I want to hear why you believe in a god(s). Also give me some arguements as to why people should believe.

Well, for me personally, it's a matter of hope. Hope that I can see my dad again someday, who I lost to a heart attack when I was young.

I posted this on another thread too: many instances in the Bible, including the controversy over the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, has been substantiated by both historical and archeological evidence. When Paul, James, Peter, and many others were preaching about the resurrection, there is no record, even in the Palestinian Talmud, of anyone ever disputing what these men and women had witnessed. Jesus was on the earth for 40 days before His assension (sp?) and had spoken to groups of people up to 5,000. His ministry was real, and He quoted quite a bit from the existing scriptures (which is now the OT). So we know historically Jesus, His ministry, death, resurrection, and assension was real, and in His ministry He validated the OT, which also has alot of strong support hisorically and archeaologically.

Like everything else, that all can be disputed, but it's the closest I've seen to any kind of "evidence". But you weren't looking for that, so please just refer to my above reason.

Well, for me personally, it's a matter of hope. Hope that I can see my dad again someday, whom lost to a attack when I was young.

I posted this on another thread too: many instances in the Bible, including the controversy over the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, has been substantiated by both historical and archeological evidence.

No, the resurrection has NOT been substantiated by historical, archeological, or any other evidence.

I suppose that would dissolve any hope you might have had.

How do you know your dads not in hell?

Jesus was on the earth for 40 days before His assension (sp?) and had spoken to groups of people up to 5,000. His ministry was real, and He quoted quite a bit from the existing scriptures (which is now the OT). So we know historically Jesus, His ministry, death, resurrection, and assension was real, and in His ministry He validated the OT, which also has alot of strong support hisorically and archeaologically.

pretty smart for a simple jewish carpenter.

there is little or no support for the OT or the NT in history or archaeology. oh, sure, they refer to actual places on earth from time to time, or other figures whose existence can be substantiated, but even some of those details are wrong in the bible. its what we would call "historical fiction" in the modern world. just because its got some facts woven in doesn't make its ultimate claims true, as the theist critics of the DaVinci code are so fond of pointing out.

I want to hear why you believe in a god(s). Also give me some arguements as to why people should believe.
It´s easier that way, that´s all.

Josephus was a noted historian and here is a passage he wrote in 93 A.D.:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accursed by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prohesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.

Another well noted historian was actually the writer of two of the books of the Bible- Luke. Archaeology has shown that he was write in many of his descriptions. Luke refered to Lysanias asbeing the tetrarch of Abilene in 27 A.D. For years scholars were using this to disprove Luke's credibility since Lysanias was not a tetrarch but a ruler 50 years earlier, but later we see archaeological evidence to prove Luke's statement:

"An inscription was later found from the time of Tiberius, from A.D. 14 to 37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus- just as Luke had written."- John McRay, Ph.D.

"It's extremely significant that Luke has been established to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. One prominent archaeologist carefully examined Luke's references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, finding not a single mistake."- McRay

Historian Michael Grant stated in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, "True, the discovery ofthe empty tomb is differently described by the various gospels, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indeed, found empty."

But I digress, and my apologies to spiritual_spy for even bringing this up, this wasn't part of his orginal question.

people believe in religion for the same reason they speak the specific language they do.

ggazoo. The reasons you stated for Jesus' ressurrection being true, mean thatthe mass sightings of leprechauns in Mobile, Alabama are also true as a result of your reasoning.

You and I both know there are no such things as leprechauns, yet people for some reason enjoy thinking they are very real. You and I should also both know that nobody ever has, or ever will, be raised from the dead to ascend to heaven.

Nobody goes to heaven on a winged horse either.

You must concede that if there is such a thing as a historical Jesus, then much of his story (such as virgin birth, and ascention), are just added for effect.

surely though, its wrong to believe in god for personal rewards (seeing yor father again) i'm sorry for your loss but surely you should believe in your god because he created you and loved you and looked after you or whatever that shit you believe is ;)

No, I don't concede. There were witnesses.... over 500 of them. Plus, the Romans never found his body, either. There are secular references to the life and crucifixtion of Jesus, even among the Roman records.

or whatever that shit you believe is

Thanks for reminding me why I don't come here as often as I used to. Nice, thanks.

No, I don't concede. There were witnesses.... over 500 of them.

Then my example of many eye witness reports of leprechauns in Mobile, Alabama are as equally true as ascention.

I've always wondered... if you can accept the same logic to support one historical document, how can you reject the same logic when applied to Biblical documents?

