MAGA Doctrine - God Installed Our Leaders
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Apostle Paul describes how God establishes the rulers of the nations. In the audience right now, there are rulers of our land. represented right here is the state department, the department of war, the department of justice, the chief executive.
God has instituted them. God has given them power over our nation and our land. God saved our president, President Trump, from an assassin's bullet for this moment. [Applause]
Far right MAGA influencer Benny Johnson , speaking at Charlie Kirk funeral
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Then God also gave the same power to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Merrick Garland, James Comey, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Milley, Lloyd Austin, etc etc etc.
Such an obvious truth never seems to occur to our MAGA friends.
Although I don't consider myself MAGA, I have pointed this out many times in the past. I've also pointed out that although God establishes authorities, it doesn't follow that God approves of whatever those authorities do. There are many examples in the Bible where people went against that authority because what it was doing went against God's laws. For instance, God himself said He installed Pharaoh to his position, yet when he commanded the deaths of all newborn Hebrew males, the midwives disobeyed and God commended them for it. When Israel's first king, Saul, tried to kill David because of jealousy and paranoia, many disobeyed the king and aided David.
Point being, just because God established certain people as authorities doesn't mean these people are necessarily godly servants. God sometimes installs them because it will result in something down the road that will serve His plans. That is why what this Benny Johnson guy is saying is dangerous. Yes, God appointed Trump. He also installed every other president. No one with a working brain is going to claim that each and every one of them were doing God's will at the time. Pharaoh led his country into ruin, after all. Caiaphas was High Priest over Israel and he condemned Jesus, God's Son, to death.
Point is, people who make this claim should be very careful in how they apply it.
God establishing authorities flies in the face of free will.
The notion that God establishes authorities comes from the Bible — the writings of ancient men.
This is a rationalization to deal with yet another area where the Bible is at odds with common sense and reality.
IMO, people should never make claims such as these. There is no evidence that this claim has any truth to it whatsoever and plenty of logical arguments as to why it is almost certainly not true.
If God installs presidents why do we need to vote ?
I think the idea that God chooses earthly leaders is a matter of faith, and in general the belief doesnt bother me. But if God chose Trump, he also chose Joe Biden, and He wouldnt have chose Joe Biden knowing Biden was a senile old fool. I think Benny Johnson would like to have it both ways.
In a sense you are making the same argument as Malcolm Muggeridge being that if Stalin sent a man to the Gulag and that fellow found God, then Stalin was God's agent.
Not just in a sense. That is literally how God sees it. He called Pharaoh "His servant", for example, as well as others. That doesn't mean what Stalin did was approved by or sanctioned by God. Communism, especially Stalin's brand, was so opposed to God that I think the main reason installed Stalin was to make the point that man cannot replace God. The Marxists wanted to elevate themselves to godhood by taking God's place and Stalin was God's answer. That's my opinion and God may have had some other reason, but it seems like a likely reason.
“Stalin was God's answer.”
A rather bleak assessment of ‘God’s’ caring for his children. Millions dead to convince his followers that they should be reminded what carnage awaits if they don’t follow him? No, thank you.
It has to be a matter of faith given there is no evidence that this is anything other than another fictional invention.
Well, Drakk did explain this. Basically, sometimes God works in mysterious ways. To wit, God might have a reason to pick a buffoon like Trump, and we are not smart enough to understand divine reasoning.
I lack the hubris to say how God sees anything and I'm as secular as they come.
That is the strict interpretation of the doctrine, yes.
Why?
Yes.
Not necessarily.
If God knows the future and intentionally put Stalin in place, then He did sanction / approve of his actions. One might argue that Stalin was a 'necessary' means to a divine end, but if one is going to stick with the Bible then there is no way to claim that the buck does not stop with the omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything.
Because if God picks our leaders then we do NOT pick our leaders. So what, in the case of the USA, is taking place when we vote? Has God influenced our minds to vote to ensure Trump would win, did God rig the election, ...? In the most basic sense, making a choice to vote for (or not) a politician is an expression of free will. If the voters did not democratically elect Trump and he was somehow 'elected' by God, how do you see that as being consistent with free will?
You could also say that about a political assassination.
Yes.
People could (and do) apply this to any situation. This is the catch-all excuse to explain that which cannot be explained ... to justify a claim that cannot be justified.
It isn't hubris. In the Bible, God literally calls people like Pharaoh His servant. Pharaoh wasn't the only enemy of Israel that God called a servant. Why would God call them His servant if He did not see them as such?
Which has been exactly the situation for the vast majority of human beings throughout history, including most of the world today. That doesn't mean those people don't have control over their decisions.
More or less. They would talk about "hearts" instead of "minds", but yeah. The idea being that God has swayed the hearts of enough people to either change their vote to Trump or get out and vote for him when they were not planning to.
As John says, they will absolutely ignore and/or deny that this means Biden was elected the same way.
There are more moving parts than that. They're not saying God influenced your vote specifically. It's always some other vague, unnamed set of people they don't necessarily know.
Think of it like this.... they think God influences people's votes the same way liberals thing Fox News influences people's votes.
Easy for any preachy believer with faith to say and also the very moment I stop listening.
And you do not see this as God mitigating free will?? God wants Trump so He uses divine influence to ensure He gets what He wants.
Seems like herding cattle rather than free will.
How could a mere human being be freely voting for Trump if their vote was determined by divine influence?
Theoretically faith is a wormhole of unified conflicts in which Schrödinger's cat is neither dead nor alive.
Religious faith does seem to have methods of bypassing sound reasoning to achieve an end belief.
Of course not. The concept isn't binary.
Because there are varying degrees of influence.
Of course, your cliche once again.
Saying the concept is not binary does not answer the question.
Another non answer. You claim that God is influencing people to vote for Trump. This is not Fox News talking heads trying to persuade viewers; this is the omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything programming the minds of people so that they do His bidding. It does not matter how He does it, the point is that the giver of free will (ostensibly) is selectively undoing free will.
If God can manipulate minds to do His bidding in this case, then He logically could/would do it in other cases. And in every case this is mitigating free will by definition.
Most conservative Christians, especially the Christian dominionists like Kirk and many MAGA faithful, consider their faith to be in a "superposition". It's why you can't simply reason with them using logic, their superposition faith can be all things in all places at all times and is always right regardless of evidence that contradicts it. The same can be said of Islam. In fact, both groups seem to take pride in believing things without evidence or contrary to evidence and claim their belief without evidence is simply proof of their faith.
This is exactly what we need to convince the MAGA gang of.
It has only become cliche because you force its use so frequently.
Of course it does. You just don't like the answer.
I claim no such thing. Follow along. I am explaining to you what other people believe.
Again, I've said no such thing. You made that up on your own. At least the parts you didn't steal from John Calvin.
It is interesting, however, that you appear to suggest that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything is somehow incapable of restraint.
No it is a lame tactic you use to skirt the point with the excuse that I have issued a post that did not enumerate all the possibilities but instead (as is usual on a post) state the major categorical options. It is a pathetic little game you play.
And the usual 'but, but, ... I did not say that'.
Then don't answer my question with language that presents their beliefs as if this were the answer. I asked you a question, and you (claim to) deliver the beliefs of others.
I did not claim that you said that; I presented an analogy (and you of course know that). Another lame tactic to avoid dealing with the question.
From what language of mine do you come up with this irrelevant view?
This is the question I asked you:
TiG@1.1.20 ☞ How could a mere human being be freely voting for Trump if their vote was determined by divine influence?
By which you mean "refuse to define the topic in a narrow-minded, binary way".
The entire conversation has been an explanation to you about how these hard-line evangelicals view these statements. I invite you to reread the discussion and regain the proper perspective.
I will use whatever language I choose. Especially in light of recent events, I am utterly uninterested in changing anything I say to mollify some narrow-minded angry liberal. I presumed you held the intellectual capability to follow the conversation and differentiate between a person reporting views and a person who holds those views. That's how college works, BTW. You did go to college, yes?
We have another established pattern here, where your frustration with your inability to "win" a conversation produces the phrase "lame tactic". Usually this happens when you think your binary thought process has someone trapped, but then they point out something obvious that you hadn't considered.
Do you read your own posts? How about "programming the minds"? And it's only irrelevant because you don't want to entertain possibilities that might make you think differently.
You are so focused on whether or not God can influence people you haven't considered how he might do so.
You seem to have missed the first reference, but you have arrived at one of the perplexities of a theology known as "Calvinism", which is the foundation of the modern Presbyterian Church.
Evangelicals (Presbyterians are not generally considered evangelical) would argue that the influence works much the same way listening to the Jan 6 committee hearings changed your view of Donald Trump. Was that your decision or were you "programmed"?
It's the same way Charlie Kirk's assassination has sent millions of people to church for the first time. Do you suggest they don't have the free will to stay home?
Why would the all-powerful God not have the ability to simply cause people to come in contact with others who might or might not sway their opinion? Why would He not have the ability to modify an Instagram or Facebook feed?
Why would He lack the ability to introduce something into someone's life that might cause them to rethink their previously held ideas without forcibly "reprogramming" them?
To add to the lengthy list of obvious points you're missing, you don't seem to have made the connection that even if God did influence people to vote for Trump, he could very well have done so as punishment. There is extensive biblical precedent.
