Does God exist?

[GEMINIGUY]

Darn it, another "Liz-isn't-hear-to-hear-this" gripe.
Noah was NOT a Jew, the Jews were the descendants of Jacob whom God changed his name to Israel.
Also, of course Noah COULD HAVE built an Ark. God gave him detailed instructions on how to build it and God also gave Noah a lot of time to build it.

End of [short] rant.

[Lois]

I would agree with that GB.

[GEMINIGUY]

Toe, belief and faith have nothing to do with selling stupid people bridges, lol If someone has enough faith in something, anything, you can't change his mind.
I will say if a person doesn't believe in God than than there's no point in discussing faith.

[Lostforkate]

As I see an interesting dialog assuming a link to intelligence and I religion. I do not think some intellectuals will ever understand, but I will try to explain it anyway.

People who are more prone to go with their gut, or learn experimentally are more open to believing in God. For “God” people, their faith is experientially viable. Meaning they live their faith, and they find joy and happiness within their faith and how they practice.

I know many very intelligent “God’ people. I know many that are highly educated.  Intelligence, and the process of learning will not always cause people to “unlearn” religion or faith, as some intellectuals would conclude.

Granted there are also many simply people, living a simple faith. Some may not score high in intelligence tests, but yet are people, and use their faith as a guiding principle and purpose for their existence.

I was not raised on religion, and went to public school, and was taught evolution, and believed these theories for origins. Since I have graduated, scientific conclusions and theories have shifted. The perceived shared link we have in our human ancestry tree with monkeys, continues to get pushed further down, and requires more and more years, which is needed, to make all this “origin” theory of evolution work. Many who believe science, when addressed with past scientific truths that are now false, will say something like “well science will eventually figure all these things, and even if mistakes are made, they will be corrected”, is a statement of faith itself.

From my experience, the faith and community of “God” people is authentic, and has purpose, and will always have purpose.  The negative misconceptions are just that, misconceptions. Some intellectuals will point out errors of religion past, and use that to put down a person’s belief are unfair assessments. Most faithful people I know do not fit the misconceptions of intellectuals.  It would like labeling the south as slave owners, because they were slave owners 200 years ago,

Concerning Truth, I agree with Toe’s post, "No single person, no body of opinion, no political doctrine, no religious doctrine can claim a monopoly on truth." But, that statement does not I am not going to search for Truth. At the proverbial end of the day, there is Truth, and is something should be strived for as a legitimate aim and goal.

Wars, factions, and fighting,' said Socrates as he looked forward from his last hour, 'have no other origin than this same body and its lusts ... We must set the soul free from it; we must behold things as they are. And having thus got rid of the foolishness of the body, we shall be pure and hold converse with the pure, and shall in our own selves have complete knowledge of the Incorruptible which is, I take it, no other than the very truth. (Socrates)

However, there is a science higher than natural science. For in truth nature is but one genus of that which is. It is the principles and causes of the things that are that we are seeking, and clearly it is their principles and causes just as things that are .... It is, however, vital not to overlook the question of what it is to be a thing and the definitional account of how it is what it is. If we leave these out, scientific inquiry is mere shadow boxing ... the science of it is First Philosophy - and such a science is universal just because it is first. (Aristotle)

To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. (Albert Einstein, The Merging of Spirit and Science)

[Katiebee]

It really boils down to a reaction against  Thise people who consistently insist that others believe as they do. Often with the insistence that failure to do so will result in marginal treatment or death if you do not.

Thus has it ever been, thus shall it ever be.

. 

[MissBarbara]

It really boils down to a reaction against the people who consistently insist that others believe as they do. Often with the insistence that failure to do so will result in marginal treatment or death if you do not.

Thus has it ever been, thus shall it ever be.

That's true...but it's not.

It's perfectly true that history is riddled with examples of religion or religious beliefs being forced upon a given group, even including punishment by marginalization or death for refusal to acquiesce.

But history is also riddled with examples of non-religious beliefs being forced upon a given group, even including punishment by marginalization or death for refusal to acquiesce.

And, perhaps more to the point, in the U.S. today, the mere expression of religious belief is, in many circles, met with a metaphorical reaction, with those who believe in God or actively practice religion being met with ridicule, mockery, condescension, and condemnation. There are many examples of this in this very thread. And I've personally seen examples of this in my professional life.

And I would agree with your definition of "a reaction against the people who consistently insist that others believe as they do," if this objection were limited to that specific group, and not extended to all believers, or all who practice religion. And, again, there are sufficient examples in this thread that show that objection is not so limited.

Then again, I've never lived in Texas...

[Lois]

[Katiebee]

It always seems to me, that those Christians who are the most vocal in expressing their beliefs, who are the loudest in proclaiming their orthodoxy, who insist that theirs is the one true religion and insist on shoving their beliefs on everyone else, are the ones most insecure in their beliefs and need the justification and validation of myriads of other people.

That isn't belief.

It's Facebook.

[Lois]

It is important to note that not all Christians are vile right wing hate-mongers though.  Unfortunately it is the hate-mongers that are giving all Christians a bad name.

[Katiebee]

One major logical flaw in all monotheistic religions is the view that God is the origin of all things good. They then rush to find his antithesis, like Satan.

This begs the question.

God is the only Deity, he is all powerful and made everything.