I've always wondered... if you can accept the same logic to support one historical document, how can you reject the same logic when applied to Biblical documents?

Because religious documents are not historical documents. 2,000 years of gained knowledge has taught us this. Use your common sense when reading fairy tales.

Because religious documents are not historical documents. 2,000 years of gained knowledge has taught us this. Use your common sense when reading fairy tales.

Fairy tales... hmmmm...

Well, there have been hundreds of books written on the subject of the evidences of the divine inspiration of the Bible, and these evidences are many and varied. Most people today, unfortunately, have not read any of these books. Thus, many people tend to go along with the popular delusion that the Bible is full of mistakes and is no longer relevant to our modern world.

Nevertheless the Bible writers claimed repeatedly that they were transmitting the very Word of God, infallible and authoritative in the highest degree. This is an amazing thing for any writer to say, and if the forty or so men who wrote the Scriptures were wrong in these claims, then they must have been lying, or insane, or both.

But, on the other hand, if the greatest and most influential book of the ages, containing the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised, was written by deceiving fanatics, then what hope is there for ever finding meaning and purpose in this world?

If one will seriously investigate these Biblical evidences, he will find that their claims of divine inspiration (stated over 3,000 times, in various ways) were amply justified.

The evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.

There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:
"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

• Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
• Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
• Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
• Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
• Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
• Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
• Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
• Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
• Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
• and many others.

These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible -- in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.

The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a period of 2,000 years, it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of explanation by chance or collusion.

The one consistent theme of the Bible, developing in grandeur from Genesis to Revelation, is God's great work in the creation and redemption of all things, through His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible is unique also in terms of its effect on individual men and on the history of nations. It is the all-time best seller, appealing both to hearts and minds, beloved by at least some in every race or nation or tribe to which it has gone, rich or poor, scholar or simple, king or commoner, men of literally every background and walk of life. No other book has ever held such universal appeal nor produced such lasting effects.

One final evidence that the Bible is true is found in the testimony of those who have believed it. Multitudes of people, past and present, have found from personal experience that its promises are true, its counsel is sound, its commands and restrictions are wise, and its wonderful message of salvation meets every need for both time and eternity.

You can do a google search and find an endless number of resources on the accuracy, validity, and/or trustworthiness of the bible.

That's all I've got. :D

Nevertheless the Bible writers claimed repeatedly that they were transmitting the very Word of God, infallible and authoritative in the highest degree. This is an amazing thing for any writer to say, and if the forty or so men who wrote the Scriptures were wrong in these claims, then they must have been lying, or insane, or both.

"The bible is a load of old bollocks"

"The bible is a load of old bollocks"

"The bible is a load of old bollocks"

"The bible is a load of old bollocks"

How is making a claim repeatedly an amazing thing?

But, on the other hand, if the greatest and most influential book of the ages, containing the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised

Stone prostitutes to death is the "most perfect moral code"?

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place

Except for all the 'messages' that didn't fit perfectly into place and as such were discarded?

One final evidence that the Bible is true is found in the testimony of those who have believed it. Multitudes of people, past and present, have found from personal experience that its promises are true

There is no evidence in that statement.

Here is the major flaw i see in the bible. The diffrence between the god the OT and the NT. The old testament god sent enitre cities into a sluaghter and the NT god preaches love, peace and acceptance. Plus, the entire idea of hell to me seems almost sadistic(Sp?). Sending people into eternal fire just for sins during a finte lifespan? I mean come on? How is that just? i think people should be punished if they did wrong but that is the equivelent (sp?) of sentencing a man to death for a parking violation.

Fairy tales... hmmmm...

You can do a google search and find an endless number of resources on the accuracy, validity, and/or trustworthiness of the bible.

That's all I've got.

You mean like the site you lifted that from:

http://www.gmau.org/ThinkingCaps/tcap33.htm

as a human being, you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking that any text, no matter who it was written by, is absolute truth. the idea is just absurd. first of all, the text means nothing if you don't have any association to the words. second, your association to the words determines the meaning the text has. third, you have to take into consideration the cultural context it is in, which we will never know for sure.

the only word of god that can be taken literally is the world around you. if god created the universe, then the best way to learn about god would be to study the universe, not a book.

the only word of god that can be taken literally is the world around you. if god created the universe, then the best way to learn about god would be to study the universe, not a book.

the best way is to study yourself.

the best way is to study yourself.
what is the self without the body? what is the being without the environment? what is the environment without the planet? without the sun? without our galaxy?

the universe is just an extension of you; you cannot live without everything around you. you can live without certain things, or if you have the right things, but you will not be the same as you are right now, at this moment. in fact, 'you' are always changing; you are a part of the universe as it is a part of you. you are like a filter through which energy passes, and the energy filtered into you remains as your memories.

ggazoo:

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

• Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
• Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
• Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
• Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
• Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
• Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
• Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
• Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
• Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
• and many others.

