephen: And given what I've put forth in these conversations, I'd venture to say I've investigated more than most Christians--that is to say, I've read the Bible, I've familiarized myself with the apologetic arguments, and I've researched alternative viewpoints.

I can't imagine what more your god could possibly expect of me, in terms of attempting to discern truth.

Well how much praying have you done, do you have any bad habits that the scriptures teach against, are you willing to change if you do get an answer. Please don't answer it is none of my business. Just something to think about

I grew up Catholic, so I did a lot of praying in those days. Now, I chant Gongyo twice daily, which is prayer in a Buddhist context. I realize that probably doesn't "count" to you, but it certainly illustrates that I seek metaphysical truth on a daily basis.

I do now engage in behaviors that scripture teaches against, because I've no reason to believe they're anything other than laws put forth by men claiming to speak for God. I evaluate my behaviors according to more modern Jewish principles, Buddhist principles, principles held forth in Spinozan pantheism, i.e., where morality is measured according to empirically demonstrable consequences and ethical discernment. During my time as a Catholic, I didn't engage in said activities, because I accepted--more or less--the definition of sin given to me.

But in the absence of belief IN THE DEITY ITSELF, on what basis would I avoid "habits" that the scriptures teaches against, barring those like murder and theft for which the consequence is observable to the sense?

As to whether I would change if I received some evidence of the existence of God . . . Well, of course. But he had around 15 years of my living as a tacit believer to make a case.

But he had around 15 years of my living as a tacit believer to make a case.

There is a difference between practicing religion, and living a religion. Most people thing they are living a religion when they are only practicing, (outward act, for friend and family, not from the heart). I am not saying this is the case for you, I don't know you. Just a random thought.

And yes, the space program (trip to the moon) can be proclaimed as true, indisputable, fact. I'm surprised that you would even suggest otherwise

There are people that dispute the trip to the moon, and I believe that a few of them are sincere

Yes I'm sure that some are sincere... ..... sincerely wrong and mis-informed.

The same can be said for those who do not believe in God.

Dominic this reply is to #25

Is this the meaning of prayer? Is this the goal of praying? Is it done to obtain some sort of favor, some sort of gift or present from God? Is God some sort of Santa Claus? So by being good and faithful, we may hope to get what we wished for (sorry; prayed for).

I have met many who believe this about prayer. I believe prayer is similar to when a child talks to his father, help me with this job, I need some advice about this problem. As the child grows the things ask change, an eight year old will not need help with their shoe laces, a sixteen year old will need help learning to drive a car. The goal is that at some point in time that child will be an adult. That is what pray is to me, I am talking to my FATHER in Heaven.