Trying again--why is God silent?

[rainbird2]

The other day, I heard someone in conversation praising God for saving a person from a terrible traffic accident, while everyone else was killed. You hear these things a lot. Loads of people die in a horrible way, but one or two might survive, and everyone proclaims the greatness of God and how He truly exists, etc. Somehow the deaths of the others don's speak directly of God at all.

 

Yet, in the plane crash in the Alps, no one survived, and you didn't hear about the greatness of God.  Imagine what we'd be hearing if just one person had survived. The entire story would be cast in a whole new light. God is good/performs miracles because of the survival of one person and the deaths of so many others! If there were only one survivor it would make the story one of the goodness of a God, rather than the relative religious silence we hear now.

 

Yes, there are Christians (and other faiths who believe in a sovereign God) who probably have this viewpoint.  There are others, however, who see the tragedy of the plane crash in the Alps as an example of sin in our world and a need for a Savior for his fallen people.

 

I'm wondering if there are people actively seeking out God from this tragedy?  I'm wondering if people who weren't aware of a loved ones struggle are now trying to be of support and care for them?  Maybe some churches are now pursuing plans to reach out to others that are suffering from depression?  What good will come from this evil?

 

If I were to say that God is non-existent in this situation because no one survived, I would have to say I have limited knowledge of God's power with my narrow thinking.  And if someone had survived, I wouldn't discount the deaths of the others, either.  I don't hear "religious silence" at all right now...quite the opposite. 

 

(I am not trying to start a debate.  I simply want to share another point of view.) 

[albeto.]

Salvation is simple. There's never been anything more simple - believe on him and you shall be saved.

 

The OP is complaining about not getting a big booming voice from heaven.

 

Clearly it's not simple. People believe and don't believe for all kinds of reasons. Faith is a complex behavior of the mind, one we're only just starting to understand. Answers like yours satisfy some people, but it's naive to think because it works for you it's a universal reality. It's naive because it completely discounts everyone else's experiences and testimonies and ignores everything that doesn't conform to a simple solution. It's like suggesting the sky is blue because that makes Jesus happy. Well, there's other, more reliable, supportable explanations actually, but if some people prefer that explanation, okay. 

[Teannika]

God is either a Loving Father or He is waiting to disappear on us before all manner of horrors fall upon us.

 

Christians are funny.

 

He is loving. And he is just. Personally I desire a just God.

 

David wrote - 'Why standest thou afar off, O LORD? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble? The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined. For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.....' and so on. Psalm 10.

 

I don't want the oppressed and poor to be forgotten.

[Jasperstone]

I think God already did talk directly. I believe Jesus is God. How much more concrete do you want?

He left witnesses who talked to people who wrote down important things. We have the writings.

He gave us the Holy Spirit. He says, "I will whisper in your ear when to turn right and when to turn left."

He gave us the gift of discernment. He gave us wise teachers.

He's given us all we need to hear from him. Why isn't it enough? Is it because you don't want the message?

 

Honestly, I think if a loud voice came from heaven, there would STILL be people who thought it was a trick or aliens or just tried to write it off.

Exactly... we live in an era that we can't trust our eyes or ears.... holograms etc....

[Scarlett]

And...I said that's nice.

 

I don't really know how to have a conversation about it, other than acknowledging that is your perception, and it must be nice to feel that way. .

It is.

[Guest]

Salvation is simple. There's never been anything more simple - believe on him and you shall be saved.

 

The OP is complaining about not getting a big booming voice from heaven.

Who's complaining?!?

[MamaSheep]

I asked this question before but I worded it wrong so I'll try again.

 

If I were God, I would want to regularly address the people. As in, a loud voice from the sky "Good morning, just checking in. I'm still here, watching you/judging you/protecting you/whatever". It seems like that would cut down on a lot of problems such as confusion, fighting, war, etc. People would be happier knowing with 100% certainty that He is real, I think?

 

So, why is God silent? Is it a free will thing?

 

Have you considered that your goals, if you were God, might be different from God's actual goals, assuming there is an actual God? 

 

I think yours is a fairly complex question, really, and will come with a complex answer, but perhaps part of it is that you're assuming God is attempting to accomplish one thing, when God may actually be working to accomplish something else entirely. 

 

For example, a loud voice from the sky that said, "Good morning, just checking in..." every day would defeat the purpose if the goal were, say, to let people prove something to themselves along the lines of how they would *really* behave if they didn't know for sure they were being watched.

 

Maybe his goal isn't to cut down on problems, or make everyone happy, or make sure everyone believes in him. Maybe he wants to see (or wants US to see in ourselves) how each of us deals with problems, seeks happiness, and deals with uncertainty. 

 

 

 

 

[albeto.]

He is loving. And he is just. Personally I desire a just God.

 

Hey, Teannika, I like talking with you because you don't assume any tone or passive aggressive message from my posts. For the most part, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but also because I recall going through these feelings after trying to convince myself a "dark night of the soul" was something I was just going to have to endure, and she may find this portion of the conversation interesting. So I hope you'll take this in the spirit in which it's intended - friendly discussion/debate.

 

I would disagree with you that the god of the bible is a just god or a loving god. I say that because if we were to replace his character with another character, either in mythology or history, we would not judge his actions to be justified or moral. 

