# Learning the truth about God



## morph4me

This topic came up in another thread and it was suggest that it would be a good subject for this forum. You don't have to agree with a person, but please be respectful of other people's beliefs and keep the conversation civil.

First, I just want to say that I'm not a religious person, I think that religion serves a purpose in some peoples lives, but whatever that purpose is, I must be having my needs mets elsewhere, because it does nothing for me. That being said, I am really enjoying this exchange, the mutual respect even in disagreement is not the norm when talking about religion. I've had people come to my door and have had discussions about religion with them that have lasted for 45 minutes, others come and I just tell them I'm not interested, it really depends on their approach. I recently had a couple come to the door and tell me they wanted to teach me how to read the bible, I told them " No, you want to teach my how you interpret the bible, not interested" and closed the door. Over the years my ideas of God and the afterlife have chaned, at this point I believe that death is just another phase of life, like learning to walk, becoming an adult, etc. I belibe that my essence will leave my body and join with other energies in the universe and what happens after that, who knows. I have a difficult time with the concept of heaven or hell. I would like to ask a question about something that thardey said though, maybe it will help me understand something that I never really understood. Please understand I'm not trying to be argumentative or discount anyone's belief's and if I come across that way in future posts I apologize in advance, for me this is purely and intellectual exercise that may lead to other lines of thought.


Quote:
That's why I would rather learn the truth about God now, while I still know I have a choice of whether I want to be with him or not. I'm not guaranteed that choice after I die 

How do you know you're learning the truth about God now? How do you know it's the truth and how are you going about it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

morph4me said:


> How do you know you're learning the truth about God now? How do you know it's the truth and how are you going about it?



I don't know.  I was born and raised Catholic, and after some amount of wandering and a smaller amount of experimenting, I have returned to the faith I was born into.

Is it the truth?  I don't know.  I like to think of it that way.

I do know this - even the scientists cannot tell us what existed before the 'big bang' singularity brought space and time into existence.  Not one of them can tell us the reason for that singularity.  Science postulates that everything has a cause, but it fails to even speculate at the first and most primary cause of all, the one that predicates all the others.

That does not mean that the first cause was a creator; but it does not mean that it wasn't, either.  Without a system of reference, who can know?

I find strange parallels in the words _"And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,"_ and the description of the Big Bang.  Before space-time was exploded into being, there was only the Void, and without energy and mass, there was only darkness.

Anyway, it works for me.  True?  I don't know.  Not really up to me, I guess.  I *believe*, and if that's not the same thing, it works for me.


----------



## thardey

Quote:
Originally Posted by *morph4me* 

 
_How do you know you're learning the truth about God now? How do you know it's the truth and how are you going about it?_

The "short" answer is that I test my beliefs in a similar way to Martial arts. I put them out to be examined by others. It's not so much that I will only believe if I can convince everyone, because that leads to a place where my beliefs are based on how many people agree with me, which isn't trustworthy.

But, if, in a respectful exchange, I lay my beliefs out for people of other faiths to examine and question, to probe and poke, they cause me to ask new questions, or reject superficial traditions (like Elder's input about "Hell" in the other thread.) The more I can do that, the more I can refine what I do believe, and strengthen my faith in those beliefs which "survive."

Actually, participating in this site is becoming a large part of my Spritual discipline. I bring up discussions that I've had here with my Bible Study group, and we examine them, and use them to ask difficult questions. Some of those who've been in church all their life are shocked by the questions that get asked. They've just never considered the Bible from that perspective. Also, connecting with you all helps keep me grounded in "real life" -- it's easy to get complacent when you're only around "church people" all the time, or people who already agree with you in general. 

I warned on the other thread that if I go much further, it may get "preachy" which wasn't appropriate for the Study. But Morph and I agreed to continue that part of this conversation here. So, if what I say starts to sound like a sermon, please understand that I am just trying to be honest, and I say everything with the utmost respect for other people's beliefs.

Also, I will discuss things as far as my personal beliefs, so I won't be arguing for a "Christian" group, or as representing some denomination, what I believe is what I believe -- I won't project that on others, nor will I defend them here. Sometimes I've defended "The Bible" or "Church" or whatever. Here I will be defending my personal beliefs. Some of what I say is widely accepted, some is not.
-Now, that I've got the disclaimers covered, here is my personal answer to your question.



> How do you know you're learning the truth about God now? How do you know it's the truth and how are you going about it?


 
From the beginning, I will admit that there is a lot about God I don't know. "Knowing Truth" is a hard thing to explain to others, and mostly impossible to convince others. I know what has happened to me, but I don't absolutely know that I've interpreted it correctly. The few things I will claim to "KNOW" as in unquestionable, are very few, and very personal. Things like I "KNOW" my wife loves me. It's hard to prove, but it's not something I will argue.

For most of the time, though, when I say I "Know" something, I'm using it in the sense of a "reasonably sure belief."

Also, I'm not a purely rationalist, or a purely fiedest (faith is enough), but I haven't chosen a "test for truth." All I've figured out so far is a negative test -- that if something flat-out contraticts itself, then one of those two truths must be wrong. Beyond that, I don't have a positive test to offer. That is, I will be open to things existing that will never be proven. It doesn't mean I will put faith in it, but I won't reject it, either.

That said, to be honest, I want to believe. I want to believe that there is a personal being out there, who knows who I am, and loves me like I love my wife. A powerful being, who is not limited by the things I am, but is only limited by his nature. (At this point I should mention that I believe that God is both male and female, and neither, but it is hard for me to refer to God as "It", so I fall back on the widely used liguistic system of using the masculine for a neutral.) I want to believe that this person wants to be with me, not for pity's sake, but because that's what my purpose is. 

I want to believe that the things I don't like about myself are not permanently bound to me, but that God wants to help me be rid of those weaknesses, and help me develop my full potential. That I am in the "Image of God" and that will be able to continue to develop that through eternity.

I also want to believe that I am not the only person for whom this is true. That everybody has this "divine" within them, and the secret for developing it is to train with the master who planted that spark within us. Like martial arts, it is dangerous to try to figure it out on your own, but it is wise to learn it from the source.

Those desires are strong, and it will take a lot to prove them wrong. They will change, and that is good. But the more I put them out there to be tested, the desire for that truth grows, and in fact that desire fits with what I have seen of God. That in fact, the secret to knowing him, is to desire to know him, and he will reveal himself in ways that are personal to me.


----------



## Empty Hands

morph4me said:


> How do you know you're learning the truth about God now? How do you know it's the truth and how are you going about it?



I submit that you can't know.  That's the nature of faith, after all.  God is a hypothesis with no means of external verification and testing.  You can have all the religious epiphanies and experiences you like, all the prayer and conviction and numinous feelings.  At the end though, that's all it is - unsubstantiated feelings.  There is no way to tell if you are right.  Tellingly, there are millions of other people going through the same process that come up with diametrically opposed opinions.  What makes either one right?

People also come to firm mental convictions about other phenomena we know weren't real.  Why do we privilege the thoughts on God then?  There is no reason to do so.  Atheism is the only rational response.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Empty Hands said:


> Atheism is the only rational response.



Beg pardon, but wouldn't agnosticism be the only rational response, based on your statements?  Atheism is an affirmation that there is no God, which in itself is a belief without proof either.  Agnosticism is an acknowledgment of lack of knowledge.


----------



## thardey

Bill Mattocks said:


> Beg pardon, but wouldn't agnosticism be the only rational response, based on your statements? Atheism is an affirmation that there is no God, which in itself is a belief without proof either. Agnosticism is an acknowledgment of lack of knowledge.


 
Depends on whether you're talking about "Hard" or "soft" Athiesm. There are many who are "Soft" Athiest, precisely because they're agnostic.


----------



## thardey

Empty Hands said:


> I submit that you can't know. That's the nature of faith, after all. God is a hypothesis with no means of external verification and testing. You can have all the religious epiphanies and experiences you like, all the prayer and conviction and numinous feelings. At the end though, that's all it is - unsubstantiated feelings. There is no way to tell if you are right. Tellingly, there are millions of other people going through the same process that come up with diametrically opposed opinions. What makes either one right?
> 
> People also come to firm mental convictions about other phenomena we know weren't real. Why do we privilege the thoughts on God then? There is no reason to do so. *Atheism is the only rational response*.


 
True, "Soft" Atheism is the product of purely rational thought. 

However, I am not a rationalist, as I mentioned above.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

thardey said:


> Depends on whether you're talking about "Hard" or "soft" Athiesm. There are many who are "Soft" Athiest, precisely because they're agnostic.



I see!  So when atheists get together, do they fight over who's non-belief is true?  Hehehehe....


----------



## Empty Hands

Bill Mattocks said:


> Atheism is an affirmation that there is no God, which in itself is a belief without proof either.  Agnosticism is an acknowledgment of lack of knowledge.