LOLLERSKATES! :D

http://winace.andkon.com/pics/holy_book_office_assistant.jpg

what is the self without the body?

the absolute reality (nothing-everything)

the universe is just an extension of you; you cannot live without everything around you.

a person and a body can't... but i can...

You mean like the site you lifted that from:

http://www.gmau.org/ThinkingCaps/tcap33.htm

That's the only comment you have? But yeah sorry, forgot to give credit.

That's the only comment you have? But yeah sorry, forgot to give credit.

Your intent was NOT to give credit where credit was due since you slightly manipulated the copy/paste to make it appear as if you wrote it.

I at least had a comment to make, you did not.

Your intent was NOT to give credit where credit was due since you slightly manipulated the copy/paste to make it appear as if you wrote it.

I at least had a comment to make, you did not.

No, not's not the case the all - I edited it because some parts were a little preachy. And, I just forgot the link, it was late last night. Geesh. :rolleyes:

the absolute reality (nothing-everything)

a person and a body can't... but i can...
but 'you' are a state of being--constantly changing based on what goes through your physical being. without the body, you are still that same energy that would have fueled 'you' in the body, but that you is just energy, it is nothing like the 'you' in a body. it is a state of being in which you have no control over your actions because you just are. you do not think, you know. you do not take action, you are action. so you can call it 'you' because it is the fuel of your psyche, but it is not anywhere close to the 'you' that you feel now.

SUMMARY:

I accept the existence of 'God' as truth because:

ggazoo - I want to be reunited with a dead relative (selfishness)
Naat - It's easy (laziness)
c7ityi_ - I'm a freakin' lunatic (lunacy)

I believe in God because I believe we are God, this is our reality, God is our true self, within us all. Good and Evil exists because good and evil exists within us, it is our own self. Whatever you focus on, you become, therefore worshipping or focusing on God will cause you attain the nature of God or your true self. Personal experiences of mine confirm all these findings. This is the conclusion I've come to, and why I believe in the one, formless God.

So in summary:

You don't believe in 'god' at all, just yourself?

Sheesh, you certainly went the long way round in saying it.

c7ityi_ - I'm a freakin' lunatic (lunacy)

but i don't even believe in god, i only believe in myself. religions call our higher self god, in that sense, he exists, but.... um... he's not really what people think "he" is!!

c7ityi_ - I'm a freakin' lunatic (lunacy)

you're so mean!!!!!1

but.. i kinda like the word lunacy... because it reminds of lunar...

but i don't even believe in god, i only believe in myself. religions call our higher self god, in that sense, he exists, but.... um... he's not really what people think "he" is!!

Unless I've mis-interpreted your messages in the past, I've seen you claim that you & we are immportal, omnipresent, and omnipotent life forms. Am I off here?

I sort of agree with what you said. In the end, people want to have a deep relationship with something whom is the highest authority, the most caring, the most understanding, etc... and that entity they have the relationship with (if successful) are themselves. Many don't realize this and stick a proxy concept called 'God' in between there. It's the reason that if you attack 'God' in the presence of believers, that they will invariably become hostile as that's a direct attack on them.

Consquently, why would you believe in the existince of yourself? You *know* you exist (you are irrefutable evidence).


you're so mean!!!!!1

but.. i kinda like the word lunacy... because it reminds of lunar...

As I recall, in the Harry Potter stories, there was some student named Luna Lovegood. She was way out there and got hammered with a nickname similar to Looney. :)

Unless I've mis-interpreted your messages in the past, I've seen you claim that you & we are immportal, omnipresent, and omnipotent life forms. Am I off here?

there is an "i am" in all of us... and that's what is omnipresent and immortal (dunno about -omnipotent-, but at least "we" "created" the universe). our true being is being/existence, and existence/life is omnipresent and immortal.

i've said it a million times but.. there is only one being, one self... in infinite different bodies.

our bodies and persons are mortal of course, but the feeling of "i am" never dies. god said to moses (although it was actually just moses who realized): i am.

Consquently, why would you believe in the existince of yourself? You *know* you exist (you are irrefutable evidence).

yeah, i don't have to believe.