 

By way of illustration, let me share with you a section of Richard Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, in which he explains what it looks like when children learn and believe certain fundamentals of their religion, like the moral superiority of their god are true. It also explains some sobering practical consequences of these learned beliefs. 

 

 

Tamarin presented to more than a thousand Israeli schoolchildren, aged between eight and fourteen, the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua:

 

Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction...But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'...Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword ... And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

 

Tamarin then asked the children a simple moral question: "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?" They ahd to choose between A (total approval), B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarized: 66 per cent gave total approval and 26 per cent total disapproval, with rather fewer (8 per cent) in the middle with partial approval. Here are three typical answers from the total approval (A) group:

 

In my opinion, Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.

 

In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways. Good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.

 

The justification for the genocidal massacre by Joshua is religious in every case. Even those in category C, who gave total disapproval, did so, in some cases, for backhanded religious reasons. One girl, for example, disapproved of Joshua's conquering Jericho because, in order to do so, he had to enter it:

 

I think it is bad, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse.

 

Two others who totally disapproved did so because Joshua destroyed everything, including animals and property, instead of keeping some as spoil for the Israelites:

 

I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves.

 

< snip >

 

They seem to show the immense power of religion, and especially the religious upbringing of children, to divide people and foster historic enmities and hereditary vendettas. I cannot help remarking that two out of Tamarin's three representative quotations from group A mentioned the evils of assimilation, while the third one stressed the importance of killing people in order to stamp out their religion.

 

Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by "General Lin" and "Israel" replaced by "a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago." Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved of General Lin's behavior, and 75 per cent disapproved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgements that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it.

 

In summarizing another study, Dawkins goes on to explain,

 

The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality, complete with instructions for genocide, enslavement of out-groups, and world domination. But the Bible is not evil by virtue of its objectives or even its glorification of murder, cruelty, and rape. Many ancient woks do that - The Iliad, the Icelandic Sagas, the tales of the ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the ancient Mayans, for example. But no one is selling the Iliad as a foundation for morality. Therein lies the problem. The Bible is sold, and bought, as a guide to how people should live their lives. And it is, by far, the world's all-time best seller.

 

 

I recognize Dawkins' words will no doubt sound abrasive to some, but I trust you, Teannika, to remove the emotions from the point argued - the case for morality is made when God himself is first accepted as a moral character, and generally not when his behaviors are separated from his identity. I suspect this is some of the issues Moxie is having with her faith. When she removes the expected characteristic of morality and justice from the god of the bible, the case of his morality and justice cannot be made based on his behavior. I say this because the case cannot be made if the same behavior were attributed to other characters, mythological or historical. Arguably withholding attention and affection from one genuinely and desperately seeking it is not a moral behavior. It's negligent, and considering her eternal well-being is supposedly hanging the balance, it would be considered abusive by any other standard.

[Teannika]

Who's complaining?!?

 

So you're not complaining, but in a later post you said you were struggling, so maybe there's more to why you posted (?)

 

Your starting point is to assume/observe that God is silent. Do you believe that this is true for every individual?

[Scarlett]

Hey, Teannika, I like talking with you because you don't assume any tone or passive aggressive message from my posts. .

Translation....teannika, you are too smart to believe that nonsense.

[Guest]

So you're not complaining, but in a later post you said you were struggling, so maybe there's more to why you posted (?)

 

Your starting point is to assume/observe that God is silent. Do you believe that this is true for every individual?

I posted for the reason I stated. Were I God, I would speak up. People would know I was real. He is obviously not addressing us from Heaven in any unmistakable way and I'm curious what others think about that.

[Teannika]

Hey, Teannika, I like talking with you because you don't assume any tone or passive aggressive message from my posts. For the most part, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but also because I recall going through these feelings after trying to convince myself a "dark night of the soul" was something I was just going to have to endure, and she may find this portion of the conversation interesting. So I hope you'll take this in the spirit in which it's intended - friendly discussion/debate.

 

I would disagree with you that the god of the bible is a just god or a loving god. I say that because if we were to replace his character with another character, either in mythology or history, we would not judge his actions to be justified or moral.

 

By way of illustration, let me share with you a section of Richard Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, in which he explains what it looks like when children learn and believe certain fundamentals of their religion, like the moral superiority of their god are true. It also explains some sobering practical consequences of these learned beliefs.

 

 

 

Tamarin presented to more than a thousand Israeli schoolchildren, aged between eight and fourteen, the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua:

Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction...But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'...Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword ... And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

Tamarin then asked the children a simple moral question: "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?" They ahd to choose between A (total approval), B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarized: 66 per cent gave total approval and 26 per cent total disapproval, with rather fewer (8 per cent) in the middle with partial approval. Here are three typical answers from the total approval (A) group:

In my opinion, Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.

In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways. Good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.

The justification for the genocidal massacre by Joshua is religious in every case. Even those in category C, who gave total disapproval, did so, in some cases, for backhanded religious reasons. One girl, for example, disapproved of Joshua's conquering Jericho because, in order to do so, he had to enter it:

I think it is bad, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse.

Two others who totally disapproved did so because Joshua destroyed everything, including animals and property, instead of keeping some as spoil for the Israelites:

I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves.