No, Atheism is a lack of belief.  Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge.  At one point, I was an agnostic theist.  I had the belief, but couldn't say for sure that it was real.  Now I am an agnostic atheist.  I don't have the belief, but still can't say for sure.


----------



## morph4me

I would have to classify myself as an agnostic, I find it hard to believe that there is an omnipotent and omniccient entity in the universe that cares any more about me than I do about an insect, yet when I do go to services I watch people there, and I know that they are getting something out of their faith, they are getting something out of being there, the only thing I get is the chance to nap occasionally. I've wondered in the past, and still do ocassionally, if I'm missing something, if there is something lacking within me that just isn't seeing the big picture, but I've come to believe that whatever those people arge "getting" I'm "getting" from something else in my life although I can't say for sure what or where.


----------



## Empty Hands

morph4me said:


> I've wondered in the past, and still do ocassionally, if I'm missing something, if there is something lacking within me that just isn't seeing the big picture, but I've come to believe that whatever those people arge "getting" I'm "getting" from something else in my life although I can't say for sure what or where.



Neuroscience studies have shown that we are hardwired with a propensity for religiosity.  Not any particular religion mind you, but the mindset and outlook that goes with it.  Religiosity has been correlated with certain genes and brain structures, and feelings of numinosity or religious awe can be induced experimentally by stimulating certain points of the brain.

Thinking back, I've never had a belief or desire to believe in God.  Even as a kid I described myself as "agnostic."  It just didn't seem that important either way.  I find little difficulty believing then that religious belief has a hardwired component which I lack.


----------



## Nolerama

Right now, I consider myself a C-E Catholic: A Catholic only around Christmas and Easter.

To me, it brings up the idea that religion, no matter what flavor, is basically this:

1. A social structure/organization.
2. A way to control people.

From my POV, in terms of social structure, I really get it. My more religious relatives have their lives wrapped up in Catholicism and make deep, lasting friendships based on their common understanding of religion. It maintains a community. On my end of the spectrum, I see people in church during the holidays that I only ever get to see once or twice a year; to me that's a great thing... They're good people, I just don't share their passion for organized religion.

In terms of ways to control people, religion is a monster that is both benevolent and evil; active and reactive. On a very superficial level, American consumerism is at least partially dictated by religion. Companies use religious holidays to get people to buy, buy, buy. Religion provides a set of rules to live by; and while most religions offer a wonderful basic moral code, it can and does hinder those who would want to live a different life outside of their base religion.

I would also like to add that religion, outside of its more common perception that there has to be holy script, a house of worship, and a heavenly messenger, can be more than just one "faith" but can also fall under "activity."

How many people are out there just to experience the social benefits of religion? There are plenty.

Do those same people find "spiritual experience" elsewhere? I'm sure they do. Just not in the  conventional sense. Some people see God when they see the Grand Canyon. Others have a spiritual experience when their first child is born. Others get one whenever they have a good yoga workout. Contented bliss (at least momentary) in one's life can be found everywhere.

Moreover, lots of people find solace in nit-picking the different terms of religion and religious effectiveness, as stated by Mr. Mattock's previous post; at least in some way. It's no different than one Christian sect saying they're more Godly than another Christian sect. You can interchange "Christian" with any other religion.

Is there a point in the grand scheme of things, other than appeasing one's vocabulary? Not really.


----------



## thardey

Empty Hands said:


> Neuroscience studies have shown that we are hardwired with a propensity for religiosity. Not any particular religion mind you, but the mindset and outlook that goes with it. Religiosity has been correlated with certain genes and brain structures, and feelings of numinosity or religious awe can be induced experimentally by stimulating certain points of the brain.
> 
> Thinking back, I've never had a belief or desire to believe in God. Even as a kid I described myself as "agnostic." It just didn't seem that important either way. I find little difficulty believing then that religious belief has a hardwired component which I lack.


 
Very good point, and it goes along with what I was saying. I have felt "close" to God since I was a kid. As long as I remember. That's not something you can "turn on" in someone else.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Empty Hands said:


> No, Atheism is a lack of belief.  Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge.  At one point, I was an agnostic theist.  I had the belief, but couldn't say for sure that it was real.  Now I am an agnostic atheist.  I don't have the belief, but still can't say for sure.



Thanks for the correction!  I have a good friend who says he is a *"Jehovah's Bystander."*  He's pretty sure something happened, but he doesn't want to get involved.


----------



## morph4me

I grew up catholic, when I was a kid I wanted to become a priest and was very religious, as got older I started asking questions that I wasn't getting satisfactory answers to. About 18 years ago I converted to Judaism, it was a practical decision and Judaism was more to my taste, I could get answers to all my questions, and whether or not I agreed with the answers, I was able to get reasons for things we did,  but I changed from being a religious person to an agnostic. I guess it just took me longer to overcome or figure out my programming :idunno:


----------



## thardey

morph4me said:


> I grew up catholic, when I was a kid I wanted to become a priest and was very religious, as got older I started asking questions that I wasn't getting satisfactory answers to. About 18 years ago I converted to Judaism, it was a practical decision and Judaism was more to my taste, I could get answers to all my questions, and whether or not I agreed with the answers, I was able to get reasons for things we did, but I changed from being a religious person to an agnostic. I guess it just took me longer to overcome or figure out my programming :idunno:


 
Or it could be waiting for the right "stimulus" to kick it on again. I talked to one lady once in Italy (we were on the same tour) who said she was never religious, but one day she went into a cathedral in Mexico, and was overcome by a "religious experience." While in Italy she was going from cathedral to cathedral to try and recreate that feeling, but it wasn't working. After talking for a bit, I suggested that the cathedral experience was just to "wake her up" to something bigger. 

She realized that in reality, her "religious" understanding was strongly related to her husband, and that she hopes that God loves her like her husband does. I encouraged her to continue to pursue that relationship in light of her "awakening." The lights came on, and she realized that was really where she "knew" God, through the example of her husband. The "ongoing" religious experience was relational, but it took the stimulus of a "Holy place" to kick it on for her.

For my wife, it's scuba diving, for me, it's different things: Martial arts, scuba, motorcycles. I don't go to church to "meet God" I go to church to serve him. I "meet" him at other times.


----------



## morph4me

Can you explain what it is you feel when you're serving God at church? Is it serenity? euphoria? something else? Do you have to be in church to serve God? I've been trying to find out for years and nobody has ever been able to explain it to me. As I said, I find it hard to believe that there is an omnipotent and omniscient entity in the universe that cares any more about me than I do about an insect. On the other hand I find it equally difficult to believe that we are all here because of some cosmic accident and random genetic mutations. My truth and yours is obviously different and I'm wondering if I'm missing something or if I'm on the right track. It's good to re-examine one's beliefs every once in a while.


----------



## girlbug2

ETA: sorry, I double posted by accident, see my post below


----------



## Bill Mattocks

morph4me said:


> Can you explain what it is you feel when you're serving God at church? Is it serenity? euphoria? something else? Do you have to be in church to serve God? I've been trying to find out for years and nobody has ever been able to explain it to me.



I can't explain it, would not know how to begin.  I don't feel anything special in church, really, most of the time.  But I figure I'm not there to serve God, just to offer thanks and praise.  If I feel anything, it's when I see a guy on the corner, head down, holding a sign, and I give him whatever I have on me, because He said _"What you do the least of my brothers, you do to me."_  Also because I am not good, not kind, not decent, and a miserable failure as a human being; but Saved by Grace anyway, and that makes me feel a little better about myself.


----------



## girlbug2

Hmmmm, it's difficult to pinpoint exactly how one can "know" the answers to your two questions. I'm not of the opinion it's 100% head knowledge, it really comes from the heart first and then to the head for confirmation. I have my doubts that anybody was ever converted to my faith because somebody came along and shared the perfect rational argument with them. As a christian, I can not argue anybody into the kingdom of heaven and they can't argue me out of it. All I can do is present what I "know" and pray that it takes.

"For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" Romans 10:10

I am the most pathetic of sinners btw; I never think anybody would see me as an example of a "good christian", and think to themselves, " I want to be just like HER!", so it's hard to share my faith because all I see are my own shortcomings. But it's not all about _me_, thankfully! Jesus was the most beautiful, wonderful individual who ever lived; it makes perfect rational sense that once knowledge of His existence is implanted in the heart, a person would naturally want to learn as much as possible about Him and know Him more every day. That's where bible study comes into it, and everything I've learned is a resounding affirmation of that initial knowledge.

Weird to think that the God of the universe wants to know me and fellowship with me also; weird and wonderful!


----------



## elder999

Leaving aside the rest of your excellent questions, and keeping in mind that I'm not exactly a Christian anymore:



morph4me said:


> Do you have to be in church to serve God? .


