Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[dan964]

Absolutely

that said the debates are still worthwhile. good for testing and exposing each others assumptions.

 

[thetestdude]

that said the debates are still worthwhile. good for testing and exposing each others assumptions.

100%

Also for clarifying potential misinterpretations (especially those scripture-related) that people may have.

 

[Squar3root]

What don't you agree with the bible on, there is a strong foundation of morals even for non-believers.

Don’t agree with the beginning of the Old Testament when God was killing people for stealing, etc.
Also believe people should be free to have their own sexual preferences/beliefs.
And some of the 10 commandments are Wack haha.

I am increasing convinced that we'll never be able to prove the existence of God via science and to attempt to do is futile.

(My conclusion at the bottom in blue)

===================================================
Consider these words, from a witness of resurrected Jesus/God (full text here: here)

Spoiler

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.


Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling...

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them...

or consider these words from Jesus: (full text: here)

Spoiler

I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours

The point is that God doesn't reveal himself to all men (or to everyone), nor is he a God that is not known by the wisdom of the world, by philosophers.

You can ask for God to give "proof" in the form of miracles / signs. But the issue is that unless that God reveals himself, aye, through the Lord Jesus, then it is a futile exercise. Unless you listen to his words, the gospel (which is about Jesus) then you'll never know him.

Practically, this means in this debate, if you want 'proof' of God existence, then read and weigh up what is his word.
You have to deal with Jesus who not only claimed to have come from God, and gone back to him; but also showed (attested to by witnesses) that he was indeed 'God among us" (or Immanuel), which is something even in our calendars to this day we mark at Christmas.[/ispoiler][/spoiler]

but like how do u know the bible/quran/etc is legit? it just seems like through hundreds of years some stuff woulda got lost, or mistranslated. like was there a blockchain of bibles or something? if i was alive during the time, what's stopping me from saying hey this is the bible everyone follow me now? and if so, who wrote it? can we trust them that they wrote it accurately or how can we be sure they didn't have a bias to something? and why are there so many religions based on 1 book? r all gods the same? like what r the differences between jews/muslims/christians if it all comes from the same book?


@speed, when u say "Also believe people should be free to have their own sexual preferences/beliefs." doesn't that kinda go against what ur meant to believe in? cos god says no gays but many people think the same way you do. does that mean religion is just pick and choose what u like? what commitments do u have 2 make? like if someone cheats on their partner but goes to church is that the same as someone who is faithful and never attends church?

@dan964 when u say, there is no point proving by science, yeah that makes sense. so that just come down to blind luck? like why do people choose to believe in a god with circumstantial evidence and not say big foot or ailens?

 

[thetestdude]

@speed, when u say "Also believe people should be free to have their own sexual preferences/beliefs." doesn't that kinda go against what ur meant to believe in? cos god says no gays but many people think the same way you do. does that mean religion is just pick and choose what u like?

Yes, Christianity is opposed to homosexuality, so are other Abrahamic religions. It's definitely not a pick and choose scenario. However, I choose not to argue this particular point because I don't want to cause any tension or offend anyone.

 

[Squar3root]

Yes, Christianity is opposed to homosexuality, so are other Abrahamic religions. It's definitely not a pick and choose scenario. However, I choose not to argue this particular point because I don't want to cause any tension or offend anyone.

but do you think this makes you a "bad" christian? like when u die and ur judged by god or whatever, will he be like u didn't follow my commandments, go 2 hell?

Also, why would a christian not oppose being a gay? like the beliefs of the religion r homos should not be a thing but then you have gay christians? like is gay christians a troll or just seeking attention?

 

[thetestdude]

but do you think this makes you a "bad" christian? like when u die and ur judged by god or whatever, will he be like u didn't follow my commandments, go 2 hell?

Whether or not someone would be sent to hell is another discussion. This is because of the countless divisions in Christianity today relating to the core beliefs. There are concepts such as "Purgatory", which is a place where you are "purified" and made ready to go to heaven, hence judgement is affected by such factors.