Then your argument is that God isn't actively using any "divine" power to change hearts and minds. You're arguing that those who worship it preach to others as to what they believe are the facts and some minds may be changed to believe them after the presentation of those facts. But if that is the case, then the exact same "power" is used by atheists who present what they believe are the facts and some minds may be changed to not believe in God after the presentation of those facts.
Ahh! So now your argument is that it's God's power in steering those he knows will be receptive to those who carry his message. Do you have even an iota of evidence for this? Because again, the same could be said for those who meet an atheist and choose to listen and have their "hearts and minds" opened to the belief that there is no God. Oh, I forgot, Christians tend to chalk that up to Satan because anything and anyone that doesn't conform to their religious doctrine and bow to their God must be evil incarnate!
And this is why it's almost impossible to have a rational debate with a believer. If the starting position is "My God can do anything regardless of logic" then why even bother to debate how it could "change minds and hearts". And saying that he changed them to vote for Trump to perhaps punish them is just jumping down the bottomless pit of endless unprovable conjecture. I could do the same for any religion if you let me borrow your magic wand for a moment. "Poof! God is a magic rabbit that lives in an invisible indestructible sack in the center of the sun and only comes out to feed once every four million years! Now prove me wrong!". I mean, what really is the point of any debate if one side demands to be allowed to use unlimited fantasy as a supposed foundation for their argument? We might as well be debating who would win in a fight between Gandalf and Darth Vader.
That's going to depend very much on what you consider divine power. Again, I would ask why it makes sense that an omnipotent God would lack the power of subtle suggestion?
Again, you are basing this of an incredibly narrowly defined definition of "divine power".
Why wouldn't that be a possibility?
None at all.
Probably. It doesn't seem likely God would actively intervene to entice someone away from belief.
That's the Church of Liberal Politics.
Or indeed a member of the Church of Liberal Politics.
But this isn't a debate. It's an explanation of how very religious people think.
They think one way, you think another. It's really that simple. Why is that difficult to understand?
As I noted, there is a major difference between an omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything 'influencing' minds to achieve His end and the ordinary influences of mere human beings (I used Fox News as the example). Human beings are extremely limited (compared to the god in question) so the word 'influence' is appropriate for what a human being can accomplish. When we talk about God 'influencing' human beings to achieve an end this is the entity that ostensibly created free will using unfathomable power to get mere human beings to act as He desires. Divine power compared to the persuasion of talking heads is a ridiculous comparison.
Comparing divine power to human rhetoric is laughable. So when you posit that God picks a leader and executes on his pick by causing voters to vote as He desires, it is a bit silly to claim that this divine coercion is not mitigating their free will.
I had already noted that. You are deflecting from the question of God picking leaders and using divine power to cause voters to elect His choice.
Why? What would stop an omnipotent God from choosing to influence (or not) in any way He desires at whatever level He desires?
Nothing would stop an omnipotent God from doing anything He desires. Your question is a non-sequitur.
TiG @1.1.20 ☞ How could a mere human being be freely voting for Trump if their vote was determined by divine influence?
What would stop an omnipotent God from diddling children in their sleep in any way He desires at whatever level He desires? I guess the answer would be only the imagination of the believer because God is apparently whatever its believers want it to be, aka the "superposition" of Schoedinger's cat. It can be ultimate evil and also ultimate good at exactly the same time. It can influence or not influence, it can reward, it can punish, it can do anything other than empirically prove it exists.
One might logically question why such a being wants to remain hidden and only reveals itself to those it wants to but never in a way the believer can prove. Oh, I forgot, that's because he doesn't actually want 'everyone' to believe in him, only those "prime" white conservative Christian specimens are desired by white Jesus apparently.
"Mysterious ways" always seems to be a cop out answer to anything God related, but not fully explained or understood. It's lazy thinking along the same lines of "God did it."
It is a catch-all response when the honest answer is "I do not know".
Know what else is mysterious? When someone who doesn't believe God exists, but at least should be able to grasp the concept, mocks the concept that God would not always act in ways we understand. It's as if the atheist could not imagine someone having an intellect, a consciousness or a mind they could not grasp.
That seems the bigger mystery to me
What's really mysterious is how someone can believe there is a God but have no evidence or proof of it, then fails to grasp why some would not accept assertions for a god. Not to mention some seem to believe they know what God thinks, wants, says, ect., as if they're bffs or something.
Indeed. They want to pretend to know when they know nothing.
The objection is not that a believer must be able to explain everything that God does. The objection is responding to a logical challenge with a general fallback ("mystery") to dismiss the challenge. The inability to logically support a belief is why some are not persuaded that the belief is true.
Those who believe cannot explain and those who don't will likely never be convicted
Faith is not something that should be debated
Some people believe on faith that homosexuals should be murdered.
Too bad if you think that faith is immune to scrutiny.
Why not? What makes faith exempt from challenge, especially if some people act on faith?
What good is faith if it's not debated, tested, stretched and contested?
It's simply another way to say "I don't know".
This comment puts personal bias on display. Romans 8:31 "What then shall we say for these things? If God is for us who can be against us?" A "senile old fool" can not be FOR us in the realm of the Spirit as God would have seen senility as a deficit and not let it happen.
Technically, God sees every living being on Earth and possibly inert objects too as "servants."
Any examples in this thread?
I would like to suggest to you that God is neither liberal or conservative and going deeper. . . humans are neither angels or demons! Of course that is NOT what you wrote, and "add-on."
I think you've misread it.
That's not how that works. The Bible is utterly replete with stories of God using unqualified, weak, incapable people to accomplish His work.
He sent a stutterer to argue before Pharoah (Moses). He sent a coward with 300 incompetents to destroy 100k Midianites (Gideon). He sent a boy to defeat a giant (David). He sent a racist to save the very people he was racist against (Jonah). He sent a persecutor of Christians to start Christian churches (Paul).
That list goes on and on. There is zero reason to expect that God would have refused to use Joe Biden because of his senility.
Not sure why you would think I need that clarification, but fine.
Some atheists think that Conservatives and ICE Agents should be murdered.
And you say?
Faith by definition is a belief in something that cannot even be seen.
You don't see me demanding that people who believe in nothing but themselves to explain it.
Show us in the Bible where one of the prophets or kings with senility Bible 'worked' as a SERVANT of God. Please proceed. . . .
Who's making affirmative claims of believing in themselves? "Belief" in oneself might have more to do with ego. Believe whatever you want. But when one tries to posit belief as if it were fact, then one should expect to be called out on it. Faith/belief by definition is also irrational.
Who is saying that exactly?
I am pretty sure if God was influencing U.S. political parties neither of the major two parties would be as "jacked-up" as they both appear to be.
It is also a way of avoiding acknowledgement of the logical contradiction / flaw in reasoning.
No. You touched on it @1.1.6 (which likely was the trigger for that part of the discussion) but your comment was not part of the classical exchange that I was referring to:
You gave your reasons (what you think God was thinking) and then ended with acknowledgement that God might have other reasons (covering the bases with the notion that God may have reasons that are beyond human understanding). The latter portion ties into the mysterious ways claim.
Wondering where you get your definitions from, then
Why would you ask such a stupid question?
Personally, I hold that violence is never the right choice to push social/political goals or because someone holds positions that offend you. Violence is only appropriate when there is no other choice e.g. self-defense.
Read Daniel, chapter 4.
Why would you think that?
Doesn't God work in dark times?
You're assuming they care at all about your logic. They don't. The whole point of a spiritual life is that it extends beyond the physical.
"God works in mysterious ways" is more polite than telling you they don't give a fuck and they're not interested in arguing with you about it.
Replace "faith/belief" with wishful thinking. Same difference. Its more emotional than rational.
What I assume is that they do not have a strong rebuttal. Whether or not they care about 'my' logic is not relevant.
I do hold they do not want to argue about it ... because they do not have a good rebuttal.
Given God is arguably the single most important notion to religious people, I think they do indeed "give a fuck".
Actually, I did not intend to imply that, if God did not install Stalin for the reason I suggested, God must have been working in a way we can't comprehend. I meant only that He may have had a perfectly understandable reason for Stalin other than the one I suggested.
In other words, not knowing the reason may make it a mystery, but that would not be "responding to a logical challenge with a general fallback ("mystery") to dismiss the challenge", as you put it. One can hardly expect someone to know why someone else did something without that someone else explaining their actions.
That is, unless "God works in mysterious ways" means something else to you than it does me.
For instance, mysterious way would be something like how does God exist without any physical aspect whatsoever?
Not knowing why He put Stalin in power, on the other hand, may constitute a mystery, but it isn't mysterious. It's just a lack of information.
And many conservatives not only think that atheists and non-believers should be murdered, they're actively waiting for and praying for their deity to come and murder them. I think the number of religious conservatives' death wishing liberals is FAR higher than any supposed groups of atheists doing the same towards conservatives. But, I guess it's hard to see for conservatives that are so deeply entrenched in that group to even see how monumentally hypocritical they really are. Also, most people with more than half a brain know conservatives don't really give a fuck because they believe their God will come and prove them right by killing those they see as enemies, so they won't have to be just a sad little ignorant religious bigot death wishing those who disagree with them.
Oh. You meant by your definition. Got it
Did King Nebuchadnezzar suffer from senility or madness? Also, King Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged and gave God glory due Spirit. The book of Daniel does not mention any 'work' done or request for 'work' by God performed by divine request. Yes, he was humbled. And that is interesting in itself.