 

This one is pretty much answered by this, for Christians, and,IMNSHO, anyone else, by this:



> *Matthew 25:34-40 *
> 
> 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
> 
> 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
> 40"The King will reply,* 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' *


And, of course, the short answer is *no.*



morph4me said:


> How do you know you're learning the truth about God now? How do you know it's the truth and how are you going about it?


 
How does it feel? How does it make you feel?

In the end, the only real _"__*knowing*"_ comes from within, from hearing that "still, small voice" that Isaiah listened to.


----------



## morph4me

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can't explain it, would not know how to begin. I don't feel anything special in church, really, most of the time. But I figure I'm not there to serve God, just to offer thanks and praise. If I feel anything, it's when I see a guy on the corner, head down, holding a sign, and I give him whatever I have on me, because He said _"What you do the least of my brothers, you do to me."_ Also because I am not good, not kind, not decent, and a miserable failure as a human being; but Saved by Grace anyway, and that makes me feel a little better about myself.


 


elder999 said:


> Leaving aside the rest of your excellent questions, and keeping in mind that I'm not exactly a Christian anymore:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one is pretty much answered by this, for Christians, and,IMNSHO, anyone else, by this:
> 
> 
> And, of course, the short answer is *no.*


 

It would seem to me that there's a general consensus in most religions that you serve God best by serving others, and yet I know a few people of varying religous backgrounds who go to srvices religiously, and are miserable human beings, and wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire, that has always intrigued me. Are they playing the odds in the hopes that if there is a God they'll get into heaven beacuse they go to services? If that's the case I think they missed the boat.


----------



## Steve

Empty Hands said:


> No, Atheism is a lack of belief. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. At one point, I was an agnostic theist. I had the belief, but couldn't say for sure that it was real. Now I am an agnostic atheist. I don't have the belief, but still can't say for sure.


I had agnostic put on my dog tags in the air force.  I didn't give it much thought, as I wasn't raised in any religion, although my parents enrolled me for a time at a Lutheran school so that I could understand christianity better.  In basic training it caused me some trouble.  The sgt in charge of my flight used it to give me a hard time.  He told me that I couldn't go to church (considered a place to relax and let your guard down for a couple of hours each week) because I wasn't religious.  He told me I was going to get a sh** job every week, and then asked me what I wanted to do.  I volunteered to pull KP every week at one of the female squadrons.  KP was hard, dirty work, but I didn't mind at all.  Acknowledging my own lack of understanding came in very handy for me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

morph4me said:


> It would seem to me that there's a general consensus in most religions that you serve God best by serving others, and yet I know a few people of varying religous backgrounds who go to srvices religiously, and are miserable human beings, and wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire, that has always intrigued me. Are they playing the odds in the hopes that if there is a God they'll get into heaven beacuse they go to services? If that's the case I think they missed the boat.



I can't speak for others, and I am forbidden from judging them.  What they get out of church and religion and what God thinks of them is between them and God.  They may have many of the qualities that make men 'good' and I just don't see them - we are ordered to do our alms-giving and so on in secret, after all.  

And ultimately, many Christians believe that 'works' are not what gets a person admission to Heaven, but simply Belief in the precepts of Christianity - God is one, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Jesus is His only begotten Son, that Jesus was both fully God and fully Man, and that he freely gave his life to absolve us of sin.  If you believe that, many Christians believe that how you choose to live your life has no bearing on your status as being 'saved by grace'.

I don't know, and I try not to spend too much time worried about others' status with regard to the Big Guy.  It is a temptation, but I wonder which God looks on with more disfavor - the guy who is sitting in church trying to buy his way into heaven, or the guy makes the assumption they know who those people are?


----------



## Empty Hands

stevebjj said:


> The sgt in charge of my flight used it to give me a hard time.  He told me that I couldn't go to church (considered a place to relax and let your guard down for a couple of hours each week) because I wasn't religious.  He told me I was going to get a sh** job every week, and then asked me what I wanted to do.



The sad thing is, I'm sure he thought he was a "good Christian."  What an a-hole.  I hope it didn't cause you any more trouble than that.


----------



## Empty Hands

girlbug2 said:


> I am the most pathetic of sinners btw; I never think anybody would see me as an example of a "good christian", and think to themselves, " I want to be just like HER!", so it's hard to share my faith because all I see are my own shortcomings.



This is one of the things that bothers me the most about current Christian teachings.  I don't know you at all, but I'm pretty confident in predicting the following: 1) you aren't perfect, just like everyone else and 2) you still try to do your best most of the time, and do a reasonable job of being a decent human being.  You aren't a pathetic and miserable wretch.  Most of us aren't.  You're just trying to get along like the rest of us.  The Christian teaching that we are all pathetic scum is just degrading and counterproductive.


----------



## elder999

Empty Hands said:


> The Christian teaching that we are all pathetic scum is just degrading and counterproductive.


 
I largely agree with you, however, for those of us who choose to approach God/ the Great Mystery/_Foot_/the Universe in a conversational matter, an attitude of humility is a useful approach. Not so much that I'm "pathetic scum," just that I'm really, really, really, really, really _insignificant_ in the face of


----------



## kaizasosei

Religion is quite a mess. Thank God for real spirituality, love and brotherhood.


God did not just create plants, animals and man. He BECAME plant, became animal and became man.

God sleeps in the stones, breathes in the plants, dreams in animals and wakes up in man.  If we search for god outside we cannot find.  Just as the stars are invisible in daylight. Our very own divinity masks the true face of god.  

Here's a song about as depressing as the situation is.




 

So where exactly is that picture from above...guessing swan or pegasus?? 
j


----------



## thardey

morph4me said:


> Can you explain what it is you feel when you're serving God at church? Is it serenity? euphoria? something else? Do you have to be in church to serve God? I've been trying to find out for years and nobody has ever been able to explain it to me. As I said, I find it hard to believe that there is an omnipotent and omniscient entity in the universe that cares any more about me than I do about an insect. On the other hand I find it equally difficult to believe that we are all here because of some cosmic accident and random genetic mutations. My truth and yours is obviously different and I'm wondering if I'm missing something or if I'm on the right track. It's good to re-examine one's beliefs every once in a while.


 
First, Elder and the rest are right, service to God is abolutely not limited to Church. It's just that for me, while in Church, I'm usually there to serve, not to be served. Also, Church is not a place where I go to "meet God." It's where I go to encourage and encourage others who are dealing with "growing pains." That is the "Great Commision" to make disciples, and by extention, to continue to be a disciple to others.

God is everywhere, he is in me, and in you, and while I may not "see" him everywhere, I see the art he has left behind to tell us what he is like. Like the power of the ocean, the stability of the mountains, the infinity of space, the intricacies of the flower, the sudden shock of the lightening -- they all give me something to understand a God that is much bigger than I can completely understand.

But serving God in general, or "being with him" whether in church, or home, or on the street, or whatever is like being married, a child, a brother, and a parent all rolled into one. Probably marriage is what it's like the most for me right now.

Sometimes, especially at first, there's the "honeymoon" when you're so excited about what you've found, and you can't shut up about how wonderful everything is, to the point where you just annoy everybody. Those who have been through it kind of sit back and let them enjoy it, because they know it won't last forever. Then there's the part where you have to start learning to live together. This is rough. This is often where I get angry at God, and I am quite honest when I tell him that I don't like how he does things. I don't do it in anger, but in honesty. (The Psalms are full of that kind of conversation with God -- those are the ones usually not sung in church. )

This is where many people think they've "fallen out of love" with God, like people "fall out of love" with their spouses. It's a time of not feeling very spiritual, and it's work. But it's also a time of growing. Eventually you get past that and sort of settle into the "old married couple" relationship and, while there are still things that really tick me off about God, the benifits far outweigh the annoyances. Of course, like marriage, you still go through the cycle on a small scale over and over, with times of emotional high, times of brutal reality, and times of rest. But one of the pictures described often in the Bible is that of marriage. "The Bride" is the Church, and the Messiah is the groom.

Overlaid with that, the magnitude of God feels like my parents, both of whom were great parents, and I have a lot of respect for them, and am close to both. When I was young, they had so much to teach me, but they taught me at the right times, and let me figure out a lot, without ever pulling away from me, or being "untouchable." Service is like being a parent, because I am helping to disciple others, who I want to teach, but I have to be patient with them, like I am with my kids. Also, I think of how I love my kids, and realize, whether I "feel" it or not, that's how God feels about me.

I've been in services where I was overwhelmed with emotion, and it wasn't bad, but it wasn't anything I would put my faith in. What helps me more is when I learned about "Love" being unconditional -- it is a gift to me, not based on what I've earned, but because of who God made me to be. It's not pity, or false modesty, or anything, but it is the true reaction to the "Spark of God" within all of us. "Created in God's image." Not in his power, or his infinity, or his royalty, but in his "personality." Like I have chacter traits of my real parents, so we all have character traits of our "Heavenly Father." The question is whether we develop them. 

