A question mostly for religious people

[ringstrue]

As far as "testing" I'm finding a few different things online and in the thread so I want to divide them out as much as I can.

Different groups have varying teachings on God testing us. Some people use it as a way to challenge themselves to be better people. My group doesn't believe that God tests, in general. We believe that God = love, that He is the "force" of love. We believe that the real world tests - not formally, ofcourse - but just in the fact that shit happens and sooner or later your life wont be smooth sailing and things will be harder to deal with. Faith is easy when things are great, but you really see what your foundations are when you are shaken. It's like that song with the wise man building his house on the rock and not the sand. So we believe with our spiritually and faith that God wants what's best for us and helps us to be stronger people - its our strong foundation. Without it - we'd be like a house on the sand when the shit storm comes.

In regards to us testing god - I'm finding a lot of funky versus that don't really address the question, imo. The best I can surmise is that the nature of God isn't like the nature of say - gravity. God is a spiritual entity while gravity is a physical property. So the very way that you'd go about trying to bring about God or another spiritual presence is different than the scientific method.

As I said before, I subscribe to the idea that God = love - so every time you have love and feel love you are feeling God and have god with you right there. So in terms of "proof" - since we know that we love then by extension that is the proof that god is there too.

People have and will continue to prove what love is and isn't scientifically. I think you'd find that the people who see it only as an electrical/hormonal response and nothing more are also pretty comfortable without having a spirituality too, where the people who feel there is something more there that science hasn't yet been able to define are fine with trusting that belief and need no other insight.

[earlgreyhot]

Oct 20, 2012 7:01:09 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

Faith by definition is assuming there is something more to a situation than what you have evidence for. Even non-spiritual people practice a *faith* that certain things will turn out a certain way even though the odds might be against them.

Faith is certainly hard - its hard to admit we don't have all the answers nor can we assume that we will find and know them in any sort of reasonable timeframe. But having a wavering faith is really normal and we shouldn't beat ourselves up for our dips into pessimism.

I've found "strong faith" to be a bit of an oxymoron. Faith is such a surrender - and admittance of not having that control or understanding of a situation we really would like to have some sort of insight on. We have no choice to relinquish our grasp on that knowledge - at least for the time being.

The bolded resonates with me. We has humans simply don't have control over every situation nor do we have the ability to complete knowledge of everything and are forced to surrender ourselves to that truth. And that surrender can inspire profound peace, as I've experienced.

Some find "God" in that universal human experience and I don't argue that he/she/it is there. For me it's a comforting shared experience and can be powerful and awe-inspiring. But, I don't feel compelled to worship it, which is the basis of many religions.

ETA: Just wanted to clarify that I understand that just as I am not compelled, others very much are led and/or drawn into worship and to the more religious aspects.

[hopecounts]

Oct 19, 2012 21:43:38 GMT -5 elle said:

Oct 19, 2012 21:05:05 GMT -5 hopecounts said:

because faith is based on belief without needing proof.
And no of course God isn't a huckster, he gives you the freedom of choice in believing or not but if you believe you do it without requiring proof.
though to me he shows his prescence in my life in small ways without my asking.

Yeah, so, that's basically how fraudsters all do it.

FWIW, I believe in God but have objective reasons for doing so and am a bit taken aback that you think true belief requires an absence of proof. Would you believe less in God if you personally witnessed the resurrection?

i didn't say it requires an absence of proof just that it doesn't. require proof.
if I saw the resurrection that would be amazing but I don't need to have seen it to believe.

[lys]

questioning is encouraged - testing is not

[ringstrue]

Ditto all.

If you think about the nature of testing - the psychology behind it - it's not a very spiritually opening mind set. If you believe that there is a mindframe we have to be in to get the other point of view or have a greater understanding and to receive god's gifts, that mindframe isn't limited to "it has to be done this way at this time for me to believe". So a test would be like that story of the guy in the ocean praying to god to save him, and then saying that He didn't exist because He didn't show up in a form the guy expected. His test failed himSELF because it was innately limited in scope. But if you look for evidence, you'd see that there were the 3 people who where inexplicably compelled to pass by that place at that time to help him.