< snip >

They seem to show the immense power of religion, and especially the religious upbringing of children, to divide people and foster historic enmities and hereditary vendettas. I cannot help remarking that two out of Tamarin's three representative quotations from group A mentioned the evils of assimilation, while the third one stressed the importance of killing people in order to stamp out their religion.

Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by "General Lin" and "Israel" replaced by "a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago." Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved of General Lin's behavior, and 75 per cent disapproved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgements that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it.

In summarizing another study, Dawkins goes on to explain,

 

The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality, complete with instructions for genocide, enslavement of out-groups, and world domination. But the Bible is not evil by virtue of its objectives or even its glorification of murder, cruelty, and rape. Many ancient woks do that - The Iliad, the Icelandic Sagas, the tales of the ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the ancient Mayans, for example. But no one is selling the Iliad as a foundation for morality. Therein lies the problem. The Bible is sold, and bought, as a guide to how people should live their lives. And it is, by far, the world's all-time best seller.

 

I recognize Dawkins' words will no doubt sound abrasive to some, but I trust you, Teannika, to remove the emotions from the point argued - the case for morality is made when God himself is first accepted as a moral character, and generally not when his behaviors are separated from his identity. I suspect this is some of the issues Moxie is having with her faith. When she removes the expected characteristic of morality and justice from the god of the bible, the case of his morality and justice cannot be made based on his behavior. I say this because the case cannot be made if the same behavior were attributed to other characters, mythological or historical. Arguably withholding attention and affection from one genuinely and desperately seeking it is not a moral behavior. It's negligent, and considering her eternal well-being is supposedly hanging the balance, it would be considered abusive by any other standard.

 

Albeto, you are right, I don't get too emotional in these discussions. I like to delve deeply into things that I think matter, and that are even controversial in nature. I already expect disagreements and backlash when I post in these types of discussions. 😠Just as you would also expect I am sure.

 

I'm quite tired and braindead at the moment though, think sickness is coming on rrrr, so this is a brief reply to your comment.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that the God of the OT is the same God, but allows different things at different times. What was the right thing for Israel in the OT, is not necessarily the right thing for us who are living today. For example: God is not telling Christians to go and kill and subdue ungodly nations today.

 

The point that is left out of Dawkins example is, if you replace "God" with another "god", or "Joshua" with another "man", you are not coming from the same position of righteousness and perfect judgment. Because that god may be an evil god, let's say he is asking for human baby sacrifices and for the people to be in bondage to him.. Or, that the person (not Joshua) may just be seeking personal revenge on another people. It is the INTENT behind the action that makes it just or not.

[Teannika]

I posted for the reason I stated. Were I God, I would speak up. People would know I was real. He is obviously not addressing us from Heaven in any unmistakable way and I'm curious what others think about that.

 

In your wisdom, is only an audible voice acceptable?

But written words not acceptable?

[albeto.]

d/p 

 

[albeto.]

Albeto, you are right, I don't get too emotional in these discussions. I like to delve deeply into things that I think matter, and that are even controversial in nature. I already expect disagreements and backlash when I post in these types of discussions. 😠Just as you would also expect I am sure....

 

I always enjoy our conversations for this reason. Thank you for the brief reply.

 

In short, I'd say you're making his point. The only thing that makes God moral is because he is by default accepted as moral. It's circular reasoning at its finest.

 

I do hope you feel better soon. 

[Guest]

Salvation is simple. There's never been anything more simple - believe on him and you shall be saved.

 

The OP is complaining about not getting a big booming voice from heaven.

If it were simple,there would be no such thing as threads like this one. If there were an unmistakable appearance of God, then yeah, belief would be simple, just like earlier in this thread, talking about gravity. I can consistently see the effects of gravity; it always behaves as theorized. There is no need to understand how it works or why; if I drop the book, it falls.

 

If God spoke from Heaven regularly, there wouldn't be such a debate about what God does, if anything. I believe that is what the OP was saying.

 

The statement you make is circular; it is like saying, "How do you avoid dying of cancer? Simple. Don't get cancer."

[MaeFlowers]

God is either a Loving Father or He is waiting to disappear on us before all manner of horrors fall upon us.

 

Christians are funny.

 

I have only skimmed the other posts but I wanted to reply to this statement. I think your problem may lie in trying to define God through a Christian lens. What happens when you drop the book and simply ask yourself, "Is there something greater than myself?"

[Guest]

In your wisdom, is only an audible voice acceptable?

But written words not acceptable?

Well, written words would be a different topic, right?

[Teannika]

Well, written words would be a different topic, right?

No I don't think so, because you are talking about hearing a voice and silence. We can hear someone through the written word, just as we are hearing each other now.

[Guest]

No I don't think so, because you are talking about hearing a voice and silence. We can hear someone through the written word, just as we are hearing each other now.

Except that isn't my question. Different people see God in different places, as we've seen in this thread.

 

I'm wondering why not an audible, obvious communication??

[Teannika]

I always enjoy our conversations for this reason. Thank you for the brief reply.

 

In short, I'd say you're making his point. The only thing that makes God moral is because he is by default accepted as moral. It's circular reasoning at its finest.