There was another thread that recently resurfaced about "Spirit: the forgotten third part of the triangle." And it would be easier to just read what I wrote there about being controlled by the spirit, rather than the body.

A lot of my spiritual life feels a lot like martial arts -- sometimes it's frustrating and I wonder if I'm wasting my time, other times the lightbulb comes on and I realize that I was just thinking about it wrong.

I get suspicious about people who constantly over-spiritualize everything -- it's like people who brag too much about their uber-martial arts skills. They're exaggerating because they're insecure.

Someone once described it as "Supernaturally Natural."



> As I said, I find it hard to believe that there is an omnipotent and omniscient entity in the universe that cares any more about me than I do about an insect.


 
Not to be a nitpick, but if there is an omniscient being out there, then he knows *everything* by definition. That means he knows you personally. If he knows you personally, then of course he can care about you. If he was less than omniscient, or too pressed for time to care about what he knows, then he wouldn't be big enough to be God, would he?

I once heard an athiest claim that he didn't believe in God because he couldn't imagine that God hears everybody's prayers. Well, if God couldn't hear everybody's prayers, then he wouldn't really be omniscient. I wouldn't believe in a god that small either.


----------



## thardey

Empty Hands said:


> This is one of the things that bothers me the most about current Christian teachings. I don't know you at all, but I'm pretty confident in predicting the following: 1) you aren't perfect, just like everyone else and 2) you still try to do your best most of the time, and do a reasonable job of being a decent human being. You aren't a pathetic and miserable wretch. Most of us aren't. You're just trying to get along like the rest of us. The Christian teaching that we are all pathetic scum is just degrading and counterproductive.


 
Absolutely. The over-ephasis on our scummy nature is making it very difficult to believe that we could ever actually have a meaningful relationship with God. We tend to focus too much on "The Fall" in Genesis 3, and we forget that we are first taught that we were in the image of God, and that is what God wants us to focus on.

Everything about "falling" or "being restored" or even "sin" and "righeousness" all has to interpreted in the light of first being made after the character of God.

Without that frame of reference, the rest just becomes a sort of "You scum, you must listen to me because you are pathetic and worthless" kind of crap that abusers need to do to others to make themselves feel better. It only feels a little better when they say "You pathetic scum, you are worthless and helpless, but I'm pretty pathetic too. Just not as pathetic."

But I think it's safe to say here that we all recognize that we want to be more like whatever "divine" (mature, fulfilled, evolved, enlightented, etc.) we have in mind, and that we all still make mistakes, and we all have to deal with that. Alright then, the question then becomes whether we can grow to that "divine" ourselves, or do we need help?


----------



## thardey

morph4me said:


> It would seem to me that there's a general consensus in most religions that you serve God best by serving others, and yet I know a few people of varying religous backgrounds who go to srvices religiously, and are miserable human beings, and wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire, that has always intrigued me. Are they playing the odds in the hopes that if there is a God they'll get into heaven beacuse they go to services? If that's the case I think they missed the boat.


 
I figure most people's idea of "religion" goes something like this:

1.) Figure out which "god" is going to win.
2.) Do your best to stay on the "winning team" and not to piss your god off. 

If that means attending the team meetings, even if you sit on the bench, then you're golden.


----------



## Carol

Warning...brain dump ahead...



morph4me said:


> How do you know you're learning the truth about God now? How do you know it's the truth and how are you going about it?





Empty Hands said:


> I submit that you can't know.  That's the nature of faith, after all.  God is a hypothesis with no means of external verification and testing.  You can have all the religious epiphanies and experiences you like, all the prayer and conviction and numinous feelings.  At the end though, that's all it is - unsubstantiated feelings.  There is no way to tell if you are right.



No argument from me.  That is indeed the nature of faith.



> Tellingly, there are millions of other people going through the same process that come up with diametrically opposed opinions.  What makes either one right?


To me...religions have a cultural reflection.  I can't think of any scripture that does not reflect the culture, language, and the people at the time it is written.  Which religion is right?  Which one is better?  I abhor the denigration of any person's faith/path.  Instead, what I try to understand is...what are the values?  What is the philsophy?  What do I agree with, what do I not agree with?  If I don't agree with a construct, do I know why I don't agree?  If I don't agree with construct, do I at least understand how that came about?  And sometimes the question is either....can I/will I walk this path?  Will I be proud of it?   Will it help me conserve what I've been able to accomplish, will it help me grow to achieve what I've not yet been able to do?   

I guess for me its more about the questions, than the answers.  



> People also come to firm mental convictions about other phenomena we know weren't real. Why do we privilege the thoughts on God then?  There is no reason to do so.  Atheism is the only rational response.


Rational:  based on reason, logical.  

I'd have to agree.  Atheism is the response that is closest in logical force.  The Vulcan in me strongly approves.   

So why believe?  A lot comes down to personal comfort, values, priorities.   I also think this is where a lot of people can differ from one another.

Example:  there are many atheists that use logic and reason to justify their path.  The ones that I have seen are people that _value _logic and reason to a great degree and see a _benefit _to not only logic and reason, but this kind of application of logic and reason.

I can't say that I do not see the benefit or value of logic  (I have to, or else I'd be out of a job...LOL)  Faith is...different.  Its a chance to wonder, to ponder, to explore, to question, and to be challenged...or even motivated or comforted, in a way that I can't usually find in my logical world. Faith is a structure rigid enough to have form and function but esoteric enough to be tantalizingly out of reach.




morph4me said:


> Can you explain what it is you feel when you're serving God at church? Is it serenity? euphoria? something else?



All of the above? 



> Do you have to be in church to serve God? I've been trying to find out for years and nobody has ever been able to explain it to me.


One serves God with their actions, with their choices.  I will freely admit to a bit of laziness on my part.  I read more and studied more when I was attending services on a regular basis.  I don't do as much now.  Attending services does take some effort.  And, I think being there for another worshiper is a selfless, and sometimes very difficult service.


Its usually not the faith that drove me away or the challenges of a moral structure.  It was the human application.  Power struggles, overt social cliques, a cleric insisting that "our faith is better 'n anyone else's."  Someone once criticized my decision for leaving a community that I was a part of for a few years, saying that the community would only change if there were more like me, not fewer.  They are right, but at the same time, fighting any battle results in a physical, mental, and emotional price.  I reached a point where I had to say that I would not be paying anymore.



> It's good to re-examine one's beliefs every once in a while.


Or even more often than that.  



morph4me said:


> It would seem to me that there's a general consensus in most religions that you serve God best by serving others, and yet I know a few people of varying religous backgrounds who go to srvices religiously, and are miserable human beings, and wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire, that has always intrigued me. Are they playing the odds in the hopes that if there is a God they'll get into heaven beacuse they go to services? If that's the case I think they missed the boat.



Living life with a sense of decency and a desire to do your best...is not something that's a spectator sport.  Being part of a religion may give a person a label, but a label does not equal results.  Trying to be a good person requires...trying.




Empty Hands said:


> This is one of the things that bothers me the most about current Christian teachings.  I don't know you at all, but I'm pretty confident in predicting the following: 1) you aren't perfect, just like everyone else and 2) you still try to do your best most of the time, and do a reasonable job of being a decent human being.  You aren't a pathetic and miserable wretch.  Most of us aren't.  You're just trying to get along like the rest of us.  The Christian teaching that we are all pathetic scum is just degrading and counterproductive.



I'm no fan of it either....and many times I feel that kind of talk serves more as a release for the denegrator's own pent-up frustrations rather than serving as a humble approach to the Lord.  Worse, many of the denigrating styles of teaching/preaching are from large, tightly organized, non-profit religious corporations.  For some individual Christian teachers, it is like the neighborhood hardware store struggling to survive against Home Depot and Lowes.