Also, why would a christian not oppose being a gay? like the beliefs of the religion r homos should not be a thing but then you have gay christians? like is gay christians a troll or just seeking attention?

Modern Christians think this way because of modern societal influences from groups different to them, particularly in the Western world. These have only become more dominant in recent years, which of course led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

I wouldn't label gay Christians as trolls or attention seekers, but rather people who according to their belief system, are not on the right path/are doing something wrong.

 

[Squar3root]

Whether or not someone would be sent to hell is another discussion. This is because of the countless divisions in Christianity today relating to the core beliefs. There are concepts such as "Purgatory", which is a place where you are "purified" and made ready to go to heaven, hence judgement is affected by such factors.

Modern Christians think this way because of modern societal influences from groups different to them, particularly in the Western world. These have only become more dominant in recent years, which of course led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

I wouldn't label gay Christians as trolls or attention seekers, but rather people who according to their belief system, are not on the right path/are doing something wrong.

oh interesting, didn't know that was a thing

so because beliefs/values/the world is changing, should religion then be irrelevant as those teachings in the bible/etc are now redundant in todays' society?

 

[Speed’o’sound Sonic]

I’m personally not opposed to people with different sexual preferences/beliefs e.g. homosexual, transgender, etc. I think that attacking others based on their opinion doesn’t follow Christian values, especially if it doesn’t particularly affect you.
On the other note, I choose not to believe in a Purgatory, mainly due to nature vs nurture where a lot of human action is simply a product of an individual’s surroundings. Although I still think willing destruction of the environment is unjustifiable.

 

[thetestdude]

oh interesting, didn't know that was a thing

so because beliefs/values/the world is changing, should religion then be irrelevant as those teachings in the bible/etc are now redundant in todays' society?

Religion can be already considered irrelevant in today's society (since more than 65% of Australian population says religion is unimportant).

Whether religion is redundant/needed is dependent on one's personal choice/decision.

 

[thetestdude]

I’m personally not opposed to people with different sexual preferences/beliefs e.g. homosexual, transgender, etc. I think that attacking others based on their opinion doesn’t follow Christian values, especially if it doesn’t particularly affect you.

Absolutely, it is against Chirstian values to attack others based on their opinion. Instead, we should respectfully listen and respond (which is something a lot of people fail to do unfortunately).

It is worth noting that there is a difference between being opposed to a person/group of people and being opposed a particular practice/ideology that person/group may have. Being opposed to a particular opinion doesn't necessarily imply any dislike/hate whoever adopts it. For instance, let's say X likes tattoos and wants to get one, but Y, a close friend of theirs, is against tattoos and is advising X against getting one. If the conversation between the two is respectful and both suggest their respective reasons for their positions, would that imply that Y hates or is attacking X?

 

[idkkdi]

Absolutely, it is against Chirstian values to attack others based on their opinion. Instead, we should respectfully listen and respond (which is something a lot of people fail to do unfortunately).

It is worth noting that there is a difference between being opposed to a person/group of people and being opposed a particular practice/ideology that person/group may have. Being opposed to a particular opinion doesn't necessarily imply any dislike/hate whoever adopts it. For instance, let's say X likes tattoos and wants to get one, but Y, a close friend of theirs, is against tattoos and is advising X against getting one. If the conversation between the two is respectful and both suggest their respective reasons for their positions, would that imply that Y hates or is attacking X?

I’m personally not opposed to people with different sexual preferences/beliefs e.g. homosexual, transgender, etc. I think that attacking others based on their opinion doesn’t follow Christian values, especially if it doesn’t particularly affect you.
On the other note, I choose not to believe in a Purgatory, mainly due to nature vs nurture where a lot of human action is simply a product of an individual’s surroundings. Although I still think willing destruction of the environment is unjustifiable.

why value Christian values over Christian values on homosexuality? It's not like the Bible sets weightings to each thing. Why value one higher than the other, when both are stated as values? Is this not preferential bias?