 

I do hope you feel better soon.

 

There's nothing that I have learned about God that has made me think that he is unjust. By moral we are talking about him being without sin. Other characters do sin, and it is seen through actions and we also need to know their heart and their intent to know for sure. God has let us know his intent and why he does the things he does by writing it down, and showing himself in thought and action. God reveals a lot about his character in the bible so I have gotten to know him that way. If we only take a small slice of that and don't look at his whole character then we can get the wrong impression of him.

 

In Dawkins example there is no background information given about the replacement Chinese characters to show that they were righteous in their intentions.

 

Dawkins might not believe in sin to begin with, but he is making no account for any other perspective or reasoning as to what is taking place in the story. It is a narrow minded view.

[Teannika]

Except that isn't my question. Different people see God in different places, as we've seen in this thread.

 

I'm wondering why not an audible, obvious communication??

 

That's okay, I think it's a good question.

I've already given my answer to it, or tried to by providing a few different verses on seeking..

In summary form I believe it's because now isn't the time in his plan for his audible voice to be given, because of what he wants to unfold in his plan..

[cintinative]

 

This may not be a popular opinion, but I would ask you: what makes you think God owes you to speak audibly? How can we ask our creator why He does or does not do anything? He does all according to His good will and for His glory. If He is silent, that is His will.  We exist for His glory, not the other way around. He is not our cosmic vending machine, giving us what we want when we want it.  

 

I also would argue--He is not silent. He speaks through His Word and through His creation. The Bible says that creation speaks to His majesty and His reality. If we can look at the wonder of the human body, the hummingbird, the platypus, etc. etc.  and still say, "I do not believe. He must prove He exists," we miss the point. He has proven it. But some are blind and deaf to it.  

 

Again, not going to make me popular, but I am going to challenge you to read the Word of God and prove me wrong.  Only good could come of it.

 

[Aura]

I believe that God is too complex to be simply explained with human words and expressions. This is why there is no voice sounding from the sky. I can't even say "he" or "she" because I believe that God...the Creator, the Source of All, the Divine...is neither male nor female, and yet is also both.

 

I really liked the example of a group of people that had always lived underground. One person goes to the surface and night and comes back to tell everyone of the beautiful lights in the sky. Another goes up, but it's daylight and so all he sees is the bright sun and many colors of nature. But a third goes up and thinks the other two must be nuts because it's raining. It's neither bright and sunny with many colors or dark with thousands of lights above; it's gray and wet.

 

God is different to each of us, depending on what we need to grow. There are no words that can be said that will explain God to everyone and help everyone grow. People are too diverse, and (again) God is too complex. If you want to know God, you have to find God for yourself.

[ColleenInWis]

Struggling, yes and have been for years.

 

This is OT, but why is it ok that there aren't concrete answers regarding religion? We don't accept anything else (that I can think of) on faith, right? We look for proof to back up claims except for religous ones. That is hard for me.

 

What about moral truth?  Is there such a thing?  Or are all moral claims (that have no material proof) just opinions?  What about all the philosophers who have taken so much time and breath and paper and ink to expound on what is true, beautiful, and virtuous?  Do they have any scientific proof for their conclusions?  This article, Why Our Children Don't Think There is Moral Truth, by a philosophy professor on the NY Times blog was very thought-provoking for me.      

[Joanne]

Because he does not exist.

 

I believe in presence, mindfulness, the collective and individual power generated by positive, productive, healthy thoughts. I believe in *habits*. I believe in kindness, charity, forgiveness, grace, compassion, and insight.

 

But the (Christian) god thing? It makes no sense, and the stories (aka the Bible) are no different to me than Greek myths, Norse myths, Native American legends, other fables.

The logic behind Christian doctrine fails.

 

1) Because there is a God, I am not it, and I am not sufficient and worthy.

2) Therefore, a god of unsophisticated people (OT) must punish in a variety of violent ways.

3) God became Jesus in an outrageous story to "fulfill" the OT.

4) I am saved if I asked; and if I don't *feel it*, I need to have more faith. Which would sound like works except Christians then say "wait for it" or "pray".

5) But, this unjust thing happens: cancer, molestation, assault, adultery, poverty. How is god good if god is arbitrary?

6) Believe, and {insert some form of god's ways are not your ways rhetoric}

7) That doesn't make sense, why doesn't god reveal himself?

8) Because, god.

 

[LarlaB]

Faith…is distinctively different from other aspects of the religious live and not to be confused with them….

 

Faith is different from theology because theology is reasoned, systematic, and orderly, whereas faith is disorderly, intermittent, and full of surprises. Faith is different from mysticism because mystics in their ecstasy become one with what faith can at most see only from afar.

 

Faith is different from ethics because ethics is primarily concerned not, like faith, with our relationship to God but with our relationship to each other.

 

Faith is closest perhaps to worship because like worship it is essentially a response to God and involves the emotions and the physical senses as well as the mind, but worship is consistent, structured, single-minded and seems to know what it’s doing while faith is a stranger and exile on the earth and doesn’t know for certain about anything.

 

Faith is homesickness. Faith is a lump in the throat. Faith is less a position on than a movement toward, less a sure thing than a hunch.