While I don't consider myself to be a Christian, there are about a billion Christians in the world, they at least deserve the respect to not all be painted with the same brush. :asian:


----------



## Carol

*edit* (sorry...wrong thread)


----------



## kaizasosei

Mentioning Sitchin in other threads, i try seeing past the simple concepts of truth and falsehood, and further propose proceeding straight into bombarding ones conciousness with other versions such as the raelian or new age mythology.  One can even enjoy modern mythology such as star wars or star trek.  
Taking it even further one could study the historic works of agrippa, or read the golden bough by james frazer.  There are many different concepts and paradigms that can be appealing to many different people at different times. From picking at tarot cards or tossing of runes. Most common but not to be ignored are comics.  How about simply observing nature up close, study science or look at pictures of real star clusters and distant galaxies. One can study not only one but all religions. 
At the core of every symbol and intellectual message there is being.  
In esoteric buddhism, it is taught that there is the realm of mind, body and voice. 
 -The mind is the visualization of the icons and the symbols such as letters or tools, the body entails the sitting exercises, martial arts and mudra of whole body the voice are the mantras calling on and bring forth of the deities. 
This is a practice or science that does not simply reach out through dominant airy exclaimations.  
A friend reminded me of a famous saying 'when you see the buddha, kill the buddha'  
and i must admit i never really could come to an absolutely feelgood understanding of that saying.  However my friend got this idea that it is referring to the fact that the buddhahood is something internal that is felt in the heart.  It is not something that can be seen.  All the sutras, all the deities and essentially romantic ideas are actually simply parts of the human heart or conciousness.  
And what more we can attain nirvana of the mind, body of the buddha and speach of rightiousness and might, in this lifetime. 
  Because everything is God, and like the post above mentions trying to be a good person, there is no place to start but with oneself and the others.  
Spirituality or religion and even the socalled' religious can be such a brutal imposing thing, like a battlefield, truly one can get slaughtered or lost-often by the own hand. However if this field can be crossed through forgiveness of    self and also realization of truth at hand, then it becomes clear that one can only temper oneself as well as give support to others or not.


eko tenge
all be equal under heaven


----------



## Bill Mattocks

You may not have intended it, but you reminded me of something.  I have at times been informed by those who apparently know that all religion is false, there is no God, Christianity is a charade, and we're all fools who believe in it, and that's fine if they believe that.

Then they tell me about the fact that there are 'gods' and not 'a God'.  I tell them that's polytheism, and it is religion, and they disagree with me - because it disturbs them to think they might be religious after all.  Apparently, they can believe in small gods of limited power, but not one god of limitless power.

Or they tell me that God is in everything - the rocks, the trees, the air, the bees, etc.  All are God.  I tell them that's pantheism and that's religion too.  No, no, they cry.  This is just the way it is - all of nature is holy and sacred and must be protected, as nature intends.  I note that if nature 'intends' anything, then nature must be a sentient being, and believing that makes a person religious - even if they don't want to admit it.

What the discussion often boils down to is that people who claim all religion is a vile canard simply have a bone to pick with Christianity.  And that's fine.  But they're hardly as agnostic or atheistic as they appear at first blush.  They're religious - they just don't accept it.


----------



## kaizasosei

[SIZE=-1]*Was es ist*[/SIZE]​ [SIZE=-1] Es ist Unsinn -   It is nonsense 
sagt die Vernunft  - says reason
Es ist was es ist- it is what it is
sagt die Liebe - says love

Es ist Unglück -  It is misfortune
sagt die Berechnung - says calculation
Es ist nichts als Schmerz - it is none other than pain
sagt die Angst- says fear
Es ist aussichtslos  -it is hopeless
sagt die Einsicht  -says insight
Es ist was es ist -it is what it is 
sagt die Liebe - says love

Es ist lächerlich-  it is rediculous
sagt der Stolz - says pride
Es ist leichtsinnig - it is careless
sagt die Vorsicht  -says care
Es ist unmöglich  - it is impossible
sagt die Erfahrung - says experience
Es ist was es ist - it is what it is 
sagt die Liebe[/SIZE]  -says love


a poem by erich fried


----------



## morph4me

Bill Mattocks said:


> You may not have intended it, but you reminded me of something. I have at times been informed by those who apparently know that all religion is false, there is no God, Christianity is a charade, and we're all fools who believe in it, and that's fine if they believe that.
> 
> Then they tell me about the fact that there are 'gods' and not 'a God'. I tell them that's polytheism, and it is religion, and they disagree with me - because it disturbs them to think they might be religious after all. Apparently, they can believe in small gods of limited power, but not one god of limitless power.
> 
> Or they tell me that God is in everything - the rocks, the trees, the air, the bees, etc. All are God. I tell them that's pantheism and that's religion too. No, no, they cry. This is just the way it is - all of nature is holy and sacred and must be protected, as nature intends. I note that if nature 'intends' anything, then nature must be a sentient being, and believing that makes a person religious - even if they don't want to admit it.
> 
> What the discussion often boils down to is that people who claim all religion is a vile canard simply have a bone to pick with Christianity. And that's fine. But they're hardly as agnostic or atheistic as they appear at first blush. They're religious - they just don't accept it.


 
So then it can be said that everyone, no matter what their beliefs, have found the truth about God. Since the truth about God is based on each individuals "knowing" that they understand. In my agnostisicm I have found the truth about God, and the atheists, polythiests and panthiests have also found the truth. If that's the case I think it makes complete sense, God is what each individual needs when they need it.


----------



## Ninjamom

I've watched this thread with a mix of interest, fear, and dread.  With great caution, I'd like to throw a few thoughts into the 'idea ring'.

Not meaning to pick on Morph, but taking off from his last comment, I have to disagree with the idea that God is whatever you find Him or think Him to be. In my personal experience, my overriding goal in seeking to 'know God' has been the search for truth - and that must mean that God is exactly the way He is, irrespective of whatever any of the rest of us think, feel, or believe. I don't want a delusion, no matter how pleasant it might be: I want truth, and if that truth is that God is nothing like what I thought, then so be it.

And just so Morph *knows* that I'm not picking on him, the real reason I wanted to join the conversation was an idea related to his signature line:

"Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools and the beacons of wise men"


Going back to the original question of this thread (something akin to, "How do you *know* you are learning the truth about God?"), I think perhaps the best place to start is to ask the related question, "How do you 'know' anything?"  When even our own names are only 'known' by us because someone else told us, it is hard to get a handle on how we can be sure of anything.  The one (and only) thing I have found to be of benefit in trying to 'figure out' the difference between truth and error is *logic*.  

Most people don't equate faith and logic; in fact some argue faith can't be logical (or it isn't faith).  For me, I've found the best tool to know what to believe is to use logic to weed out what *not* to believe.  In this way, I've built a framework for my faith very much like a geometry proof - start with a few simple assumptions (postulates, if you will) and see what are their logical consequences.  If I hit a contradiction, back up and re-evaluate the series of preceding conclusions and/or some of my first postulates.  It has allowed me to weed out some philosophical lines of thinking altogether.  It also allows me to 'kick the tires' and reevaluate the foundations of my own faith on a regular basis.

The 'logical' approach builds a series of "If-Then" statements that can be known as absolute fact.  It helps to weed out beliefs that are contradictory or irrational.  Of course, the 'downside' is that the validity of such a faith is only as good as the validity of the initial assumptions.

On the other hand, the major source of information for a quest for truth about God must be more personal: if God exists (which I have come to believe He does), then He is capable of revealing information about Himself directly to us.  Such a God either desires to be known by us or doesn't desire to be known by us.  If the latter is true, then all my attempts to 'know' this God are futile.  But if the former is true, then I can rest assured that He is more than capable of getting His message across to me and ensuring that I get the 'right' message.  I will still use the tools He has given me (including logic, math, history, personal experience, the counsel of others and their experiences) to evaluate whatever I *think* I find or know, but ultimately I can rest assured that He will make the information and experiences I need available to me, so I can understand to the level of my capacity and His desire.


----------



## Raynac

Bill Mattocks said:


> You may not have intended it, but you reminded me of something. I have at times been informed by those who apparently know that all religion is false, there is no God, Christianity is a charade, and we're all fools who believe in it, and that's fine if they believe that.
> 
> Then they tell me about the fact that there are 'gods' and not 'a God'. I tell them that's polytheism, and it is religion, and they disagree with me - because it disturbs them to think they might be religious after all. Apparently, they can believe in small gods of limited power, but not one god of limitless power.
> 
> Or they tell me that God is in everything - the rocks, the trees, the air, the bees, etc. All are God. I tell them that's pantheism and that's religion too. No, no, they cry. This is just the way it is - all of nature is holy and sacred and must be protected, as nature intends. I note that if nature 'intends' anything, then nature must be a sentient being, and believing that makes a person religious - even if they don't want to admit it.
> 
> What the discussion often boils down to is that people who claim all religion is a vile canard simply have a bone to pick with Christianity. And that's fine. But they're hardly as agnostic or atheistic as they appear at first blush. They're religious - they just don't accept it.



Hmm this sounds familiar, I have a friend who denies that he has a conscience because he believes that its something spiritual and wants nothing to do with it. even after we pointed our the fact that a conscience could be interperted as a word representing the way the brain deciedes on whiether it want's to participate in an event or not.

... is there such a thing as religionphobia?