 

[Speed’o’sound Sonic]

why value Christian values over Christian values on homosexuality? It's not like the Bible sets weightings to each thing. Why value one higher than the other, when both are stated as values? Is this not preferential bias?

I don’t know I was just talking about my personal views

 

[dan964]

but like how do u know the bible/quran/etc is legit? it just seems like through hundreds of years some stuff woulda got lost, or mistranslated. like was there a blockchain of bibles or something? if i was alive during the time, what's stopping me from saying hey this is the bible everyone follow me now? and if so, who wrote it? can we trust them that they wrote it accurately or how can we be sure they didn't have a bias to something? and why are there so many religions based on 1 book? r all gods the same? like what r the differences between jews/muslims/christians if it all comes from the same book?

one you actually have to read it and make that assessment for yourself. Read the book and don't wait for the movie.

1.there is good evidence historically (e.g. number of manuscripts) to put a very good case for the preservation of the New Testament (and a decent case for the Old Testament.
2. the Bible wasn't penned by a single author nor is it a single book, nor is it from one time period, yet somehow has the one consistent message.
3. everyone has a bias, we think we can approach a text objectively, a witness in a stand of court, will report his version of events. It is up to the jury to make the assessment of whether

5. not all God(s) are the same. The God in Islam for instance is not a Trinity and it would be blasphemy (in Islam) to say that he is. While on the other hand, a unitarian God is heresy in Christianity. (And that is just the Abrahamic religions)
6. not all the same book. Muslims use the Bible to try to justify the Quran comes 500 years after destruction of temple in Jerusalem, and its theology does not fit the theology of the Law, Prophets or Gospel.

@dan964 when u say, there is no point proving by science, yeah that makes sense. so that just come down to blind luck? like why do people choose to believe in a god with circumstantial evidence and not say big foot or ailens?
[/QUOTE]
Not at all, remember the 3 types of knowing, knowing God (and thereby confirming his existence) is a relational knowing. The example you used, is like approaching a person, with a hat full of names, and pulling out his name; that is not how we know God is what I am saying, it is not that; neither it is some philosophical argument that only the intelligent can understand and workout. It is dealing with a 'relational being' who connects with his universe (he has to be able to create it), and so to know this God, requires this God to speak words.

Generally speaking, devout people do not believe in God based on circumstantial evidence, or because they need something to believe in (like a gap in their knowledge), they believe because they have somehow is a lived reality. cannot speak for other religions, but for a Christian, it means they are convinced that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and that he has come from heaven, 'God with us'

Regarding aliens/big foot, because these like vampires for instance are finite physical beings like us, their effects on the universe can be measured and understood easily and so we easily determine if it is possible for such contingent beings to actually exist based on factors like diet, deaths to humans caused by them.

 

[dan964]

but do you think this makes you a "bad" christian? like when u die and ur judged by god or whatever, will he be like u didn't follow my commandments, go 2 hell?

Also, why would a christian not oppose being a gay? like the beliefs of the religion r homos should not be a thing but then you have gay christians? like is gay christians a troll or just seeking attention?

A gay Christian is someone who is attracted to those of the same sex, but would not necessarily enter into a sexual relationship with persons of the same sex. It really depends though, if they are genuinely a Christian they usually won't use the label gay because of the identity politics surrounding it (and for a Christian their identity is in Christ). If they are genuinely gay and practicing homosexual, then they certainly are disregarding what the Bible (and Christians) have been saying on the matter, so the label Christian does not appear accurate to describe such beliefs (although we don't make the final judgement call on that)

 

[dan964]

Whether or not someone would be sent to hell is another discussion. This is because of the countless divisions in Christianity today relating to the core beliefs. There are concepts such as "Purgatory", which is a place where you are "purified" and made ready to go to heaven, hence judgement is affected by such factors.

That is a catholic doctrine. Not accepted by all Christians, for good reasons.

