Not at all. I was merely responding to Jenyar's quote and usage of "never" in bold. Then he gets forsaken back. He gets forsaken in return. But then who cares? If a person forsakes god it would be apparent that he couldn't give a shit if god forsakes him back. Everyone's happy.
To "forsake" God, you must believe in God in the first instance. To forsake God merely means you no longer rely on him, and have no store in what he can offer you. You cut him out of your lives. BUT YOU STILL BELIEVE HE EXISTS. I am an atheist. There is no God to forsake. I have not forsaken anyone or anything. The fact that I may follow the same ethical/moral road as Christians does not mean that "God's law is written in my heart." Just because people have an idea of moral conduct does not mean that it is given to them by a deity. Please do not assign my behaviour to a God.
Sarkus, As I've explained, forsaking God is not simply an intellectual decision -- it is acting in disobedience to God's decisions and covenants. To believe that God doesn't exist is to reject any evidence He ever gave of His nature, and to forsake the covenant He made to those He revelaed His nature to (which we, not being descendents of the people He made them to, have to find out about second hand, and only have access to through Christ anyway). But we can still understand the requirements He placed on us as human beings, which is that ethical/moral road you talk about. But I don't think you are corroborating evidence for God, I think that the road marked out for those God made a covenant with, is corroborating evidence for you, for your behaviour. It does not prove that God exists, but it shows that the God of Israel considered this behaviour more than just a matter of individual choice. When they cut the behaviour out of their lives, they were acting as if He didn't exist -- whatever they professed to believe was besides the point: they were forsaking Him by forsaking His laws. This would all be irrelevant if we did not in fact need God. If this life was all there was. But whether we sin apart from God or within a relationship with Him, it hurts those we love, and those who love us. Sin has consequences that being a generally good person doesn't come near to address.
I thought it might help to understand who the recipients of that promise was, which is why I wrote the rest of my post. Those who "keep [their] lives free from the love of money and be content with what [they] have" would be people motivated by their trust in God, not people who have rejected (or never believed in) Him.
I refer the honourable gentleman to all discussions regarding "evidence" / "proof" of God. The rest of your reply is merely ascribing to your God that which exists, has existed and will exist anyway. Morals and Ethics do not stem from religion. They stem from the need to live together in society. The fact that religions are a tool with which to guide their followers to the same end does not mean that for there to be the former there must be the latter. But you still miss the point I was making that to "forsake" something you must still believe it exists. If you say "I forsake God" you are actually saying "God, I know you exist, but I will live my life despite your existence, with no help from you." I do not forsake God. As far as I am concerned there is nothing to forsake. "Forsaking God" is a meaningless concept to me. We don't need God. The world could be atheist and it would still function. We as humans would merely discuss other things and those currently religious would find other things with which to drive their lives. It is.
Really? So simple? It may be this way for some who forsake God, but not for all. I can imagine that someone forsakes God, and is unhappy about doing so -- but sees no other option at that moment. They might have prayed and prayed for a long time, yet they feel that God is not listening to them. SO they decide to not have faith in God to help them, anymore. Such a person is not indifferent about being forsaken in return; they may fear it, be unhappy about it -- but they also refuse to keep on having faith in God just for the sake of the threat of being forsaken.
You will probably see my posts in most of them. The problem is that the criteria for "evidence" is often defined by those who look for it - in other words, they find what they expect to find. By the criteria God gave to know Him, He is knowable. Modern science has no tools to find God with; it merely describes what is seen, and leaves us to put the pieces together metaphysically. History cannot be dicovered in a test tube, you either believe the people who tell it or you don't; and you either believe that what you see is evidence for God, or you don't. Nothing is evidence by nature -- Some things aren't designated "evidence" and other things labeled "other". I did not say morals and ethics stem from religion. Religion and morality stem from the same thing: the realization of higher ideals. It is these higher ideals that I believe are defined by God, because we would simply define them as it suits ourselves. Without such authority, "morality" goes out the window as soon as we find something more desireable. If the "need to live together in society" was so persuasive, how do you explain it against the fact that many people prefer not to live together in society? And who defines that "society"? Is it defined by those who already like each other, say, a group of neo-nazi's, or is it defined by the consensus of people who believe that morals have outweigh personal opinion? But that does not make it a meaningless concept. Your definition of forsaking God simply suits itself. An anology: Is a person who rejects all forms of justice able to declare himself innocent, since "he never believed in any laws anyway"? Of course, someone might contest some laws for being unjust, but he would have to appeal to a higher sense of justice. Living as an outlaw among outlaws will not make him just by those who believe in justice as an ideal. For an outlaw, the rules of his peers would vindicate him in his own eyes, and all "evidence" would point to his innocence among them. For a visiting policeman, all "evidence" will point to the contrary. Who do you believe? This above is a statement of faith.