Aside (advice for our 'wannabe king'): Daniel 4:27 New American Standard Bible
Finally, why criticize and MOCK a servant of God, anyway? (If you truly believe it to be so.)
I think you misread my comment.
God is Perfect and humankind is imperfect. Thus, if/when God influences any political party/ites. . . that party or parties, would not be 'jacked up' - unless you wish to suggest God can fail, that is.
By reality.
I will take this opportunity to tell everyone, especially our conservative 'family' on NT, that murder and deathwishing is a form of HATRED. And, hatred is a FEELING. So when they do 'it'. . .they are not being true to their claim of being OBJECTIVE.
Yes. You can read all about it in Daniel.
Why would we think he is a servant of God? Regardless, my pastor is a servant of God, and he and I make fun of each other all the time.
Why would you think that? God influenced all kinds of things that humans managed to mess up. Also, if God is influencing a person or group of people, then he is by default influencing the activities in which they participate.
No. Senility and Madness (especially temporarily onset of) are not the same thing! Futhermore, we are not talking about an 'unknown' (with no renown) and 'unproven' pastor.
They're not interested in discussing faith with a person whose only interest in the conversation is derision toward people of faith. It's much easier to give you a meaningless platitude and walk away.
About God, yes. About arguing with you, no.
And of course, there you go with the personal crap. My family and friends are almost entirely religious. My best friend of 30 years is religious. My conversations are not about insulting or demeaning believers, but rather about the thought process behind believing in things that have no evidence.
I of course understand how an individual will be insulted when his/her belief system is a topic of debate. Religion is an emotional topic. You are conflating challenges of religious belief and on the Bible, Qur'an. etc. with personally demeaning a believer.
Seems you cannot engage without going personal.
My question that you have evaded:
... does not even speak about believers but rather the logic of a particular belief.
Well okay, nice dodge. It is not my 'job' to persuade you or argue 'endlessly' for argument sake. The operative words in my comment: "Jacked up" - 4. Morally repugnant or objectionable; awful.
Now, if you truly think God can abide with that definition we can stop this exchange here and now.
You are not being reasonable to understand in a discussion with a fellow believer, as I have given you a point or several in this discussion about our religion, our God from our bible (if it is so) and you choose to divert and distract with trivialities. For example, King Nebuchadnezzar is not described in any bible that I know of as senile. . . he suffered temporary madness and then resumed his leadership role accordingly afterwards. You won't even acknowledge that, though it is biblical.
How can you persuade others when pride won't permit you to state what you plainly read in our holy book? Do realize that unbeliever are reading on this forum and all that implies regarding people such as 'us.'
Truth be told, they often don't even wait for a meaningless platitude. They just insert it themselves, like the "God works in mysterious ways" accusation. They applied that little gem, not anyone else.
I understand what is meant by "God works in mysterious ways." That said, I would never ever consider the 'mystery' of Christian nationalism. How is it even reasonable or practical that a people under the love of Jesus would ever imagine they should immerse themselves into thinking God/Jesus/Spirit would consider the United States, "New Jerusalem" or 'copy' of New Jerusalem?
It is a cruel joke/delusion these believers are playing on themselves. Making 'actions/maneuvers' on scale in the world to invoke Jesus' return? When did it ever creak into the mind of a 'child of God' that they could 'wag the God'?!!! What dangerous ground these folks are treading!
You seem to be pretending this is not a common response when a religious question does not have a good answer. Non-believers did not invent the retort 'God works in mysterious ways'. And further, those words simply represent a condition where someone cannot address a challenging question. Those exact words are not always spoken or written.
Do you hold that there are no questions about God's intent that you cannot answer and logically defend? (It would be remarkable indeed if a human being could do so.) One can always invent something (e.g. you are taking the passage out of context; that is not what those words mean; that is not to be taken literally, etc.) But surely you acknowledge that there are thorny questions that believers are still struggling to offer a clear persuasive answer. For example:
These are just three of the questions (I had more but deleted them for brevity) where one would not expect any human being to be able to answer with any level of credibility. They illustrate areas where people would naturally doubt the validity of Christian theology.
And, of course, at the core we have the Bible (at least for Christians) studied by biblical scholars who have chronicled the many contradictions, logical mistakes, and inaccuracies. Yet the Bible is taken to be the divine Word of a perfect God. And for those areas that do not hold up to scrutiny, great theological minds have devised all sorts of conceptual mechanisms to soften the fact that one cannot merely read the Bible and get THE accurate meaning of God's words. The 'true' meaning always must come from some human being —some authoritative source— and these sources tend not to agree. So we are left with nothing close to a reliable meaning for the word of God.
Some meaningless platitude.
Bottom line, there are profound questions that illustrate that the religious views of gods (in almost every religion) are contradictory and unfounded. Human beings can weave all sorts of conceptual mechanisms to try to patch / sidestep the holes but these are obvious and not persuasive.
Given nobody really knows God (or that one exists), it seems to me that the most rational belief would be one that makes as few assumptions as possible.
To wit, I suggest that it is more rational to believe in a sentient creator (full stop) than to believe in any of the highly attributed gods of religions.
Finally, defining God as that which enabled the existence of the universe (full stop) eliminates all assumptions.
The problem is that definition would kill religions, and we all understand that religion is a 'living' thing. . . which evidently has a 'survival instinct.'
You can't hide from your posts. You have less than zero interest in any sort of open minded discussion about faith.
I have answered it repeatedly. You just don't like the answer.
*eyeroll*
Do you believe David was morally repugnant and awful when he ordered Uriah's men to stand him on the battlefield so nobody would realize Bathsheba's child was fathered by someone other than her husband?
Let me help you... yes. He was. Emphatically morally repugnant. And awful.And yet God preserved him and he returned to his reign.
Do you think Jonah was morally repugnant and awful when he fled in fear and hatred instead of following the command to go save Ninevah? Let me help you... yes. He was. Emphatically morally repugnant. And awful. And yet God saved him because God had a use for him.
How many reminders do you need that God uses the imperfect? However many that is, your Bible is full of them.
I do not need to. What I need do is call out your false claims. You clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to my motivations or positions on religion, so you are making shit up.
Another lie. With the cliche bullshit of 'I already answered'.
It would be very helpful if you were more clear when you post.
Yes. You are the one who wants to pretend there is some difference between one loss of mental faculty and another. Describe that however it makes you happy. The point remains that neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Joe Biden were mentally fit for the task at hand.
The same way they convinced themselves it was God's will that they go kill Muslims in the Holy Land in the 11th century. The same way they convinced themselves they could stand between Copernicus and God. The same way they believed that torturing witches to death was God's will.
People get it wrong. That's nothing new. Almost all of the Pauline Epistles address a group of people getting it wrong. I don't understand how this surprises any believer.
Of course, God uses the morally repugnant. . . the issue for you is this: I am not laboring with you over imperfect and 'decrepit' men. . .but the purity and clarity of the God who grants RIGHTEOUSNESS to imperfect beings. By our very nature we are are not pure. . . for flesh and blood can not 'stand' in the presence of God -it is vanquished!
Stop with the biblical 'recitals' -because I assure you I have read and continue to read the book 'cover to cover' each and every year (including this one).
And take ownership of your own spiritual understanding already! Our bible is INCLUSIVE of yours too since you dare to 'teach' me out of it!
This is not a good LOOK! We are striving over the written Word-where agreement is the order of the day.
One last time I will ask you as a fellow believer to clarify this point: Was King Nebuchadnezzar temporarily Mad or senile?
Depending on your answer I will or will not 'trouble' you again on this matter! My time is a 'precious' commodity to me these days!
I am not so sure. What I described is very close to Pantheism (a bit more abstract).
And if we allow the assumption that God is sentient, then what I offered is essentially Deism.
Many (maybe a third) of my religious friends and family believe in a God and life after death, but largely disregard the balance of religious claims. Seems to me that belief in a sentient creator constitutes a religion even if bare bones.
Regardless, if people can believe in a creator (sentient or not) why do we need religion? That is, what value does it serve to have human beings make up attributes, behavior, and stories about 'God' and devise all sorts of rituals as customs when clearly the only way they would be correct is by amazing luck?
Oh hell no. I will use them as needed when needed.
It would be really helpful if you made more sense when you post.
Why would it not be a "good look"? Two believers talking about how we see the scripture from different angles and reminding each other of alternative perspectives? Why would there be anything wrong with that?
Why would it matter?
The issue: Any references to God not 'anchored' in a living Entity that expresses Itself would leave faith void. Religions would be structure-less. Also, religions argue that God (and Gods) have laid the foundation for the belief system through human 'agents' (prophets and apostles). . . if that 'washed out' then what would be the correct role and value of pastors and teachers?
The faith and its faithful would crumble.
Separate from the above which I can 'enter into' without being overly concern for my belief system; I think my faith system should be able to accept its limitations even as it 'rules' in the heart of believers in it! That is, I will not run from 'questioning' my faith, my God, my 'whereabouts' within it. I am willing to 'engage' as all can see.
The point is King Nebuchadnezzar was warned and punished for an affront to God, biblically-speaking. Joe Biden has NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY OR MEDICALLY SENILE as the GOP's talking point goes.
Thus, it is disingenuous of a believer to go around spreading false statements (misinfomation/disinformation/lies) about the man without a proper review of medical documentation. HIPPA makes it so that neither I or you can assume (evidence) or presume (probability) anything medically about anybody!