----------



## morph4me

Ninjamom said:


> I've watched this thread with a mix of interest, fear, and dread. With great caution, I'd like to throw a few thoughts into the 'idea ring'.
> 
> Not meaning to pick on Morph, but taking off from his last comment, I have to disagree with the idea that God is whatever you find Him or think Him to be. In my personal experience, my overriding goal in seeking to 'know God' has been the search for truth - and that must mean that God is exactly the way He is, irrespective of whatever any of the rest of us think, feel, or believe. I don't want a delusion, no matter how pleasant it might be: I want truth, and if that truth is that God is nothing like what I thought, then so be it.
> 
> And just so Morph *knows* that I'm not picking on him, the real reason I wanted to join the conversation was an idea related to his signature line:
> 
> "Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools and the beacons of wise men"
> 
> 
> Going back to the original question of this thread (something akin to, "How do you *know* you are learning the truth about God?"), I think perhaps the best place to start is to ask the related question, "How do you 'know' anything?" When even our own names are only 'known' by us because someone else told us, it is hard to get a handle on how we can be sure of anything. The one (and only) thing I have found to be of benefit in trying to 'figure out' the difference between truth and error is *logic*.
> 
> Most people don't equate faith and logic; in fact some argue faith can't be logical (or it isn't faith). For me, I've found the best tool to know what to believe is to use logic to weed out what *not* to believe. In this way, I've built a framework for my faith very much like a geometry proof - start with a few simple assumptions (postulates, if you will) and see what are their logical consequences. If I hit a contradiction, back up and re-evaluate the series of preceding conclusions and/or some of my first postulates. It has allowed me to weed out some philosophical lines of thinking altogether. It also allows me to 'kick the tires' and reevaluate the foundations of my own faith on a regular basis.
> 
> The 'logical' approach builds a series of "If-Then" statements that can be known as absolute fact. It helps to weed out beliefs that are contradictory or irrational. Of course, the 'downside' is that the validity of such a faith is only as good as the validity of the initial assumptions.
> 
> On the other hand, the major source of information for a quest for truth about God must be more personal: if God exists (which I have come to believe He does), then He is capable of revealing information about Himself directly to us. Such a God either desires to be known by us or doesn't desire to be known by us. If the latter is true, then all my attempts to 'know' this God are futile. But if the former is true, then I can rest assured that He is more than capable of getting His message across to me and ensuring that I get the 'right' message. I will still use the tools He has given me (including logic, math, history, personal experience, the counsel of others and their experiences) to evaluate whatever I *think* I find or know, but ultimately I can rest assured that He will make the information and experiences I need available to me, so I can understand to the level of my capacity and His desire.


 
This is actually exactly what I was hoping for when I started this thread. 



> The 'logical' approach builds a series of "If-Then" statements that can be known as absolute fact. It helps to weed out beliefs that are contradictory or irrational. Of course, the 'downside' is that the validity of such a faith is only as good as the validity of the initial assumptions.


 
If it won't make you too uncomfortable, would you mind sharing your initial assumptions



> On the other hand, the major source of information for a quest for truth about God must be more personal: if God exists (which I have come to believe He does), then He is capable of revealing information about Himself directly to us. Such a God either desires to be known by us or doesn't desire to be known by us. If the latter is true, then all my attempts to 'know' this God are futile. But if the former is true, then I can rest assured that He is more than capable of getting His message across to me and ensuring that I get the 'right' message.


 
If this is the case, shouldn't everyone who is searching for the truth about God come to the same conclusions? If God wants to be known, wouldn't he get the same message across to everyone who searches?  Wouldn't he assure that everyone got the 'right' message? If that were the case it would seem to me that there would only be one religion, and we would all follow it because God would ensure that we all knew the same truth?  For me, the more I learn, the more questions I have.


----------



## kaizasosei

There's a reason people call them belief systems....different world views can be shocking and even threatening to some, sortof like a system crash.  

But just because i wish it so, doesn't mean that it's right.  

Religion and sprituality is a powerful thing.  For good as well as for evil.  Without the basic understanding of brotherhood or fairness, religion and sprirituality is nothing more than a form of tyranny.  So it is understandable that people will build up different kind of defenses against religious or magical thinking.  Nowadays magical thinking is rather limited mostly to simple superstition.  

However, actually, the real world simple, complicated and devious as it is, seems more magical to me than even fantasy does.  Noone gets lost in fantasies because fantasies are harmless, they get lost in the real world.
Like in swordmanship, the shinkengata or live blade practice is the most dangerous.




j


----------



## Ninjamom

morph4me said:


> If it won't make you too uncomfortable, would you mind sharing your initial assumptions


What if an all-powerful Creator-God exists.  What then?

Other (much more specific) parts of the journey have proceeded along similar lines: for instance, I looked at different views of eschatology (the study of 'last things') and tried to evaluate the logical consequences of each system of belief.  Likewise for views of free will, divine sovereignty, and a few others.  





> If this is the case, shouldn't everyone who is searching for the truth about God come to the same conclusions?


Coming to the 'right' conclusions, even given the exact same data set, requires the willingness to say two things: 1). I don't know, and 2). I was wrong.  I find these two admissions often trip many a person (and I'll include myself in that number, with many of the things 'I believe' firmly rooted in nothing more than holding on to something 'traditional').  I do know that, in my own personal journey, paradoxically I seem to gain more ground the more willing I am to admit those two things.




> If God wants to be known, wouldn't he get the same message across to everyone who searches? Wouldn't he assure that everyone got the 'right' message? If that were the case it would seem to me that there would only be one religion, and we would all follow it because God would ensure that we all knew the same truth?


If an all-powerful Creator-God exists, then He must be external to what He created (greater than the sum total of all the matter/energy/time that He created).  Therefore He is not bounded by the space/time that He created.  Therefore He is infinite.  It is the nature of being infinite that we can spend a lifetime learning about this Infinite One, all learn different aspects of what is true, and never run out of new things to learn.

Yes, it implies that He would assure everyone who searched got the 'right' message.  This to me seems in keeping with Jesuss words that everyone who seeks will find, everyone who asks will receive, and to everyone who knocks, it shall be opened.  It also seems in keeping with a passage from the Biblical Old Testament prophets who quote God as saying, For I will be found by you when you search for Me with all your heart.  This implies, if an all-powerful Creator-God who desires to be known has assured that we have access to the right message, that we as individuals are responsible for how we respond to the message we have been given.  It also implies that He would make available _sufficient_ information about Himself (for whatever purpose or desire he has); it does not imply that He would make available _exhaustive_ or complete knowledge about Himself (although it doesn't rule that out, either  ).

Now, comparing our logic train with those two Scripture passages that seem in keeping with it, suppose God made the 'right' message available to everyone in steps, and progressing to the next step of knowledge required some response, attitude, or action on our part.  If such a case were true, you would expect to see some basic knowledge about this all-powerful Creator-God consistently repeated throughout all cultures, locations, and times, with more specific knowledge and emphasis varying among cultures, locations, times, and individuals.  Such a case is consistent with the observations already made on this thread about the near-universal belief that God is best served by serving others, as well as variations on the golden rule, and the belief in God as an all-powerful creative Being.




> For me, the more I learn, the more questions I have.


Here we are in total agreement, and this fills me with a sense of awe and wonder. 


_(Guys, please don't throw rocks too hard - feel free to disagree with my conclusions and ideas, but I am trying my best to be transparent here about some very personal thoughts and ideas.)_


----------



## morph4me

Ninjamom said:


> What if an all-powerful Creator-God exists. What then?
> 
> Other (much more specific) parts of the journey have proceeded along similar lines: for instance, I looked at different views of eschatology (the study of 'last things') and tried to evaluate the logical consequences of each system of belief. Likewise for views of free will, divine sovereignty, and a few others.
> 
> 
> Coming to the 'right' conclusions, even given the exact same data set, requires the willingness to say two things: 1). I don't know, and 2). I was wrong. I find these two admissions often trip many a person (and I'll include myself in that number, with many of the things 'I believe' firmly rooted in nothing more than holding on to something 'traditional'). I do know that, in my own personal journey, paradoxically I seem to gain more ground the more willing I am to admit those two things.
> 
> If an all-powerful Creator-God exists, then He must be external to what He created (greater than the sum total of all the matter/energy/time that He created). Therefore He is not bounded by the space/time that He created. Therefore He is infinite. It is the nature of being infinite that we can spend a lifetime learning about this Infinite One, all learn different aspects of what is true, and never run out of new things to learn.
> 
> Yes, it implies that He would assure everyone who searched got the 'right' message. This to me seems in keeping with Jesuss words that everyone who seeks will find, everyone who asks will receive, and to everyone who knocks, it shall be opened. It also seems in keeping with a passage from the Biblical Old Testament prophets who quote God as saying, For I will be found by you when you search for Me with all your heart. This implies, if an all-powerful Creator-God who desires to be known has assured that we have access to the right message, that we as individuals are responsible for how we respond to the message we have been given. It also implies that He would make available _sufficient_ information about Himself (for whatever purpose or desire he has); it does not imply that He would make available _exhaustive_ or complete knowledge about Himself (although it doesn't rule that out, either  ).
> 
> Now, comparing our logic train with those two Scripture passages that seem in keeping with it, suppose God made the 'right' message available to everyone in steps, and progressing to the next step of knowledge required some response, attitude, or action on our part. If such a case were true, you would expect to see some basic knowledge about this all-powerful Creator-God consistently repeated throughout all cultures, locations, and times, with more specific knowledge and emphasis varying among cultures, locations, times, and individuals. Such a case is consistent with the observations already made on this thread about the near-universal belief that God is best served by serving others, as well as variations on the golden rule, and the belief in God as an all-powerful creative Being.
> 
> Here we are in total agreement, and this fills me with a sense of awe and wonder.
> 
> 
> _(Guys, please don't throw rocks too hard - feel free to disagree with my conclusions and ideas, but I am trying my best to be transparent here about some very personal thoughts and ideas.)_


 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you're saying that God is giving all of us the correct information and our interpretation of that information determines our response and if we are actually getting the right message. That seems to be in line with what I said about God being whatever we need whenever we need it.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

I don't think you can know the truth about God.

Because truth in my opinion is "alive" and every second that slips away into another second truth of the past is no longer truth of the future. Meaning it is not in a fixed state nor can be firmly grasped.

Example: An uneducated child may think that Santa Claus exist and believes this to be true. As the child ages the truth changes into another truth which is conditioned by the capacity of experience,rationality,etc.
Every truth an opinion because truth can not be firmly grasp it is alway moving and every person can not agree on a single truth because of capacity,rationality and so on. 
 Because Truth and False are duality counter opposites they cancel each other out resulting in varities of opinion which we base on our experience,capacity,rationality,etc.
This is my opinion at this time.


----------



## thardey

morph4me said:


> If this is the case, shouldn't everyone who is searching for the truth about God come to the same conclusions? If God wants to be known, wouldn't he get the same message across to everyone who searches? Wouldn't he assure that everyone got the 'right' message? If that were the case it would seem to me that there would only be one religion, and we would all follow it because God would ensure that we all knew the same truth? For me, the more I learn, the more questions I have.


 
I think Ninjamon and I follow a similar process about this stuff, thanks for putting it so clearly!

As for Morph's response -- I think it depends on what we're looking for. If we're talking about an infinite God, then there are a lot of different parts of God to focus on. We would indeed all come to the same conclusions, _if_ we were all interested in the same narrow aspect of God.

I actually do believe that my post at the top of the page is generally true. Most people don't want to know God, they want to know how to manipulate God.

I know people who "study" God, to be able to define "it"-- to determine it's boundaries, abilities, likes, dislikes, and the rules of engagement. Ultimately, they're trying to figure out how get what they want out of God. They study "it" like one would study the process of law, or a chess opponent. 

Those people will have a totally different view of God than those who want to know God as a personal being. I don't believe that God really wants us to focus on the "omnipotent, omnipresent, foreknowing, omniscient" part, but to focus on the personal character of who he is. 

Even within that, there are different sides to knowing that, depending on where you are coming from. My wife knows my character in a different way than my parents, even though both know me very well. My sister knows me differently yet, as well as my friends. They have each been through different experiences with me, and know me through that, but each one still only knows me from a single perspective. I believe the same about God.

Within that, thouh, I have seen a remarkable similarity in how people of different cultures and religion view the "personality" of God. While the "rules of engagement" are radically different, as far as which buildings God visits on which days, and what he does while visiting those buildings, or cities, or whatever holy sites. The idea of who God is, includes love, justice, relationship, and an element that will never be understood.

1st John 4:8 says: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

We all have a general idea of what "Love" is, for some it is earned, for some it is unconditional. For some it is a social framework of ethics, for some it is purely emotion. Some are willing to cause violence to protect those they love, some insist that violence itself in unloving. 

"Love" is a huge concept -- in fact as big as the question of God's character. But because different poeple practice love in different ways does not mean that love doesn't exist, or that we can never know it. We'll just never know it _completely._ 

But throughout the world, the concept of love is similar. We all have an idea of what it is, and everybody in their right mind wants for of it. Nobody wants to live in a world with less love. We just end up arguing over how to do it.

When we understand love, then we'll understand God, because at the root of it, when you strip away all of the power, the "office" of God, and all the things that come with it (that so easily distract us, who are also after power,) all that remains is: God is love.


----------



## Ninjamom

morph4me said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you're saying that God is giving all of us the correct information and our interpretation of that information determines our response and if we are actually getting the right message. That seems to be in line with what I said about God being whatever we need whenever we need it.


Yes and No.  Yes, I'm saying God is giving us all the correct information.  However (and I'm not trying to split airs with what you've said), I personally think more along the lines that our response determines our 'interpretation'.  What I mean is that I am very much in agreement with thardey's statement:



thardey said:


> ...... Most people don't want to know God, they want to know how to manipulate God.


...and I have met many others who want to understand God as an intellectual exercise, but not as a person, and certainly not with any of that uncomfortable business about possible consequences of His existence (like authority, responsibility, and accountability).

So, in my personal experience, I have found people's response to God (whether they have interest in Him, or resent Him, or desire a relationship, or want to ignore/avoid Him) sets the stage for the interpretation of all further data.



Ninjamom said:


> ......but ultimately I can rest assured that He will make the information and experiences I need available to me, so I can understand to the level of my capacity and His desire.


I am uncomfortable with this.  In light of this discussion about God possibly providing knowledge about Himself in steps, I think I could have (should have) said it better.  If receiving steps 4, 5, and 6 is dependent on a willing response to steps 1, 2, 3, perhaps it would have been better to say that God will provide the information and experiences I need, so I can understand to the level of _*my*_ desire.  As a believer, it is scarry to think that I might know as much about God as I want, and not a bit more.


----------



## morph4me

:idea:The fog is lifting . I see now that one of the differences is the way eacu of us understand the essence of God. To my way of thinking, the essence of God, if God exists, is not a person, butthe personification of an idea, like the grim reaper is a personifcation of death. A person has limitations, the idea of God means there are no limitations. A person has expectations, can be disappointed or suprised. God, being omniscient, already knows what's going to happen so would have no expectations, and can't be. I guess my image of God is more of a creative force. Sometimes in order to create something, you have to destroy something else. Creativity requires a balance, so I don't see God and Satan as separate entities, but two sides of a coin. A yin and yang type entitiy. There is no manipulation possible, there is no petition, there is only cause and effect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

morph4me said:


> Creativity requires a balance, so I don't see God and Satan as separate entities, but two sides of a coin. A yin and yang type entitiy. There is no manipulation possible, there is no petition, there is only cause and effect.



Interesting.  As a Christian, I've considered this myself.  God is said to be 'all good' and 'all love' and yet, God is said to have create the universe and everything in it.  That means all evil was created by God as well.  Now, I've had people tell me that no, God did not create evil, evil was chosen by those given Free Will.  

But I have two problems with that.  The first is that 'choosing evil' is still a card in the deck, if you will, and God designed the deck.  So for it to even be a choice, it had to exist as a possibility.  The second is that God is supposed to be all-knowing.  So He created the creatures that would choose evil, even knowing that they would do so.  Sorry, that's a bank shot in pool.  I didn't pocket the the 3 ball, but I hit the cue ball which hit the 4 which sank the 3.  A difference without a distinction.  And third, the angels are supposed to be different from we humans because we possess Free Will and they don't.  So how did Satan wage war on God in heaven?

And from a more philosophical viewpoint, if there was no evil, how could we experience good?  Good would be a constant, and with nothing to differentiate it, there would be nothing to choose.  If good is the only choice, it's not a choice, it's just what is.

So it seems to me you're right.  Good requires evil.  There must be an adversary, or there can be no struggle.  There must be a choice that can be made between good and evil, or there is no way to 'choose' good.  God made Satan because He needed him.

I have also pondered from time to time how a perfect being, God, could create imperfect things, we humans.  Or why.

It's all very confusing.

Fortunately, I follow the Red Queen's advice.  I practice believing impossible things.  _"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast"_


----------



## bushidomartialarts

The human brain is composed of billions of neurons, with the combined whole being capable of far more than billions of times what a single neuron can do.  I reckon God is the same synergistic effect applied to souls -- the sum that is greater than all of our parts.

Heaven is what happens when we component souls are moving towards the good and beautiful.  Hell is what happens when we slide the wrong way.

Just my own thoughts, no more or less accurate than anybody else's.


----------



## thardey

morph4me said:


> :idea:The fog is lifting . I see now that one of the differences is the way eacu of us understand the essence of God. To my way of thinking, the essence of God, if God exists, is not a person, butthe personification of an idea, like the grim reaper is a personifcation of death. A person has limitations, the idea of God means there are no limitations. A person has expectations, can be disappointed or suprised. God, being omniscient, already knows what's going to happen so would have no expectations, and can't be. I guess my image of God is more of a creative force. Sometimes in order to create something, you have to destroy something else. Creativity requires a balance, so I don't see God and Satan as separate entities, but two sides of a coin. A yin and yang type entitiy. There is no manipulation possible, there is no petition, there is only cause and effect.