The solution to this dilemma could be in realizing that forsaking God simply puts a person at the mercy of the world as he sees it. God's promise stands as long as he is alive, and he would be welcomed back if you ever choose to return to Him, but if he completely rejected God he has no way of knowing this; even God's love will mean nothing to him. Indicision or "agnosticism" also eventually amounts to a motion of distrust, because it's an artificial suspension between belief and disbelief. Without God, death makes that decision final for him -- in that sense it is all there is left for you. (And it does not make sense then to take offense at that, because it is what he has in fact accepted himself.) He cannot have his bread buttered on both sides. Prayer is by definition a surrender to God's will; it leaves discretion up to God, the One prayed to, and it's therefore a better idea to look further than to give up. It would be irrational to give up on God because one gave up on prayer.
Repeatable direct observation is evidence. Our morals define what is right and wrong to us. This is inescapably influenced by the society in which we live. Society is inescapably influenced by religion. Hence our morals are inescapably influenced by religion. It is purely a matter of brainwashing - and is now in a perfectly perpetual cycle that will never be broken. Homo sapiens is not a pack animal in the way dogs are, to my knowledge, but they are also not an animal who prefers isolation. There has been a sense of community throughout our evolutionary development, much as we see in other forms of life. On the whole it is defined by the majority - whether that is based on morals, ethics, or personal opinion. I start from the position that God doesn't exist. You start from the point of view that he does. It is meaningless to me and to all others to say that we have forsaken God. If a person's own ethical and moral code is that different such that he rejects all forms of justice, then yes, he can declare himself innocent. He will still be judged by the society in which he lives. And I'm guessing you'll counter and say that those who turn from God will still be judged by God in the same way? Just on the off-chance that you want to, the difference is that there is direct observable and repeatable evidence of the society, and the laws etc, with which the person will be judged - whereas with God there isn't. So the analogy is flawed. And so it is, as ever, a matter of faith on your part.
This assumes God exists, and you believe in it. You may forsake God, but if he exists, he may not forsake you, since he is the omnipotent manager of the universe, he would still have a hand in your life. I don't believe even in the Christian view that he is narrow-minded and spiteful. He might make life more difficult for you, to teach you a lesson, like Job. You may forsake the idea of God, if you were a former believer, and nothing at all will happen, since it seems to me impossible to recognize his influence as apart from simple cause and effect. One time I almost died, and I thought, if I was religious, I would pray right now for recovery. I didn't pray, and I recovered anyway. A Christian would have prayed, and then recovered, and thanked God for a miracle, but no miracle was necessary, (apart from the miracle of my own body).
I'll probably start a five-star argument, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but here goes. My personal opinion is that what we refer to as God is merely the personification of the forces of Nature. Humans need to find a reason for everything. They need to humanise that which they can't understand or control, like death or the earthly powers of Nature when it's in a rage. So they come up with the idea of an overwhelming presence, a Great Intelligence that controls everything. So when we say a person forsakes God, does God forsake him in return, we're dealing with the idea A) that there is a vast intelligence out there B) It gives a damn about us. Whereas in my belief, Nature just rolls on regardless. If there is such a thing as a spirit world, and survival of consciousness in any form after death, then perhaps your late departed relatives are keeping an eye on you to make sure you don't stub your toes too often. However, whether there is an actual God or Gods 'up there' wherever, I believe they take on the form their believers give them. Given the fact that all bodies die, the inevitability of that fact gives rise to the hope in the existence of a future spirit world where one can just step over into another reality. Given that all houses fall, every religious pantheon will have its day and go down to dust. Given that all empires pass away, the very memory of the ancient Gods, worshipped by mighty kings thousands of years ago, has had to be brought back from obscurity by archaeologists. My point is that whether God abandons you or you depart from him, you still have to deal with the powers of Nature every day, and make your life as comfortable as you can. We'll probably still be having this discussion in 10,000 years time--same problem, just with a different set of Gods.