The problem with these deceptively long 'distractions' if the original idea is overshadowed and in danger of being lost.
If religions stayed true to what is known and not invent attributes, etc. then everyone would be able to understand the religion and not be required to listen to the interpretation of a higher human authority. The religion, per se, could extend the basic belief (e.g. a sentient creator but nothing else) with honestly claimed human philosophy. The religious leaders could focus on morality, ethics, etc. That is, they could focus on the good that good, honest men/women of faith bring to society in terms of helping guide/comfort people. They certainly could play a valuable role ... but the faith portion would be minimal.
The problem I would offer if religions were to disappear is that they do bring comfort. None of us want to accept death as final. It is very comforting to hold hope that there is an afterlife and we will be able to again see our loved ones. So, I get that.
My late father-in-law was a lifelong devout Catholic. His faith was very important to him and it clearly brought him comfort. Never would I even consider trying to put doubt in his mind. (And he lived with us his last 5 years of life.) His religious views were private and he never tried to impose his views on others. In short, the benefit was to him alone with no downside. Even though I am confident that his beliefs were not true, there was value in him holding those beliefs.
I agree with 'the Obvious.' I do not wish to give you 'words' so I will ask you directly: Do you thing Christian Nationalism and its attempt to sweep over the country is wrong?
You will have to figure 'all' the implications of that comment on your own.
That said, "Welcome, brother! That comes from my heart!"
Our faith teaches us about 'other realms' of higher beings, even gives 'them' broad identities. Yet, not many people have seen so much as a space being; definitely no 'sit-down' with a single Angel or Demon. Hollywood products that span all our lifetimes with imaging we were raised into 'breathing life into' recognized for what it is and what it 'accomplished' in our psyches.
Your 'quest' for us is human morality rooted in us. Faith contenders strive to keep God's morality—what they are told, directed, trained to belief by others throughout centuries.
If God is not real, if there is no Heaven, if there is no Afterlife. . . then, in Christianity anyway, its cohesion has no power to stick and hold us together.
Apostle Paul says so himself:
Pointless faith; a waste of time throughout the centuries. implying that Paul, himself, has given his life to empty folly and furthermore is asking others to do the same. Then, Paul goes on to state. . . "you are still in your sins."
But, would anybody truly be 'sinful' if there was no Christ? May it not be so!
For how can any human have sin of any sort without an Authority establishing rules of order?
Verse 17, if left without follow-up (though, beset with its own conditional) when read by believers jots the believer/s (myself included) who comes across it the first time, because it 'introduces' doubt. In all of Paul's writings the leading characteristic he displays is Confidence!
Paul was wise to continue on:
Here Paul, with a single statement paves and smooths over any momentary 'break' in the minds of the believers for whom he may have torn a faith rupture.
What is my point?
My point is duo-moralities exist in the United States for believers: That of the State (Us), and that of religion (God). The Church can not abandon the God of the Bible, for in God the religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam are born, move, and have their interdependent beings.
I agree that Christianity, Islam, etc. cannot change to a religion (class of religions) I described.
I was opining on a religion that could be honest, defensible, helpful, and consistent. I have no confidence that any of the major classes of religions would ever get even remotely close to what I described.
The Bible says he was mentally incapable of carrying out his role as leader.
OK, you're clearly not being serious. He dropped out of the presidential race with 100 days to go because he was perfectly fine??? What kind of lunacy are you trying to sell, here?
Nonsense. The man was obviously incapacitated. I don't need a medical report to know Shaquille O'Neal is tall, either. What a ridiculous idea.
That would be: Science! And you see where Washington's GOP is on that 'religion.' Sarcasm. "No Chance."
You CAN'T get a medical report to say Biden is SENILE either. And, that's the one you will need to supply this discussion, or it's you and an empty GOP talking point 'wrapper' which you imagine we would like to swallow!
Additionally, dropping out of the race because one is not perfectly fine. . . is not a MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS! A point: Biden opened up to say he has prostrate cancer-that is a medical diagnosis. It's a good and true talking point: you should run with it going forward!
The point is that we don't need one to confirm the obvious.
Clearly you wouldn't care if it was supplied. You're determined to deny the obvious. I don't understand why, because it doesn't seem remotely relevant to the rest of this discussion. Frankly I'm not convinced you understand why, either.
HIPPA says "we" know not!. And unless we have an 'on-board' mind-reader (reply with a name, please), you should supply us with ye olde medical report on Joe Biden with the source derived from to test if I care or not!
(When condescension is applied against a member, sooner whether than later it will cause an 'alert' on the comment that does so.)
No, that's just you. The rest of us know.
So. . . no medical report or available certified mind-reader?!
Opinion and speculation won't get you far or 'there' with this one, Jack!
I am placing this "On Record":
Jack and "We' (pronoun), asserts it is without doubt Joe Biden today is Senile.
Jack, what will be needed:
Produce a medical report and diagnosis, any MRIs, any record of treatments, any treatment/s results, any continuation of treatments to this 'august' body on NT immediately.
Oh. Well. In THAT case... I'll need to roll my eyes more clearly.
Needed by whom, exactly?
Oh, BTW. I am also declaring with extreme confidence that the sun rose in the east over Dallas, TX today. No further documentation will be supplied. Go ahead and make a record of that, too.
Another worthless assertion from a so-called fact based "We" (pronoun) MAGA supporters! Got it.
Are "people of faith" ever interested in what a non-believer has to say, keeping an open mind and allowing critical thinking to govern their conclusion instead of falling back on some religious trope that allows them to suspend disbelief all for the sake of clinging to their chosen faith?
It really is funny to me that Christians want non-believers to come into a discussion about faith with an open mind, but the Christian doesn't think that should apply to themselves. The believer will almost certainly come to it locked into two main beliefs, 1. they're religion is right and the non-believer is wrong, and 2. anything the non-believer says can be dismissed because even if it sounds reasonable, to accept it might challenge their already chosen faith so they reject it as either an uninformed misguided attack on their faith or a lie created by Satan to undermine their faith which they have to guard against. There are zero believers who think they actually have to play by the same rules they set up for others in a debate because they believe their God created those rules so they can change them however they want and the end (aka wrapping the noose of their religion around another human's neck) justifies the means.
Depends on the non-believer and what they have to say.
Marcus Aurelius was a non-believer, yet plenty of Christians embrace stoicism.
But if you're spouting stupidity like "there are zero believers who think abc", then you're not putting in the intellectual effort needed to warrant consideration.
Chris Williamson has a really good quote on this:
Au contraire, friend DP! If I can be so bold as to call you such.
I am "1" in a number of believers that is willing to challenge the aforementioned proposition. I strongly hold to my faith, and will strive with it and others for the truth! To that end, if I have superstitions which 'stifle' and hold me back I have released them—past tense.
God, if God, is not a man weak and anxious that Spirit can not withstand human questioning or negativism.
I will step out in faith on a conquest to 'Ask, Seek, and knock,' and gaze upon any door or doors that open in my spirit.
Well, that's total nonsense. During the many, many arguments I've had with TiG about why I believe Christianity is true and that God is the explanation for everything, I've always argued on his term, his ground. I've never used the Bible to prove any of it. The closest I usually get is stating that what I observe in everyday life, why people are the way they are, is explained quite well in the Bible, but even that is rare. Rather, I usually talk about why I think science and things like morality are evidence for God.
And even on those rare occasions where we're actually talking about things in the Bible, like the nonsense that it says masters can beat their slaves nearly to death and God approves of it, we're not talking about faith, but rather, what it says about God. That is not a faith discussion. There's no suspension or reliance on faith. It's a discussion about reading comprehension, context and meaning.
And when the discussion is about faith, my part is to demonstrate that faith is not the suspension of critical thinking at all. In fact, faith requires critical thinking to be real. In my experience, most of the people who deride faith don't even know what it is.
And, that's just me. There's been tons of scientists who have argued far better than I can about the same subjects on the same grounds. That is, the detractor's grounds. Your statement is simply nonsense.
But have you ever given his arguments truly serious thought? Have you approached a non-believer's argument from the standpoint of neutrality? Or have you always accepted that your feet are entrenched in your faith and that it would take more than just a reasoned argument for you to change your mind about it?
This is what I'm saying and why I say "zero believers", because I was once one of them and I have to admit now, in 20/20 hindsight, that I wasn't approaching any arguments from a standpoint of "Hmm, I wonder what I can learn from this non-believer's perspective. Perhaps it will give new light on what I believe to be true as seen through the lens of Christian teachings passed on by my father, the Church and their interpretation of the bible. Perhaps it will be a whole new philosophy I can embrace if found to be true!".
Usually, it takes finding out the truth behind the Christian churches and faith and becoming disillusioned before a believer starts to truly listen to a non-believer as if they might learn something. Every other conversation they have with non-believer starts from the perspective that they are going to TEACH the non-believer something, not the other way around.
I get that many don't want to admit it, I didn't want to see it that way when I was doing it. And you're welcome to deny it up and down, but I've seen it far too often to say that's not the norm.
Different people may have different views as to what they consider to be “rational” and what they consider to not be rational.
While I will not dispute your claim in principle, I would like to note a major exception. You ultimately hold that Christianity is true because of personal experiences, your personal reasoning, and (for lack of a better word) your 'feelings' that it is true. But your definition of God and Christianity (for the most part) comes from the Bible. If you did not have the Bible as your foundation, then you really could not hold that Christianity is true since it would be undefined.