AND The countless divisions are not all on core beliefs. Catholicism vs. Protestantism, yes. But say Anglican vs Presbyterian vs Baptist, hardly core issues (sometimes it is the geographical origin of the church, or views on baptism)

Modern Christians think this way because of modern societal influences from groups different to them, particularly in the Western world. These have only become more dominant in recent years, which of course led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

You are right to identify that some people would identify as Christian but rather have seemingly "un-Christian" values on particular topics, influenced perhaps by Western world.

I wouldn't label gay Christians as trolls or attention seekers, but rather people who according to their belief system, are not on the right path/are doing something wrong.

Well put!

 

[thetestdude]

why value Christian values over Christian values on homosexuality? It's not like the Bible sets weightings to each thing. Why value one higher than the other, when both are stated as values? Is this not preferential bias?

How can there be Christians values on homosexuality when the religion itself rejects it? Just because a number Christians choose to support a particular concept doesn't mean the religion does.

AND The countless divisions are not all on core beliefs. Catholicism vs. Protestantism, yes. But say Anglican vs Presbyterian vs Baptist, hardly core issues (sometimes it is the geographical origin of the church, or views on baptism)

That's right, thanks for that.

The point I was trying to make there was that divisions complicate things, hence the reason people within different denominations could have different perspectives as to how one gets to heaven.

I don't support divisions within Christianity personally, as many of them were made to achieve personal goals (e.g. Church of England) and/or caused great distortion with respect to the original teachings of Christianity (e.g. Jenovah's Witnesses, Mormon Church).

 

[dan964]

That's right, thanks for that.

The point I was trying to make there was that divisions complicate things, hence the reason people within different denominations could have different perspectives as to how one gets to heaven.

I don't support divisions within Christianity personally, as many of them were made to achieve personal goals (e.g. Church of England) and/or caused great distortion with respect to the original teachings of Christianity (e.g. Jenovah's Witnesses, Mormon Church).

It is worth saying that the Reformation existed prior to Church of England breaking away from Roman Catholicism and becoming Protestant.
"Many Roman Catholics consider the separation of the Church in England from Rome in 1534 to be the true origin of the Church of England, rather than dating it from the mission of St. Augustine in AD 597. While Anglicans acknowledge that Henry VIII's repudiation of papal authority caused the Church of England to become a separate entity, they believe that it is in continuity with the pre-Reformation Church of England "

 

[idkkdi]

How can there be Christians values on homosexuality when the religion itself rejects it? Just because a number Christians choose to support a particular concept doesn't mean the religion does.



That's right, thanks for that.

The point I was trying to make there was that divisions complicate things, hence the reason people within different denominations could have different perspectives as to how one gets to heaven.

I don't support divisions within Christianity personally, as many of them were made to achieve personal goals (e.g. Church of England) and/or caused great distortion with respect to the original teachings of Christianity (e.g. Jenovah's Witnesses, Mormon Church).

you misunderstood my point. I meant that the Christian value on the topic of homosexuality is rejection, but some believers seem to dismiss this despite being afraid to dismiss other values, and this is kinda weird.

 

[thetestdude]

you misunderstood my point. I meant that the Christian value on the topic of homosexuality is rejection, but some believers seem to dismiss this despite being afraid to dismiss other values, and this is kinda weird.

My bad. I believe that's the case because society approves of it overall (including Christians and non-Christians), which reduces/eliminates a Christian's feeling of "guilt" of not sticking to the actual perspective of Christianity (and in other cases even convinces those individuals out of what they originally believe).

 

[dan964]

you misunderstood my point. I meant that the Christian value on the topic of homosexuality is rejection, but some believers seem to dismiss this despite being afraid to dismiss other values, and this is kinda weird.

Incomplete, the Christian value is that marriage as one man-one woman, and fidelty in marriage (meaning sexuality is to be expressed only in marriage), and that leads to the rejection of a lot of things, including homosexuality, adultery, divorce, incest, polygamy etc.