You know what? Say god exists right, and none of us believed in him/her/them, and we only did the "right/moral/ethical" thing, then what difference would it make? If god doesn't exist in that situation, you are helping other people. If god exists, he/she/they can't punish you, because you did the "right" thing. So all you theists, quit trying to get to "heaven" by merely arguing god exists, and actually help other people. Instead of spending time praying to god 5minutes-1hour everyday, help other people, it is more useful. Because that is what your god prolly said anyways. As long as you do the "moral" thing, you are fine. If god is truly great, then he/she/they will forgive you no matter what. It is only foolishness to say god punishes all those who dont believe in him/her/them or god punishes those who believe in other religion. Religions exist to make sure that the act of "selfishness(as it is defined by society)" does not detroy the world.
Xylene: I'll probably start a five-star argument, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but here goes. My personal opinion is that what we refer to as God is merely the personification of the forces of Nature. Humans need to find a reason for everything. They need to humanise that which they can't understand or control, like death or the earthly powers of Nature when it's in a rage. So they come up with the idea of an overwhelming presence, a Great Intelligence that controls everything. So when we say a person forsakes God, does God forsake him in return, we're dealing with the idea A) that there is a vast intelligence out there B) It gives a damn about us. Whereas in my belief, Nature just rolls on regardless. If there is such a thing as a spirit world, and survival of consciousness in any form after death, then perhaps your late departed relatives are keeping an eye on you to make sure you don't stub your toes too often. However, whether there is an actual God or Gods 'up there' wherever, I believe they take on the form their believers give them. Given the fact that all bodies die, the inevitability of that fact gives rise to the hope in the existence of a future spirit world where one can just step over into another reality. Given that all houses fall, every religious pantheon will have its day and go down to dust. Given that all empires pass away, the very memory of the ancient Gods, worshipped by mighty kings thousands of years ago, has had to be brought back from obscurity by archaeologists. My point is that whether God abandons you or you depart from him, you still have to deal with the powers of Nature every day, and make your life as comfortable as you can. We'll probably still be having this discussion in 10,000 years time--same problem, just with a different set of Gods. ************* M*W: This is the most ideated and intelligent post I've seen on sciforums. I totally agree with you and have stated many times the same concept. Early humans feared the sun. It was hot. They couldn't look directly at it without being blinded. Strangely, the Greek word for the sun is 'helios,' another word for 'hell.' The sun died and arose. They feared the moon arose and died. The sun as god became the 'Son of God'. The constellations became the 'knights of the roundtable,' and King Arthur was Ursa Major. The bible even speaks of the zodiacal creatures in passages like "the lion (Leo) will lay down with the lamb (Aries)." This may be a conjunction. Books have been published on this subject. The Virgin Mary of course was patterned after Virgo (the virgin), and Aquarius represented John the Baptist. I have to run right now, but I could go on. Again, thank you for your post.
NIV Luke 12 "[8] I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. [9] But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God..." "...[16] And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. [17] He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ [18] Then he said, ‘This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. [19] And I'll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” ’ [20] “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ [21] “This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God." I don't think one may notice any significant difference apart from that which they once experienced as a Christian which they don't any more (be that good or bad in their mind)... in this life. What comes next is the issue.
If God is as Christians and the Bible says He is, then why would anyone want to have anything to do with such a tyrant? Look how He stands up for Job. He let the so-called devil destroy a man who loved Him and lived for Him. Unbelieveable!! All loving my a@@. The "CHURCH" has destroyed the God of the Bible. Mythology is all that is left. If God created everything and said it was good then how can the perfect one be wrong, when Eve took a bite? Everything is good includes everything unconditionally. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, who did their son marry and have kids with? Christians in general don't believe in evolution, so any animal that has ever lived, lived during Noah's time. The Bible gives dimensions for the Ark. There is no way a bunch of dinosaurs fit on the Ark, much less all the animals in the world. Oh yeah, what about the time frame for the beginning of the world. That discounts the belief of dinosaurs and the carbon dating right there. CHRISTIANS need to quit believing in their book of fantasy and take it for what it is......Church Propaganda. "Do as we write and tell you to do (ie...give us money, power, and atthority over you and your family), and we will give you a place to come and worship us (opps, we meant God)." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Granted there are some good life lessons and morals taught in the Bible but who would want to read all the propaganda that goes with it. Before they spout off with the Bible quotes, it makes no difference to me, because I don't know who wrote it and with what intent. I am not a Christian basher I just don't know how you can be so gullible.