To wit, you necessarily believe the Bible is true. That it accurately reflects the character, capabilities, behavior, and intent of God. And you presuppose its truth in your arguments.
You claim this is nonsense yet it is in the Bible plain as day (no matter which version one uses). [ ]
Claiming that this is out of context and is 'obviously' not what 'God' means when considering the Bible holistically is not persuasive.
Speaking to an old friend yesterday (for purposes of this discussion let’s call him “Horatio”), I finally felt it necessary to exclaim:
There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy!
Yes.
I do not know what you mean by neutrality. Like, start from a blank slate? No belief or disbelief? What would neutral mean to you in this case?
It would certainly take more than a reasoned argument. As far as having been always entrenched in my faith, no. That is not the case. I was raised in a Christian home, first four years of education in a public school. Dad was theoretically Catholic but never went to church and will not talk about religion. Mom took us to church until I was about 12 or 13 but that was the extent of religious training. That is, we weren't a particularly religious family. Didn't even say grace before meals. Essentially, we were just culturally Christian, not functionally. I believed in God but really didn't have any faith worth mentioning.
Due to events in my life, though, I came to the place where I had to decide whether I really believed in God or not. I can't say I remember specifically what led to it, but it centered around questions I was asking about morality. There were things I was doing or wanted to do and not have to feel religiously guilty about it. Long story short, I realized that if there really is such a thing as morality, it could only come from God. If it came from man, then all morality really is concerns whatever the individual or group thinks or prefers and they just call that morality. Since that eliminates good and bad as actual things as well, as those things just become whatever any individual or group says they are. Anyone who claims to think critically can see the problem with that.
So that, combined with a number of other things like the astronomical odds against life starting spontaneously, the apparent fine tuning of the universe and pretty much all the classic arguments for God. The reason I believe in the God of the Bible is because He is the most coherent, logically consistent and the most unlikely to have been invented God of all that I have studied. If I had chosen simply out of personal desire or emotions, I probably would have chosen the Norse gods.
So, no. A reasoned argument would probably not do it. It certainly hasn't worked for TiG, anyway, as I've found his reasoning unconvincing, to say the least.
Perhaps that is the difference between our experiences. My parents taught me nothing about God. The Catholic church almost nothing. They were more about rituals than actual teaching while I was with them. What I came to believe I had to learn on my own. I still do. I listen to sermons, watch vids on various subjects, read books and the like and I never, ever take them as authoritative. Instead, I investigate what they say for myself and decide for myself. I know what I believe and why I believe it, and I don't believe anything simply because someone else does.
Take the rapture, for instance. I have no position on it, or its various interpretations, or even if there will be one (although if pressed I think it's likely) because there are so many versions of when it will happen during the tribulation years. I'm not going to take a position until I find compelling reason to support a particular version and, right now, I don't feel any sense of importance about the issue. I'm certainly not going to take a position just because of what someone else thinks.
Anyway, back to the point. I don't believe what I believe because of tradition or because of how I started in life, religiously. I chose to believe because of what I discovered about all of this through careful study and consideration. This is not some thoughtless, emotional pursuit on my part in order to feel good or comforted or have better self-esteem or that it makes me feel better than someone else. I believe it because I am convinced God exists and the real world revolves around Him and so, try to live in reality as it actually is.
I imagine what you're calling "the truth behind the Christian churches and faith" concerns all the ways people in them fail so spectacularly. Like molesting kids, embezzling funds, pastors having affairs or gay liaisons and so on. Or perhaps the history of it, beginning when it gained power in the Roman empire. I'm sure there's more examples that you could list.
Thing is that the church is not God. Why would I discard God because of the failings of someone else? How would that make sense? What about all the people who don't fail? I mean, all of us fail all the time in some way, but I mean the ones who don't steal, abuse, cheat or whatever else that gives Christianity constant black eyes? If I were trying to be a craftsman in woodworking, should I give it up when I learn the shop across the street cheats its customers and cheats on his taxes?
Which tells me that if you think this then everything I've ever said to you was pointless.
I believe God exists because I believe He is the best explanation for what I observe. I believe gravity exists the same way. It is the best explanation for what I observe. As to which God I believe in, that I get from the Bible, as I find Him to be the most convincing (as you might put it) of all that I have looked at. It is not the other way around. That is, I don't believe God exists because the Bible says He does.
I don't think anyone would argue with that.
You do not hold that Christianity is true?
You then believe in a God because a sentient creator best explains what you observe. That means that even if Christianity is a complete fiction, you would still believe in a God. Right?
What is this abstract God that you believe in, regardless of the truth of Christianity? What are its defining characteristics?
Just quoting this to illustrate I read it. My question is made knowing you typed the above.
Not a blank slate but a willingness to learn something new and perhaps allow it to reshape an opinion. If you approach every debate with a non-believer from the deep well of bias most religious frogs have jumped into then why even bother debating them? They're never going to be able to see any perspective outside of the myopic narrow religious view they have already accepted and told themselves they'll believe even without any evidence because that's what faith is. So 'neutrality' to me would be a willingness to abandon faith if presented with a valid argument. Coming in with full bias as most Christians do is basically them walking into the discussing with a giant ladder called "faith" that they can use to bridge any gap in logic or reality.
How can anyone have a rational debate with a person if on one side they're expected to show their work, present facts and back them up, while on the other side they can use the lack of facts, the things we can't yet prove about our universe, to claim a magic wizard exists that knows them and loves them? And not only that but they claim they know what that wizard wants from mankind so you have to listen to them and obey their laws based on what the invisible wizard said to some ancient bronze age sheep herders.
So, when you converse with non-believers, you're not coming into the discussion thinking you might learn something from them, you're coming to it intending to teach them something because you believe you already know all the answers. So why have a debate at all when you're clearly unwilling to even acknowledge the other side if they make valid coherent points that contradict your faith?
And that's exactly what I was talking about, the religious come to debates for a completely different reason than non-believers who are asking for evidence of anything supernatural, asking to be shown proof of one God over another. You claim to have studied other religions to come to your conclusion but were raised in a Christian household and eventually adopted Christianity as your faith. I mean, what are the odds? Pew puts it at about 80% (that those born in a certain faith will adopt it as their own as adults).
That's certainly part of it.
This I know. The Church is something tangible that can get caught doing exactly the opposite of what it was teaching. There is zero empirical evidence that any God or gods have said anything, ever.
If there was an actual God behind any religion, I would hope that it would be a good judge of character and pick those to represent it that did in fact, at least try to adhere to the principles it supposedly personifies. I don't know of a single church or religion on the planet that isn't represented by not just flawed men but some exceedingly so and for long periods of time. If God could save Trump from an assassin's bullet or bless a congregation or protect its believers from harm, if it had ANY active effect on this realm, one might think it could kick the fucking pedophiles out of its leadership. Instead, it's just more flawed men coming up with excuse after excuse as they never take responsibility when shit goes bad but always ready to take the credit when things are going well.
With woodworking you have a tangible material you can carve and get more skilled working with. With religion you have no tangible goods, you have people saying "I believe in this God and he wants you to live this way! Now everyone stand on one foot and tap your head with your left hand while spinning in a circle!" and so you listen to that guy because you trust them and think "Okay, this seems fine" but then you find out the guy who convinced you to spin on one foot was caught raping kids, do you just shrug your shoulders and say "Well that's bad of course, but this God he taught me about and this foot spinning, this is the real deal!". Or might one start to question why they started doing all the stuff the pedophile told them to? Would a true God use a pedophile to teach me about his righteous laws? Really? He knows about them, right?
You are not wrong. Our member Drakkonis, I seem to remember once reading, is a proponent of a specific "great commission" written in the Bible. Frankly, I am a proponent of the "great commission". . . over the years I have learned that I should not 'gag' non-believers on it, nevertheless. That is not to imply that Drakkonis wants to 'gag' anyone with it either!
DP, I agree with the depth and width of your comment. I do have one request for consideration: Surely, a past believer like yourself can understand it is offensive and exasperating at the same time to refer to another's God as a Wizard! And words together like "magic Wizard" is redundant!
It can have the negative effect of 'shutting down' communication, because it is like throwing a 'hot brick' in to the center of discussion: minds and thinking 'scatters' immediately.
That said, overall, I agree with your sentiments on this!
I understand, but that is the best way to express the disconnect between having a reasoned debate using things we can agree on and having a debate that only goes one way aka where one person has to stick to rules of logic and the known universe and physics while the other does not. If one side is just automatically assumed to be able to pull out their wand and "poof", claim their God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent such that it doesn't have to obey any laws and doesn't have to meet any standards of proof, isn't it a bit like someone claiming they know an invisible wizard that can do magic? As for it being redundant, there are other kinds of "wizards" that are not necessarily "magic" like a "financial wizard" since it can mean someone who is very good at something.
The thing that really has the negative effect of 'shutting down' communication are those who enter the debate wielding their invisible sky wizard as an actual answer to any questions and act as if it's perfectly reasonable to do so. How exactly is a non-believer supposed to continue a conversation with someone who just makes claims without evidence and then looks at the non-believer in astonishment if their unsupported claim of God doing this and God doing that isn't believed? I think most non-believers, at least many I've talked with, are looking for any sign of the supernatural, not to tear it apart, but to see if there is actually something that can prove some higher power.