 
Right, where I see a separation between the "Office" of God, and the "Individual" who fills that office. True, in reality they are inseparable, but that is a way to focus on different aspects. Like we have a President, that has certain powers and responsibilities, often ones that conflict, and we have Obama, who is the President.

"God" or "El" or "Allah" or whatever title you use describes (in my interpretation) the office of God -- the ultimate ruler, the "best of the best." Names for God in the Tanach that include the "El" prefix, like "El-Shaddai" (God Almighty), Elam (Everlasting God) and "El-elyon" (Most High God) highlight that part of God.

That office of God is both loving, and just, it is merciful and vengeful, it is the creator and destroyer, it is both male and female, it is both Yin and Yang. There is no need for Satan to counterbalance God -- both Yin and Yang (as I understand it) are present in the idea of God. 



> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these _things_. (Isa 45:7, KJV)


 
The word "Evil" there also meaning "disaster" or "destruction" among other things. (See Hebrew word "ra-ah")

This is the side of God that really can't be proven, defined, or understood. This the part of God that is so beyond us we don't have anything to compare to, or relate to. It's so far on a whole different plane that the only way we can begin to describe it is in terms of what it's _not._ (It is limit-less, it is time-less, etc.) This is where we have to be agnostic about God. Even if we could know about it, we couldn't do anything about it.

But there is also the Personal name for God, which is YHWH. (Sometimes transliterated "Jehovah" or "Yahweh." Often it is read as "Hashem" which is Hebrew for "The Name"). In most English Bibles it is written as The LORD. Names that are associated with YHWH include YHWH-Jireh, (The LORD provides), YHWH-Rapheh (The LORD heals), YHWH-Ra-ah (The LORD my Shepherd), YHWH-Shalom (The LORD is our peace). 

To me, these emphasise the personal nature of God, the part that Jesus represented on earth. The part that we can "fall in love" with. This is the part that we could conceivably have some sort of relationship with, and this is the part that we were created "after the image of." The only way we could know about the "personality" of God, is for 'him' to come and meet me. I could spent pages describing my wife to you, but it wouldn't be the same as meeting her yourself. The most I could do is to introduce you to her.

In fact, when Jesus claimed to be representing "The Father," this is what he was representing. He wasn't showing the glory, or the power, or the knowledge of God, but how this personal God would react to sinners, children, and proud religious leaders. He laid down his life to demonstrate that. In short, he showed us what _Love_ looks like.

This is the part of God that Ninjamom and I are talking about. (If I may speak for her.)


----------



## Carol

thardey said:


> To me, these emphasise the personal nature of God, the part that Jesus represented on earth. The part that we can "fall in love" with. This is the part that we could conceivably have some sort of relationship with, and this is the part that we were created "after the image of."



This is what makes Christianity one of the revealed religions, yes?  The nature of God has been revealed to the worshipers. :asian:


----------



## thardey

Bill Mattocks said:


> Interesting. As a Christian, I've considered this myself. God is said to be 'all good' and 'all love' and yet, God is said to have create the universe and everything in it. That means all evil was created by God as well. Now, I've had people tell me that no, God did not create evil, evil was chosen by those given Free Will.
> 
> But I have two problems with that. The first is that 'choosing evil' is still a card in the deck, if you will, and God designed the deck. So for it to even be a choice, it had to exist as a possibility. The second is that God is supposed to be all-knowing. So He created the creatures that would choose evil, even knowing that they would do so. Sorry, that's a bank shot in pool. I didn't pocket the the 3 ball, but I hit the cue ball which hit the 4 which sank the 3. A difference without a distinction. And third, the angels are supposed to be different from we humans because we possess Free Will and they don't. So how did Satan wage war on God in heaven?


 
Exactly, but as I quoted above, God does take responsibility for evil. It's just not widely taught. Because



> You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil;
> with you the wicked cannot dwell.
> Psalms 5:4


 
That is God does not take pleasure in evil. But sometimes God does things he "hates" in order accomplish what he wants. Like sacrificing his son.

(Now keep in mind that the Hebrew word for "evil" isn't limited to the idea of "ethical" evil, but generally included "destructive" actions.)

I see it like violence. I hate violence. I hate it so much that I will violently oppose it. Some people think I love violence because I practice it. (Martial arts, fencing, guns.) But in reality, I don't want to have to do violent things to people, unless they are trying to do violent things to people I love. Then, my love for my family will overide my hate for violence, and I will do violent things in the name of love.

I don't think that Satan is the "Dark" to God's "Light" simply because I believe God is both Yin and Yang, and is self-contained. Also, Satan's "dark" is not enough to offset God's "Light" so we would still have an imbalance. (Case in point -- Satan lost. If they were equal, they would still be fighting.)

I believe that angels are given a choice, but they simply see a different side of God than we do. We can see the personal side of God, from the perspective of being made in his image, and also from having been offered forgiveness. But we can't understand the glory, power, etc. (See the "Office" of God above.) Angels can see the Office of God, but can't understand the personal side, since they weren't made in his image.

I believe that Satan didn't trust the "personal" side of God to use the power in the best way, and that Satan thought he could stage a coup and take that power for himself. That he would be better qualified to be God. I think he still believes that, to a point. Having not been made in the image of God, he doesn't understand the idea of things like forgiveness, mercy, and love. He simply understands power, and the use of it.

So I do think that Satan serves as a foil to Jesus, with Satan's emphasis on doing, and power, and Jesus' emphasis on Love and relationship. I think you said it well:




> And from a more philosophical viewpoint, if there was no evil, how could we experience good? Good would be a constant, and with nothing to differentiate it, there would be nothing to choose. If good is the only choice, it's not a choice, it's just what is.
> 
> So it seems to me you're right. Good requires evil. There must be an adversary, or there can be no struggle. There must be a choice that can be made between good and evil, or there is no way to 'choose' good. God made Satan because He needed him.
> 
> I have also pondered from time to time how a perfect being, God, could create imperfect things, we humans. Or why.
> 
> It's all very confusing.
> 
> Fortunately, I follow the Red Queen's advice. I practice believing impossible things. _"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast"_


----------



## thardey

Carol Kaur said:


> This is what makes Christianity one of the revealed religions, yes? The nature of God has been revealed to the worshipers. :asian:


 
Yup, but then we get the whole "chicken and egg" argument. Does God reveal himself to those who worship him, or do we worship him because he has revealed himself?

But that's probably a better question for another thread. (I sense a rabbit trail here.)


----------



## JBrainard

morph4me said:


> How do you know you're learning the truth about God now? How do you know it's the truth and how are you going about it?


 
You don't know. That's why it's called faith. One thing that bothers me is that many feel that they understand the will of God... Being that "God" is omnisceint and omnipotent, how is it that we lesser beings can understand the nature of God, including his intent? And *please* don't tell me that you understand God because of what is written in the Bible. That text has been translated, retranslated, and changed to fit political agendas that at this point it has very little to no validity as "proof." Thinking that what you believe is any more than faith (rather than truth) just doesn't make any sense to me.
But hey, that's just me.


----------



## Ninjamom

thardey said:


> 1st John 4:8 says: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
> 
> When we understand love, then we'll understand God, because at the root of it, when you strip away all of the power, the "office" of God, and all the things that come with it (that so easily distract us, who are also after power,) all that remains is: God is love.


 
Re-reading this thread brought to mind one of my favorite poets. John Greenleaf Whittier was a well-educated, well-spoken man who lived in a time of massive theological debates, yet chose to practice what I would call "a religion of deliberate simplicity".

His words:

Requirement _(by J. G. Whittier)_

We live by Faith; but Faith is not the slave
Of text and legend. Reason's voice and God's,
Nature's and Duty's, never are at odds.
What asks our Father of his children, save

Justice and mercy and humility,
A reasonable service of good deeds,
Pure living, tenderness to human needs,
Reverence and trust, and prayer for light to see

The Master's footprints in our daily ways?
No knotted scourge nor sacrificial knife,
But the calm beauty of an ordered life
Whose very breathing is unworded praise!--

A life that stands as all true lives have stood,
Firm-rooted in the faith that God is Good.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Requirement"




... And from the Prophet Micah:


With what shall I come before the LORD 
and bow down before the exalted God? 

Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, 
with calves a year old? 

Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, 
with ten thousand rivers of oil? 

Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, 
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 

He has showed you, O man, what is good. 
And what does the LORD require of you? 

To act justly and to love mercy 
and to walk humbly with your God.


_(Micah 7:5-7, New International Version)_


----------