~Frederick Beuchner (pgs 172-172 of Secrets in the Dark)



My comments:
Faith is not fully organized, logical, explainable or discernible. There can be deep joy in proceeding on the journey of life with doubt as faithful companion.  Faith is a gigantic thing, and yet so very small. 

To reduce and therefore attempt to prove/disprove God (His actions, voice, logic) to a list of bullet points, IMHO, completely bypasses the presupposition of faith.  Faith is an idea or belief despite absence of proof.....I do not need to fully prove faith, else it becomes something else entirely.   

ETA: Formatting issues ;) 

[Free]

I'm wondering why not an audible, obvious communication??

 

This question is relevant only in the context of a Personal God who is somewhat anthromorphic.

[Onceuponatime]

Except that isn't my question. Different people see God in different places, as we've seen in this thread.

 

I'm wondering why not an audible, obvious communication??

I always wonder about attributing physical actions and responses to supposedly non-physical being. Sound requires movement/ vibration in the atmosphere, which has a physical cause; but a purely supernatural God would have no throat, no vocal cords. He has no substance, how can he interact with the physical world? All the time, I hear about God crying with no eyes or tear ducts; God smiling without a mouth; God experiencing anger without cortisol or adrenaline; God conceiving a child without sperm or chromosomes; God experiencing affection without oxytocin; God hearing prayers without ears or a brain. We know how all these things work in humans, they make no sense in the context of the supernatural.

 

The Bible would have us believe that God also has an ego or pride to be wounded or offended, which also makes no sense if he can do absolutely anything he wants at any time for all eternity. We would be of no more significance than grains of sand. For all we know, we could be the billionth world of sentient beings that has ever been created, with billions more to come. Why should such a being care what I think? Why should he be angry if I do the things my human nature ( which he supposedly created) dictates?

[sunflowerlady]

I always wonder about attributing physical actions and responses to supposedly non-physical being. Sound requires movement/ vibration in the atmosphere, which has a physical cause; but a purely supernatural God would have no throat, no vocal cords. He has no substance, how can he interact with the physical world? All the time, I hear about God crying with no eyes or tear ducts; God smiling without a mouth; God experiencing anger without cortisol or adrenaline; God conceiving a child without sperm or chromosomes; God experiencing affection without oxytocin; God hearing prayers without ears or a brain. We know how all these things work in humans, they make no sense in the context of the supernatural.

 

The Bible would have us believe that God also has an ego or pride to be wounded or offended, which also makes no sense if he can do absolutely anything he wants at any time for all eternity. We would be of no more significance than grains of sand. For all we know, we could be the billionth world of sentient beings that has ever been created, with billions more to come. Why should such a being care what I think? Why should he be angry if I do the things my human nature ( which he supposedly created) dictates?

I have never thought of any of those things.  :huh:  That is very true. God is shown as having these human qualities is so many ways and yet he is said to be a spirit. I suppose one answer that would be given is that we are created in God's image and this would be shown as evidence of that.

[Guest]

I always wonder about attributing physical actions and responses to supposedly non-physical being. Sound requires movement/ vibration in the atmosphere, which has a physical cause; but a purely supernatural God would have no throat, no vocal cords. He has no substance, how can he interact with the physical world? All the time, I hear about God crying with no eyes or tear ducts; God smiling without a mouth; God experiencing anger without cortisol or adrenaline; God conceiving a child without sperm or chromosomes; God experiencing affection without oxytocin; God hearing prayers without ears or a brain. We know how all these things work in humans, they make no sense in the context of the supernatural.

 

The Bible would have us believe that God also has an ego or pride to be wounded or offended, which also makes no sense if he can do absolutely anything he wants at any time for all eternity. We would be of no more significance than grains of sand. For all we know, we could be the billionth world of sentient beings that has ever been created, with billions more to come. Why should such a being care what I think? Why should he be angry if I do the things my human nature ( which he supposedly created) dictates?

I think this is one way we can easily see how ancient ideas about gods were mixed in to what eventually became cannonized scripture about (the Hebrew) God. This is particularly true in the oldest books and is most obvious in the Genesis accounts. God "walks about" Eden looking for Adam and Eve, who are "hiding." (Incongruent with present beliefs that God is all-seeing and omnipresent. God is constantly pissed off at us stupid, faulty humans, though we were created with choice and no "knowledge of good and evil" (toddler-like).

 

Moses' interactions with God also talk about physical characteristics, He must "turn His face away" so Moses does not die from his glory; he will "pass by" as Moses hides in a cleft of a rock.

[Joanne]

 

 

This may not be a popular opinion, but I would ask you: what makes you think God owes you to speak audibly? How can we ask our creator why He does or does not do anything? He does all according to His good will and for His glory. If He is silent, that is His will.  We exist for His glory, not the other way around. He is not our cosmic vending machine, giving us what we want when we want it.  

 

I also would argue--He is not silent. He speaks through His Word and through His creation. The Bible says that creation speaks to His majesty and His reality. If we can look at the wonder of the human body, the hummingbird, the platypus, etc. etc.  and still say, "I do not believe. He must prove He exists," we miss the point. He has proven it. But some are blind and deaf to it.  

 

Again, not going to make me popular, but I am going to challenge you to read the Word of God and prove me wrong.  Only good could come of it.