Yes, you don't know how they can be so "gullible". If you don't know, then you just don't know, and you don't even know whether they are "gullible", or whether they have a knowledge that you do not have.
Yes – of things that can be validated by repeatable direct observation. Try to prove any historical event this way. Something like God’s love, for instance, has been corroborated by direct observation and experience, but because it’s not natural, and because it’s not human, it cannot be repeated at will by nature or by people. They experience it, remember it, record it, and those accounts can be believed or disbelieved. “Our morals” do nothing. What you are saying is that people influence each other, and all you are doing is calling this influence “religion” and “society” interchangeably. We call our definitions of right and wrong “morality”. That “we” is society, so let’s start with your definition of society: So your logic is: morals are defined by majority consensus (i.e. what most individuals agree to be right or wrong). But here you must clarify, because if it is only consensus that makes something right or wrong, then the Nazi consensus was perfectly moral. Slavery was perfectly moral. Racism was perfectly moral. Everybody did agree on that, after all. They agreed that the minority who disagreed were wrong. And in cultures where authority isn’t so democratic, the ruler’s personal morality was law. But oh, what a sense of community Atilla the Hun and Osama bin Laden instilled in their people! Or do you mean global consensus? The “society” of “homo sapiens”? Your “perpetual cycle” is a closed system, and religion is as much part of this as atheism. If you now isolate religion, you are making a moral judgement outside your proposed system. Aren’t we human? Hasn’t homo sapiens been spiritually motivated for the majority of its existence? Historically, evolutionary morality is in the minority. What happens to your definition now? Add up everybody in the world’s personal thoughts and divide by the total? You might as well divide by zero. And if the society he lives in judges him right, if his personal interest is also their interest, is he right? Will it even help to repeatedly and directly observe Caligula, Nero, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tsetung, and Pol Pot’s morality? Does it make them morally justified? They weren’t even very religious. What about communism and socialism? If a sense of community is the raison d’etre of morality, then they were moral societies by a large majority. If the Tutsi’s manage the complete genocide of the Hutus, and end up being the majority, will they have become right? And I guess prostitution and pornography are moral as well, judging by their popularity. We are, after all, just animals that happen to feel a sense of community. The laws by which we will be judged by God are just as clear: they all derive from the concepts of unselfish love and perfect holiness. Love God with all your mind, body and soul, and love your fellow man as yourself. Many people, all too often minorities, judge people’s actions by the standard of love. Its benefits are obvious without even having to be directly and repeatedly observe it. Yet no society judges itself by its standard, because love is not enforceable by us. It’s those who suffer under injustice and hatred who appreciate God’s authority over who is right. In a culture where accepted behaviour was rape, murder, and adultery, Noah still wasn't immoral and Lot wasn't immoral. The majority does not decide morality; God does. But people who live in power and luxury usually see no need for God other than as a political puppet or moral straw man. You live in a country where the majority of laws happen to come from a Christian-Roman (Western) background. A few hundred years ago you might have used the word “civilization” to describe your particular moral culture. But try to apply your definitions in animistic, non-Christian, or hedonistic cultures. Cultures where America isn’t interested in enforcing its moral highground. Cultures where you‘re only a criminal if you get caught, for instance. Or where justice measures a person’s guilt in dollars. You’ll come out on the other side morally bankrupt, or more likely: dead. Why wait until you suffer from someone's morality before you admit it's not relative. Muslim terrorists are either morally justified simply because they believe they are, or they're not.
No, you don't understand me and my past. I was once gullible enough to believe in the Church ie Protestant Christianity. And then I woke up. I seen the hypocrasy (sp) and political bs. I decided it wasn't for me. There was also all the fiction in the Grand and Holy BOOK.