The corollary is that all evil also comes from God.

And Satan is either not really a power, or a Deity.

However, the religious bureaucracies manufacture an opposing deity, mainly because monotheism arises out of polytheism and there has to be a way to defeat the other Gods.

[MissBarbara]

One major logical flaw in all monotheistic religions is the view that God is the origin of all things good. They then rush to find his antithesis, like Satan.

Monotheistic religions -- at least the ones I'm familiar with, including the one I practice -- do not believe that God is the origin of all things good. They believe that God is the origin of all things.

[Katiebee]

Ah, but you seem to have rather saner people talking to you about your religion.

My generalization was taken from a previous statement. And even if you take your precept, my statements are still true insomuch as they address the nature of a One God, and finding the need for at least a second Deity to oppose the One God.

In Christianity's case, the waters are muddied further by the trinity, which has its roots in polytheism, while trying to explain Christ.

A god with three natures is still polytheism in practice.

[Lostforkate]

Christianity does not see Satan as a Deity, nor equivalent to God, or meant to oppose God.

The origin of Satan in Christianity is linked to rebellion to God, not simply opposition, or a need for opposition.

Rebellion is a choice.

Concerning the trinity, it is how God is manifested to man. The trinity is of one mind, and that is why Chritianity is monotheistic. Polytheism is multiple Gods, with different agendas.

[Katiebee]

Dogma is one thing. How the religion is viewed and invoked by your laity is another.

From a purely anthropological view, with few exceptions, most Christian sects have devolved into polytheism.

The requirement is either for smarter theologians, or smarter laity.

In practice most Christian sects have multiple deities to pray to.

In practice, any entity prayed to has some aspect of godhead. If they don't then prayers are not directed toward them.

Again, this is from the anthropological viewpoint. Comparative religion is a bitch.

[MissBarbara]

Ah, but you seem to have rather saner people talking to you about your religion.

Not really, these are things I've discovered about my religion, and other monotheistic religions, all by myself.

I understand your situation down there in Texas, believe me. And I likely couldn't bear living there amongst "them."

But your insistence on viewing these religions through the prism of politics, hierarchy, and dogma/doctrine -- and determinism -- blinds you to the organic aspects of monotheism in general, and Christianity in particular.

My generalization was taken from a previous statement. And even if you take your precept, my statements are still true insomuch as they address the nature of a One God, and finding the need for at least a second Deity to oppose the One God.

Not really. You've single-handedly created this second "anti-deity" (or whatever you want to call lit). The Catholic Church condemned this Manichean dualism about 1,700 years ago.

And Satan is not a "God" (or a "god'). In Christian teaching (and not necessarily Milton), he was one of God's highest creations, an angel, who fell after, by exercising his free will, to oppose God.

In Christianity's case, the waters are muddied further by the trinity, which has its roots in polytheism, while trying to explain Christ.

A god with three natures is still polytheism in practice.

You are completely wrong. The trinity is one God with ONE nature, in three persons. The distinction between person and nature lies at the core of understanding Christianity. And Christ is one person with two natures, divine and human. You might be well served by seeking greater understanding of these topics.

[Lostforkate]

I can see why one would observe polytheism if one observes solely the customs and practices.

If you truly want to understand why Christians view their faith as monotheistic, you need listen to their explanations, and try understand their beliefs and experience, which can be tough to observe from a scientific perspective.

The roots of Christianity are from Judaism, which among religions practiced from about 4000 bce, to the time of Christ, was unique in it monotheistic view. When others where worshiping idols, or other gods, the Hebrews were seeking a relationship with one God.

When you say Christianity's roots come from polytheism, do mean a mimicking of European pagan practices and symbols seeping into the traditions practiced today by many Christians?

Are you suggesting Judaism is rooted in a different polytheistic religion?

In a way, anthrology will provide good suggestions and scientific guesses, but will not always provide the truth.

Dogma is one thing. How the religion is viewed and invoked by your laity is another.

From a purely anthropological view, with few exceptions, most Christian sects have devolved into polytheism.

...

Again, this is from the anthropological viewpoint. Comparative religion is a bitch.

[Katiebee]

Judaism did not spring fully formed as a monotheistic religion. It's roots from the area were more likely a development from an older set of religious beliefs.

[Katiebee]

I have to reveal that I was raised in one of the more extreme Christian sects. And they held no truck with multiple facets of God. They held that there was one, no facets. Tha Christ was a man envies with the sport of God.

[Lostforkate]

I hold a dipensational view, to quickly summarize; unchanging God but a changing method in how the relationship with his/her followers changes as the culture advances. Very convenient, some would say too convenient.

I find the biblical reference to Melchizedek interesting. Many theologians call it a christophany. I sometimes wonder if it was a reference to a pre-abrahamic faith/religion.

I also share a minority view that story of Job, is much older than Abraham, and could come from a prior faith/religion, or maybe even borrowed.

So I feel your statement is valid, but I wish there was more evidence going back that far. Very few structures, texts, scultpures or painting would exist to provide a solid explanation.

Judaism did not spring fully formed as a monotheistic religion. It's roots from the area were more likely a development from an older set of religious beliefs.

[Katiebee]

Mesopotamia was very prolific. The myths that arose there are also repeated in different form in the bible.