 

 

It's not popular with me because it's faulty logic. If I believe in god and "his ways", I can only conclude his grace and kindness are arbitrary or that "he allows" bad things to happen according some his (unknowable) will. I can't worship, honor, respect, honor, or fear a god like that. To allow my daughter to suffer from 10 years old with juvenile idiopathic arthritis but rescue others?  No amount of "his reasons" and "who am I to ask" will ever be sufficient.

 

And when I *asked*, as a lifelong Christian, the answers failed to further my faith and lead to deconversion. If I am going to burn in hell as a result, that is yet another of god's arbitrary decisions. He chose not to give me faith. Because if it's my decision, or "hanging in there during the dark night of the soul", that is works - saved by my own action, rather than god.

[leeannpal]

My favorite quote about belief in God that sums up how I think as well is from C.S.Lewis,  I have to explain that this quote is from the Screwtape Letters and so is supposed to be from the point of view of a demon. "Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do God's will ,looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys." I have had many times in my life when I have questioned the existence of God, and, yet, I've had other times when when God presence was clear to me. I do not pretend to know why God is silent at times. I do know that remaining faithful, even during the worst of times, has brought more peace to my life than when I have screamed and cried at God about his silence and apparent lack of care for me. Moxie, don't give up on God just yet.

[Scarlett]

God did speak directly to Adam and Eve until they disobeyed.

[Mergath]

 

 

This may not be a popular opinion, but I would ask you: what makes you think God owes you to speak audibly? How can we ask our creator why He does or does not do anything? He does all according to His good will and for His glory. If He is silent, that is His will.  We exist for His glory, not the other way around. He is not our cosmic vending machine, giving us what we want when we want it.  

 

I also would argue--He is not silent. He speaks through His Word and through His creation. The Bible says that creation speaks to His majesty and His reality. If we can look at the wonder of the human body, the hummingbird, the platypus, etc. etc.  and still say, "I do not believe. He must prove He exists," we miss the point. He has proven it. But some are blind and deaf to it.  

 

Again, not going to make me popular, but I am going to challenge you to read the Word of God and prove me wrong.  Only good could come of it.

 

 

All of the posts such as this one that explain away humanity as, essentially, God's cosmic ant farm aren't doing much to draw people in to Christianity. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[fraidycat]

God did speak directly to Adam and Eve until they disobeyed.

And yet we are to love and worship this most jerkish behavior from "our father"?

 

If your son disobeys or makes a mistake, do you quit speaking to him and his future children - for all eternity?

[Lady Florida.]

OP, as you said when asked if you wanted input from non-believers, you already know what our answer is. Therefore it should come as no surprise to you when I say it's because he doesn't exist, but I wanted to put that out there anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

I am going to challenge you to read the Word of God and prove me wrong.  Only good could come of it.

 

 

What you might not be aware of is that many non-believers, whether they were raised as such or deconverted, are quite familiar with what you call the word of God. Many of us have read it thoroughly and repeatedly. In fact for some (myself included) that's what either caused or contributed to our becoming/remaining atheists. As for your last sentence, I agree. Only good has come out of my reading the word of God, however I don't think we mean that in the same way.

[fraidycat]

Only good has come out of my reading the word of God, however I don't think we mean that in the same way.

Hear, hear.

[HRAAB]

And yet we are to love and worship this most jerkish behavior from "our father"?

 

If your son disobeys or makes a mistake, do you quit speaking to him and his future children - for all eternity?

I remember reading from a book of Bible stories for children to my twins when they were about 2nd or 3rd grade. Between the Garden of Eden story and the flood, my youngest was in tears. She could not understand how this god, that I always tried to present as all loving father, could treat his children in such a way. She asked if dad or I could do that to them. No, never. I had no answer for her. It was then that I quit trying to reconcile this Biblical Christian God with an all loving God. Trying to teach them about the biblical god was traumatic, and they don't have much use for that 'representation' of god.

[HRAAB]

OP, as you said when asked if you wanted input from non-believers, you already know what our answer is. Therefore it should come as no surprise to you when I say it's because he doesn't exist, but I wanted to put that out there anyway.

 

 

 

 

What you might not be aware of is that many non-believers, whether they were raised as such or deconverted, are quite familiar with what you call the word of God. Many of us have read it thoroughly and repeatedly. In fact for some (myself included) that's what either caused or contributed to our becoming/remaining atheists. As for your last sentence, I agree. Only good has come out of my reading the word of God, however I don't think we mean that in the same way.

I was thinking the same thing. I grew up in a home where the Bible was read. I wasn't a stranger to the word of God. It was primarily due to serious study of the bible plus conversations just like this one with committed Christians that helped push me out. I sometimes jokingly say if I hadn't asked these same questions of Christians and seriously read the bible, I might still be Christian.

[Guest]

I remember reading from a book of Bible stories for children to my twins when they were about 2nd or 3rd grade. Between the Garden of Eden story and the flood, my youngest was in tears. She could not understand how this god, that I always tried to present as all loving father, could treat his children in such a way. She asked if dad or I could do that to them. No, never. I had no answer for her. It was then that I quit trying to reconcile this Biblical Christian God with an all loving God. Trying to teach them about the biblical god was traumatic, and they don't have much use for that 'representation' of god.