"i am" in all of us... is omnipresent and immortal...
..."we" "created" the universe.
...our true being is being/existence, and existence/life is omnipresent and immortal.
...there is only one being, one self... in infinite different bodies.
...the feeling of "i am" never dies.


If I am understanding this correctly, you're asserting that only one unique entity exists, it created the universe, and we (humans) are shards of that entity's consciousness?

ggazoo:

LOLLERSKATES! :D

http://winace.andkon.com/pics/holy_book_office_assistant.jpg

Please explain?

I want to hear why you believe in a god(s). Also give me some arguements as to why people should believe.

a) Because it is quite obvious that there is gigantic intelligence at work.
b) People should believe if they choose to try and use their intelligence over the senses, as opposed to using their senses to dictate their intelligence.

Jan.

there is an "i am" in all of us... and that's what is omnipresent and immortal (dunno about -omnipotent-, but at least "we" "created" the universe). our true being is being/existence, and existence/life is omnipresent and immortal.

Back to talking your typical gobshite.

--------------

a) Because it is quite obvious that there is gigantic intelligence at work.

Only to the uneducated.

b) People should believe if they choose to try and use their intelligence over the senses, as opposed to using their senses to dictate their intelligence

Wouldn't the intelligent decide that - given the complete lack of evidence - that this supposed 'god' could for all anyone knows be a universe-farting invisible mushroom? What you're left with, (to the intelligent), is a bunch of people going round trying to sell belief in something that they cannot even remotely substantiate other than to say; "well, things look complex" - which is nothing but ignorance in the first place, without giving the idiocy of their beliefs a moments thought. The intelligent would have no place but to rely on what "knowledge" they have, what they 'do know', not what they want to be true on the basis of their lack of understanding.

a) Because it is quite obvious that there is gigantic intelligence at work.

This is odd. You appear to be able to use common sense when talking about this God of yours, but are completely devoid of it when confronted with the fossil record.

If the universe is without creation through intelligent reasoning, then would you still call this release of energy a creation from an intelligent living God? Or are you happy to call anything 'God' wether it be a superiour intelligence or not?

Lets look at the classic notion of the creation of humans:

1. Humans were directly made by God - This suggests intelligent reasoning
2. Humans evolved over billions of years beginning with the organic compounds spewed out into space by giant stars - This suggests a creation of sorts, but apparently without intelligent reasoning.

So my above example also applies for the creation of the universe itself - Does it have intelligent reasoning, or is it a simple burst of energy with no intelligent creation required?

So, if there is a 'creation' by something that is clearly not a living intelligent creator, would you still call this God?

b) People should believe if they choose to try and use their intelligence over the senses, as opposed to using their senses to dictate their intelligence.

Neither our senses OR intelligence - alone or together - are anything near competent enough to figure out wether there is a sky fairy or not... Superstition on the other hand is all that is required to call for the existence of a sky fairy.

KennyJC,

This is odd. You appear to be able to use common sense when talking about this God of yours, but are completely devoid of it when confronted with the fossil record.

He's not only my God, He is yours also, even though you deny Him.


"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA],

If the universe is without creation through intelligent reasoning, then would you still call this release of energy a creation from an intelligent living God?

"Creation" implies a "creator", a creator must be intelligent.
What would compell this "release of energy" to create the splendour we see today?

Lets look at the classic notion of the creation of humans:

1. Humans were directly made by God - This suggests intelligent reasoning
2. Humans evolved over billions of years beginning with the organic compounds spewed out into space by giant stars - This suggests a creation of sorts, but apparently without intelligent reasoning.

So my above example also applies for the creation of the universe itself - Does it have intelligent reasoning, or is it a simple burst of energy with no intelligent creation required?

The question was "why do I believe in God", my answer was, "because it is obvious there is intelligence behind the phenomena. Whether or not you want to call it God, you also believe the universe has intelligence behind it. You haven't said so, you will probably deny it, or come with some whack argument, but I know you feel the same way I do.

So, if there is a 'creation' by something that is clearly not a living intelligent creator, would you still call this God?

Creation = creator = intelligence.
Whether we call it God or nature, is a different matter.

Neither our senses OR intelligence - alone or together - are anything near competent enough to figure out wether there is a sky fairy or not... Superstition on the other hand is all that is required to call for the existence of a sky fairy.

Why do you try and debase God by the term "sky fairy"?
And how do you know good, human intelligence is not adequate to understand that God exists?

Jan.