It's not unlike how many people who watch shows about Bigfoot are wanting to find the evidence, at last, to put all the claims to rest. There has to be a body, there has to be something more tangible to prove they exist other than a grainy photo from the 1970's and plaster casts of large animal feet. And yet, nothing but disappointment at the end of every episode. It's the same with the God believers, they keep you on the edge of your seat with all their claims that they see as definitive proof of their God, and yet, by the end of every conversation you realize it was nothing but a lot of smoke blown up your ass. But the believers skip on to the next debate acting as if they won, they proved it, they said all the words damn it and the magic has to work, right? "Klaatu Barada N... necktie... nectar... nickel... noodle. It's an "N" word, it's definitely an "N" word! Klaatu... Barada... N...". Of course, most are just regurgitating others thoughts that have been pounded into their heads since they were young, but for them that's enough so why isn't it enough for you they likely wonder shallowly.
So, while I'm not trying to make believers feel exasperated when I talk about the invisible wizards they worship, it cannot be deeper than the exasperation I think most non-believers experience when talking to a believer who simply uses their Gods unproved powers to claim we all need to just do what they say because their God knows what's best for humans.
Also, I find it interesting that debates between believers of different religions can be even worse as both sides employ their invisible wizards, each claiming their wizard is real while the other religions wizard is fake, so they often end up having an existential debate over whose big brother is bigger and who is going to beat the other up and then, very often in the past, escalates to open war. We're still experiencing religious wars all over the world, all because believers reject evidence in favor of faith and then they refuse to back down or compromise because who would if you have God on your side, right? But God can't be on every side, can it? Is God really just a war profiteer? Is it a weapons manufacturer that profits off the unrest and conflict it sparks in each group?
The manmade God of almost every religion on earth is petty, jealous, small and vindictive, just like the humans that invented it. Perhaps I'll stop calling them invisible wizards when a religion begins worshiping a God that isn't so very, obviously anthropomorphized just with magic powers.
Do you think that was the part of the quote I was referring to? It's obviously the "because" portion.
I believe so, yes.
If it were a case of just believing there must be a God, without consideration of any religion's theism, it would not be a case of "believing in", as that implies personal knowledge and little about it would be known. That is, you could not know much of anything about what it thought, wanted or anything else. One might infer that, after observing the universe and the laws that govern it, it would appear to like order, maybe, but not much else.
However, one could logically deduce what God, as opposed to god or gods, must be like to actually be God in the fullest sense of the meaning. St. Anselm defined God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” I would say "that than which nothing greater can exist", because why would human imagination be the limiting factor. In any case, the point is logically valid. So, without regard to what this God thought, to be the greatest thing that than which nothing greater can exist, we can deduce certain attributes. I assume here that the attributes I list next are maximal attributes. That is, God would be Maximal, without room for improvement, in any of them.
God would be a necessary being, not a contingent being. It would not be dependent on space to exist in, time to exist in, any physical necessity in itself to exist by (like a body). God would only need itself to exist.
God would be omnipotent to the point that even if an infinite number of universes existed, there would not be enough power in all of them combined to resist or thwart God.
God would be omniscient. God would never be surprised. No one would have knowledge that God did not have, nor could they keep things from God.
If good and evil exist, which I find it hard to believe anyone would argue with, then God must be maximally good or maximally evil. If God were maximally evil, then nothing would exist except God, as God would be maximally greedy, self-centered, self-serving and so on. Such a God would not create people to be evil to because that God would have to provide some good in order to sustain the people such a God wanted to torment. That God would not be maximally evil. Therefore, God would be omnibenevolent.
Because that isn't what a debate is about. A debate is aimed at persuasion or defense of a position. It's not a discussion, where people are trying to learn from each other or deepen understanding mutually.
First, not everyone just quotes scripture at people and threaten them with hellfire. Most apologists debate outside of that realm. That is how I debate in here.
Second, you claim Christian's perspective is a "myopic narrow religious view they have already accepted and told themselves they'll believe even without any evidence because that's what faith is." You apparently don't understand that posting such describes you as well, when it comes to faith. It's a narrow, myopic view that you will not abandon no matter how many times people tell you that faith does not mean "without evidence".
Third, what are we talking about concerning faith? That is, are we talking about faith that God exists or faith that God will do what He said He will do?
One of the reasons I believe God exists is that I think He is the best explanation for why the universe is apparently fine-tuned. An atheist might believe that a multiverse is the best explanation or that, regardless of other possible universes, this one necessarily had to be what it is and could not have been anything else. None of these views has any more proof than the other of being the correct one, yet people still put their faith in their view. Whatever you personally hold, DP, are you going to tell me you hold it simply on the kind of faith you think I have?
And yes, there's the category I'm sure TiG is in, where a person doesn't take a position at all, but that's not really true. Even TiG thinks materialism, however it played out in the creation of the universe, is the best explanation and has faith in it.
Lastly, a better way to understand what faith actually is, most of the time, is to substitute the word "trust" for faith, because that's usually what we mean. There are some things I do have faith in, without evidence that directly relates to the object of that faith, but even then, I have that faith because the person speaking of it has proved trustworthy in other areas that are unrelated. Heaven would be an example. I have faith that Heaven is a desirable place to be, even though I have little idea what it will be like. The Bible less describes what it is like and more what Heaven means. In that case, I have faith in something without evidence, but I have faith, or trust, in the One who calls me there because I have evidence of His trustworthiness. So, even then, evidence is involved.
An argument is not sufficient. I would need some pretty hefty evidence.
How can anyone have a rational discussion when one is apparently trying to be offensive? In spite of that, most of the other side's arguments aren't the facts they think they are. Often, they are built on assumptions, just as my side is. The materialist explains their "facts" in light of that philosophy. That is, they are only facts to materialists.
This is one of the more bizarre claims atheists and humanists make. That we can't possibly know what God wants. The obvious question would be, why not? Does God not have agency? Can God not talk to whomever He wishes? Oh! But why would someone as powerful as God bother with something as insignificant as human beings? Well, why not??? Why bother with creating us in the first place if we're that insignificant to Him? Too busy? How could an infinite God be too busy? I just don't get why people keep saying this.
A) because it's a debate and B) because no one has presented a point that contradicts my faith yet.
The answer is right there in your question. You do realize that we are natural (material) beings in a natural (material) universe, right? How do you prove something outside of that universe? You can't. Inference is the best one can do. Yet the "critical thinkers" (not aimed at you, TiG) keep on asking for scientific evidence, as if that proves their point, when all it actually does is prove that the supernatural is not a part of the structure of this universe. That's what supernatural means. So why do they keep asking for that kind of evidence? They must think it somehow proves materialism, I guess.
You answered your own question. Regardless, I know how I got to where I am. That's all I can factually state.
If that's the case, God wouldn't be picking anyone, then. Have you looked at us? How good do you suppose you are? I do not consider myself a good person. I'm not just saying that, either. Because of that, I'm extremely grateful that God is willing to work with flawed people. Even those who are extremely so, because some of them change.
Let me ask you this. Why do you think it's so hard to be a truly good person? One who never loses their temper, is always patient, loves everyone in spite of their flaws, puts others before themselves, is truly humble and so on? We all want to be good people. Not simply so we can feel better about who we are. Don't you wish you could just be able to do the right thing for the right reason all of the time and not worry about image or making excuses when you fail? Yeah, I'm very grateful that God works with flawed people.
You're missing the point. Woodworking is a way of life for many. It's about the craftsmanship. About making something that wasn't there before. Taking pleasure in the process and the skill and so on. Should someone stop believing in their way of life because the shop across the street cheats its customers and provides shoddy workmanship? Hardly. Then why should I forego faith because of the Kenneth Copelands of the world?
Here is the quote:
You have alluded to (but never detailed) personal experiences that lead you to believe in the existence of God. You clearly use reasoning as shown in your reply post. You might dispute 'feelings' but that can also be labeled 'intuition', which I doubt you would object to.
Thus if I remove 'Christianity' and replace it with 'God', you should have no objection.
But you have long since stated and just now affirmed that you hold Christianity true because it correlates well with your beliefs of God. Thus Christianity is True because it describes a God that correlates with your belief which in turn is a result of the 'because' portion.
That is my explanation for my wording. I do not see why you object since it reflects what you have stated.
Yes, I agree. It would be the God I describe: "that which enabled the existence of the universe". We literally know nothing about God, other than the fact that the universe (by which I mean 'physical reality as we know it') exists and that something enabled that existence.
You seem to affirm that Christianity and your beliefs are intricately tied which again makes my disputed statement seem accurate.
The power must be at least 'sufficient' to enable our universe to exist. I am not so sure that this would mean 'maximal' because there certainly could be power that was not necessary for the existence of the universe. For example, omniscience does not seem to be necessary; the universe could exist without God being able to know everything (especially the future). I do not see sentience as necessary. One can presume that the existence of our universe was intentional, but that is not a logical consequence of our existence. Thus sentience is not necessary.
Necessary (noncontingent), absolutely. Also eternal. But there is nothing that says God must be a being. Not dependent on physics (as we now it), certainly. Indeed, God would simply need to exist.
As a note, God as you perceive it (for the most part), might be an emergent being from the God I perceive (that which enabled the existence of the universe). Something necessarily exists. That something —that substance— could be that from which a being of extraordinary powers emerged. That being, in turn, might be that which created our universe. That is a logical possibility.
Omnipotent is reasonable in that God is that which enabled the aforementioned existence. Sentience, however, is a presumption.
As noted earlier, there is nothing that necessitates omniscience or sentience or intent.
Good and evil might simply be human inventions to describe observed behaviors. There is no need for a God to be anything.
This again presumes sentience. I see no reason for this presumption. And without the presumption of sentience, the entire description of God in anthologies such as the Bible have no meaning. This should clarify a key reason why the Bible does not persuade me that a God exists. Not only does it presume sentience, but it shoots itself in the literary foot by its attribution of God. The more specific and nuanced the claim, the easier it is to self-contradict, and the more evidence would be required to corroborate it. The Bible is way out on a limb with no supporting evidence ... even now.
Bottom line, there is something that enabled the existence of the universe. We can logically deduce that it is eternal, powerful (in terms of being potent), and noncontingent. Sentience is not deducible. It is required if we presume intent, but intent is not deducible either.
I do not believe the multiverse is the best explanation, it is one explanation, but it is not much better than simply presupposing an emergent entity that created our universe. Neither are based on evidence. Every time I have explained my reasoning, you always seem to think I am talking about multiverse. Oddly.
To me, the best explanation is that we make the mistake of presuming intent; we view this anthropocentrically. If we presume that the universe was supposed to be of a form that would allow us to emerge then of course the fine-tuning argument makes sense. Since the conditions required for our universe and our existence are so specific, that strongly suggests a designer who dialed in the correct parameters.
But that presumes intent. If we do not presume intent then the explanation is that we exist because we are the lucky results. If the parameters (for lack of a better word) were slightly different, there might be an entirely different creature (maybe silicon based) that argued that the universe they perceive must have been designed since the parameters are so fine-tuned.
To wit, instead of thinking the universe is a function of us, consider the possibility that we are merely the lucky creatures that resulted from how our universe came into existence. Maybe we are not the intent but merely the results.
As an analogy, the birth of any human being is remarkable. Each of us is the unique result of a single, specific sperm cell (out of 100s of millions per ejaculation) fertilizing a specific healthy egg (but only when available) and it must be the right egg out of all those produced by the woman. Then factor in the notion that it must be our father and our mother and not any other male of female. You can keep going with this and talk about the compound probabilities of our parents existing, etc. and you will realize that it is almost impossible that a single intended individual exists.
That is, if we presume that a particular individual was supposed to exist. If we remove that presumption, it is not at all improbable that an egg gets fertilized by some sperm cell.
Similarly, if we remove the notion that our universe was supposed to exist, it is not surprising that some universe exists and that we are just the lucky ones.
I don't know why you would say this, as I specifically stated you by name as not likely to hold a particular position on the matter.
Given all I wrote, you focus on a largely irrelevant nuance and ignore the core commentary.
I have taken a position, I explained it. You quoted my position. The multiverse is a logical theoretical explanation rooted in theoretical physics, but it has the same problem as a sentient creator... lack of evidence.
Here, I asked ChatGPT to summarize my posts:
For @1.1.131 it produced this summary:
For @1.1.132 it produced this summary:
Faith? Where do you find faith in my definition of God?
I don't. My comment was about your faith in materialism being the most likely answer as to why the universe exists. Even your description of God is through the lens of materialism.
But it is not faith. I gave a definition of God that is based on evidence sans presumption. Where do you see faith?
Once again, in your materialistic view.
You deem it to be an act of faith not to be convinced that spiritual factors exist. Really expanding the meaning of that word.
Anyway, you are ignoring the points I made, so this exchange is done.
I trust the sun will come up tomorrow because it has a track record of coming up every day of my life. That's trust. Faith in God is something that has no track record because there simply is no empirical evidence of a God having ever existed or ever having done anything or even moved a single atom of our universe.
I once heard a friend say, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for."
So, he was trying to say he had an "assured" (confident, absolutely positive) "expectation" (belief that something will happen or be the case in the future) of "things hoped for" (wished for, desired, wanted but have not received yet). A confident belief something he wants to happen will happen, and his belief was based on reading scriptures and talking to himself in his head aka 'prayer'. And through that he gained confidence that something would happen even though there is exactly zero evidence to back it up.
That's faith, and frankly, while I'm sure it could be good for somethings, throughout human history faith has mostly been used to control and manipulate the poorly educated, keeping them in line and keeping them handing over a portion of their income even if they're at the very bottom of society struggling just to put food on the table. I believe religious faith specifically has been used to scam more people than any other scam in human history.
Even now, there are over a billion Muslims that virtually every Christian believes is "completely wrong" and believe they have been misled and lied to and scammed to the point some are willing to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowded markets, all for the scam of 72 virgins and a seat at Allahs right hand. And truthfully, I don't see much daylight between the Muslim scam and the Christian one.
So, if Muslims can "feel" and have extremely strong "faith" but it be fake and not have any truth behind what they believe, how can one tell the difference between that faith and Christian faith? Is it simply which race, culture or country you're born into that determines whether you get the right faith or the wrong one? And since the evidence is supposedly so personal and can't really be shared and experienced by others, each Muslim or Christian has to have their "faith" moment where their God becomes real to them, how can anyone actually give more weight to one or the other unless they were indoctrinated in one first and thus believe the faith their parents and peers shared with them as they grew up?
Faith is unreliable and used to scam people out of billions of dollars every year. Old people get calls from someone they have 'faith' is their grandchild needing to get bailed out of jail. Some young angry Arab men get scammed into strapping bombs to their chest to further their faiths supposed agenda. Some young Christian men get scammed into strapping bombs on their chests and blowing up abortion clinics. All for "the assured expectation of things" they were told they'll get if they play along and do what their religion tells them to and pay what their religion tells them to pay.
And you appear determined to mischaracterize everything I have been saying.
It's likely god/s never even existed except as a concept of man created in his own image.
This is how it always seems to go. I am being extremely careful with my words to NOT mischaracterize what you write. Nonetheless, you find a way to claim a foul.
What I see is you refusing to deal with the points I have made. I expected this and I also expected that some kind of deflection would ensue. I hoped otherwise, but so it goes.
As I noted, you obviously are not going to deal with my counterpoints and are going to instead claim I am trying to mischaracterize your words implying that you have a sound argument and that my counterpoints are in some way dishonest.
That seems very likely. While a sentient creator may exist, the problem of its existence remains. This is resolved by simply declaring that the sentient creator has always existed and is irreducible.
Well if one can play that game, then, really, one could declare any arbitrary starting point and devise any hypothesis for how the universe came into existence.
Seems to me that simplicity emerging complexity is more likely; that what has always existed is the substance of existence itself (whatever that is). Something basic and simple from which complexity emerged over time. This correlates with what we observe of reality — complexity is the aggregation of much simpler components.
But he chose not to save Charlie Kirk because... he wanted a martyr? So, God killed Charlie Kirk? He had the power to save him but didn't, he'd at least be considered an accessory to the crime.
And why do religionists get upset when someone achieves the ultimate enlightenment of entering the kingdom of heaven anyways?
I’m certain there is no god, but I truly wish there was so that it could smite the fuck out of every asshole who uses it to justify their evil behavior. They too know there is no god, but they also know how easy it is to control believers when you pretend to be one of them.
I think deep down they do, but they're simply too desperate to feel like they're more special than they really are so they welcome the deception with open arms.
While I also do not believe there is a God as defined by the majority of religions on this planet, I'm not 'certain' there is no higher power in the universe or some prime mover since I can't search every corner of the universe, and I have no way to prove a negative. So, for me I'm content simply accepting that so far, I've never seen any evidence of anything even close to a God, gods, or even supernatural phenomenon and thus I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
Because 'God' is by definition a supernatural entity it is impossible to prove its existence within the confines of "nature" ( the existence we experience). It will always be a matter of faith, pro and con.
The thing is, many believe that their God can actively affect the outcomes in the realm of "nature" which they claim their God created. If that is true, then the effect should be calculable or measurable in some way. If there was an invisible 'butcher's thumb' on the scale as it were, we should be able to measure that affect.
So, either God exists but refuses to affect the natural world in any way in favor of its adherents, which is the only way it can remain undetected, or it doesn't exist in the way, shape or manner humans have imagined.
Personally I do believe in God but I also believe its nature will forever be beyond human understanding. What we know as religions are cultural expressions of something that cannot be expressed.
To me, it depends on how one defines 'God'. I could easily define 'God' as 'that which enabled our existence' and then note (with certainty) that this god exists. My definition does not require sentience or even intent. God, per this definition, might be some substance / energy from which everything we perceive ultimately emerges.
See, the problem with religions is that they invariably proclaim attributes, intent, form, etc. to their gods. Every new attribute, etc. make the defined god less likely since it is making the god more specific.
Proving a negative is inherently impossible, but some things are just obvious. I can’t prove there isn’t a warm grilled cheese sandwich at the bottom of a crater on the moon, I just know it’s true. As for an all-loving omnipotent god that allows for kids to die of cancer while Charlie Kirk runs around spreading hate, I just know that’s not true as well. Unless … hmmm.
Bottom line is that universal belief in gods provides cover for the evils that religions engage in. The good doesn’t outweigh the bad. We’re all terminal and we’re all headed to the same place.
These sorts of contradictions plague all kinds of arguments for God's intervention in individual lives.
It gets very frustrating to hear some folk bloviate about how their God did this, and their God did that and their God saved that person because they were so good etc., all while other children, many under the age of ten are dying of cancer, genetic diseases, car crashes, drowning in pools or the other thousand ways young children might die. Every time I hear some conservative invoking their God as saving someone it sounds to me like some LARPing wizard shouting "Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!" as they throw little bean bags at their foes.
Correct.
Impossible to say.
Not how that works, but I see your thinking.
If we liken God to a lifeguard who has been known to jump in and save people from death like Trump, but then sits there watching a baby get too close to the edge of the pool and then fall in and is flailing around then goes under and stops struggling and the lifeguard just sits there, I mean, negligent homicide at the bare minimum?
Why would we do that?
Not when you think about what constitutes "death" to God.
Christians believe not only that God is eternal, but we all are eternal beings temporarily living in earthly bodies. Loss of our earthly life simply results in transition to our eternal one. The family of that child grieves, just like Charlie Kirk's family is grieving, because they will miss their loved one. But the child itself has gone to be with the Father in a much better place.
Seemed an appropriate analogy when some are claiming " God saved our president, President Trump, from an assassin's bullet for this moment". If said God is aware of what's going on everywhere (not unlike a lifeguard watching a pool area) and can choose to intervene and "save" people who might otherwise die (like a lifeguard) then using the lifeguard analogy seemed apropos.
So, now it's not about what you or I think 'death' is, it's about how an unproven invisible deity thinks about death that should matter? I guess you do want to argue who would win in a fight between Gandalf and Darth Vader.
I am well aware of what Christians believe. Just like a Star Wars fan arguing the ways of the force, Christians believe in a lot of things that have zero basis in fact or reality. Most debates start with non-believers asking for some sort of evidence which would allow them to suspend their disbelief. Christians then spend lots of time talking about how wonderful and loving and amazing their God is.
When asked again for evidence, they pivot, "have you heard about how wonderful Jesus is? Maybe you missed it, but Jesus gave his life for you..." and when asked again for any sort of empirical evidence to support their beliefs they then get indignant and tell you that it wouldn't be faith if they had evidence! How dare you try and besmirch their faith! And around and around we go until the non-believer gets bored and walks away while the believer sits there in apparent overwhelming joy patting themselves on the back for being so smart and amazing for believing in Jesus without any evidence.
And just like with Star Wars fans, all anyone sane can do is try to avoid getting into debates with them about their fantasies and avoid travelling anywhere near one of their Comicon conventions.
Meh. I can see how you might see it that way.
The people who make claims like that usually come from a different thought process. They'll say "God saved our president", believing it's part of whatever plan God is going to use Trump to enact.
Well when you're questioning His behavior, yes. Pretty much.
If you say so.
They call it faith.
... and have successfully convinced billions of people (over time) that faith is a good thing ... that believing in something mere human beings claim without a shred of evidence is a good thing.
If it helps people to have a more fulfilling and peaceful lives then yes, it is a very good thing. I think the people that have a problem with other people that have found a little peace in their lives are the miserable ones.
Faith does bring comfort, that part is true. It is far more comforting to believe that death is not the end but rather the beginning of something glorious. True or not, it certainly is a comforting thought.
But faith is also the lynch pin to keep religions prospering. It is the crucial factor allowing religious organizations to maintain control over individuals.
And faith can be very damaging. For example, the JW belief that blood transfusions poison the blood and that God wants blood to remain pure and sacred.
I can see how you might see it that way. Frankly, I was really just questioning why believers would believe their God "behaved" in a certain manner since that behavior doesn't make any sense when actually examined and requires any disbelief to be suspended to accept their argument as valid.
While I did pose the question about why a supposed God would save Trump and not Kirk, I didn't expect any actual rational reasoned argument as to why such a belief could be valid. I was, in fact, expecting the same tired frivolous flawed arguments with more holes in them than pasta colander, and I was not disappointed.
Civilization doesn't survive without "something mere human beings claim without a shred of evidence". That describes most philosophy and morality.
You're complaining because humans cannot explain every action of their God? I'm not sure you understand how the whole "God" program works.
Philosophy and morality aren’t taken on faith. We refine rules by how they work in reality, using evidence, not faith. Even in mathematics, theorems can be proved, but their real-world value is judged by evidence and applicability.
That established, treating anthologies like the Bible as divine truth is dangerous. They were written by ancient men shaped by their cultures, experiences, and biases, and they include plenty of fiction. Faith alone (suspending critical thinking) can lead to the claim that slavery is acceptable or that homosexuals should be murdered.
Faith is a master-stroke for religious organizations. Religious organizations gain/hold power by convincing people that belief on faith alone is good and that the stronger the faith the better. This lets them bypass contradictions and invent narratives for their purposes.
IMO, most modern believers in the United States do not operate strictly on faith. They do not, as a rule, accept everything they are told by religious authorities (including written works). The faith part for most, again IMO, is the firm belief that there is a sentient God of some form who ultimately has our back and that death is not final. But I recognize there are still plenty of religious people who operate predominantly on faith with little or no critical thinking applied on religious matters.
Humans cannot explain the alleged actions of a sentient creator of everything ('God') without presupposing a particular theology. There is no independent, publicly testable, empirical method for anyone to know the behavior and intent of such an entity.
It works for the con-men...
That's might be an interesting debate, but they are definitely things that "human beings claim without a shred of evidence."
Which is why I didn't mention it. So we're specifically not talking about mathematics or "hard sciences".
That can be true of any writings. Think about how many people were killed to enact the works of Marx.
So were the writings of Aristotle or Epictetus.
Slavery has been practiced for millenia by cultures who had no thought of it in their religion. Historically, a key driver of any abolition movement has always been evangelical Christianity, starting with the Quakers in England.
Homosexuals were executed by Germanic tribes in the first century (according to Tacitus), long before Christianity ever made it north of the Alps.
Yeah, I can see that. But some of those religious organizations and the rules they imposed enabled civilizations to thrive. The Roman Catholic Church was the only form of accountability for despot kings for well over 1000 years. The ancient Hebrews codified the care of widows and orphans. Jesus' teachings about women were revolutionary feminism for His day. So it certainly hasn't been all bad.
I think that's a fair assessment. I would suggest that this works because we have a longstanding Judeo-Christian morality woven into the background of American society, combined with an increasingly learned general population. Most of us start from a similar moral code, and then modify that as needed based on our experiences.
OK. Yes. And let's be honest here... If you are a person who does operate that way, how much confidence do we have that your critical thinking is going to be good enough to represent an improvement over obedience to your faith? I'm thinking those folks are often better off where they are.
That suggests morality is not a result of observation ... paying attention to what works and does not work. Mores do not exist in a vacuum ... they are tested and refined based on the resulting values observed in reality. The Golden Rule, to use a cliché example, would not be so 'golden' if it did not (writ large) result in good effects. 'Do not steal' promotes trust and economic stability. It is through observation (evidence) that we have (and continue to) evolve our mores and values.
Math mentioned to be complete. In anticipation of you going there.
Yes and the key difference is when one believes the author (or at least source) is the grandest possible sentient entity who created and controls everything vs. an impoverished German philosopher/economist. The former is usually accepted as divine, the latter is just another human being.
Same comment, neither Aristotle or Epictetus were considered divine or were providing divinely inspired wisdom/rules. The 'word of God' is profoundly different than the word of a famous human philosopher.
Which is why the ancient writers of the Bible saw nothing wrong with slavery or murdering homosexuals. And this is why ... note this ... 'God' does not have a commandment 'thou shalt not own human beings as property' and why 'God' holds homosexual acts between two males as punishable by death. 'God' was 'written' by ancient men and thus 'God' had the cultural biases of those men.
Sure, but the point remains that religious organizations continue to use faith as the mechanism to mitigate critical thinking so that believers will continue to unquestioningly believe what the religion declares to be true. That is not good.
My position is that most everyone with a normal, healthy brain can be taught how to think critically and that critical thinking benefits both the individual and society.
We are all eternal beings living in earthly bodies. . .
So from that comment are we to assume that you believe in reincarnation?
No.
So, you know exactly how god works?
I can explain very standard Christian theology.
God not to chose to save Kirk because. . .
Among other things we must decide is which particular god we are talking about: is it the Jewish God, the Christian God, the Muslim God?
Or perhaps even the Buddhist God or the Hindu God?
While some of them have things in common there are also some significant differences between different gods!
Re: different gods: I forgot to mention other gods people worship. For example Ancient Greek and/or ancient Roman gods. Jupiter/Zeus! Or going back even further in time the gods created by the very Ancient Egyptians.
(My apologies to anyone whose god I omitted— it was not my intention to omit anyone’s god!!!)
Re: different entities various people may “worship”: some people appear to actually feel that celebrities like Taylor Swift (or even President Trump) should be worshipped!
In ancient times it was quite common to have a god for each natural phenomenon. A god of lightning and thunder, a god of harvest, a god of wine (good 'ol Bachus), but that got too complicated so the Romans, so they took their old pagan traditions and their pantheon of Gods and created Saints for each thing that their old gods had stood for, under a single all powerful, but once human, God, Jesus. So back to your point, it would seem most conservative Christians think Jesus saved their dear Leader Trump but chose not to save Kirk for some reason.
How dare you leave out my Flying Spaghetti Monster! May all Pastafarians rise up and smite you weakly around your head and shoulders!
Its been one week. Closing this seed at the end of the day today.