This is OT, but when my oldest was born, there was a popular nursery decor theme of Noah's Ark. Even though I was big-time Evangelical at the time, I always thought that was a head-scratcher. Why are the cute little animals floating on that charming boat? Oh, yeah. Because God drowned everything else.

 

It never did seem like a cute, childhood story to me.

[Mergath]

I was thinking the same thing. I grew up in a home where the Bible was read. I wasn't a stranger to the word of God. It was primarily due to serious study of the bible plus conversations just like this one with committed Christians that helped push me out. I sometimes jokingly say if I hadn't asked these same questions of Christians and seriously read the bible, I might still be Christian.

 

I often wonder if I even read the same Bible as the Christians who talk about the supposed magical transformative power of just glancing at its pages.  I've read it cover to cover, and all I've found is murder, threats, scolding, guilt, and death.  It's about the LEAST comforting book I've ever read.  

[Scarlett]

And yet we are to love and worship this most jerkish behavior from "our father"?

 

If your son disobeys or makes a mistake, do you quit speaking to him and his future children - for all eternity?

 

 

I don't believe he has stopped speaking to us....and I don't believe this current state of human affairs is going to last for eternity.  

[Ipsey]

This is OT, but when my oldest was born, there was a popular nursery decor theme of Noah's Ark. Even though I was big-time Evangelical at the time, I always thought that was a head-scratcher. Why are the cute little animals floating on that charming boat? Oh, yeah. Because God drowned everything else.

 

It never did seem like a cute, childhood story to me.

 

I don't think I ever saw the Noah story in the same way again after seeing the abject horror of what happened in the tidal wave in Indonesia. Little children ripped out of their parents arms as they wailed, horrified, knowing they were going to die. Doing all they could in the last moments as their helpless little ones were washed away. I guess in Noah, the mercy is that most families of the world didn't have long to mourn. 

[Joanne]

My favorite quote about belief in God that sums up how I think as well is from C.S.Lewis,  I have to explain that this quote is from the Screwtape Letters and so is supposed to be from the point of view of a demon. "Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do God's will ,looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys." I have had many times in my life when I have questioned the existence of God, and, yet, I've had other times when when God presence was clear to me. I do not pretend to know why God is silent at times. I do know that remaining faithful, even during the worst of times, has brought more peace to my life than when I have screamed and cried at God about his silence and apparent lack of care for me. Moxie, don't give up on God just yet.

 

Then it is works, not a gift. If it is works, not a gift, it goes against the Omnipotent idea. If you can save yourself - still obey/remain faithful, it is not a gift or unmerited. If is IS a gift, he offers is arbitrarily.

 

Which is it?

 

I am - sincerely - glad it works for you. But I have to say that I am not alone when I represent those of us who - for years - remained faithful and still landed faithless.

[albeto.]

All of the posts such as this one that explain away humanity as, essentially, God's cosmic ant farm aren't doing much to draw people in to Christianity. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

I think it's because when you approach claims rationally, those that lack sufficient support fall apart. It's not just because of comments provided on this thread, but when one asks these questions in general and start to really scrutinize the answers religion offers. Discussions like this offer lots of opportunities to provide alternative answers to the faith-based ones.

 

Argument: God doesn't owe us anything, we are for his pleasure.

Conclusion: In no other context would this be acceptable an admirable quality. In any other context, worship and affection in response to recognizing one's utter lack of autonomy would be horrifying. Imagine if American citizens were understood to exist for the pleasure of the president, or an employee exists for the pleasure of the CEO, or a woman exists for the pleasure of the man. If ISIS swooped in and demanded all people exist for the pleasure of Allah would it sound as comforting to Christians? In exposing the double standard, one has the option to address what they're really advocating.

 

Argument: God is not our cosmic vending machine.

Conclusion: Then claims that he will answer the prayers of the righteous are conditional, and that condition isn't righteousness, or faith, or affection. The condition is completely arbitrary, to be determined only after said request seems to have been granted, or looks like it won't be granted. Applying this standard to any other context would be dismissed as unethical out of hand. If a claim is made, and conditions are met, the claim is expected to deliver. It's such a part of our moral code, we even have a legal system dedicated to addressing whether or not certain claims are valid and have been seen through. 

 

Argument: God speaks through creation.

Conclusion: Creation is explained elegantly, reliably, and predictably through natural means. There is no need to impose a God hypothesis into the mix. It works better without, more logical, more rational, more reliable. For the same reason reincarnation, forest spirits, or thetans are dismissed, God and his entourage can be dismissed - there exists no evidence for a supernatural creator, and all the evidence points to a rational explanation for the biodiversity we see.

 

Argument: People who don't know are deaf and blind to what's there.

Conclusion: If this is the case, there is no way to know if one is in reality deaf and blind to another religion. If deafness and blindness render one incapable of knowing, then one cannot know that they do not know the right religion. Only by applying a double standard (disbelief is due to deafness and blindness only with regard to my religion, not others) can this argument be maintained, and once that double standard is exposed, one has the option to address the doctrines of their belief. 

 

Argument: Reading the Word of God will convict the [sincere] seeker.