[Deleted]

I would say my lack of faith is evidence based. There is simply to much evil in the world for an omnipotent being with any sense of justice not to stop.

[hopecounts]

God isn't responsible for the evil in the world.
when Adam and Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit they chise free will which means God isn't allowed to stop evil that humans do to eachother.
Humans have the free will to do good or evil all God can do is try to reach their hearts and encourage them to do good and judge them when they come before Him.

to use the parent example a parent can tell their kid not to do something but the kid can choose to ignore them, then all the Parent can do is punish the kid.

[explorer2001]

Oct 20, 2012 12:14:04 GMT -5 hopecounts said:

God isn't responsible for the evil in the world.
when Adam and Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit they chise free will which means God isn't allowed to stop evil that humans do to eachother.
Humans have the free will to do good or evil all God can do is try to reach their hearts and encourage them to do good and judge them when they come before Him.

to use the parent example a parent can tell their kid not to do something but the kid can choose to ignore them, then all the Parent can do is punish the kid.

I have trouble with your premise. You are assuming all evil in the world is human caused. Even if you give your god a pass on all human caused evil (even the wars, torture, etc. done in god's name), that still doesn't explain a lot of the evil in the world. Why are there horrible diseases that kill millions a year from disentary to cancer to malaria? Why are there natural disasters: floods, storms, earthquakes, wildfires? Why are there droughts and starvation? Why do innocent little children suffer and die from these things? (This question is to get at the point that you can't argue that I might have cancer because god is punishing me for being a heathen. If you want to beleive that whatever, have fun. But the innocent baby that isn't even 3 but has been sick it's whole life hasn't had a chance to piss god off by being bad.) There are so many non-human caused horrors. How do you explain those evils?

[Deleted]

Oct 20, 2012 12:14:04 GMT -5 hopecounts said:

God isn't responsible for the evil in the world.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Epicurus

[explorer2001]

Oct 20, 2012 14:03:42 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Oct 20, 2012 12:14:04 GMT -5 hopecounts said:

God isn't responsible for the evil in the world.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Epicurus

:Y: :Y: I need to save this for later. Thank you for posting.

[codec]

Oct 20, 2012 14:39:37 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Oct 20, 2012 14:03:42 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Epicurus

I think it depends on how you view "malevolence." I would say that there is nothing more malevolent that taking away someone's free will. It's kind of the ultimate 4th Amendment violation (LOL!). And if we accept that free will is kind of important, then we accept that it will inevitably lead to evil and that we (God) tolerates that for the sake of giving what is presumably the second greatest gift human kind has ever received - salvation for the awful shit we do with our free will being the first.

So I congratulate Epicurus for his clever tautology, but disagree with the conclusion that either God does not exist or he is evil. This is not even the only reasonable conclusion, let alone the only logical one.

Ditto. We are not puppets on a string. We are responsible for what we do in this world and thankfully we were given free will. Unfortunately we are imperfect and will make mistakes. Even when it comes to people who are starving in this world..that is not God's will...it is ours. We can stop it and we have not.

[hopecounts]

Oct 20, 2012 14:01:25 GMT -5 explorer2001 said:

Oct 20, 2012 12:14:04 GMT -5 hopecounts said:

God isn't responsible for the evil in the world.
when Adam and Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit they chise free will which means God isn't allowed to stop evil that humans do to eachother.
Humans have the free will to do good or evil all God can do is try to reach their hearts and encourage them to do good and judge them when they come before Him.

to use the parent example a parent can tell their kid not to do something but the kid can choose to ignore them, then all the Parent can do is punish the kid.

I have trouble with your premise. You are assuming all evil in the world is human caused. Even if you give your god a pass on all human caused evil (even the wars, torture, etc. done in god's name), that still doesn't explain a lot of the evil in the world. Why are there horrible diseases that kill millions a year from disentary to cancer to malaria? Why are there natural disasters: floods, storms, earthquakes, wildfires? Why are there droughts and starvation? Why do innocent little children suffer and die from these things? (This question is to get at the point that you can't argue that I might have cancer because god is punishing me for being a heathen. If you want to beleive that whatever, have fun. But the innocent baby that isn't even 3 but has been sick it's whole life hasn't had a chance to piss god off by being bad.) There are so many non-human caused horrors. How do you explain those evils?

we gave up living in a perfect world when we chose free will.
that means war, disease, etc exist, when we were thrown from Eden we were exposed to all the negatives that came with that. Our choice, our consequence to live with.

it's not a punishment from God it's the cost of having free will.
and yes I see not having free will as far more malevolent then accepting the bad stuff that comes with life. especially knowing that there is a better eternal life after this temporary one.

[codec]

I don't understand why someone getting cancer would be viewed as being punished by God. My FIL died of cancer, MIL of alzheimers and now my own Dad has a very aggressive cancer and it has never crossed my mind that this is some sort of punishment from God. And yes innocent babies get sick. It's terrible but babies and children are always going to be subjected to some of the realities of being human. How could they not be? They are flesh and blood..

[ringstrue]

Yeah the epicurus thing has been well responded to in the theist world. Our perceptions of what is good or evil is pretty narrow in the grand scheme. A young child may very well determine that broccoli is evil, for instance. Am i evil because i let my kid fall down and scrape a knee instead of catching her every time? Would true goodness and progress be found if there wasn't a problem to be solved? Just because we see something as a con right now doesn't mean that later on our perception couldn't change.

If you want your child to be wise, you MUST let them fail- there is no other way. There is no true understanding w/o failure. Free will must be so if we are ever to know the full story.

Finally, there is the saying that we are the body of christ- we are his arms and legs. We can choose to let him resonate in us and do his work or we can choose to ignore it.

[lys]

Believing in God does not mean you have a trouble free life, it means you have a source of strength in God to help you .
Wasn't Lucifer a fallen angel?
There are 2 forces in the word. One for good and one for evil. It is all about which you choose and how to identify which is which. Evil often masquerades as good.

[lys]

Believing in God does not mean you have a trouble free life, it means you have a source of strength in God to help you .
Wasn't Lucifer a fallen angel?
There are 2 forces in the word. One for good and one for evil. It is all about which you choose and how to identify which is which. Evil often masquerades as good.

[Deleted]

Oct 20, 2012 14:39:37 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Oct 20, 2012 14:03:42 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Epicurus

I think it depends on how you view "malevolence." I would say that there is nothing more malevolent that taking away someone's free will. It's kind of the ultimate 4th Amendment violation (LOL!). And if we accept that free will is kind of important, then we accept that it will inevitably lead to evil and that we (God) tolerates that for the sake of giving what is presumably the second greatest gift human kind has ever received - salvation for the awful shit we do with our free will being the first.

So I congratulate Epicurus for his clever tautology, but disagree with the conclusion that either God does not exist or he is evil. This is not even the only reasonable conclusion, let alone the only logical one.

Sure. I can make up many replies to the argument. Its really just a good explanation of why there is no god from an atheist point of view.

It would never work as an argument to persuade religious people, because faith allows you to sidestep reason. I am not saying all religious people, (or you sbp) have no reason. I am saying that once you put faith as your argument, no rational argument can ever hope to win.

Your explanation could have been "Epicurus is wrong because sausage over there -5 plus elephant whhheeeee" and it would be just as valid because faith allows for that.

Sounds snarky - sorry, not meant to be - I am just on my way out to my wifes surprise birthday so have little time! ;D

[livinitup]

Oct 19, 2012 14:45:16 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Oct 19, 2012 14:43:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Anyway, there are passages in the Bible that specifically talk about not testing God. Possibly because nothing will happen and you will lose your grip on what you believe. Personally, I think we're all tested, every day on what we believe, and it's good for us. For you, it's the fact that God is constantly shoved in your face, and you struggle to understand why people believe in a fairy tale.

I must have been the worst Catholic ever, because I swear, I never encountered any of these passages in school. Do all religions have similar sacred book passages? Are there any religions where the god is okay with providing some kind of evidence?

Nah, Catholics don't really teach specific passages from the bible. They don't NOT teach it, but you weren't really missing something that they were teaching.

Anyway, I grew up around Jesuits (Catholic priests) and they did some heavy duty study and questioning. It's not impossible to find some pretty great (and heavy) study on the existence of god. Lots in fact.