Conclusion: Not reliable. Sincere seekers have lost faith since the beginning of faith. 

 

All these things produce a cognitive dissonance in the person who knows that these arguments are not valid anywhere else outside their own personal faith. So how do they maintain it? 

That's what I find fascinating, and what the video linked on the first page helps explain.

 

I think one of the reasons the internet is destructive to faith is the same reason education is destructive to faith. There exist better, more reasonable answers than "God did it," and these answers are available at one's fingertips through the internet. One is no longer dependent upon the cleverest person in their social circle for answers. Further, these explanations are available to scrutiny, they can be explored in detail, each detail offering more opportunity to explore even more claims, more details. Each detail is accountable unto itself and stands or falls on the merit of evidence. You don't have to have faith that something works, you can see for yourself. 

 

So yeah, I agree with you. Answers like these help people reevaluate the value of faith because they expose the very things one professes to believe. When that specific component is no longer believable, the credibility of other faith claims likewise begins to crumble. I think this is a good thing. I can think of no society that was detrimentally affected by an increase of reason and rational thinking. 

[Guest]

 

 

 

This may not be a popular opinion, but I would ask you: what makes you think God owes you to speak audibly? How can we ask our creator why He does or does not do anything? He does all according to His good will and for His glory. If He is silent, that is His will. We exist for His glory, not the other way around. He is not our cosmic vending machine, giving us what we want when we want it.

 

I also would argue--He is not silent. He speaks through His Word and through His creation. The Bible says that creation speaks to His majesty and His reality. If we can look at the wonder of the human body, the hummingbird, the platypus, etc. etc. and still say, "I do not believe. He must prove He exists," we miss the point. He has proven it. But some are blind and deaf to it.

 

Again, not going to make me popular, but I am going to challenge you to read the Word of God and prove me wrong. Only good could come of it.

That's a popular standard to apply, as if those who feel tormented by God's silence or absense have been selfishly asking for a Mercedes Benz. Doesn't it puzzle you that Christians say this in one breath and in the next, start a prayer chain that ___________ would happen on behalf of the faithful?

 

See, it's always okay in the abstract, to reason that God's ways are higher than ours and therefore whatever he does (or "allows" - same thing) is correct, but IME, it is not so simple when it visits you personally. When you hear about somebody else whose child dies right before their eyes, it's sad, horrible maybe, but it's still easier to rationalize their tragedy, to say God must have a reason, it makes sense to Him. When you bury your own child, the child you have prayed over before conception, it is different. It is harder to explain to yourself that this is somehow "good"; that it somehow is correct in God's eyes. Do some Good Christians walk that road and still come out, faith intact? Some do. I have no idea how. I wasn't one of them.

[Mergath]

This is OT, but when my oldest was born, there was a popular nursery decor theme of Noah's Ark. Even though I was big-time Evangelical at the time, I always thought that was a head-scratcher. Why are the cute little animals floating on that charming boat? Oh, yeah. Because God drowned everything else.

 

It never did seem like a cute, childhood story to me.

 

I've never understood that one either.  In my mind, it's kind of the equivalent of buying your child a Holocaust playset for his or her birthday.  Why in the world would you want to turn the suffering and horrific deaths of millions of people into a kid's toy or a bedroom theme?  And I know some Christians will come in and say that the point of the story is that God saved Noah and his family.  Yeah, Hitler let a few Jews live because they were useful, too. 

 

I also know that the internet + Nazi comparisons = bad.  But in this one case, there are distinct and awful parallels.  The only comfort I take from the Noah story is that it didn't actually happen as written in the Bible.

 

ETA: And yes, I have very, very strong negative feelings about the Bible's celebration of genocide.  I understand that everyone doesn't feel the way I do about it.

[leeannpal]

Then it is works, not a gift. If it is works, not a gift, it goes against the Omnipotent idea. If you can save yourself - still obey/remain faithful, it is not a gift or unmerited. If is IS a gift, he offers is arbitrarily.

 

Which is it?

 

I am - sincerely - glad it works for you. But I have to say that I am not alone when I represent those of us who - for years - remained faithful and still landed faithless.

 

I don't see it as works. I see it as keeping the gift. I have the ability, through free will, to give the gift back, throw it away or otherwise reject the gift of grace. Joanne, I so admire the posts I read of yours. I think we would have a lot in common. And I do know what you are saying. Believe me, I am not one of the "blessed" Christians who has everything together. Not at all. In fact, my husband is scrambling at this moment to get a used car because his engine has a blown gasket and would be way more to fix than the car is worth. Because we have poor credit due to life situations and some unfortunate choices we made, we know we will be stuck with a less than desirable car paying a pretty high interest rate. We have been trying to get back on our feet after a year of my husband being very under employed, and it has been a struggle because I have several health issues too. Life is hard! And I will admit that faith in God does not make me feel better. I believe because it is truth to me, and I have accepted his gift because I need it. Not because God is going to make life easier.

[Matryoshka]

That's a popular standard to apply, as if those who feel tormented by God's silence or absense have been selfishly asking for a Mercedes Benz.

 

Well, thanks, now I have that song running through my head...

 

"Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz

My friends all have Porsches; I must make amends..."

 

:lol: